For my Friends in Public Administration: Let’s Get Rid of the Public Meeting!

Having endured hundreds of hours of public meetings I can say, without the slightest equivocation, they are a waste of time. Not only do such meetings fail to provide the informative public input sought by policy-makers, too often they produce uncivil exhibits that demean public discourse.

The repeated broadcasts this summer of angry constituents confronting home-visiting Congress-members and Senators over health care reform should reassure no one. These were not displays of democracy at its best. We did not see a knowledgeable public illuminating an important policy debate. Instead we saw a system run amok, exploited by political interests.

I say it's time to get rid of the conventional public meeting and replace it with something that does a better job of guiding policy makers to better decisions.

It helps to realize there is nothing in our Constitution or history that requires public meetings. Yes, there have always been public forum all the way back to Greek and Roman city states, but they were never the open free-for-alls we see today.

Today's public meeting is a recent invention, a variant on the legislative public hearing, which emerged at the end of the 19^th Century. It was a tenet of the Progressive movement that citizens had a broader role in the policy process than voting and paying taxes; the public meeting was seen as a way to tap this community wisdom.

What began as focused legislative inquiry turned into a method for assessing public opinion. That was a mistake. The finite time decision-makers had for thoughtful discussion was diluted to allow for public input. That noble enterprise turned into the political performance art we see today. Worse, over time, the public came to believe they were entitled to their time to testify in front of legislative bodies.

I am not suggesting public opinion and input aren't important in the promulgation of good public policy. I'm simply saying the current devices of the public hearing or town-hall session are not the best way to accomplish inform the policy process.

If the public meeting no longer works, what does? The best way to capture public sentiment in a useful fashion is to keep function ahead of form. The function of public input should be to gather information that helps make policy. What the public can share of real value are their opinions as to what would be good policy… period. Many forms can do that.

The public is not making the policy (that's why we have elected officials), they are informing policy. It's really a matter of collecting data on a policy issue in which the question is: what would good policy in this area look like?

Note: you are not asking them what the policy should be. And unless they are experts in the policy area, you shouldn't. The general public is rarely knowledgeable enough about policy issues to make specific recommendations. What they do know better than anyone else is what they want (or don't) a policy to accomplish.

They may not agree and that's actually good, because the diversity of opinions over policy outcomes frames the debate. Once the criteria for acceptable policy are set, a good policy-maker can go to work finding an option that meets the greatest number.

I admit this is a centrist approach. I confess to believe the best policy is found somewhere between the extremes. Too often today, however, policy makers only hear the most extreme positions expressed. The great in-between, where most reasonable policy positions lie, is never revealed.

I do know there is a way to conduct public meetings in a manner that uncovers an array of policy options from one end of the discussion to the other and all points in between.

A model that works is what I call "managed discourse." It has a particular intent, it operates by specific rules and it is managed by the policy-makers who need to hear the discussion.

For this to work, it's necessary to keep this point in mind, the meeting is for the policy-maker, it is not for the presenters. People presenting already know what they think and have a good idea what they would decide if they had the authority.

But they are not making the decision… the people who convened the meeting are. And this is the conveners' precious time to do research into what the people want.

Managed in this fashion, the public meeting aims to solicit positions from the extremes, but strongly encourages moderate, intermediate expectations to be shared. Indeed, for the purpose of the policy-maker there is no necessity that any one position be heard more than once.

The rule of proportionality, that opinion is heard in quantities equal to the percentage of people who hold them, need not apply here. A hearing is not a straw vote or plebiscite. It is designed to draw out ideas as to what would make for good policy… it just might be that a value held by a single citizen opens the door to consensus.

Of course, there are times when decision-makers may want to know how ideas or opinions are distributed quantitatively. The best tool to learn that is not the public meeting, it is a survey.

The other key to a successful managed public meeting is for policy-makers to pose specific questions to the public. Open ended commentary does nothing to educate the policy-maker or the public. It is the responsibility of policy-makers (or their staff) to frame the questions and to ask them.

I use a process that keeps public input focused… I call it the accordion technique. The session starts when, with the accordion closed, policy-makers ask a specific question of the public in attendance. It could be, something like: what benefits would you expect to come from a proposed change in policy?

The accordion opens wide. Much like a brain-storming session people are encouraged to get as many ideas out as they can. I want decision-makers to hear and understand the full range of responses the question prompts.

The accordion closes by synthesizing everything that's been heard, restating the public input into clusters of ideas, option or criteria. It's useful to have a facilitator do this, but however it's done, the idea is to bring the discussion to closure (or at least a resting point).

Being able to show the public that they have been heard is validates the citizens who have participated; being able to organize the "data" (their comments) into a sensible array sets the stage for meaningful policy debate.