Collaborative Edge

A quarterly newsletter of the Center for Collaborative Policy
Laura Kaplan, Editor

Spring / Summer 2004

Toolkit | Lessons Learned | Challenging Issue
Book Reviews | News | Resources

To subscribe or unsubscribe

Send an email to our subscription manager with the text "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the heading or body of your message.

Make sure the Edge follows you when you change your email address

Send an email to our subscription manager to let us know of any change in your email address.

We welcome submissions to the Edge

The Edge is interested in publishing collaborative policy news and articles from our colleagues in the field. If you are interested in submitting items - news, resources, articles, or book reviews - for future editions of the Edge, please email the editor.

The Edge in Brief

Toolkit: The Revolution Needs a Good Facilitator: Modeling and Visualization Software in Community Settings

In this edition’s Toolkit article, facilitator Sharon Huntsman reviews the promise and the pitfalls of popular software tools for community design and decision making used in large-scale community planning meetings. Sharon tested out two types of visualization software tools from the standpoint of a member of the public participating in a community planning exercise. Read about Sharon’s experiences and advice for the effective use of these tools by clicking here.

Lessons Learned: Is Neutrality Reality? What I Learned from Working With Farmers on Groundwater Management in Southern California

Groundwater management is a hot topic in California. Dale Schafer, a facilitator with the Center for Collaborative Policy, is coming down the home stretch of a long and winding effort to collaboratively develop a local cooperative groundwater management plan in California’s arid Hemet / San Jacinto Basin. We asked Dale to reflect upon what she learned from this experience to share with Edge readers. Dale drew upon her experience working with farmers in the Basin to illustrate her lesson learned about the reality of mediator neutrality. Read Dale’s thoughts by clicking here.

Challenging Issue: Freedom of High-Tech Speech—How to Host Effective Internet-Based Public Conversations Without Violating the First Amendment

In recent years, the Internet has been rapidly expanding the horizons of public participation methods. As technology increases in sophistication and complexity, so too do the legal interpretations that govern their use. Some government agencies might be reluctant to make full use of internet-based discussion fora to enhance opportunities for public involvement, due to concern over First Amendment freedom of speech issues. There can seem to be a no-win choice between unmoderated web-based conversation which can become confusing, frustrating, offensive, or otherwise off-putting — and agency moderation of a web-based conversation, which could be interpreted as a violation of the public’s freedom of speech. In this article, Gregory Weber, professor of law at McGeorge School of Law and a mediator with the Center for Collaborative Policy, provides guidance from a legal and facilitation perspective on how to host high-tech conversations using a moderated threaded discussion format that effectively enhances public participation in government decision-making AND is compatible with foundational First Amendment rights. Get the full article by clicking here.

Book Reviews

In this edition, we link you to reviews of Retreats that Work: Designing and Conducting Effective Offsites for Groups and Organizations by Sheila Campbell and Merianne Liteman; On Track: Taking Meetings from Good to Great by Leslie Bendaly; Conducting Community Forums: Engaging Citizens, Mobilizing Communities by Carol Lucas and Linda Hoskins; and The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations by James Surowiecki. Link to the reviews by clicking here.

News and Events

Find out about upcoming conferences, training, and events of interest to the collaborative policy community. You’ll also find a brief update about goings on at the Center. Link to the Edge News by clicking here.

Resources

In this section of the Edge, you’ll find links to publications and websites that may be of use to you in planning and conducting your own collaborative efforts: Articles, manuals, case study databases, contacts, tools, tips, models, and more. Visit the Edge Resources Section.

This edition’s featured resource: Website: The Depolarization of America: Bridging the Partisan Divide. In the spirit of cross-stakeholder collaboration, and with the elections upcoming, we’d like to feature the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation’s website devoted to five efforts that are each in their own way attempting to bridge partisan gaps in policy debate: The September Project, Let’s Talk America, PBS Deliberation Day, Calling the Question, and the “We the People” National Convention. Get information on this and other resources by clicking here.

Full Text Articles

Toolkit:
The Revolution Needs a Good Facilitator: Modeling and Visualization Software in Community Settings
By Sharon Huntsman

I have been intrigued for several years about the new array of software tools designed to help citizens visualize and model the outcomes of proposed changes to the built environment. As a facilitator, I am naturally curious about any tool that promises to better engage the public in planning.

In 2000 I started to hear a lot of positive things about a process in the Salt Lake City region called Envision Utah that had used GIS modeling tools to build consensus on growth management. Thousands of Salt Lake area residents provided input to four alternative growth scenarios using a modeling and visualization software tool called PLACE3S. Residents evaluated the four scenarios, and ultimately selected a smart growth approach that enjoys remarkable public support. Participants in Envision Utah reported that the high degree of participation and the ability to understand the impact of alternatives were critical to forging consensus on growth. Clearly, if consensus could be forged on growth in the intermountain west, these tools were worth investigating further. (For more information, check out their web site at http://www.envisionutah.org).

This fall, I decided to test out some of these new software tools to see the phenomenon for myself. I attended a two-day conference in San Francisco hosted by Place Matters, a non-profit that serves as an information clearinghouse and the leading evangelist for using these tools to improve community decision-making. During the conference I participated in several simulated community meetings using different visualization tools. In addition to the Place Matters Conference, I also attended two community meetings for the Sacramento Region Blueprint Process, a regional planning effort modeled after Envision Utah. (For more information, check out their web site at http://www.sacregionblueprint.org).

What I learned in these two venues was both hopeful and slightly disappointing. GIS modeling and visualization tools are tremendously innovative and show real promise to revolutionize how we conduct land use planning and community design. At the same time, I found using the tools a rushed, frustrating, and even somewhat alienating experience. Based on my experience, I think this planning revolution needs a good facilitator.

