The picture at the right was posted on Facebook by Arjun Singh. His caption: "Too many empty chairs at Sustainable Kamloops Forum."Almost immediately people responded. Kelowna City Councillor Michele Rule chimed in, "Too bad – if I were in Kamloops I would be there!" Jennifer Jones: "Yikes! That's terrible!"
Arjun noted that his photo was selective, that the "Front rows [were] more full, but this is disappointing to me."
Arjun noted that his photo was selective, that the "Front rows [were] more full, but this is disappointing to me."
Disappointment and its discontents
And that's the key point for me: the feeling of disappointment. When something as important as "sustainability" is (finally) being taken seriously by our local governments, and we, the people, should be showing up in droves to participate. Shouldn't we?
On the face of it, Yes. As citizens charged with voting for councils, Mayors, and regional district boards, we should take a keen interest in processes that will have a long term impact on quality of life, affordability, taxes, etcetera in our communities.
But are public meetings a good way to participate? Is participation at public meetings a good measure of how much any of us care about the specific aspects of this thing called sustainability?
I'm inclined to answer, No. To both questions.
I've been involved in sustainability related education and planning and research since the mid-90s. Back then, local governments were pretty wary of "sustainability."
We've come a long way.
Sustainability isn't a dirty word anymore. Questioning growth – or at least managing the shape and rate of growth – is now more or less mainstream. Asking questions about sustainability is now part of what responsible politicians, civic staff, citizens, and even developers see as due diligence. More or less.
On the road to mainstream acceptance of sustainability, however, we seem to have lost some of our passion for public meetings on the topic. Maybe it's simple process fatigue. My community has gone through innumerable and exhaustive public processes on a range of land use related topics in the past 15 years. Last year our once highly-charged and participatory community by and large failed to get charged when local governments surprised us by hosting a region-wide sustainability strategy process.
And that's the key point for me: the feeling of disappointment. When something as important as "sustainability" is (finally) being taken seriously by our local governments, and we, the people, should be showing up in droves to participate. Shouldn't we?
On the face of it, Yes. As citizens charged with voting for councils, Mayors, and regional district boards, we should take a keen interest in processes that will have a long term impact on quality of life, affordability, taxes, etcetera in our communities.
But are public meetings a good way to participate? Is participation at public meetings a good measure of how much any of us care about the specific aspects of this thing called sustainability?
I'm inclined to answer, No. To both questions.
I've been involved in sustainability related education and planning and research since the mid-90s. Back then, local governments were pretty wary of "sustainability."
We've come a long way.
Sustainability isn't a dirty word anymore. Questioning growth – or at least managing the shape and rate of growth – is now more or less mainstream. Asking questions about sustainability is now part of what responsible politicians, civic staff, citizens, and even developers see as due diligence. More or less.
On the road to mainstream acceptance of sustainability, however, we seem to have lost some of our passion for public meetings on the topic. Maybe it's simple process fatigue. My community has gone through innumerable and exhaustive public processes on a range of land use related topics in the past 15 years. Last year our once highly-charged and participatory community by and large failed to get charged when local governments surprised us by hosting a region-wide sustainability strategy process.
Did we fail to fill the halls because of process burnout? Or process suspicion – "they" never follow through on what we've wanted in the past, why should I participate now? Or is it because things like "sustainability" and "regional growth strategy" (that's also happening) are just too vague, too far removed from the everyday issues most of us are dealing with?
As I said in my reply to Arjun's post: I'm still a big proponent of engagement and participation processes; but I think the methods we use to reach and engage people need to change.
No quick fixes on the road to civic engagement
Frankly, I'm a lousy participant when participation means going to an open house, or sitting in a public meeting. Which doesn't mean I think we stop this medium of engagement. It works for some folks. But I do think we need to find more ways to get citizens who care, and who care about how our tax dollars are being spent (and how they're being invested so that our communities and our personal bits of real estate sustain their value in the long term), involved.
It's not a quick fix situation, unfortunately. There are, however, some things that can be started right now that will have medium and longer term impact. These strategies are proving themselves elsewhere, and local governments need to be moving on them. Why? Because we the citizens are footing the bill for expensive planning processes, and we the citizens as taxpayers deserve better results than we're getting.
