I’ve been invited to speak briefly tonight with the Northfield City Council at their work session. The agenda item says: “Discuss technical recommendations on citizen input.” It’s all part of the “background information as the Council begins to discuss ways of achieving and working on the goal of improving citizen communication.”
We’ve discussed this issue on LG (here, here, and here) so it’s time to craft something concrete for the Council and staff to react to. Here’s a first draft of what I plan to present to them tonight. Reactions welcomed. (continued)
Northfield City Council Blog (for example, at northfieldcitycouncil.org)
A. Online Open Mic
Councilor Erica Zwiefel has wondered what an ‘online open mic’ might look like as another tool for citizens to inform Councilors about their ideas and concerns. I drafted something back in late Jan.
What follows is a refinement of that, based on subsequent discussion there as well as my observations of one example currently in practice: the Open City Hall of Palo Alto, California, which uses the Open City Hall web service (“for governments”) offered by a company named Peak Democracy. I propose that:
- As the Mayor and City Administrator prepare the agenda for an upcoming Council meeting or work session, they decide the most important items that should be brought to the public’s attention via posting to the Council blog, one blog post for each item.
- A City staff person blogs these items and provides background information, including links to documents on the City web site. (See the Palo Alto high speed rail discussion item as an example.)
- Citizens may then submit one comment per item/blog posts. These comments are written and may include links to other sources, including an audio or video comment that a citizen may have opted to create instead of a written comment.
- Citizens must identify themselves via first and last name, an email address, and a home address. Comments are reviewed by an independent, non-partisan contractor prior to posting. (Submission and privacy guidelines would be created.)
- Citizens are encouraged to read the comments of others before they comment, as they may want to respond with a simple “I agree/disagree with what John Doe wrote,” similar to what can happen at open mic. But no back and forth discussion is allowed.
- If the item lends itself to a straw poll (for example “yes, no, undecided” or “strongly support, somewhat support…” etc) staff can embed a straw poll in the blog post so that citizens who may not want to or have the time to craft a response can still weigh in.
- The Mayor and City Administrator can decide the deadline for comments on each issue. For example, some items might warrant a deadline of 2 hours prior to the start of a Council meeting, whereas others might extend for a month or more.
- Councilors and staff can read the online commentary at their leisure. Some items might be ‘packaged’ into a PDF and made available to Councilors. (All Councilors and staff should know how to use RSS feeds to make it easy to sort and read the comments without having them added to their email inboxes.)
- All comments are part of the public record. While online open mic comments would not be read at the face-to-face (F2F) open mic at a Council meeting, a staff person could summarize the input received, for example, “Thus far we’ve received 13 online comments on this agenda item, with 35 responses to the straw poll: 22 in favor, 10 opposed, and 3 undecided.”
- Each comment will have its own permalink (web address) so that media organizations and area bloggers can link to the comments, thereby spurring further discussion.
B. Blog posts by individual councilors
Councilor Erica Zwiefel has also wondered about “the other side of the issue,” i.e., what other tools might be available to Councilors for them to inform citizens about their ideas and concerns. I’ll only address the online tools.
While there are many advantages for a Councilor to have their own blog like Councilor Betsey Buckheit, others may prefer an option that doesn’t require that level of commitment.
The same blog used for ‘online open mic’ above can be used as a Group Blog in which individual councilors can post on any issue or concern. This would be analogous to the current process which allows an individual councilor to include a written statement in the Council packet which then becomes part of the public record that citizens can read.
Councilors posting to the blog could opt to allow comments from citizens to be attached to their blog post, much like the online open mic process above. Or they could opt to turn off comments and just have the blog post stand on its own.
The above-mentioned company, Peak Democracy, also has an Open Town Hall web service (“for elected officials”) that accomplishes something similar. See the two councilors participating from Trinidad, California as an example.
The Open Town Hall format is very restrictive (councilors apparently can only ask straw poll type questions) and that appears to be one reason why it’s not being used much. I’d advise Northfield Councilors to be more flexible and informal in their blog posts. The Council may want to craft some guidelines for the use of the group blog in order to prevent it from being overused by an individual councilor or for purposes not related to Council business.
C. Blog posts distributed via Twitter
Twitter is a micro-blogging service that’s increasingly being used by federal, state, and local governments to communicate with citizens. For example, Minnetonka City Manager John Gunyou has a sidebar link to the city’s Twitter account.
One of the advantages of using Twitter in conjunction with a City Council blog is that citizens can opt to receive updates via their cell phones. While many citizens don’t use email, especially the under-35 crowd, a large majority of citizens of every age has a cell phone. And with the use of smartphones (iPhone, Google phone, etc.) expected to explode over the next decade, citizens will increasingly expect engage with city hall via their mobile devices.
City Council blog post headlines can be automatically distributed via Twitter, no staff time needed at all.
Bravo, Griff. It may not be easy for City staff to get their arms around this, but I have hopes that the Council might.
Tracy, given that City departmental directors are already doing weekly updates for the Friday Memo, it’s not that big of a leap for them to do something similar, ie, a Northfield City Staff/Directors blog. But since it’s a Council goal to improve communications with citizens, I figure it’s best for them to go first!