The Power To See the Future

First, the good news is that these tools can do what they say they do — help citizens and decision makers understand the consequences of planning decisions and evaluate different options. Imagine you are attending a town hall meeting for a general plan update. Before the group is a large map of the area projected onto a screen via a laptop computer. Someone in the audience asks how increasing the density of new housing would affect traffic congestion. Now, imagine that with a few strokes of the keyboard, the answer to this question is displayed on the map with different colors revealing areas of more or less traffic as a result of the proposal. Next, someone proposes a transit line, and the results of that decision are revealed. With these new technology tools, communities can see the impact of different planning choices.

At the PlaceMatters conference, I met a number of smart growth advocates who were particularly excited about how these tools reveal hidden financial and environmental costs of growth patterns — water use per capita, infrastructure costs, and agricultural land conversion — that have never been adequately considered in growth management. I was most impressed by how these tools compress time. Technologists at the conference demonstrated one region’s metropolitan growth patterns over the previous 50-year period, and projected growth patterns over the next 50-year period. The progression of visual images was like a b-movie plot, a blob growing to about five times its original size. Other visualization tools enable citizens to see their recommendations for individual buildings or downtown redevelopment go from idea to physical design within hours.

The Reality of Making it Work

These software tools are innovative and powerful, and not surprisingly it takes a while to get up to speed on how to use them. The two software tools I tested in most depth, PLACE3S and Index, are very complex. My initial exposure leads me to believe that, in reality, considerable time and resources must be invested in order to use these tools to improve civic engagement.

At the Place Matters conference, hundred of participants worked in a simulated town hall with the PLACE3S model in the morning, and in the afternoon we broke into small groups each testing one of the other models. My small group of a dozen curious planners and facilitators worked with the Index model. Laypersons like myself were not asked to actually manipulate the Index software—planners who had used it extensively were available to do the data inputting for us (and I might add, had the usual software glitches inevitable in a public meeting). Instead, my participation was to provide my thoughts on metropolitan growth variables that the planner would input to the model.

You might imagine my group had a scintillating discussion about planning choices and trade-offs as we provided our input into modeling scenarios for the community’s future and got “real time” feedback. We did eventually get there; however, we spent the first two hours trying to understand the dozens of variables in the model and how they were visually displayed on the computer screen. The conversation sounded more like, “What does the pink color mean? Is this ‘water’ variable per capita? What does this density variable tell us?” Well into our second hour, I realized we were taking more time to become familiar with these tools than the length of the typical public meeting!

We took so long in part because these tools are complex, so it will take new users a while to understand what they are looking at. But I think we questioned the planners because we wanted to be comfortable with the model’s assumptions. Models are built using data and assumptions; participants will only trust the model and its outcomes if they have faith that the data are accurate and complete, and that the assumptions are reasonable. The old adage about ‘garbage in, garbage out’ comes to mind. We wanted to be sure the output would be meaningful and useful to us.

Unfortunately, the meetings where I tested these tools all felt rushed to me. There was a drive to get input into the model, and little time to learn the tool or share ideas with others. Most planners and consultants understand how important good meeting design is, so why, I wondered, was the design of these meetings so disappointing? I suspect it is because these tools are so complicated and expensive they absorb all of the host’s attention and consequently good meeting basics take a back seat. As a result, instead of having the tool serve participants’ learning, the participants are treated as an “input” to the tool.

As an example, in one meeting I sat at a table of eight people who were asked to form recommendations, as a group, on how we would like to redevelop a declining commercial area. We were given a map of the area and told to rezone, put in transit, basically do whatever we wanted to try to make the area more attractive, economically viable, and functional. Our facilitator would input our scenario into the model and reveal the consequences of our decision.

This sounds like a straightforward assignment; however, we were given nearly 30 different land use stickers (many of which were slightly similar to one another) to put on our map, and less than 40 minutes to decide how to rezone the land, where to place transit, etc. There were no instructions on how this collection of strangers should work together as a group. As you might imagine, after introducing ourselves, we stared apprehensively at the map, wondering where to begin. We asked our facilitator, a planning intern familiar with the model, a few questions about what we were supposed to do. He encouraged us to “dive in.” After a few minutes, the more dominant individuals jumped in and started putting stickers on the map, and others objected. Eventually there were several conversations happening simultaneously in our group. By the end of our 40 minutes, everyone at the table looked annoyed, but we tried to put the best face on our “report out” to the whole group.

When I related this story to a colleague who had attended a similar meeting using visualization tools, she was surprised by our group dynamics. She shared that in her small group, all the participants were well informed about smart growth, so they quickly came to consensus on their recommendations; however, they experienced a different problem with the exercise. Their facilitator was not skilled at manipulating the software. He had trouble keeping up with the group and did a poor job, in her opinion, of capturing their comments. She said her group was aghast when the text he typed appeared on the large screen before the entire meeting: It did not reflect what they had said, nor did it make much sense. The meeting moderator, who was summarizing what appeared on the large screen, could not make sense of it and quickly moved on to the next group. My colleague’s story made me realize that these tools can introduce a new power dynamic into community meetings, where those who work the tools have increased control over the participants’ contributions. Clearly, to run a small group of this kind one would need incredible skill at multitasking. Ideally, a group would have two different staff people, one playing the role of technologist and one facilitating the group conversation, to ensure both jobs were done well. In reality, that level of staffing may be hard to achieve.

