Nicole Swerhun’s work in community engagement began in Toronto as the city contemplated removing the Gardiner Expressway East, an aging piece of elevated waterfront highway. It continued in Bosnia as communities came together to rebuild immediately after the signing of the Dayton Peace Accord. She also organized processes for the rebuilding of a devastated neighborhood in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

In the course of these diverse and often conflict-ridden processes, she found that the mechanics of the process were critical to success. Building on the experience and work of others in the field, she developed a set of working principles, techniques and tools that could be useful in a wide range of situations.

With her co-author, Vanessa AvRuskin, she has been able to synthesize these experiences and principles into an easy-to-use manual. The clarity of the way in which the methods are described and the breathe of their potential uses combine to provide a unique and pivotal contribution to the evolving art of community engagement.

A Short History

Public Engagement began in the postwar period as Public Protest. People rallied and organized around specific issues: Civil Rights, Historic Preservation, the Environment, the Vietnam War. Some movements dealt with public policy and legislation, eg: Civil Rights. Others focused on particular local situations and projects. For example, Jane Jacobs was able to organize opposition to an expressway proposed by the powerful Robert Moses in New York City. All across the United States, neighborhood residents organized to prevent the demolition of treasured historic buildings and to oppose projects that would diminish the character of their community. Planners, lawyers, architects and other professionals often supported these efforts as “advocates” for the opposition.

In the course of these messy and violent processes, it gradually became clear that the issues were rarely black and white. They were more complex than they first appeared and resolution required more than a cut and dried “yes or no” decision. There was a need to find a “common ground” among the various interests. Instead of being advocates for one interest group, professionals and leaders of the processes needed to enable participants to build bridges, develop new ideas and find resources to establish that common ground.

My own experience with this field began in 1964 when David Lewis asked me to join him in founding Urban Design Associates in order to work on a commission from the Pittsburgh Board of Education funded by the Ford Foundation. Pittsburgh was under court order to develop a plan for racially integrating its schools. The charge was to study the way the design of neighborhoods and the location of schools could support racial integration.

David, new to the US and to Pittsburgh, was the head of a new graduate program in Urban Design at Carnegie Mellon University. He has been exiled from South Africa for his Anti-Apartheid activities and came to the United States in part because of the Civil Rights movement. He saw that Pittsburgh’s traditional ethnic neighborhoods were a series of villages separated from each other by steep hillsides and river valleys. If there were to be a “common ground”, it would have to be between rather than within neighborhoods. He proposed identifying potential common grounds and then inviting the communities around them to come in and discuss ways of providing integration: “Let the solutions come from a deeper understanding of the way people perceive their community, the larger city and the other neighborhoods.”

In the following years, with similar projects in various neighborhoods and cities, it became clear that the first and most important part of any design and planning process was the DESIGN OF THE PROCESS itself. No matter how different the situation might be, there were always three phases, each of which needed to achieve consensus before moving on to the next phase. These are the same three steps which are so clearly articulated in this book.

At the same time in the late ‘60s and ‘70s, many people were making the same discoveries. Charles Moore and Lawrence Halprin working with Jim Burns conducted participatory design processes called “Take Part”, which engaged a broad cross section of people using creative techniques, some of them televised with phone in participation. Charles used to say that these were his most rewarding projects and he contrasted the authenticity of a process with “real people” with the “"style war” debates among architects.

The American Institute of Architects Regional and Urban Design Committee established a program called R/UDAT (Regional/Urban Design Assistance Teams) in which architects volunteered to work on interdisciplinary teams to help cities resolve difficult issues by engaging citizens in a weekend long charrette. In Britain, Rod Hackney (the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects) developed a program in Community Architecture which was based on community participation. The Prince of Wales co-chaired a R/UDAT with David Lewis in Pittsburgh that brought British and American architects together with local citizens to find ways of revitalizing economically devastated communities that had once been steel mill towns.

New Urbanism, a movement to reform urban planning policies and design, relies on the participation of citizens to counter the arbitrary and often counterproductive zoning and transportation policies that control city actions. New urbanists use the Charrette process to bring interdisciplinary teams together to work with communities to develop plans and design with people rather than for them. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Congress for the New Urbanism conducted a charrette for the rebuilding of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. The National Charrette Institute, one of many organizations within New Urbanism, had developed techniques, prepared manuals and conducted training sessions. Over the years, all of these efforts have contributed to the evolution of the art of community engagement.

Discuss, Decide, Do

Although it is now accepted that public engagement is essential for good planning and city building, there is not a clear understanding across the board of how to do it effectively, nor even its purpose. For some it is simply “getting to yes” (which implies selling a pre-conceived idea) but ideally it is true consensus building that begins a clear slate.