I heard from a couple of Council members via email this afternoon, concerned about how to best manage this so that it doesn’t get to be a burden, either on the councilors or the staff. Let’s look at the tasks:
A. Online Open Mic
Time spent: less than 5 minutes
Time spent: 1 hour. (Possibly longer initially, since it’s hell to find stuff on the City’s website right now. But once the website is improved, it’ll go more quickly.
Time spent: 1-2 minutes per submission.
Time spent: less than 5 minutes.
B. Blog posts by individual councilors
Staff time: zero.
Councilor time: as little or as involved as they want.
C. Blog posts distributed via Twitter
Staff and Councilor time: zero.
There’s a bigger picture to consider, too. I think it’s summed up with the words ‘leverage’ and ‘influence.’ How can the Council communications be done in a way that it spreads ‘virally’ while ratcheting up the Council’s ability to ‘listen’ at the same time? The wider the distribution while accompanied by a greater capacity to engage and listen, the more influence and trust engendered between City Hall and the citizenry it serves.
I got an email question from a council member about how the media organizations in town would be part of this (print, radio, TV, blogosphere).
Currently, members of the media and local bloggers keep tabs on the Council by communicating individually with staff and councilors, attending meetings, tracking the info on the City’s website, reading the Council packets, and by tracking what the other media in town are saying about the Council. (eg, Locally Grown bloggers watch for council news in the Northfield News and vice versa.)
None of that would change with my proposal. It would simply make council communications and citizen input FAR more accessible to all media. Reporters and bloggers would benefit by being able to link to and quote from a much richer, wider, deeper source of information, thereby benefiting their audiences, and helping to facilitate the council’s overall goal of improving citizen input.
It seems like there would be a lot of details to worry about getting right, but overall, something like this seems like it’s worth a try. I like the idea of fostering two-way communication--info from citizens to councillors and back. I’m sure there would be some bugs in the system, but I think they could be addressed.
Griff: I don’t like it; it is too exclusive.
Kathie, the trick with fostering more two-way communications with leaders is how to design it so that if it’s successful, it doesn’t overload them.
David, yep, it’s exclusive. People who don’t use computers or cell phones would not directly benefit from this proposal. They’d still have to show up at a Council meeting for open mic, send a letter via USPS, or make a landline phone call.
I am greatly concerned with this. Staff should be leading their departments, doing the business of the city, and not sitting around blogging all day long.
Also, I think that it is terribly important that the city speaks with a single voice.
If the city was to hire or delegate a “public affairs and media relations” officer, and that person was the one communicating with the press and updating the blog… I think that would be a better utilization of resources.
Sometimes technology is wonderful, and sometimes technology can actually impede productivity.
I think blogging is great, and a great communications tool, and I think what Griff does is great… however, I do not see this as something that should be a priority right now. I love the fact that the city chose a subject matter expert to discuss it with though.
I still think that the open mic is the place to do your business.
Griff -
Any update from last night’s Work Session?
Thanks much.
I strongly agree w/John Thomas in #8 above.
Loosely restated, I’d add: The Government might be all about communications but it is not about producing such loose ended diatribe discussions as might appear on the LG Blog.
There’s no way the councilors or staff can do their job and… read and write to the extent this idea suggests might be appropriate. A Councilor’s voice is heard from the well of the chamber and through various media. There, it will be supported or challenged.
This E concept of idea exchange provides nothing more than a “spin” opportunity for the Council and the staff to obfuscate … and is far too labor intensive.
Word-smithing 101 will become the call of the day. I can see the League of Mn Cities capitalizing and waxing profound on this with the staff and council taking time and spending money to be trained. Some of them will never be able to write in the form of public policy and some will never be able to speak in the form of public policy.
The best advice and shortest remark to make is: “Elected officials stay off the internet.”
Government is not in the MEDIA business. And when it goes there, witness the waste and the deceit. In the end the only good media is that which is produced well, by professionals … a high bar, and disappearing species, but still the best game plan.
If the public disagrees and clamors for what it wants, then so-be-it and let the clamor lead to change but not be dampened by the burdensome dialogue suggested here.
Like JT, I too am greatly concerned with this. Council should be leading staff, and Staff should be leading their departments.
Frankly, we don’t want the spin doctor’s to be the front line of interface with the citizen and the officials. Spin as they might, a week ago Northfield staff and the Coucil (and the press) failed to convince the township citizens of the need or leveling of the field, when they took away an otherwise diplomatic tenet of our laws concerning annexation.
What we do want is the Council to re-visit the slagging Cable Fund, make some citizen augmented changes in the resuscitation of cable access bringing it into the 21st century via better programing, streaming video and citizen produced programs that inform and even inflate! There is a role here for the internet as segments might be linked to blogs and other E sources, but the proof of the value of the information is in the delivery of fact gained by the production skills of those putting together the objective venues of communication, or … the balance in presenting subjective points of view.
In short the Council should deal with public opinion, not try to shape it.
As John Thomas often says: that’s my 2¢ worth … and I’d re-read his earlier statement.
victor
I’m with Victor, and John.
I’m reminded of a story Marv Grundhoefer told me about when he was mayor.
A citizen was very concerned about a particular issue and wanted to meet with him. Marv said that he would; he suggested 6:00 a.m. at the Quarterback. The citizen was irate; he or she didn’t want to get up that early. Marv said that was fine; he didn’t want to get up that early either.