No Substitute for Good Group Process

Good meeting design focuses on the people in the room, giving them the resources, time, and support to engage. The meetings that I have discussed would have been improved with a few people-centered adjustments. At the meeting I attended, where a few dominant individuals ended up making unilateral choices for my small group, staff might have first asked us to talk as a group about our experiences with the commercial corridor we were asked to rezone. After all, it was in our community, and surely we each had some perspective on what was valuable about it, and what we would have liked to see changed. A conversation like this would have taken ten or fifteen minutes (precious time in a two-hour public meeting) but it might have surfaced some areas of agreement that we could build upon, as a group, in thinking about its future. We would have benefited from having a process to ensure everyone at the table shared his or her ideas, a method for the group to make decisions, and a facilitator, or facilitative planner, to guide us. For the meeting my colleague attended, where the technologist did not accurately record the group’s input, the technologist (or a separate staff facilitator) might have checked in with the group that the text recorded on the technologist’s laptop was accurate and ready to be shared with the group as a whole. These are simple changes that would take a little more time and resources, but would yield a much better environment for group learning.

In addition, meeting designers need to think carefully about how to educate participants about the model and get their trust in the model before they are asked to use it. Technologically complex models can be like “black boxes” to laypeople, whose blind faith in the model (or equally blind criticism) is often unfounded. Laypeople often know little about the model’s details, or the assumptions, motivations, or competence of the people who built the model. It is tempting for meeting planners to hope that the group will simply accept the model as accurate, or at worst ask a few simple questions as they go along; however, it is probably more realistic to plan that at least some group members will have larger doubts and curiosities about the model that will need to be addressed.

Building transparency into the model can be done long before the day of the meeting. In many long-term consensus-building processes where new research or a technical model is to be used, a subset of the involved stakeholders takes on the task of developing the model with the technical experts. This can be a very important step in winning community support for the outcomes of the process, since many community members will trust the model if they know their leaders trust it.

Alternately, simply making information about the model accessible and transparent is another reasonable approach. The basic information would include who was involved in building the model; how the basic information was gathered; and what assumptions were made, by whom, based on what. Getting this information out could take place before the meeting day (e.g. in the media, on a website, or in literature given to participants). Many community members will not need or want to personally know a great deal about the model, as long as they know they have access to the information. Still, even these pre-meeting steps would not entirely alleviate the need to spend time in a public meeting educating people about the model. If you want people to use the tool, you have to take the time to teach them how to use it.

The Revolution is Coming

I think the proponents of these technology tools would be the first to agree that the tools must be paired with good group process and preparation that anticipates the needs of the people who will use the model. However, I also think these valuable software tools are so complex and expensive that we run the risk of letting them become the focus of the meeting, rather than a servant of group learning. When used to enable learning, these tools can help decision makers and citizens make more informed policy choices. To really use the tools effectively, we have to acknowledge that they take time to learn and more resources to support than low-tech versions of community planning.

As a facilitator, I am still optimistic about these tools. There is tremendous power in the information and learning experience they can provide. The organizations using these tools today are to be commended for seeking innovative ways to engage communities in large scale in planning processes. They are the trailblazers who are helping us to see the promise of these tools and whose experiences will help us all learn how to use them most effectively.

I encourage anyone who cares about involving the public in community planning to check out the tools at www.placematters.com. Get up to speed now, because the planning tools revolution is coming and it needs good facilitators.

Lessons Learned:
Is Neutrality Reality? What I Learned from Working With Farmers on Groundwater Management in Southern California
By Dale Schafer

The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Greg Bourne, Managing Senior Mediator for the Hemet / San Jacinto project, with this article.

Project Background

For my first assignment with the Center for Collaborative Policy, in Spring of 2001, I was asked to be a facilitator for the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Integrated Storage Investigations program. This program was designed to explore opportunities for conjunctive water management in Southern California. The basic idea of conjunctive water management is to keep groundwater in the ground when surface and / or imported water is abundant, allowing groundwater to be “banked” for use during dry periods when other sources of water are limited. However logical this may seem, in practice it can be very hard to implement conjunctive water management. Any collaboration on groundwater management in California relies on voluntary local cooperation. Orchestrating this cooperation can be quite difficult, even when all parties agree it is in their long-term best interest.

My first task for the Integrated Storage Investigations program was to assess DWR’s partnering local agencies and interested stakeholders in the Hemet / San Jacinto Basins as potential participants in the Conjunctive Water Management Program. Stakeholders in the Hemet / San Jacinto Basins have recognized for years that their groundwater basins are in a state of overdraft: More water is being pumped from the basins than nature can recharge over time. This is not a sustainable condition. The main appropriators in the Basins are two water districts (Eastern Municipal Water District, EMWD, and Lake Hemet Municipal Water District, LHMWD), two cities (Hemet and San Jacinto), and the Private Pumpers (farmers, golf course owners, etc.). The appropriators decided that they wanted to address the overdraft and work with DWR to establish a cooperative Groundwater Management Plan (Plan) to manage the Basins. My role was to facilitate the process of the development of the Plan.

Initial Thoughts on Neutrality

In preparation for my stakeholder interviews, I began to think about my role as mediator/ facilitator. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a mediator as “a neutral third person who helps disputing parties reach agreement through the mediation process.” Like many mediators, I was struck by how unrealistic this expectation of neutrality is. As human beings (even mediators!) we bring our values and perspectives to each project. I am not immune from stereotyping people based on past experience, or lack of experience, any more than my prospective stakeholders are immune from stereotyping me as a mediator, or as a person. However, as a mediator/facilitator, I need to be aware of potential problems that can arise from stereotyping and “battle” these tendencies to ensure I do not allow my biases to undermine my professionalism. In this case, the “battle” began with my first interview assignment - three farmers who were groundwater private pumpers. Although it is equally easy to stereotype any type of stakeholder, for this article I will concentrate on my experience and lessons learned from working with the farmers.

