1. The Default Process: A Public Hearing Purpose of holding a public meeting is for the public to be heard. Hence the term, public hearing More specifically, a public hearing is… “an open gathering of officials and citizens, in which citizens are permitted to offer comments, but officials are not obliged to act on them, or typically, even to respond publicly” -gov’t scholars Abigail Williamson and Archon Fung

2. In theory the public hearing consists of… Inclusive exchange of diverse ideas from multiple perspectives + Attentive listening + Clear articulation = Public deliberation & a better/ more personal understanding of the issue from many points of view (goal)

3. In Practice, they usually fail Timing- sometimes the hearings are called after a bill is passed which results in people either complaining, or simply not participating. They feel that their input is meaningless at this point Structure- they are constructed in a way that denies everyone of open discussion. The public- can only ask limited questions at limited times Government officials- can only give limited responses ……No discussion

4. Attendence- usually poor ◦-fails to represent the larger population ◦-public officials get the impression that the public does not care about the issue ◦-2003 Study found that 23% of citizens reported attending one or more public hearings, while the majority of the rest said they had never been invited to one  overall, set-up for a non- deliberative process ◦-”I think frequently you get your vocal minority” at public hearings “instead of a balance of opinion.” -anonymous -Struggle between experts and laycitizens

5. Deliberative Meetings with Elected Officials - In response to the failure of the previously mentioned types of meetings, new meeting designs have been innovated Aimed to promote deliberation among participants Brings public officials together with the public and stakeholders ◦-Twenty-First Century Town Meeting ◦-Sequenced Forums ◦-Municipal Council Model

6. Twenty-first Century Town Meeting -Americaspeaks- founded in 1995 by Carolyne Lukensmeyer -held across the US- brings hundreds, possibly thousands of towns members together, but they seperate into small discussion groups led by a facilitator -A central question is projected on a screen and each table submits their own set of solutions/ideas about the central question -yielded many new ideas and concrete plans

7. Sequenced Forums - a series of well-integrated forums (the book) -first, separate meetings with experts and the public to hear their input -private meetings among a small staff of officials discussed the ideas/input of each -come together to discuss the decisions -Basically: assigns roles to experts, citizens, and policy makers, allowing discussion and input from everyone, but organizing it

8. Municipal Council Model - hold regularly scheduled meeting to address ongoing policy problems instead of special issues -gives the public more power because they are guaranteed to be included regularly and therefore are assured that their input is meaningful includes stakeholders (group representatives) more prominently Veto power of the council if they do not approve the secretariat’s plan

9. Citizen-Centered Public Meetings

10. Random Samples Random Selection in Politics by Lyn Carson and Brian Martin Researched use of randomly selected samples of citizens historically through present day Concluded that random selection “is a significant tool to transform politics.” A powerful tool to support deliberation and democracy

11. Deliberative Poll Randomly selected large group of citizens meet for 2-3 days to discuss and reason through morally complex public problems Discuss mainly in small groups, but meet as a large assembly to question experts and officials 1996 National Issues Convention, Austin Texas Wenling City, China Conclusion of studies found that citizens involved in deliberation tended to change their opinions over time because they were more informed on the issues Citizens more accurate in beliefs after Poll

12. Citizen Juries Small group of randomly selected citizens (like Deliberative Poll) Difference from Deliberative Poll is that a Citizen Jury is trying to find if diverse citizens, if given information and time to deliberate, can come to a larger consensus on issues Jurors control the proceedings, can call witnesses and experts to testify Jurors have control so that true deliberation won’t be interfered with