He told the person that if the issue was ever important enough that he or she would get up at 6:00 a.m. to call back and he would reschedule the appointment. The person wanted to schedule the meeting for the sometime during the middle of the day. Marv said, “No. If it’s important, you will get up at 6:00. If not, you won’t. You decide how important it is.”
David and Victor -
John specifically comments about Staff; he does not mention Elected Officials. You both extend his argument, Victor to the Council and David to the Mayor.
I think all three of you make some valid points. However, I find Councilor Buckheit’s blog to be a valuable source of important information and I, personally, hope that she continues to make the effort, in spite of your (David and Victor) opinions to the contrary.
Ross: Councilor Buckheit’s contribution to the arena of public policy is an extremely valuable one; it bears no relationship to the process which was proposed last night at the council.
Councilor Buckheit’s blog is her responsible and commendable effort to communicate with the public, broader than just her constituency, on matters which she wants to either explain further as to facts, or explain her specific POV / rationale for that POV.
There is simply no comparison. And it may be more effective than a ward meeting.
I think the community could only benefit by every councilor having such a personal connection to the community; it is perfectly understandable that some may not feel they have the time.
I would also have to question the effectiveness of the one single comment allowed to council, on a subject, in the proposed Palo Alto model , as opposed to the open mic process. We all know the possible mis-read of a written comment; and the presumed strength of the FtoF exchange.
Our daughter lives in Palo Alto, and has been involved with community process there (at the moment a large commercial development which is outside of current development regs, as well as a commercial/ residential parking issue); I will be asking her to comment on the effectiveness of the proposed method.
Kiffi’s point about Betsey going above and beyond the call of duty is well-taken.
Kiffi, just about the only thing I liked in Griff’s three scenarios was the limitation of one comment per person per issue. I assume that one could always attend a council meeting to have another opportunity to make a public comment, but if the city proceeds down this path, allowing only a single response to a blog post creates an incentive for commentors to write carefully and thoughtfully, rather than in haste.
The idea that anyone would take a locally grown-style straw poll (one of Griff’s original examples) seriously in making public policy is frightening. These polls are sometimes entertaining, but hardly objective or representative. Let’s stick with the giant straw poll we hold every four years.
Setting aside John T, Victor and David L’s concerns above (which I share) about the time and attention required from city staff, I’d be interested in hearing from the local legal beagles as to how council members’ participation in these sorts of forums stand with respect to open meeting laws. The knee-jerk response might be that blog posts and tweets are “transparent” public communication, but is that the whole story?
Would it be asking too much to have our city attorney get out in front on this issue and guide the council to a legally tenable strategy, rather than letting techno-enthusiasm drive something that proves problematic down the road? I’d like to see the city attorney on the record with an opinion before any new communications strategy involving the council members’ participation takes shape.
One has to remember that Betsy’s blog is BETSY’s blog, and not affiliated or hosted on the cities server.
She takes personal responsibility for its content, and at her discretion, can be stopped, or suspended as needed. She can talk about her council stuff or the weather, it doesn’t matter. (and I really like her blog!)
In response to Ross’s post, I will extend it to the Elected officals as well. Everyone must be careful of what they put out there.
No one has responded to the single voice concept of the city, and I still think that it is terribly important. The city should speak in one voice… loud and clear.
I was chatting with my daughter who lives in Palo Alto yesterday, and although she is involved with various neighborhood committees and organizations she was not very familiar with the specific program that Griff presented. It turns out it has only been used by the city since January; it is a two-part program :”Open City Hall” which takes incoming messages, and “Open Town Hall” for outgoing messages from the Council. Palo Alto uses only the “Open City Hall” portion of the program.
She commented that she was surprised that the city was doing this , as she did not feel they were very ‘tech’ sophisticated, giving as an example a survey currently being conducted , in which ballots had to be mailed in to the city.
It was surprising also to find that the “Open City Hall” program is in a semi-anonymous form ( like the NFNews) which requires persons commenting to register to the site with their name, address, and e-mail … BUT their comment may be anonymous if they choose, or they may use their name.
I cannot conceive of valuing a comment from a citizen who could not voice it under their name.
I think if NF wishes to have an ‘e-open mic’ ; there are a lot more responsible and less costly (these programs are not cheap ) ways to achieve that goal.
Griff: This comment is about the program only, and is in no way meant to denigrate your effort in seeking something out, or your expertise in evaluation.
Just a quick reply to let y’all know I’ve been reading along and plan to reply later tonight.
Since my blog is being cited, I’d better jump in, huh? (and thanks for the kind words about my blog, John, Kiffi and Ross).
I am ambivalent about blogging generally because I would like to foster thoughtful, considered conversation and I think blogging tends to reinforce the quick comment and instant answer rather than striving for greater understanding.
I am even more mentally divided about blogging as a Council representative because I am not quite sure what relationship my blogging has to official statements, open meeting laws, or other media. It’s murky.
Why blog then? It’s not just to keep Griff from complaining about no councilmembers blogging. Perhaps the best answer is that I like to think about policy and process and there’s almost always more to say than is covered by the staff reports and Council discussion.
betsey: Excusez moi: Councilor Buckheit … Your last sentence: “there’s always more to say than is covered by the staff reports and council discussion” leads me to my major complaint about council discussion, in general, for the 15 years I have lived in Northfield.