During my two-hour drive to Hemet, I reflected on how little I knew about the agricultural industry in Southern California. Although I am a native Southern Californian, my experience with “farming” is limited to growing tomatoes and squash in the back yard. I was pondering how I would approach my interview with the farmers, when a stereotypical image of a farmer (man driving a tractor, clad in jeans, a plaid shirt and work boots) flashed through my mind. I questioned what role farmers would play in actually drafting a Plan and wondered how I would integrate them into the process.

The Learning Process

When I arrived at Hemet City Hall, the farmers were already present and ready for our meeting. I smiled inwardly as I noted the jeans, plaid shirts, and work boots that matched my drive-time imaginings. As the meeting progressed, I began to get a fuller picture of my new stakeholders. I realized these men had taken time out from their workday, (which I later learned begins about six a.m.), to drive to the City to talk with me. Following our meeting, they would return to work until dusk. This was my first hint of the dedication the farmers would bring to the process.

I began to realize what an integral part the farmers would play in the process as they educated me about the importance of agriculture in the Hemet/San Jacinto Basin. Many of them rely on groundwater; half of water pumped in the Basin is used for agriculture. Several families have farmed in the Basin for generations; some have citrus groves, some are row crop farmers, others own dairies. Agriculture for these families is not just a business, but a way of life. In fact, farmers play a major role in the politics of the Basin. Several serve on the board of directors of EMWD or LHMWD; others are members of Hemet or San Jacinto City Council. One farmer serves on the Metropolitan Water District Board of Directors; one is a State Senator; one family has a parkway named in its honor.

In addition to being politically savvy and active, the growers were also quite sophisticated in their knowledge of water issues in the basin. My interview revealed that the continued escalation of pumping and increased overdraft in the basin caused several problems for the farmers, requiring them to use more energy and to pump deeper to get the necessary water for their crops. They discussed the subject of water with passion, as the availability of water directly affects their survival. They acknowledged they were not well organized, were not a partner with DWR, and did not have attorney representation, yet they were adamant about their desire for fair representation and a presence on the governing body created for the Plan, despite the fact this would require hours of preparation in addition to meeting time.

The Results

After a year of discussion of issues such as exportation of water from the Basin, recharge possibilities, use of recycled water, etc., the project’s Policy Committee began to draft “Principles for Water Management” which would serve as the backbone for the development of the Water Management Plan. Included in these Principles are “Private Pumper’s Rights,” drafted by growers and other pumpers with advice from engineers and attorneys. This task required several drafting and revisions meetings, and general pumpers’ meetings to review the drafts, but finally, a finished product was inserted into the “Principles” which will be signed by all pumpers who participate in the Plan.

In addition, several farmers have played an integral part in the success of a groundwater monitoring program, which is a necessary part of implementing the Plan. The monitoring program includes locating all the wells in the Basin, metering unmetered wells, and monitoring the wells both for water level and water quality. Farmers surveyed the area to locate wells for EMWD. They also accompanied EMWD staff to talk with the well owners and encourage them to join the monitoring program. Approximately 90% of wells in the basin are now being monitored. The farmers played a critical role in obtaining local participation in the monitoring program.

The Hemet/San Jacinto Groundwater Committees have made tremendous progress during the past three years, but the process has always not been smooth and easy. The path has often been rocky, it has meandered and even doubled back on itself. At times, the path seemed never ending, but after three years, the end is in sight. The goal will be accomplished and the Hemet/San Jacinto groundwater Basins will have an effective Plan acceptable to agency and private pumper alike. The Plan would have never been developed without the cooperation and commitment of every stakeholder, and the farmers were indispensable to the agreement.

The A-Ha

I learned a critical lesson from this project. The theory of neutrality I understood before. But this project reinforced for me that, in practice, the notion of the neutrality of mediators is not reality, but an ideal to strive for. As mediators, in particular, we always need to examine our own perceptions and biases, and confront them honestly. We cannot allow them to adversely influence our thinking or actions. We need to hold up our perceptions to the mirror, and see what reflects back. Next time, when I begin my two hour drive, will I leave all preconceived notions of my stakeholders behind? No, of course not. Instead, however, I’ll be exploring my perceptions and thinking about how they might be misinformed. I’ll be thinking about ways that my information is incomplete, and what I need to do to get a fuller picture. I’ll also be considering the enormous potential to be found in each stakeholder who is wiling to roll up his or her sleeves and work with others towards resolving the complex issues that often divide us.

Challenging Issue:
Freedom of High-Tech Speech—How to Host Effective Internet-Based Public Conversations Without Violating the First Amendment
By Gregory S. Weber

This article is excerpted from G. Weber, “Needling the Thread: A Moderator’s Guide to Freedom of Speech Limitations on Government Sponsored Web-Based Threaded Discussions,” Computer Law Review and Technology Journal, Vol. VIII, No. 3 (Spring 2004). The full article includes an analysis of relevant First Amendment law. Reprinted with author's permission.

Greg can be reached for comment at gweber@pacific.edu

I. Introduction

In the past decade, the Internet has given policymakers new tools that can greatly increase the public’s awareness of, and ability to participate in, public policymaking processes. One Internet-based tool that shows promise in encouraging dialogue is the threaded-discussion forum. Such a forum is essentially a web page that allows the posting of comments and replies on a given topic. If set up accordingly by the web master, participants in the dialogue can follow the discussion’s “thread” as replies and replies to replies are visually linked to each other with icons and indentations.