The mechanics of public processes are critical. All too often unnecessary stumbling blocks are created that make it difficult to proceed. For example, the process might have failed to engage a sufficiently broad range of interest groups, to there may not have been effective communication and means of recording feedback, or consensus on basic ground rules may not have been established at the beginning.

And that is where Discuss, Design, Do will be the most helpful. It combines the lessons of the last 50 years with the current experiences of Nicole Swerhun and her colleagues. It is a straightforward, objective presentation of the tools that we all need to conduct successful public engagement in a wide range of situations and topics.

THE SITUATION: 

People want more from the engagement process

There are a number of reasons why people want and need more from public consultation processes, including: 

1. People have more access to information.

• The internet has changed the landscape of knowledge. More people are able to educate themselves on any topic; they're also able to share their experiences with others.

2. People are more likely to question authority.

• With more information people expect authorities to explain their decisions in a way that's consistent with the information they've learned on their own.

3. People have an expectation that authorities will listen.

• There is a shift in power. Power used to be about who had the best access to information. Now, because everyone has access to information, it's not only about who's responsible or liable for making the decision, but also about the support decision makers are able to build.

• Technology means people have a greater influence.  They can share experiences with communities across the city, province or country to make a bigger case for ignoring stakeholders (e.g. Upton Farm in PEI connected with communities have issues with CLC across the country).

• People are now more capable than ever of exposing authorities that don't listen through the media and through connections with other stakeholders.              

4. People expect to be treated as investors.

• Every government and public agency operates with the oversight of elected officials and is connected to taxpayers' dollars.  The public is aware of this and demands to be treated as investors or a board of directors. 

THE SOLUTION:

Effective engagement will make it easier to find common ground

1. You'll save time

• By managing risk during the process you won't have to return after the process to respond to and address issues.

2. You'll be more aware of issues

• By understanding the project or proposal from the perspective of participants you will understand what's important to them. This means you'll be able to take advantage of opportunities they identify and address specific concerns they raise.

• By creating an effective two-way communication flow with participants, you will be able to share with participants the consequences of different potential paths of action, and their feedback and advice will be informed by knowledge of those consequences.

3. You'll keep the discussion focused on content rather than process

• By delivering a defensible process you're helping to ensure that decisions are made based on the merits of the information available.

4. You'll build a bridge between technical experts and the broader public

• By focusing on what and how messages are shared between experts and the broader public, you are in a position to help shape communications in a way that builds respect for the value of what different players contribute to the decision making process. This helps build common ground rather than reinforce divided positions.

5. You'll manage expectations and become a trusted information source

• By giving participants a clear overview of the entire consultation process, you'll be creating an environment where all participants have a shared understanding of what, why and when certain decisions need to made.

• By providing objective and balanced information, participants will know that a call to you will be more effective in answering their questions or resolving their issues than a call to an interest group or the media, who don't necessarily have a vested interest in telling a balanced story.

• By earning the trust of participants, proposed actions will be considered thoughtfully rather than attacked. You'll earn the benefit of the doubt.

What it is:

The terms “Open” and “Closed” Doors refer to the decisions that are open to influence and those that are not.

Why does it matter?

• The most compelling reason that someone would participate in a consultation process is because they believe there is a decision that they have an opportunity to influence.

• The more transparent you are about what is open for influence and what is not, the easier it is for people to understand their role and what they can contribute.  This clarity builds participant trust because it is clear from the beginning what is “on the table” for discussion, what isn’t, and the reasons why.

• Some doors are closed because they are beyond the mandate of your organization.  Once participants understand what your organization has the power to change they will be able to contribute to your process in a more meaningful way.

Examples of how it matters:

• Towns and cities across Ontario have been updating their Official Plans in response to direction from the Province regarding where and how growth would be accommodated.  In many communities there has been resistance to the idea that neighbourhoods have to grow. Planners consulting the public as part of one town’s OP review clearly explained that the decision on whether to grow was a “closed door”, since that decision had already been made (by the Province). An important “open door” remained however – how to grow and where growth would be accommodated.  If a participant preferred not to see any growth, then that participant was encouraged to direct their feedback to the Province. As a result, time was not taken up at the meeting discussing something that was not available for change.  Instead, time was spent providing useful feedback on the open door.

• Faced with a potentially significant budget shortfall, a major public service provider was consulting their users and the community about how services could be adjusted.  Several participants were inclined to focus on fundraising (Closed Door) rather than service changes (Open Door).  The consultation heavily emphasised that fundraising efforts were already being championed by a high profile working group of city leaders who were brainstorming different revenue options and who would conduct their own consultation. This made fundraising a closed door. By clearly explaining that this consultation was providing an opportunity to talk about adjustments in service delivery, participants were able to offer input where it was most needed.  

