1 COPING WITH A CONTROVERSIAL PUBLIC ISSUE Larry D. Sanders Sue Williams April 2011

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

27

In all endeavors, be optimistic…

Larry Sanders:

405-744-9834larry.sanders@okstate.edu