While by no means a substitute for face-to-face discussions or hearings, threaded-discussion fora offer policymakers and the public opportunities to engage in dialogue in ways not always possible in face-to-face meetings. These opportunities include:

Participation at any time from any place with Internet access;
Ample time for thoughtful, articulate expression before commenting;
The length of comments limited only by the amount of disk storage space available for a given website;
A verbatim written record of the conversation, created by the very participants in the conversation using their own language;
Participation without the need for a “speaker’s list” to determine who can speak when and on what topic; and
A greater ability for participants to interact with each other, rather than directing their comments only to the agency presiding over the proceeding.

While offering all of these advantages, the use of web-based threaded discussions in the context of public policymaking raises its own administrative, policy, and legal issues. The administrative issues include site hardware, software, design, and maintenance. The policy issues include decisions regarding discussion moderation, if any, and the extent to which agency staff should monitor and participate in the dialogs. The legal issues involve potential liability for postings, application of open meeting laws, and free speech limits on moderation. This article focuses on the third legal issue, free speech limits on moderation.

It’s a Jungle Out There…

Many individuals experienced with web-based threaded discussions believe that they need some degree of facilitation, as would a face-to-face public meeting or hearing. In a public meeting, the agency head or designee facilitates the meeting by keeping speakers within their designated time limits and by keeping general order as needed. Absent some sort of moderation, however, online discussions are easily disrupted. As one commentator summarized, “The most common problems are incivility, aimlessness, anonymity, the dominance of some high-volume posters, and the failure to set clear procedural and behavioral norms.” Other problems include:

Irrelevant postings;
Postings relevant to the overall topic but placed in the wrong forum;
Postings whose title is relevant to the overall topic, but whose content is not;
Postings partially relevant;
Postings relevant to more than one sub-forum;
Repetitive postings;
Stale postings;
Posting of attachments;
Posting of large texts or files;
Posting of graphics;
Links to other, off-site web pages;
Anonymous postings;
Postings that raise intellectual property, defamation, invasion of privacy, or other tort liability issues;
Postings of obscenity or child pornography; and
Vulgar postings.

An agency concerned with these potential problems has three main response options. First, it can simply refuse to intervene. Second, it can restrict the group of participants who are authorized to post. Finally, it can, either on its own or through a non-agency neutral, attempt to moderate the dialogue. Each of these three options presents advantages and challenges.

Option 1: Non-Intervention

Though the no intervention option allows the greatest freedom to participants, it runs a substantial risk of greatly reducing the site’s overall usefulness. For example, participants interested in substantive, deliberative dialogue on a specific policy matter will quickly become unwilling to plow through irrelevant or obscene posts. Participants will also be unwilling to return to the site after one click too many on a seemingly relevant posting only leads them to a neo-Nazi website or someone selling a sexual performance enhancer. In addition to impacts on the site’s usefulness, the agency runs the risk of any potential liability that might arise from the postings.

Option 2: Restricted Access, Non-Moderated

The restricted access option relies upon agency knowledge of authorized posters to ensure a greater likelihood of relevant and civil discourse. Even at its best, however, it does nothing to address “housekeeping” matters, such as stale postings or postings placed in the wrong forum. Moreover, it does nothing to guard against well-intentioned or inadvertent postings that raise liability issues. Finally, it comes at some substantial costs to the transparency and inclusiveness of the policymaking dialogue. If only a select, agency-chosen group can access the site, both transparency and inclusiveness suffer. If the agency allows read-only access to all, but restricts posting access to an elite few, transparency may not suffer, but inclusiveness still will.

Option 3: Moderation

In theory, the moderator option offers the potential to address all of the problems. In effect, a moderator can “weed” and “seed” the dialogue. For example, many of the listed problems clutter or obstruct the dialogue. Like weeds in a garden, irrelevant postings choke off the possibility of dialogue by forcing participants to waste precious time or mental energy on off-topic matters. In such cases, a moderator can weed out the discussion-choking materials so that dialogue concerning on-topic matters can flourish. Other problems involve lost opportunities for fruitful discussion. A post that is placed in the wrong sub-forum is much less likely to spark responses by interested and knowledgeable participants. In such cases, a moderator can seed the appropriate sub-forum with the post. Other techniques that a moderator can employ include:

Site registration requirements;
Ground rules;
Giving warnings or guidance to posters;
Tagging of postings;
Editing of postings;
Selection of some postings for special prominence; and
Notification to participants of the existence of selected postings.

Moderation, however, can have negative repercussions. Where a government official or employee is personally moderating the discussion, each intervention invites charges of censorship or favoritism. Similar allegations are even possible when the moderator is a professional neutral.

II. First Amendment Issues

Both “restricted access” and “moderator” options raise questions about freedom of speech guarantees. First Amendment concerns are triggered whenever a state or federal government agency is sponsoring a threaded discussion. Indeed, concerns over these issues have led at least one federal agency to choose the “no intervention” option in one of its online discussions. While an agency may choose this option for its own good policy reasons, the First Amendment does not compel such a choice. Many potentially useful interventions are quite compatible with First Amendment public forum law. Under First Amendment law, the government’s power to regulate speech depends on the identity of the speaker, the location of the speech activity, and the type of speech involved. A review of the First Amendment’s application to Internet-based speech helps identify those matters where moderation is likely permissible. The linked text contains legal discussion of issues such as private vs. public speech, and viewpoint-based discrimination.

III. Decisions, Decisions

In light of First Amendment principles, when creating a web-based threaded discussion the sponsoring public agency needs to decide four matters: (1) what type of “forum” it plans to create; (2) whether to moderate the forum; (3) what the ground rules for posting will be; and (4) what other considerations to address in the software that will run the discussion.