What it is:

The term Big Tent is intended to reflect the number of people and diversity of interests that are welcome to a consultation process.  Strong processes are open to anybody who wants to participate. 

Why does it matter?

• When you are working in the public interest every perspective matters. It is important to be as inclusive as possible, and people will look to see if your process includes participants with a balanced and diverse set of interests. This makes one of the important contributions to the legitimacy of your process.

• By having a rich and diverse mix of stakeholders, you are demonstrating that there a number of perspectives that need to be considered by a range of interests that look at a project through different “lenses”. This also helps reinforce the fact that it’s not just what any one stakeholder says that goes.

• When you have a full understanding of who will support or thwart your project, you know what you’re working with.  You are in a stronger position to maintain and build support, and to proactively manage or address concerns.

• Players can contribute technical expertise. They can help compile the facts, whether because of their professional training, their hands-on-experience, their internet research, or any other source of knowledge.

• Every participant is a potential future advocate and supporter.

Examples of how it matters:

• A large public school board was struggling to keep pools open in their schools due to high maintenance costs and limited funding.  An aquatic summit was held and anyone interested in helping keeping pools open in the schools was invited. Over two years a huge range of both “the usual suspects” and a number of “unusual suspects” worked together to dramatically increase permit revenues – a very Big Tent was created. Parents worked together with parents from different schools in different neighbourhoods. Swimming instructors worked with non-profit groups and local businesses to raise awareness. Private foundations supported advocacy efforts, seniors lobbied their elected officials, and entrepreneurs set up new swimming programs with the help of funding from companies run by former Olympians. 

• A large city was bidding to host the Olympic Games. There were a number of organizations opposed to the bid because they preferred to see public funds spent addressing priority social issues like poverty and homelessness. Rather than ignoring opposition groups, the Bid team worked with the anti-poverty groups to develop an Olympic Bid related plan to address social issues.  Because of this inclusive Big Tent philosophy the project set a new bar for excellence in international bid submissions.

What it is:

Framing is about the language you choose to use to describe your project. It fits issues within the context of a storyline or narrative that reflects a particular world-view that participants can relate to. 

Why does it matter?

• There may be many narratives about how and why things have unfolded. Projects need one strongly framed narrative that all stakeholders and decision makers can support. This provides a shared starting point for the discussion and acts as a steady reference throughout the process.

• A strongly framed narrative helps organize the content of a discussion. It makes what could be overwhelming information easily understandable.  It does this by presenting content around a small number of topics that communicate what a project is about and the thinking that needs to happen to move a project forward.

• The narrative frames the relationship between you and everyone else involved in the process.

• Framing is also valuable when working within your organization.  It will provide the decision maker the tools they need to sell or support your project with their peers and constituents.  When the project is described in terms of the value it can provide, it is much easier to build support and keep the overall work in the broader context. 

Examples of how it matters:

• A city was consulting the public as part of one of their regular Official Plan reviews. The city staff wanted to signal that they were open to any and all comments about the Official Plan, while at the same recognizing that not all residents are familiar with the Official Plan. The challenge was to figure out how to take a potentially overwhelming discussion and focus it in a way that residents could easily relate to. The most important framing decisions they made were (1) to tell people that the Official Plan focused on how the city grows and changes; (2) that the Official Plan directs changes to only 25% of the city’s land area, while 75% of the land (primarily stable neighbourhoods) is protected; and (3) that the consultation would focus on the changes happening in the 25% of the city where change was being directed. This framing automatically focused the scope of the discussion during the consultation to a subset of the city’s geography while at the same time managing fears that stable neighbourhoods would change. 

• A large municipally-owned public square was developing its strategic plan in consultation with the surrounding community. There was a strong desire among some participants to frame the discussion in terms of the revenue generating potential of the square, while others were keen to focus on the balance of uses of the square, including the important responsibility of the square to be available to the public. The framing of the strategic planning process was essential to its success.  Rather than having one of the two “competing” perspectives frame the discussion, the team of staff running the square framed the discussion.  They framed it in terms of confirming the role and identity of the square, which then helped inform decisions about revenue generation and users.

What it is:

Packaging the work is about identifying a handful of logical steps that structure a decision making process. In our experience, every project can be broken down into three steps: Understanding the issues; Testing some ideas; and Deciding on a path forward. 

Why does it matter?

• Different types of information are useful at different points during a decision making process. Identifying the order of events – what will be discussed when and why – is useful because it signals what feedback and advice will be useful at different points in the process. This lays the groundwork for how to think about the process of doing the work, which is much different than the technical content covered during the process.