There is almost NO policy discussion on a theoretical level! If the council is to be the body that sets policy, for the professional staff to implement, how the ‘hotel’ is that process to be structurally logical without a policy discussion?
The council(s) is always saying about staff, “They’re the professionals” I think it would be far more correct to say “The staff gets to exhibit their professional expertise by finding a good implementation solution for the policy we (the council) have set”.
As observed and practiced, it seems almost too much to ask.
Please keep blogging; there is much to be gained from the information you put there … as well as a TRUE commitment to engaging with the citizens.
I’m planning my replies in separate comments, mainly directed at individuals, tho I might group some together. It’s 8 PM now and I’ll work at this for another hour or so… so best to hold off on replies till you’ve seen all my comments and a note that “I’m done for now.”
John T, you wrote:
John, my proposal, both A) Online Open Mic; and B) Blog posts by individual councilors, is directed at the Council, not staff. Please re-read it. Council, not staff.
However, for a couple of years now, staff department heads have been doing weekly updates in the Friday Memo. The content of those updates is somewhat blog-like and they’re made public. So our City Administrators (Roder and now Walinski) believe there’s value in weekly communications with the public about what’s happening in their departments. For you to characterize the possibility of a departmental blogger as “sitting around blogging all day long” is unfair.
You wrote:
I assume you didn’t mean that the City Council should speak with a single voice. That would be the antithesis of the democratic process. So if you meant that staff should speak with a single voice, I’m wondering… about what? Staff communications with the public should be about their activities, tasks, goals, etc. And I’d HATE to see the city hire a media relations person. I think that’s the wrong strategy for a small town in a Web 2.0 world.
Victor, you wrote:
Please re-read my proposal. I propose NO online discussions/conversations with the online open mic.
Please re-read my proposal. There’s NO required writing by either staff or councilors.
A Councilor’s voice is often distorted or not presented in the media. Offering them a tool that allows them to speak directly to the public can be helpful to both them and the citizenry. My proposal B simply gives them a way to do this without having to take on the responsibility of their own blog.
I think Barack Obama’s and Betsey Buckheit’s internet-related activities should indicate to you that that horse has already left the barn!
David Ludescher, you wrote:
Vintage Marv! But remember, David, this Council set a goal for itself to improve citizen communications, both to and from. They’re wondering if there’s a way for the web to be used that could help achieve the goal.
I’m suggesting some ways they could do it without making their lives more difficult and in ways that a portion of the citizenry would find meaningful.
I’m sure there are other ways, so if you or others know of any or want to suggest some, this is a good time to make them known, as they’re listening.
Griff: The best way to improve citizens’ communications is to make it better, not easier. (See Randy’s comment). Faxes, cell phones, Facebook, etc. all make communication easier, not better.
Marv asking someone to meet him at 6:00 a.m. was a good way to gauge the citizen’s priority. Council people aren’t there to listen to every citizen’s grievance; they are there with our proxies to set policies and vote.
Plus, I don’t like the exclusiveness of the Internet. It rewards jerks like me who have easy access to the Internet and think that they know everything. What about guys that are driving for College City or working at Kwik-Trip?
Kiffi, you wrote:
Kiffi please re-read my proposal. Part B is intended to offer councilors the opportunity to do EXACTLY what Betsey’s doing with her blog, only without the responsibility of having to maintain a blog all on their own like Betsey does.
I agree, written comments can be mis-read. But spoken comments in front of an audience have their problems, too. Many people with good ideas have a fear of public speaking. Many can’t get to Council meetings. And if too many did, the Council would have to curtail it. Imagine 50 people lining up to speak their 2-3 minutes at every council meeting.
I agree, I think that Palo Alto policy is a bad one. One can’t speak at open mic with a paper bag over one’s head, so neither should one speak anonymously via online open mic.
Randy, you wrote:
Randy, I don’t see online straw polls any different than the other ways that politicians informally get a sense of the pulse of the citizenry on a given issue.
These are all in the same category as a straw poll because they don’t accurately gauge the position of the entire electorate, only those willing to make their voice heard in non-voting situations.
So should politicians ignore all these informal methods? Like you said of straw polls, they’re “hardly objective or representative.”
I’m fine with getting a legal opinion but I’d argue that there’s nothing I’ve proposed in A or B that’s any different than what Councilors are already doing. Online Open Mic is simply another one-way communication from the public to the Council. A Council Group blog is another way of doing what Councilors already do with their own blogs.
Griff, I’m not an attorney, and neither are you, so I think a legit legal opinion might be useful. I’d prefer it come from the city attorney, on the record, but I’d also welcome the opinions of the several lawyers who regularly participate here.
The question is: would a group blog or an official council blog constitute a meeting and trigger open meeting law rules and sanctions? Those laws were originally designed to protect the public from self-interested, cigar-chomping, fat cats in smoke-filled rooms. They might also protect the public from self-interested, web-enabled, hip cats in cyberspace.
It’s really not about an individual council member’s use of a personal blog. As John noted about Betsey Buckheit’s personal blog, it is certainly her right to speak to and with her constituents without city technical or financial support (and it seems to be appreciated by her constituents and others).
