What is technology driven public meetings ?
This format can give all participants equal voice at large public meetings and allow for deeper discussion and exploration of issues as responses are transmitted. When faced with the task of visioning the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Civil Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York hosted a Town Meeting that featured 5,000 attendees. Participants were divided into small groups of 10-12 people and seated at tables. Each table included a volunteer who typed notes of the small group discussion. These notes were fed in real time to a “theme team” who scanned the notes of all the tables and pulled out recurrent themes. These themes were then formulated into questions and propositions that were displayed on large screens around the meeting place. In addition to a record keeper at each table, each individual participant was provided with a keypad which allowed them to vote on the questions and propositions. In this way, all participants had equal voices. Since the process was iterative, the participants were able to dig deep into various issues.
Why are they useful?
These methods make public meetings more participatory. In a traditional public meeting, only one person can speak at a time, or if there are small groups, there is little information shared between the groups. With technology driven public meetings every participant can voice their opinion and take part in a real dialogue simultaneously. This novel format has been successful in generating wide media attention and stimulating good turnout to public meetings and hearings. When Ohio’s Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission initiated a public involvement program for its Comprehensive Master Plan, the organization sought the assistance of AmericaSpeaks, a facilitator of Technology Driven Public Meetings. The effort resulted in a County-wide Public Meeting with over 1300 participants. The Commission was met with overwhelmingly positive feedback with regards to the event and found that participation was increased throughout the life of the project as a result of that initial buy-in.
These meetings could potentially be used in place of any public meeting or hearing. Due to costs involved, these meetings are best suited for very large, highly visible projects that will garner a great deal of attention and participation. They have been used for broad visioning exercises early in long-range planning processes. Agencies can use the output of the technology driven meeting much in the same fashion that they use traditional public meeting output. Since much of the substance of these meetings is driven by the public, the decisions made may not be feasible for financial or technical reasons. Generally, the organization that facilitates these meetings will provide the Agency and/or decision makers with written reports that summarize themes raised at the meetings and the results of any votes or polls.
Who participates, and how?
Participation can be open to the general public or targeted segments of the public. In 2000, Washington D.C.’s Mayor sponsored a city-wide forum to hear the policy concerns of the city’s youths. Approximately 1400 youths aged 14-21 gathered in a technology driven public meeting to voice their needs and concerns. Each of the youths was given an electronic keypad and was able to vote on various issues and priorities. This event in turn shaped the Mayor’s policies towards youths.
Who leads?
These meetings require technical equipment and well-trained technicians/facilitators. AmericaSpeaks is a notable Non-Profit Organization that facilitates technology driven town meetings.
What are the costs?
The costs of these meetings can be significantly higher than a traditional public meeting. Additional costs include the cost of hardware, software and technicians, and facilitators. Since these meetings can attract significantly more attendees than a traditional meeting, alternative large venues are often necessary.
What are the challenges?
Due to the high degree of participation involved in a technology driven public meeting, attendees can develop a false impression of direct democracy. Participants may feel that the decisions that are made in the meeting will become reality, which is not necessarily true. This can lead to disenfranchisement and reduced participation in future engagements.