Here's a little story about the wrong approach:
Local government: Here's a wheelbarrow of $ to do the plan. And by the way, we want you to use the magic of Facebook and YouTube to really engage our community.
Consultant: Do you have an established presence on Facebook or YouTube?
Local government: No, it's too risky for us. We want you to set that up for the planning process and run it and be successful with it. You can do that in 6 months, right?
Frankly, I'm a lousy participant when participation means going to an open house, or sitting in a public meeting. Which doesn't mean I think we stop this medium of engagement. It works for some folks. But I do think we need to find more ways to get citizens who care, and who care about how our tax dollars are being spent (and how they're being invested so that our communities and our personal bits of real estate sustain their value in the long term), involved.
It's not a quick fix situation, unfortunately. There are, however, some things that can be started right now that will have medium and longer term impact. These strategies are proving themselves elsewhere, and local governments need to be moving on them. Why? Because we the citizens are footing the bill for expensive planning processes, and we the citizens as taxpayers deserve better results than we're getting.
Here's a little story about the wrong approach:
Local government: Here's a wheelbarrow of $ to do the plan. And by the way, we want you to use the magic of Facebook and YouTube to really engage our community.
Consultant: Do you have an established presence on Facebook or YouTube?
Local government: No, it's too risky for us. We want you to set that up for the planning process and run it and be successful with it. You can do that in 6 months, right?
The correct answer? No, the consultant can't deliver what local government wants.
Why is this an example of the wrong approach? For the same reasons that people are not turning out in droves for public meetings and open houses: because we the citizens and taxpayers are not experiencing "authentic" engagement with the people we are paying to look after the future of our communities. No consultant can use social media to deliver something that local government isn't doing in a real way. The hired gun can't engage people in an honest, open, "authentic" way if you're not doing it yourself. You can't "spin" authenticity.
I work with local government on an ad hoc, as needed basis to provide various communications related services. I'm watching the amazing and exciting examples of what's called GOV2.0 grow and change in a host of places across the globe. What am I learning? That GOV2.0 isn't just about using social media. And it certainly isn't about having a consultant drop in and set up online presence for 3-12 months.
I work with local government on an ad hoc, as needed basis to provide various communications related services. I'm watching the amazing and exciting examples of what's called GOV2.0 grow and change in a host of places across the globe. What am I learning? That GOV2.0 isn't just about using social media. And it certainly isn't about having a consultant drop in and set up online presence for 3-12 months.
GOV2.0 – where it's real and working – is about civic leadership. It's about chutzpah and starting real conversations in a variety of places. It could be through a regular column in the local newspaper. Or a regular blog online. Or a regular online video on YouTube. Or a regular podcast.
Regular. Consistent. Every week, or every month. In a space that encourages (ie. makes it super easy) for we the citizens to comment and respond. And (this is super important), for local government to be responsive. To respond to every (every!) comment. Promptly. As in, Now.What if local government isn't taking the great leap forward?
Those of us who care about engagement (ie. a functioning democracy) can still do a lot. One example is what me and two of my pals did last year during the Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy (CVSS) process. It may not work for Arjun in Kamloops, but I think it's worth looking at – if only for how it's spinning off into other conversations about sustainability.
Those of us who care about engagement (ie. a functioning democracy) can still do a lot. One example is what me and two of my pals did last year during the Comox Valley Sustainability Strategy (CVSS) process. It may not work for Arjun in Kamloops, but I think it's worth looking at – if only for how it's spinning off into other conversations about sustainability.
Here's the story: the CVSS was heading into the home stretch, but the consultant was concerned about civic engagement and the post-CVSS legacy. To address their concerns they did a couple of things: hired local facilitation talent with good knowledge of our community, its personalities and resources; proposed spending some of their own money on an honorarium for parallel engagement activities. The local talent got together with two collaborators (me and another pal). We dreamt up CV2050.com.
CV2050 didn't "solve" the CVSS engagement problem. And it wasn't meant to directly inform the CVSS. It is, however, leaving a CVSS legacy, but not necessarily at CV2050.com. The conversations online are spinning off into other spaces and channels. Are more people going to turn up for public meetings related to sustainability in the Comox Valley because of it? Maybe. But I doubt it.