I also share John’s more general concern about the city speaking with one voice. The ultimate danger and time-sink of the distributed communications you have proposed is that there won’t be one public conversation, there will be dozens. You may think that’s a good thing. I don’t.
Councilor Jim Pokorney had two comments related to straw polls re: my proposal.
he wondered if a comment could be tagged pro or con on an issue so that it would be easier to estimate the overall reaction on an issue if there were too many comments to read.
he wondered if people should be required to comment before taking a straw poll.
I think #1 could be done but #2 would be tough to enforce.
I should mention that I think the straw poll portion of the proposal is the least important and should be dropped if it creates too many issues. I only included it because the Palo Alto model is using it.
Councilor Jon Denison had two comments about my proposal:
He was concerned about anonymous comments. I told him that I thought Palo Alto required people to submit their street address along with their comment. I like that idea.
He was concerned about easy it was to get around the technological barriers that prevent people from voting more than once in a straw poll.
I believe Jon Denison does know all about anonymous blogging and from some of his previous actions I would have to say it is my opinion that he has supported, if not participated in it, on the NFNews website. ( You might inquire about a lecture the former administrator gave about such behaviors)
I find both of Mr. Denison’s comments specious in the specific, although accurate in the general; the irony, Griff, is in him making these comments.
My general comment back to you, Griff, is that although this new council is sincere about improved communications, they have not yet had a conversation at a regular council meeting that is not dominated by jargon, rather than discussing the value of WHAT KIND of improved communications would result in WHAT KIND of improvements.
I’m done for tonight. I welcome comments on my comments from anyone, not just from those who I replied to.
And if you have completely different ideas on how the Council could use the internet to help them with their goal of improving communications, post them here. They’re in listening mode.
Griff,
I really do not want to engage in a debate on this…
I will just state that I personally do not believe that this is a direction that the city, and the council should pursue at this time.
I thank you for your time, and explaining what is available to the council. You are a subject matter expert in this area, and you know it well.
However, personally, I really do not care for the online town hall concept, the online polls, the online open mic, staff or the council twittering, etc.etc.
There is more than enough things going on that need attention for the council and staff to be distracted by this.
All it is going to take is one city staff member to “speak out of turn” and say something that is not the “official opinion” of the city, and we are going to have issues. By speaking with a single voice, I mean that the city communicates with its public from one approved source.
At least when I read the Friday memo, I know that it was reviewed by the City Administrator before its release, and Joel is the one responsible for the release of that content.
I am just not sure about the whole thing. I think it might be a neat idea, but should be prioritized along with everything else that needs to be done in Northfield.
John, the Council spent two long sessions on goal setting recently, and one of those goals to emerge was improving citizen communications. So they have been prioritizing. They’re just wondering if internet tools could help achieve the goal.
If your position is that my suggestions aren’t the way to go, that’s fine. But what you suggest instead? Or are you saying that no internet-related technology should be used to improve citizen communications?
John, as for staff/departmental communications, my proposal doesn’t address it. So although I disagree with you about “one approved source”, let’s save that debate for another day/blog post and keep this one focused on my proposal which is only about the Council.
Griff, I’m all for all of us using technology to improve formation of public policy -- but I think there may be some logistical, if not legal, challenges in your proposal. You suggest that “Comments (on the council blog) are reviewed by an independent, non-partisan contractor prior to posting.” Is this being done in Palo Alto? If so, how did they find this “non-partisan contractor” and what did it cost the city? Who would set the standards for reviewing (and, perhaps, editing), the posts?
You also say, ” Some items might be ‘packaged’ into a PDF and made available to Councilors.” Who would have this editorial authority? If, as you suggest, the comment period might extend to within a couple of hours of the relevant meeting, is it likely that councilors can see the package and assimilate it in time?
Griff, I do think the Council must speak with a single voice. We act only as a single body and our policy statements and directions to staff must be clear and unified.
We all bring our backgrounds, biases and opinions to the table. If we’re working well, we learn from other Council members’ expertise and concerns, we weigh staff recommendations, we listen to what members of the public have had to say…and somewhere down the line we vote to take one action and/or reach consensus for direction in a worksession. For those who are concerned about city staff exceeding their role, I think this happens when the Council fails to speak clearly with one voice.
One voice does not mean we agree with each other on all things. I hope it means we do agree on an overall plan for the city and then we can work productively to make smart incremental steps which may not be unanimous, but are accepted as the action of the Council.
Indeed, the need for a strong COUNCIL vision makes me uncomfortable about my blog because I am not sure whether my blogging helps or hinders reaching that unified outcome.
Betsey : It is your ability to look at an issue in both a philosophical and legal POV and then come up with what is essentially a policy position that allows you to both function as an individual (your blog) and as an effective council member, part of a group. This is proven by you lack of reluctance to be a “One” on a six to one vote. No thinking person should ask for a democratic process to be a 100% consensual agreement.
Democracy values dissension brought to conclusion by discussion.
The worst thing that could happen is if this council develops a voting bloc …based on adversarial behaviors … as the last council , IMO, did. And even worse … holds to it after it has achieved its will, simply, IMO, to have those egos never be proven wrong.