Decision 1: Non-Public Forum vs. Limited Public Forum

Under First Amendment law, an agency can create either a non-public forum (where specific permission is needed for individuals to access the forum for speech activity) or a limited public forum (created by “purposeful governmental action” for expressive activity for a limited time, for a limited class of speakers, or for a limited number of topics). The non-public forum will give the agency a greater ability to regulate postings. In practice, however, most of the regulations that an agency might want to establish in a non-public forum are likely also to be established in a limited public forum. Many regulations that would not be proper in a limited public forum, such as limits on non-obscene but vulgar or “indecent” speech, are not likely imposable in a non-public forum either.

The choice between the two largely mirrors the choice between relatively open and more restrictive access—a limited public forum will be more open, whereas a non-public forum will be more restrictive. In setting up access and posting privileges for a web-based threaded discussion, the sponsoring public agency should consider the balance between open, transparent discussion and high quality input. Although more restricted access might lead to a greater density of high-quality input, policymaking is ultimately done to promote public values. Therefore the balance should normally be weighted heavily in favor of maximum openness and transparency, which means allowing maximum public participation.

As a result, an agency considering the use of a web-based threaded discussion should ordinarily choose the limited public forum option and open that forum for full posting and reading privileges to all would-be posters, at least those who complete reasonable registration procedures. Where problems occur that cannot be successfully moderated, the agency may consider restricting posting privileges, provided of course that the restrictions are viewpoint neutral (i.e. participants may not have their privileges removed for the viewpoints they express). They can, however, have those privileges restricted for violations of otherwise enforceable ground rules.

Circumstances should be rare where an agency chooses the non-public forum option and restricts both posting and reading privileges to designated participants. For example, such circumstances might occur where confidential information or trade secrets are being discussed, or where the agency simply wishes to facilitate a discussion among technical or policy experts.

Decision 2: To Moderate or Not

Once the sponsoring public agency has decided on the access privileges it wishes to grant, it can decide whether to moderate the web-based threaded discussion. In some circumstances, those threaded-discussions that are limited to a small select group of policy or technical experts (non-public fora) are good candidates for a non-moderated forum. The smaller the number of participants and the more focused the topic, the more a group may easily self-facilitate. But even for small, focused discussions, moderation will help if the agency anticipates a high volume of posting activity on a variety of topics or the subject is one where emotions will run high. In addition, a moderator can actively encourage “lurkers” (those who simply observe without posting) to participate more actively. A moderator can also alert those who are not even lurking to discussions that they might find of particular interest.

Even where it is constitutionally permissible, moderation still represents an intrusion into a policy discussion that might prove more disruptive to the discussion, or to the agency’s relationship with discussion participants, than whatever posting provoked the intervention. On the whole, the agency must decide whether the positive benefits of moderation—for example, “weeding and seeding”—outweigh these negative impacts for the particular web-based threaded discussion under consideration.

Decision 3: Enforceable Ground Rules for Posting

Whether using a moderated or non-moderated threaded discussion, the sponsoring public agency should develop a clear set of ground rules for posting. At a minimum those ground rules should:

Adequately define the relevant topics or subtopics;
Establish a time period during which comments will remain posted before they are either archived or deleted;
Establish minimal but reasonable registration requirements to minimize the possibility of automated site “hacking;” and
Inform participants if the forum is to be moderated.

In the case of moderated forums, the agency should inform participants as to whether moderator screening occurs before or after posting. It should also specify the steps that the moderator will take in performing routine housekeeping matters, in responding to ground rule violations (whether deleting, moving, copying, editing, or posting of warnings), and in promoting richer dialogue (including creation of any moderator selected discussion threads that model “best postings.”)

Ground rules should specifically address any limits on the number, length, or overall number and length of postings per specified time period. These rules should also list any restrictions on the posting of graphics, spreadsheets, word-processed documents, or file attachments. In the case of limited public fora, posting guidelines may encourage, although likely not require, non-anonymous postings and non-vulgar or non-offensive language.

Decision 4: Software Considerations

Finally, to maximize “viewpoint neutrality” of ground rule enforcement, for both moderated and non-moderated discussions, the agency should attempt to identify or develop software that will allow as much automation as possible. Such automation reduces the possibility of arbitrary, viewpoint-based discrimination by the moderator.

IV. Conclusion

In closing, this article was sparked by a belief that there are huge opportunities provided by this new medium for communication, the internet. At a relatively low cost, an agency can greatly open its policymaking doors and invite direct public participation by many who would not otherwise be able to participate. Hopefully, through greater participation and transparency, policy results will be more responsive, more creative, and more durable. In addition, relationships may be fostered in the process as all participants, agency and non-agency alike, can come to know and understand each other and each other’s perspectives better. The benefits of enhanced relationships can then spill over and positively influence work on other policy problems. A web-based threaded discussion is just one new tool offered to policymakers by the digital age, but it is one that merits serious consideration. This article was written in order to provide agencies with guidance so that the First Amendment will not be an obstacle to exploring this new medium.

Book Reviews

The Edge book reviewers are on hiatus until Fall 2004. So for this edition, we’d like to link you to some interesting reviews we’ve found online.

First, we’re pleased to link you to three book reviews by John Stephens, coordinator of the Public Dispute Resolution Program at the University of North Carolina school of Government in Chapel Hill. (Several excellent training courses offered by the UNC School of Government are listed in the Edge News and Events section). These reviews previously appeared in the excellent Building Collaborative Communities Newsletter.

Visit http://www.collaborativecommunities.org/news3/resources1.htm to read John’s reviews of the following three publications:

Retreats that Work: Designing and Conducting Effective Offsites for Groups and Organizations was written by two organizational development consultants, Sheila Campbell and Merianne Liteman and could be subtitled according to one review on Amazon.com, "Everything you ever wanted to know about retreats."
Organizational change consultant Leslie Bendaly offers a fine guide, On Track: Taking Meetings from Good to Great, which offers guidance for how to conduct regular meetings that combine efficiency and participation with creativity in making decisions.
Senior consultants with the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, Carol Lucas and Linda Hoskins have authored an excellent guide, Conducting Community Forums: Engaging Citizens, Mobilizing Communities.

