Agenda Packet 12-12-18 Work Session

Home Browse Search

4 Key PKey PKey PKey Principles of Deliberationrinciples of Deliberationrinciples of Deliberationrinciples of Deliberation In supporting meaningful public deliberation over complex issues, the working group facilitator embraced the following key principles: Impartiality Facilitators support groups to do their best thinking together. Facilitators manage the process and the methods by which people explore ideas without trying to influence the content of the discussion. Meeting evaluation data has been detailed in Appendix G: Process Evaluation with average scores across meetings listed here. In post-meeting evaluations, working group members scored the facilitator’s impartiality 4.65 (out of 5). When volunteer facilitators joined the group to support small group discussion, they were similarly evaluated to be neutral, scoring 4.87. Intentional process design Thoughtful planning and execution of deliberative tactics creates predictability, safety, and opportunity for participants. From carefully scripted and enforced ground rules to a mix of ways to share ideas and explore possibilities, process design matters. Effective process design ensures that individuals are able to share their ideas and feel that their ideas were respected. In evaluating these components (again, using a 5-point scale) working group members gave the following feedback: • Working group’s adherence to the ground rules 4.48 • Ability to share ideas 4.50 • Perception that ideas were respected 4.49 Self-determination Within the process guidelines, participants in the working group controlled the content of the meetings. This included everything from telling the story to understand the nature of the problem to creating and evaluating the options that could be possible solutions to it. Participants themselves identified areas where they wanted more information, which ideas had merit, and which ideas lacked popular support. In reviewing the working group’s progress, some community members were dismayed to see ideas that, to them, were nonsensical, illegal, or too extreme. Some community members decried the process and its leadership for allowing these ideas to move ahead in any fashion. While staff and the facilitator may have agreed with some of these concerns, blocking any ideas would be a violation of the group’s self- determination. Instead, the working group itself generated the ideas and, to its credit, the working group itself evaluated and, where appropriate, struck down ideas that had little merit. In other cases, ideas which some saw as too extreme were indeed broadly supported by others (typical with wicked problems). In these cases, the process supported both sides in being able to articulate their arguments for or against an idea without un-due meddling from the facilitator, technical experts, or staff. Planned engagement with topic experts Given the polarized nature of wicked problems, people often crave data and technical expertise to evaluate options and justify possible solutions. As previously discussed, data can be immensely helpful in understanding the nature and magnitude of a problem and in evaluating likely impacts of some options. That said, because the “right” path forward is ultimately a values-based decision, data cannot be a main driver of the process. Furthermore, over-reliance on experts and advocates can inadvertently fuel increased polarization and skepticism. For these reasons, and to keep within the project timeline, outside experts played a specific and discreet role in informing the working group. December 12, 2018, Work Session - Item 2