By the way, one only has to look at an anonymous discussion on the NFNews site at this time, attached to the article about the previous Mayor, to see the cowardice and lack of facts that come with the ability to be anonymous. It is shameful, to behave in such a manner.
Betsy,
Re: #30.
You expressed perfectly what I was trying to say, but much more elegantly.
Griff,
I have no problems with the proposal, and always like the use of technology. I am just concerned that the city has issues maintaining what it has.
It has some great staff, and they are working hard… but, does the city have the time and the resources to carry this off?
I am glad they are looking at it. This is a big project, and there are lots of things to be addressed. This definitely not be a turn-key solution.
Jane, in Palo Alto, they’ve contracted with Peak Democracy to review the citizen submissions for civility/appropriateness. It’s part of the monthly fee. Here in Northfield, I think the League of Women Voters would be the ideal organization to perform that duty. Their current city hall observer would be perfect for it! Or they could hire me. I’ve been doing it here in Northfield since 1995.
As for assembling the citizen contributions into a PDF, it wouldn’t be necessary in most cases. Councilors could just look at the blogsite at their leisure prior to a Council meeting. But if they requested it, it wouldn’t be an editorial task, just an admin task: copy, paste, export to PDF.
Betsey, yes, there’s a semantic issue with the phrase “speak with one voice” that you’ve helpfully teased out.
It makes sense to use it in the sense of the Council’s “plan, goals, vision, mission, etc.”
But when it comes to the specifics needed to implement those, I expect to often see differences among the Councilors before and after a vote on an issue.
For example, where to locate the skateboard plaza is still an issue. It would help me as a citizen to know in greater detail how each of the Councilors is thinking about the issue TODAY. If Councilors opted (I emphasize ‘opted’) to write about their thinking on the issue, this would be good for everyone, even if differences/disagreements emerged, wouldn’t it?
Randy, you wrote:
You keep characterizing my proposal as “forums” and “public conversations” and “distributed communications.” That’s only a tiny option with part B and I’d expect most councilors to not use it.
The main thrust of my proposal is simple one-way communications: A) citizen-to-council; B) councilors to citizenry. Both take what is currently in place and working in F2F and print and expand it via the internet so that A) more citizens can be heard; and B) councilors have another way to make their individual voices heard.
That said, my proposal may not work and it may have all sorts of unintended consequences that I can’t foresee.
What would you recommend to the Council regarding the use the internet to help them with their goal of improving communications?
Griff, we live in a geographically defined community. I’d want electronic communication and information tools to provide the raw material for citizens to use to inform their participation in the established forum for governance: the established meetings of the city council and the various subsidiary boards and commissions that tackle the public’s business. Although you have consistently complained about it since the day it was launched, I find that the city’s website does an adequate job of providing such information.
Right now one can converse with the members of the city council in person, on the telephone, via email, and by an old-fashioned letter. They can respond in all of these ways, and can acknowledge citizen communication during council discussions. A concerned citizen can directly address the council as a whole about specific elements of city issues or actions by email or letter in advance of a meeting, or can appear to speak at an open mic, if an issues is sufficiently important to him or her. I am emphathically uninterested in any technology that dilutes the primacy of public deliberation in council meetings, or diverts the formative policy disucssions into private conversational channels.
As the proprietor of such channels, I’ve no doubt you sincerely believe in your product. I simply disagree as to its public benefit.
If that is the case, then the website can be enhanced, or perhaps use an e-mail distribution system.
I was wondering about that.
By one way communications, do you mean INBOUND to the council, or outbound from the council to the public, or both?
The website / E-mail list could be used for outbound, and a simple submission form for the inbound.
No disrespect you or the LoWV, but I would want someone outside of Northfield, and a bit more dis-interested/neutral. I want a party that knows NO ONE in this town doing the screening before it gets to its destination.
Griff, after replying to your question, I got to wondering, in your world, where is the responsibility for listening located?
We are already awash in information. (Granted, sometimes plenty of information is still not always the right information…) But I’m curious: How do you weigh the responsibility of citizens and council members to pay attention to the information that already exists and is accessible, and more importantly, to listen to one another?
This is not a technological problem or question.
Randy, I keep saying my proposal is one-way communications, one-way communications, one-way communications.
You keep trying to label it interactive, interactive, interactive.
Earlier, you characterized it as “forums” and “public conversations” and “distributed communications.”
Now you say it “dilutes the primacy of public deliberation” and “diverts the formative policy discussions into private conversational channels.”
I’ll reply to your question re: listening but first, where in my proposal would the interactive diluting and diverting occur?
Griff, option A describes a process for increased citizen “input.” Option B describes a process for increased council member”output.” Unless these are two ships passing in the night, don’t they “interact”? It’s more than a little disingenuous for you to claim otherwise.
This is the point at which I wonder about our (citizen and councilor) responsibilities to use the existing information and processes fully before we think the system is broken and in need of a Twitter fix. If citizens are engaged in one-way, one-way, one-way communications, and councilors are engaged in one-way, one-way, one-way communication, where do these two processes intersect and become meaningful conversation?
Looking back over the past couple of years of council drama, and more importantly, looking ahead to the opportunties before the newly elected council, the real issue is a two-way commitment to listening, not the need for more mechanisms for one-way speaking.