Also, from The New Republic Online comes Cass R. Sunstein’s review of The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations by James Surowiecki.

Here is an excerpt of Sunstein’s review: “James Surowiecki is fascinated by prediction markets. In his opinion, they demonstrate that crowds are often wise. He rejects the widespread view that groups of ordinary people are usually wrong — and that we do better to ignore them and follow experts instead. Even when individuals blunder, he believes, groups can excel: ‘Under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.’ This is so even when ‘most of the people within the group are not especially well-informed or rational.’ What is wonderful, and surprising, is that ‘when our imperfect judgments are aggregated in the right way, our collective intelligence is often excellent.’ Instead of chasing experts, we should consult that collective intelligence.”

The full review offers fascinating examples of prediction markets ranging from the Department of Defense’s proposed policy analysis market to English fair-goers guessing the weight of a fat ox. Read the full review online at http://www.powells.com/tnr/review/2004_06_24.

,
Back to top

News and Events
If you have a news item related to public policy collaboration that you’d like to see published in the Edge, please email the editor.

Upcoming Courses, Events, Funding Opportunities

Click for events taking place in:

JULY 2004

AUGUST 2004

SEPTEMBER 2004

OCTOBER 2004

NOVEMBER 2004

DECEMBER 2004

Center for Collaborative Policy Update

New projects:

The Center for Collaborative Policy is pleased to be undertaking several new large collaborative projects. If you’d like more information on any of these projects, please contact the Center at 916.445.2079 or dsumi@ccp.csus.edu.

Salton Sea Restoration Plan: Restoration of California’s Salton Sea has been the subject of much controversy and attention the past several years. (Background information about the Salton Sea and the issues surrounding its restoration can be found at http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/salton.html). The Center will be part of a project team whose goal is to help stakeholders develop a restoration plan for the Sea and conduct the required NEPA/CEQA analyses. The Center’s primary responsibilities will be in the areas of public outreach, stakeholder participation, and conflict resolution.
Yolo County NCCP/HCP: The Center will be part of a team working on the preparation of a combined Natural Communities Conservation Plan (under the NCCP state statute) and the Habitat Conservation Plan (under the federal Endangered Species Act) for all of Yolo County, California. The Center will handle the public outreach and stakeholder involvement components of plan development.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area Dog Management: In collaboration with Mike Harty of CDR, California, the Center is working to assess the potential for initiating a negotiated rulemaking assessment related to dog management in San Francisco’s Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Off-leash dogs and dog management on National Park lands has become increasingly controversial in recent times, and is an issue in many places around the country. This project will therefore likely serve as a prototype for addressing these issues in other settings.

For more information about current and recent Center projects, visit http://www.csus.edu/ccp/projects/recent.stm.

Other Center News

In May 2004, the California Floodplain Management Task Force, a collaborative statewide effort facilitated by the Center for Collaborative Policy, received the 2004 Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) Tom Lee State Award for Excellence for their Task Force Report.
The Center would like to congratulate the first graduating class of the North Lake Tahoe-Truckee Leadership Program. Graduates received their Certificates of Completion this May 26th. The Leadership Program was a partnership between the Truckee Donner Chamber of Commerce, the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association, and the North Tahoe Business Association. Program curriculum was developed and facilitated by the Center of Collaborative Policy in Sacramento. All of the alumni have been invited to help plan, and teach portions of, next year's program. The long-term goal of the program is to have the entire program developed and taught by alumni, therefore creating "embedded leadership" in the region. For more information about the leadership program, contact Lisa Beutler at lbeutler@ccp.csus.edu or 916.341.3333.
This July, the Center for Collaborative Policy facilitated a panel of the Collaborative Democracy Network at the conference of the Association of European Schools of Planning in Grenoble France. The topic of the panel was "Collaborative Planning and Democracy: Building Capable Institutions of Governance for Network Society." The Collaborative Democracy Network was organized and is being coordinated by CCP. It is composed of over 30 international and interdisciplinary scholars interested in helping to improve the governance capacity of democratic institutions with collaborative strategies. The Center also co-presented a paper at the conference on "Reframing Public Participation for the 21st Century" with colleague and Center friend Judith Innes. The paper will be published in the December 2004 edition of the Journal of Planning Theory and Practice. For more information about the Collaborative Democracy Network, contact David Booher at dbooher@ccp.csus.edu or 916.445.2079.
The Center for Collaborative Policy is helping to manage a dialogue on clean water at the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions (CPWR) event in Barcelona, Spain in July. This dialogue will be one of four planned: improving the plight of refugees; eliminating the international debt burden for developing countries; overcoming violence, especially when religiously motivated or targeted; and increasing access to clean water. They hope to engage up to 1,600 Parliament participants in defining simple and profound acts that they can engage in with their communities to positively impact the lives of people affected by these critical needs. Participants are expected to include invited religious and spiritual leaders, scholars, activists and practitioners, grassroots inter-religious organizers, representatives of the World's other guiding institutions, and young people, in order to consider the role and contribution of religion and spirituality to a better world. The current count has participants from 52 countries registered. For more information about the event, visit http://www.cpwr.org/2004Parliament/.

