Public Participation

Dynamic Facilitation offers a different way for facilitators of public participation events to help citizens address their concerns and start to work together. The emails below illustrate how ...

From: "Carl Oekerman"
To: "Jim Rough"
Subject: Questions about DF
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003

Hi Jim!

... I've got a couple of questions for you about specific aspects of Dynamic Facilitation.

Next week I'll be facilitating the first of a series of community conversations for our local library. The director of the library has asked me to do this because she wants as much input as possible from the community as to where the library should be headed in the next 20-30 years.  Some of the decisions yet to be made will involve whether and where a new main library should be built. Several vocal groups already have strong opinions about where they want a new library, and the director is concerned our meeting will just end up in a shouting match.

So my first question is about the concept of protecting participants. We touched on it a bit on our fourth day in the seminar, when I was trying to facilitate the group that had a strident religious board member, but I'm not sure how well I "protected" people. It seems that if we are creating an environment where people feel safe enough to speak their minds, then we also are creating the conditions where listeners may have a visceral, emotional reaction to the speakers. They, in turn, may want to express their concerns/difficulties, which can then trigger more reactions in others. How does a dynamic facilitator keep things from spiraling out of control?

The image of "protection" conjures up for me a picture of shielding a participant from attack by another. How do I focus on listening (with an open mind and heart) to an angry and/or aggressive participant while simultaneously "shielding" another participant? Who do I focus on?

Related to this, how do you respond to people who tend to take as much air time as possible, who have an agenda to promote (or maybe it's a subgroup in the larger group, who want to push their position)?

Finally, I'm wondering about how well large groups can be dynamically facilitated. We don't want to limit or exclude anyone from these meetings, but it's possible that 75-100 passionate people could show up. Any advice?

Carl

..........

To: "Carl Oekerman"
From: Jim Rough
Subject: Re: Questions about DF

Hi Carl ...

Nice to hear from you.

It's great that you had that practice on the last day. I think you'll be surprised at how easily your facilitation will go ... given the energy of the group and the practice session you had. ....

At the beginning, rather than having the librarian just start talking, I'd have her introduce you as the facilitator and then you take over. Announce that your job is to support a creative process, where everyone is heard and where the group figures out, as much as possible, a joint strategy.

Then probably your first action will be to get a report from her of what's going on (DATA) and her purge answer (SOLUTION) ... or maybe she wants to give a couple of possible answers. She may want to stand up and face the group at this point, but make sure you still have charge of the meeting and capture her comments and any that they make. Then have her sit down and start the purge conversation.

If people are upset, I think you'll find that this process will cool things down fairly quickly. Be sure and get each person's full purge ...and get the other comments down as CONCERNS, etc. When someone makes a pointed comment jump back up, like we practiced ... and interject yourself to capture the concern. It's much easier than the role play you did on the last day.

If people start to "sell" the idea, just make sure you capture the key aspect of what they are saying and then you can cut them off.

Good luck ... let us know, ok?

Jim

..........

From: "Carl Oekerman"
To: "Rosa Zubizarreta" and ,
"Jim Rough"
Subject: Impressions of my first DF session
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003

Hi Jim and Rosa,

I wanted to let both of you know how my DF session went the other evening: It was great! About two dozen people came to discuss future plans for our library. The initial "issue" bringing people together was site selection. A good third of the people came to express their displeasure about the lack of public involvement in the site selection so far. The director and board members were all VERY anxious about the anger ruining the meeting.

Both of you had suggested that the process would difuse the hostility in a fairly sort time, and you were dead on! The first speaker really unloaded and then stomped out of the room (I didn't even get a chance to engage him), and the next two or three speakers were pretty upset too. But as I listened and wrote their comments, they realized I wasn't there to get defensive or argue with them. The energy really did start to calm, and people just started asking questions about the project, what's wrong with the current library, etc. It became apparent that a lot of people came just to find out more information, because they wanted to educate themselves before taking a stand. The library director and board members were there to provide the answers, but tactfully stayed out of a debate mode.

The next shift occured when someone started asking broader questions like, "what role do we want the library to play in our community?" "what services will be most needed by patrons?" etc. As the conversation widened, concepts like "value" "children" and "investments for our future" started popping up.

I knew the process was really working when, towards the end of the evening, two or three of the more oppositional folks spoke up again, and each said something like, "I came tonight because I was opposed to this project going forward, but now I've found my attitude shifting the other direction..." And these were some pretty well connected political players.

Indeed, the front page article in the paper the next morning started with this sentence: "A public meeting on proposed sites for a new Bellingham Library began on a bitter note but ended in relative harmony." I don't think there could be a better testimonial to the power of DF than that.
....
The group did a good job identifying "bookmarks" with which to start the next meeting, and made some good suggestions about providing the next group more background info up front so each group doesn't need to ask all the same questions.

In our meeting debrief, the meeting conveners came up with the idea of a brief dog and pony show for subsequent meetings followed by the DF process. I think they're sold. I am.

Thanks for your guidance,

Carl