John, my inbound is form/web-based. Outbound needs to be web-based, with permalinks to each item to enable wider distribution (taking advantage of the viral nature of the internet). Outbound email distribution doesn’t work well for the latter. Witness the school district’s Key Communications Network. It’s as if the Web and the blogosphere don’t exist in their minds.
As for a disinterested/neutral party screening the submissions, I’m fine with that if it can be done cheaply. I think it might be overkill, though. This isn’t a big deal, just like citizen comments at open mic aren’t a big deal.
If someone starts using foul language or otherwise is inappropriate at open mic, the Mayor gavels them down. If someone submits similar nastiness with their online comment, a simple “sorry, read our guidelines carefully and try again next time” reply is all that’s needed. A copy of the original can be filed/BCC’d to whoever as a check and balance.
I am interested to see how this progresses…
I was just listening to David Gergen chat with NPR host Liane Hansen about Obama’s media skills, and was reminded of Obama’s Online Town Hall forum that the White House conducted on Thursday that they called Open for Questions.
I missed the event and questions/straw-poll voting are now closed but this had some of the elements that we’ve been discussing here.
You have to register with your first and last name, city/state/zip/email address and are asked for how you want your name to appear with your question, eg, nickname. (One can still register… I just did.)
Note the totals: “92,937 people have submitted 104,003 questions and cast 3,603,642 votes”
See the White House blog posts on this:
Here are some links to media analysis of the format for Obama’s Online Town Hall:
Griff : If you can stomach it, you might want to go over to the NFNews site and see what the ‘troll’ who calls itself “fairandbalanced” has to say to you about your idea.
It’s attached to the Lansing court date article ( real relevance there, but then no one’s watching over at the ‘News’ ) and there’s the usual opportunity for Summa-slamming, as well as League of Women Voters-slamming … but you know … that’s how the anonymous thing works: you don’t have to be responsible for what you say!
I doubt you can get ‘fab’ to comment in person to you; that would require an ‘outing’ of sorts.
Would you value comments about your city ‘blog’ idea that are anonymous? Or even respond to anonymous comments, from someone who is only hiding their name ? (as opposed to anonymous comments allowed on the heroin thread)
Randy,
No, I’m not being disingenuous, though I have been known to be on occasion.
I really am proposing two separate processes, with interaction only allowed in Option B should an individual Councilor want it.
Option A (Online Open Mic) is meant to increase the flow of citizen input to the Council on any number of issues and agenda items.
Option B (blog posts by individual councilors) is meant to give Councilors another channel/platform/bully pulpit. A blog can be still an effective leadership tool without comments enabled. Ray Cox (my client) never allowed comments during the 5 years that he blogged as a State Representative. And State Senator Kevin Dahle (not my client) does not have comments enabled on his blog, either (he does allow trackbacks/pingbacks).
But now I’m confused. All along, I’ve heard you arguing against using the internet for interaction between Councilors and the citizenry because “dilutes the primacy of public deliberation” and “diverts the formative policy discussions into private conversational channels.” And then you say:
Which are you urging?
Again, I do offer the feature in Option B. for Councilors to allow comments/engage in conversation if they want.
Frankly, Griff, I don’t think there’s an internet solution to the need for more listening. We are a small, geographically bounded community. We seem to be at our best when people interact face-to-face. In terms of interaction, I think I’ve been pretty clear and consistent in arguing for focusing attention on better communication in/through the existing forums before embarking on electronic adventures.
I personally don’t want to make it more convenient for people to use a blog to avoid speaking directly to one another or to our elected leaders on important issues that affect the community as a whole. It is common for people to write in tones of voice we would not use if we were speaking in person. And it is possible for specious claims to gain credibility because they exist in (electronic) print, where they would otherwise be limited to the people within earshot, or immediately challenged and/or dismissed if spoken in person.
You do tend to gloss over what you described above as potential “unintended consequences.” An example might be the issue of council interaction outside of established processes. A few years back there was an issue related to “serial communication” by city council members. I believe the issue was a council member who engaged in a series of telephone calls to other council members, the result of which was deemed a defacto meeting and a violation of open meeting laws. I don’t recall the specifics of the case, and I don’t think big sanctions were involved, but it does illustrate a potential problem if multiple council members participate in informal conversations, whether one-way, hub-and-spoke, or in other ways outside the established agenda-setting and meeting processes. Official city-sponsored blogs involving council persons seems to invite this sort of problem. That looks like a looming legal issue to me, not a casual “unintended consequence.” I’m all for full employment for attorneys, but the city doesn’t really need more litigation, does it?
I would subscribe to a city feed of meeting agendas and information packets. Even though it is EASY to find this material on the city’s web site, a news feed would solve my inherent laziness about keeping informed about city issues. In the spirit of your occasional statements of full disclosure, I have to admit that I’ve only attended a handful of council meetings in the past year, so I’m by no means the model of citizen participation… But a prerequisite to my or anyone’s speaking up about a city issue ought to be a reasonable effort to inform oneself about the issues and the facts. The city could certainly push relevant material out at virtually no cost, with little additional city staff time, and with no council involvement whatsoever.
Griff: Everyone seems to like Betsey’s blog. Why can’t we let each council person put one up if they want? They can each run it however they want.
link text
Here’s a great resource to help in understanding Minnesota’s Open Meeting laws. Recently updated too.