Resources

Featured Resource: Website: The Depolarization of America: Bridging the Partisan Divide. In the spirit of cross-stakeholder collaboration, and with the elections upcoming, we’d like to feature the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation’s website devoted to five efforts (The September Project, Let’s Talk America, PBS Deliberation Day, Calling the Question, and the “We the People” National Convention) that are each in their own way attempting to bridge partisan gaps in policy debate. For more information about these efforts, visit http://www.thataway.org/resources/practice/issues/polarization/polarization.html
To its credit, the website also links to articles critiquing the dialogue approach to resolving political issues. See http://www.thataway.org/news/archives/000218.html#more

Newsletter on Collaborative Communities. Building Collaborative Communities is a newsletter for community leaders working to build more collaborative communities. Keep in touch with what’s happening in other communities, check out upcoming events, and get links to helpful resources of like interest. To sign up for this newsletter, visit http://www.collaborativecommunities.org.

Website: Innovations in Democracy. http://democracyinnovations.org/
This gateway website includes links to “hundreds of innovative practices, ideas, experiments, organizations and references useful for building wiser democracies that work for all,” including information on consensus councils, deliberative polling, alternate forms of voting, and more.

Downloadable Training Module on Public Conflict Resolution. The Mississippi State Cooperative Extension Service offers a non-copyrighted, free training module called Turning Lemons into Lemonade: Public Conflict Resolution. Available at:
http://srdc.msstate.edu/publications/lemons/221.htm

Training Module on Cooperative Problem Solving. Developed by Search for
Common Ground (http://www.sfcg.org ), this workshop is designed for use with
groups who want to understand and practice the cooperative problem-solving
model for managing conflict. The process focuses on encouraging mutual
agreement and developing positive relationships.
http://www.itrainonline.org/itrainonline/mmtk/cps.shtml

Report on Environmental Justice Collaborative Partnerships. In "Not Business As Usual: Using Collaborative Partnerships to Address Environmental Justice Issues", ICMA researchers present 12 major findings to guide community leaders as they consider forming an environmental justice collaborative partnership. From using a discussion of the challenges of environmental justice as a way of unifying a community to involving the local government to ensure a partnership's long-term sustainability, the report provides clear examples of what and how environmental justice collaborative partnerships can do to foster change within a community. Download the report at: http://www2.brownfieldsource.org/news.cfm?id=191.

Website for Linking Facilitators with International Volunteer Opportunities. The Global Facilitator Service Corps is a not-for-profit volunteer organization, associated with the International Association of Facilitators. Its mission is to link volunteer facilitators with service opportunities worldwide. The Corps has sent volunteers from everywhere to everywhere, to facilitate in situations such as post-earthquake community crisis management and international conferences on global warming. The commitment can be as brief as a week or two, or extensive. For more information, visit http://amauta.org/GFSC

Online Report: “Drivers of natural resource-based political conflict.” From the abstract: “Why are some natural resource-based political conflicts so controversial, acrimonious and intractable? What factors drive these conflicts? And what turns the common political conflict into the high-level, symbolic, and sustained political conflict? This paper conceptualizes the ‘drivers’ of natural resource-based political conflict in the United States. It examines the dominant themes, patterns and underlying logic of these conflicts. The very nature and context of these cases sometimes promise intractability, but they are also often ‘wicked by design’ in that political actors, institutions and policy processes often compound them. The following drivers of conflict are discussed: scarcity, the policy surrogate, the sacred and spiritual and importance of place, policy design (historical and budgetary), policy frames, scientific disagreement and uncertainty, electoral politics and the use of wedge issues, political and interest group strategy, media framing, adversarial governance, Constitutional, statutory and administrative language, and distrust. The paper finishes by placing natural resource-based conflict in political perspective. http://www.forestry.umt.edu/personnel/faculty/mnie/personal%20website/policyscience.pdf

Online Report: State Wildlife Policy and Management: The Scope and Bias of Political Conflict. From the abstract: State wildlife policy and management are often characterized by divisive political conflict among competing stakeholders. This conflict is increasingly being resolved through the ballot-initiative process. One important reason the process is being used so often is the way state wildlife policy and management decisions are often made by state wildlife commissions, boards, or councils (the dominant way these decisions are made in the United States). These bodies are often perceived by important stakeholders as biased, exclusive, or unrepresentative of nonconsumptive stakeholder values. As a result, unsatisfied interest groups often try to take decision-making authority away from these institutions and give it to the public through the ballot initiative. Cases and examples from Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, and Idaho are examined in this context. The article finishes by outlining four broad alternatives that may be debated in the future: the no change alternative, the authoritative expert alternative, the structural change alternative, and the stakeholder-based collaborative conservation alternative(s).
http://www.forestry.umt.edu/personnel/faculty/mnie/personal%20website/PAR.pdf

Website: Tips and tools for leadership, coaching, facilitation, change management, meetings management, and teamwork. http://www.interactionassociates.com/html/tips_and_techniques.html

Website: Models for Dialogue and Deliberation. From the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation
http://www.thataway.org/resources/understand/models/models.html

Website: High Tech Tools for Collaboration. From the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation
http://www.thataway.org/resources/practice/hightech/intro.html

View Resources from past editions of the Edge in our archives:

Winter 2003 / 2004 Resources (February)
http://www.csus.edu/ccp/newsletter/February_Edge_index.stm#resources

Fall 2003 Resources (September)
http://www.csus.edu/ccp/newsletter/September_Edge_index.stm#resources

The Collaborative Edge is one of a package of efforts
undertaken by the Center for Collaborative Policy
with the generous support of

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

for the purpose of building the capacity of the state of California
to use collaborative methods
in service of improved public policy outcomes.

Information sharing policy

We welcome and encourage you to freely pass along the articles you find here. Please ensure that all such transmissions are appropriately credited to the article author and the Collaborative Edge, a publication of the Center for Collaborative Policy.