1 coping with a controversial public issue larry d. sanders sue williams april 2011
TRANSCRIPT
1
COPING WITH A CONTROVERSIAL PUBLIC ISSUE
Larry D. Sanders
Sue WilliamsApril 2011
2
INTRODUCTION
Background– More controversial issues– Content skills– Process skills
This session– Process skills– Framework & guidelines
Follow the signs to de-fusing controversy…
3
Summary of key concepts
Every issue tells a story; learn it’s evolution to improve your program
Objectivity not advocacy Recognize your own role may vary Framing issues constructively Alternatives/consequences not pros/cons Base programs on facts, be sensitive to public values,
demythify the issue Understand the politics of policy making with
kings/kingmakers
4
HEADING OFF A CONFLICT
Know your user audiences &various publics
Earn confidence & trust
Monitor situations DON’T
DON’T DON’T ADVOCATE
5
DEAL WITH CONFLICT
Act quickly Bring various sides/key actors together Set the example to rise above
differences Take educational role; be objective Let affected parties decide on action Work with leaders to implement action
plan Encourage leaders to update news
media
6
OPPORTUNITY CALLS
Anxious calls from citizens
News reports of event with negative results
Director seeks your assistance
You anticipate a potential conflict or issue
Voters and decision makers ponder public policy
7
Management Styles & Response Strategies in Conflict and Controversy
Avoiding or Reactive
Accommodate or
Avoid*
Observant and
Introspective
Compromise, Collaborate or Accommodate*
Assertive and
Persuasive
Compromise or Collaborate*
Aggressive and Confrontive
Compete*
8
POTENTIAL CONTROVERSY?
Quality of life/standard of living
Personal health/safety Environmental risk Justice/equality Party politics Role of government
9
ISSUES EVOLUTION
1. CONCERN
2. INVOLVEMENT OF SOME PUBLIC
3. ISSUE DEFINED
4. IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES
5. EVALUATE CONSEQUENCES
6. MAKE PUBLIC CHOICES
7. IMPLEMENT RULES/ REGULATIONS
8. EVALUATE POLICY
9. NEW SET OF CONCERNS
10
EXTENSION’S RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINED BY:
1. ISSUE EVOLUTION
2. RELATIONSHIP W/ISSUE
3. RELATIONSHIP W/STAKEHOLDERS
4. WHAT THE “BOSS” SAYS
11
ROLES FOR EDUCATORS
1. PRO-ACTIVE INTERVENTION VS. REQUESTED
ASSISTANCE VS.IRRELEVANT SHADOW
2. EXPERT VS.
FACILITATOR VS.
“HONEST BROKER”
12
“DE-MYTHIFICATION” IS KEY TO IMPROVING PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS
– Moving citizens from “cocksure ignorance” to thoughtful uncertainty”*
– Moving citizens from Myths (sense & nonsense) to Facts
– Moving citizens up the power pyramid
– Insuring Kingmakers understand the Facts
*R.J. Hildreth, 1987
13
Facts & Values & Science
“… modern science is grounded in a sharp distinction between fact and value; it can only tell us how to do something, not what to do or whether we should do it.”--Morris Berman, The Reenchantment of the World, Bantam Books, 1984, p. 39 [italics added]
14
Anatomy of a Public Decision
F ac ts
P u b lic D ec is ion
M yth s V a lu es
P u b lic P rob lem
Facts: verifiable; measurable
Myths: sense & nonsense; what people think is fact
Values: what people think “should be”
15
KEY ACTORS & POWER POLITICS
APATHETIC
INTERESTED
ACTIVE
KINGS
KINGMAKERS
16
EXERCISE: “Local Politics” Card GameGoal: get enough human resources to achieve community project
– 3-4 teams; each assigned issue– Aces: kingmakers– Kings: kings– Queens: actives– Jacks: interested– 10-2: apathetics (descending order)– Diamonds: Transportation– Clubs: Economic Development– Hearts: Tourism & Area Beautification– Spades: Mainstreet Development– Jokers: unknown interest/allegiance– What can you do with the cards that are dealt you?– How do you transform your hand?
17
EXERCISE: Card Game--example
1. Assign issues: (1) econ development; (2) transportation; (3) tourism; (4) mainstreet
2. Deal cards (7-12 to each team)3. Ask each team to assess whether
1. They have key people (based on cards)2. They have consensus of issue
4. Ask what they can do to transform position (cards) to improve opportunity to rally community to take action on their issue
18
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS
1. Is there a “Problem”?
2. Is it a “Public” problem?
3. Can public discussion offer a solution?
4. Is there a window of opportunity for education?
5. Are there resources for education?
6. Are you willing & able to be neutral/objective?
19
FRAME THE ISSUE Clarify or redefine the
“problem” Be sensitive to
– perceived concerns– various groups
Include affected groups Pro versus Con?
– divisive & destructive Alternatives and Consequences?
– cohesive & constructive
20
COLLABORATION: WIN-WIN
PROBLEM RESOLUTION IS KEY
BE INCLUSIVE INTERESTS, NOT
POSITIONS CREATE OPTIONS OBJECTIVE
ASSESSMENT COMMON GROUND
21
WHAT’S IN IT FOR YOU AS A PUBLIC PROFESSIONAL
Personal Stress Management
Public Conflict Management
Credibility: Enhance Your Status in Community
Improve Time Management and Efficiency
22
WHAT’S YOUR NEXT STEP?
Skill & Comfort Zone Self-assessment
Resource Assessment Issue Assessment Alternatives &
Consequences Act!
23
Public Deliberation
A means to:– Help citizens make tough
choices about public issues– Evaluate consequences of
various options– Understand the views of
others– Find a shared sense of
direction—common ground for action
24
Core Values of the Public Issues Educator*
Education—objective, relevant Inclusion—all stakeholders Civil Dialogue—develop mutual trust Innovative Solutions—willingness to negotiate,
share power, explore collaborative action Improving Communication/Decision-making Skills
—getting better at skills you do well & strengthening/compensating for weaknesses
*NOTE: Courtesy of “Public Issues Education: Increasing Competence, Enabling Communities”, working draft July 2002, developed by Public Issues Competencies Task Force
25
Other Resources
Managing Public Controversy in Oklahoma
--1-day OCES in-service workshop
--Coordinator: Larry Sanders/Sue Williams
--Ongoing program; may be follow-up programs at county/multi-county level
Oklahoma Moderators and Recorders Academy Professional development in public deliberation
– Moderating
– Convening
– Recording/reporting forums Contact Sue Williams
26
Summary of key concepts
Every issue tells a story; learn it’s evolution to improve your program
Objectivity not advocacy Recognize your own role may vary Framing issues constructively Alternatives/consequences not pros/cons Base programs on facts, be sensitive to public values,
demythify the issue Understand the politics of policy making with
kings/kingmakers
