As we explore exciting cases of citizen engagement initiatives across the country, our first installment of this series brings us to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
It is no coincidence that people tend to trust local government at much higher levels than federal government. One likely contributor to this prevailing attitude is the proximity of local public officials to their constituents—one can often more easily contact their City Councilmember, Mayor, or City Administrator than their Congressperson—supports relationships built on accountability and responsiveness. On the state and federal levels, legislators hammer out policy details far removed from their constituents and largely rely on their phone calls and emails to provide any feedback on proposed legislation. In contrast, many cities currently use citizen engagement practices to gather feedback for policy development, and in-person events tend to be more frequent. Given these difference in engagement dynamics, it’s both possible and practical to utilize deliberation in local policy development.
One city stands out in its efforts to increase public deliberation and citizen participation: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Through its partnership with Carnegie Mellon University’s Program for Deliberative Democracy, the City of Pittsburgh has developed a tool for city government to use as a guide for developing deliberative, citizen-driven engagement programming. Part of Mayor William Peduto’s campaign platform was an increase of citizen engagement and, as mayor, Peduto supported the recommendation to make Pittsburgh a center for deliberative democracy. As a result of this commitment, the city has used Deliberative Forums for the selection of a new Chief of Police and to set goals for its capital budget. Using the lessons learned from the experience of holding Deliberative Forums, the city partnered with the Art of Democracy to craft “A Handbook for Deliberative Community Forums,” intended to provide other cities with best practices and recommendations for their own future citizen engagement processes.
Continue reading Leading the Way: Pittsburgh, PA
Our work on the Rural Climate Dialogues began nearly four years ago, and continues to this day. Over the course of the program, we have heard repeatedly the need in Greater Minnesota for support from metro-based state agencies and organizations, and in September we responded to this call.
Eighteen Citizen Jurors and leaders from the three Dialgogue communities were selected to meet from September 8-9 with one another and representatives from state agencies. Over the two days, these representatives of rural Minnesota worked to uncover the shared priorities, actions, and barriers among their very different communities, and worked with the Center for Rural Strategies to tease out the personal stories underpinning their concerns about the changes rural Minnesota’s climate is experiencing. The stunning diversity of experience and perspective on climate issues the participants represented was unparalleled for traditional outreach efforts by agency staff, who rarely have such an opportunity to hear from rural residents.
Continue reading Toward A “Greater” Minnesota Climate Policy
2016’s seemingly endless presidential campaign cycle stretched for nearly twenty months and came to a quick conclusion on November 8th, 2016. In a campaign marked with hostility and record levels of disapproval, civility between candidates and their supporters appeared to have evaporated. A departure from this tension-filled political climate occurred in Minneapolis ten days before Election Day: the Twin Cities Election Forum. Held at the University of Minnesota, and supported by the College of Liberal Arts’ Joan Aldous Innovation Fund, fifty-two Twin Cities residents gathered for five hours at the University of Minnesota to discuss the most compelling reasons to support each presidential candidate and understand why their fellow Minnesota residents might support each candidate.
The project was led by C. Daniel Myers, professor at the University of Minnesota’s College of Liberal Arts. As consultants for the project, Jefferson Center staff joined Dr. Myers by training student facilitators and assisting in the design and execution of the event. We selected participants to mirror, as nearly as possible, the demographic and political makeup of the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Continue reading 2016 Twin Cities Election Forum
From time to time, we invite practitioners, researchers, and citizens from around the world to discuss their experiences of political engagement and democracy. This post is the third guest post from Bruce Acosta, a junior at Edina High School here in Minnesota.
Bruce was born in Dubai and spent most of his childhood in Canada and Australia. After moving to Minnesota in eighth grade, Bruce developed a passion for government and politics, specifically in terms of young people and their communities.
With an often negative portrayal in the media, it comes as no surprise that young citizens hold a certain skepticism about politics. Limited civics education in schools and the lack of young political role models alienate young people even further, contributing to the widespread perception of politics as “an adult matter”. Considering that only half of eligible voters aged eighteen to nineteen cast their ballots in this year’s election, it becomes evident that something must be done to mend the relationship between students and politics before it is too late. However, research in favor of open discussion of political issues and direct involvement of students in the democratic decision-making reveals that it is the social institutions in direct contact with children – families and schools – that must take the first step in addressing this clear insufficiency in political knowledge and experience that threatens the future of our nation.
Continue reading Do Kids Care?
Regardless of your feelings about its outcome, this election has brought the divides in our country into sharp relief – divisions that threaten the health and vibrancy of our shared democracy.
Together, our country faces serious challenges. These challenges take different forms in different communities. We know, though, that communities have the capacity to address these issues and advocate for themselves.
That’s why our work envisions a different kind of democracy. A democracy where civic participation extends beyond the ballot box. A democracy that empowers citizens to solve problems, develop policy, meaningfully influence decision making, and inspire action. A democracy where all citizens, regardless of their differences, join together to create stronger communities and a thriving nation.
Today, we reaffirm our commitment to an inclusive democracy. We will continue to strive for accountability in our democratic institutions, for action and policy that responds to the ambitions of all Americans, for a unified expression of our power as citizens to shape the course of our lives.
Today, we ask you to join us. Contribute $20 to help us expand our efforts into new areas and new communities in 2017. Share your ideas for strengthening democracy. Commit to take action in your community.
Whether you’re feeling excited about the possibilities for change in America, or anger and despair at the uncertainty of our shared future, or both, there’s work to do today. Let’s get to it.