You could certainly have citizen comments to the council. You would have to be very careful in allowing the council to respond or address citizen issues via a city blog.
You risk running a “meeting” under the law, which will lead to an Open Meeting violation. Here’s what the research department of the House of Representatives has to say about it:
A city council blog, on which citizens could comment and counselors could respond, looks like serial communication to me.
This is not to say it can’t be done. Tread lightly.
I’m scrambling to get ready for an appt with my tax preparer so no substantive replies will be forthcoming from me today.
But for those of you who don’t like the A. Open Online Mic portion of my proposal, can you compare it to what the Obama administration did last week (see my comment # 42 above) and say what you like/don’t like about what happened with that?
OK, Griff, I’ll bite. In the spirit of St. Olaf’s recent victory in the national Rube Goldberg contest, I suggest that your proposal is a Rube Goldberg contraption: an unnecessarily complicated solution to a simple task.
While I appreciate the rhetorical value of wrapping your idea in the associative glory of the Obama administration’s electronic strategy, broadcasting a question to the POTUS is not the same thing as reaching your city council person. An ordinary citizen of the US has essentially no chance of interacting with the president, or attending a cabinet meeting. (Yes, we can attend a session of Congress, but as any regular C-SPAN viewer knows, that’s not a pretty sight….)
Not only can we attend council meetings, an ordinary citizen of Northfield can see council members walking about town, in the co-op, grocery store or coffee shop almost as if they were real people, living among us. (Insert winking emoticon here.)
Really, it’s just not that hard to ask a question of or voice an opinion to your elected representatives. And that’s the real issue: speaking to and with the people we’ve elected to represent us, not to the mob in cyberspace.
Amen.
Amen , and AMEN again.
Hey, no praying allowed here, dadgummit!
Randy, you’re essentially arguing that the Council should be content with the status quo for citizen communications.
They’re not content with the status quo, since they’ve made it one of their goals to improve it. And they’re asking if the internet could help achieve the goal. You’re saying, no, it’ll only make things worse. Okay, but:
1. you don’t say how you’d scale up to get more citizens weighing in/engaged. Only a comparatively small handful of citizens ever “ask a question of or voice an opinion to” their elected representatives.
Note that Mayor Mary Rossing said at the March 2 Council mtg that she “Would like to have community discussions on how to involve more residents who may be disenfranchised.”
2) how would you help the councilors manage a scaling-up of non-digital communications?
How many people speaking at open mic would be too many? How many 1-1 voice mails, phone calls, or meetings can a councilor handle before they cry uncle? How many Ward meetings?
No, Griff, I’m arguing that we don’t actually know very much about the status quo. We’re carrying over perceptions based on a frustrating past few years full of drama and angst in city hall. Until and unless we better understand whether or not there is a systemic problem versus a series of personality problems, and if there is, the nature of the problem, then buying your solution may or may not help. It’s Ready, Fire, Aim!
For example, to speak to Mayor Rossing’s statement (as I will in a letter directly to her), are there “disenfranchised” citizens whose feelings of disenfranchisement stem from a lack of opportunity to address the city council? If so, have they used the processes and resources already available? And if they haven’t made any effort, should we care to enable their participation?
Or are there “disenfranchised” citizens whose grievances are with actions taken by the council, not with a lack of their opportunities to communicate. If so, a broadcast forum for ex post facto complaining (say, griping ad nauseum about the city’s website) would not be an improvement in citizen communication.
Or are there just a few crabby people who give the impression of a groundswell of disenfranchisement?
The new city council is reacting, maybe overreacting, to perceptions of the prior council(s). Why don’t we give them six months or a year to establish their own pattern of responsiveness to citizens? My impression is that this group is more attuned to listening than the prior bunch. They may find that there’s plenty of citizen communication when they pay attention. And citizens might find a more receptive hearing when they speak or write directly to their council person.
I cannot imagine that a council member will be so overwhelmed by direct, person-to-person communication with his or her constituents that it will be a burden. And if it becomes so, then that will be a good time to consider smaller wards and more representation.
If a citizen is “disenfranchised”, it is most likely to be their own fault; I just don’t buy the ‘fear of open mic’ syndrome. I have seen all kinds, ages and persuasions of citizens come to the open mic when they have an issue to communicate.
For anyone with an actual language or physical disability there is always a possible spokesperson.
I keep remembering the eight citizens (mostly seniors) with the recreational vehicles stored on their property; they had ZERO qualms about speaking up.
There are real types of “disenfranchisement”; speaking to the council should not be one of them for anyone who has a sincere urge to communicate.
Just for starters, If the council observes common courtesy, and thanks people for coming to speak, instead of acting like a local version of MT. Rushmore, that in itself will establish confidence.
David, yes, every Councilor is free to have their own blog. But it takes considerable commitment and unless one is regularly posting to it, citizens won’t visit it in numbers that make it worthwhile. Both Jim Pokorney and Scott Davis tried it and failed.
So my proposal is in part an attempt to solve this.
Griff: How about a City Administrator blog instead? Joel (or his assistant) could sort through the blog and respond if he deems it worthy of a response. A printout could be prepared and given out to the Council persons so that they could skim it if they would like.