Conversations take place in different venues, through different media. Consultants – and especially local governments – need to be using a range of media to talk about changes in the community, about possible responses, and about policy directions. If people are not coming to meetings, don't expect them to come to meetings. If they're talking about sustainability online, join the conversation online.
Meet people where they are. Speak with your own voice.
Some conversations take place in open houses. Many more take place via letters to the editor in the local paper. Growing numbers are online. The beauty of online venues is the opportunity for authentic conversations that aren't heavily structured, and that can't be managed.
This is scary for most organizations. But that's why it's so important to get "out there" and start building crediblity. (Remember: Regular, responsive conversations.) Start getting used to being in dialogue, not monologue.
Which is why local government needs to be doing it's own social engagement. Sure, hire someone to help walk you through the process, maybe even to kick things off. But in the end, high viz folk need to be active (sometimes it's the Mayor, or a Councillor, or a CAO or Director or Planning). Then, when the sustainability roadshow comes to town, the channels are already open and conversation bubbling. There's no trick to it.
...and in the end... stop fretting!
This was supposed to be a short post in response to Arjun's photo. It's gotten way longer than it should have. But I do get excited about this stuff. Voter turnout is way down, and it's lowest at the local government level. Which is where I think it needs to be highest.
Let's stop fretting about empty chairs at public meetings. Let's get active in other ways of engagement, from local newspaper columns to cable TV columns to the wide and expanding options online. If local government isn't picking up the GOV2.0 ball, lets create our own channels and invite them in. I like what people like Michele in Kelowna, Arjun in Kamloops, Naomi Devine in Whistler (to name a few) are doing online and in real-space. Take a look at their various channels.
Be inspired, not disappointed. We have new tools. People are making them work in lots of places. And they're fun to use!
hanspetermeyer
17 April 2010
17 April 2010
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=00dc3cfd-ba27-4766-ab66-e658248e7aea)
1 comments:
CUT PASTE FROM FACEBOOK:
This is what struck me as wise: "Let's stop fretting about empty chairs at public meetings. Let's get active in other ways of engagement, from local newspaper columns to cable TV columns to the wide and expanding options online. If local government isn't picking up the GOV2.0 ball, lets create our own channels and invite them in."
I thought you were more for the establishment creating a virtual forum, as opposed to the citizenry taking the initiative. Sorry about that.
The people you need to pick up the GOV2.0 ball in today's age are the people who will care about issues for you, by proxy if you will, because everyone else is too busy doing (unfortunately that usually means watching too much tv or playing Farmville) to care. We need people to represent on a micro-level to ensure that our values are upheld.
I don't want to blow too much smoke up Arjun's uhh, butt, however, he is doing what I'm talking about. He goes to these meetings, taking with him the values that his friends and neighbours have entrusted him.
Too many people don't feel like going to these things because they don't understand the topic, they don't care, or they think someone else will take care of it for them. That's where leaders come in and keep the debate alive.
These leaders don't necessarily have to be a city councillor or president of an association. But they certainly have to be more than just someone who creates a Facebook group and then sits on their ass waiting to see how many clicks they get.
With regards to sustainability, has anyone ever given a decent definition of it? When I was a Geography student, we were delving into sustainability by second year, and there were still dozens of students who didn't quite have a handle on the concept. If you want communications success, then there needs to be some basics taken care of in the beginning of the process. Sustainability is just another vague term as far as most people are concerned. It's also a long-term concept, so you lose a lot of interest right there. "It won't affect me because I'll be long-gone" or "It's not affecting me now, so I'll just bury my head in the sand..." are some prevailing attitudes.
A conference simply titled SUSTAINABILITY CONFERENCE seems more like something academics would be interested in, rather than the general population. If it were called "WE'RE GOING TO SUFFER SLOWLY BUT SURELY IF WE KEEP UP THIS PACE CONFERENCE 2010" would work better but is misleading. Find some middle ground and use that communications skill to make these things accessible.
I still stand by showing up in person. Things get done when people have to face each other. It's too easy to hide behind a firewall and be stubborn. How often do you see someone apologize or change their mind on an Internet forum? In my experience, it's virtually unheard of. However, meeting in person provokes empathy and compassion. Let's not forget about those things by simply clicking our way out of having to solve problems face to face.
Post a Comment