• Work is more focused when people strive to complete a specific task within a specific time frame. When you know at what point in time key decisions need to be made and what decisions are contingent on others, you can ask for the feedback that you need, when you need it.  This saves time because it limits the need to go back and revisit decisions that have already been made because participants have already agreed to the order of events.

• These steps bring predictability to what is in many ways an inherently unpredictable environment. By packaging the work you are providing a structure within which there is flexibility to respond to unpredictable feedback and events while remaining in a strong position to manage the larger picture. The steps also bring a consistent framework that enables all participants to have a shared understanding of what’s happening.

• This enables participants to be connected to your work right from the beginning, rather than when key decisions have already been made (this model is often described as Decide, Announce, Defend).

Examples of how it matters:

• A parks manager had her hands full with conflicts between dog owners and parents in a local park. The dog owners wanted to walk their dogs off leash, but families with small children had safety concerns. A public consultation process was championed by the local elected official, and the process was organized into three parts: (1) identify the issues, concerns, wants and needs of all users; (2) identify and evaluate different options on how to address the issues, concerns, wants and needs; and (3) propose a path forward based on the evaluation of the different options presented during part 2. This iterative process enabled the discussion to start with dog owners explaining how important off leash areas are to the health and happiness of their pets, and parents explaining interactions between off leash dogs and their children that make them uneasy. Together they brainstormed different alternatives, and a proposal for an off leash area in the park was ultimately proposed and supported by the community. The three-part process structured the discussion in a way that ensured the final result was based on a comprehensive consideration of the issues to be addressed and a thoughtful evaluation of options to address those issues.

• After a successful start-up phase, a youth arts group was exploring options for continuing its operations sustainably into the future. The group’s strategic plan was developed using the three part process which involved consultation with youth, existing funders, potential funders, and other leaders in the youth arts and youth engagement community.  The first part of the process involved identifying the strengths, successes, and challenges experienced during the start up phase. The second part involved brainstorming and evaluation of different go-forward options. The third and final part of the process involved identifying a preferred path forward. This three-part process enabled full participation of all stakeholders in ultimately “making the case” led to successful future for the organization.

What it is:

Building relationships refers to establishing the opportunity to build a strong interpersonal connection between all people participating in the process. This includes the facilitator of the process, decisions makers who will receive recommendations from the process (typically senior civil servants and elected officials) and everyone who contributes to the development of those recommendations (i.e. public, stakeholders, etc.).

Why does it matter?

• When there is a positive relationship between people there is a lot more tolerance, flexibility, willingness and space to see things from other perspectives. This is very helpful when many different interests have to negotiate to find the common ground needed to make decisions that are supported, and ultimately move forward.

• Building strong relationships recognizes that any information a participant chooses to share is helpful, even if it’s negative. Showing that all feedback is valued increases the likelihood that participants will be honest about their opinions, giving you the opportunity to respond to them.

• Mistakes and misunderstandings can happen.  They are easier to overcome with a strong and trusting relationship – it’s much easier to work together when people are willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt. 

• Building strong relationships ensures a regular connection with participants from the beginning of the process through to completion.

Examples of how it matters:

• At the start of many projects there is often an articulate, informed, vocal community leader that is extremely concerned and passionate about what’s happening. Often their opinion is based on a small subset of project-related information that has made its way into the public realm prior to the project actually getting underway. These leaders often feel they have a strong responsibility to protect their communities from the threat of apparent injustices that are being planned. It is critical to build relationships with these leaders – and this starts with earning trust, freely sharing information, and really investing in expanding their understanding of the work. This effort has proven time and time again to be worth it – these concerned leaders regularly transform into strong project supporters when an investment is made in building a strong relationship with them.

• A regional transit authority was conducting a public consultation related to the design of a major new piece of transit infrastructure.  A participant in the process, who was a retired employee in the Provincial Ministry of Transportation and was very familiar with the technicalities of infrastructure planning, wrote a long email with feedback.  Although many of the points in the email were not relevant to the work or incorrect, there were a couple of points that contributed to the discussion. The relationship-building reply demonstrated an appreciation for the effort that went into providing the feedback, identified the feedback that was particularly helpful, explained at what point that feedback would be considered in the decision making process along with feedback from others. Focusing on the advice that has value is the key here.

• Elected officials appreciate having opportunities to connect to their constituencies.   One important relationship-building option that can be very helpful involves working with those elected officials to distribute invitations or meeting notices through their office to their constituencies.  Some councillors will take you up on it and some won’t.  The offer in itself demonstrates that you have respect for the networks they are accountable to, and recognize the value of using their networks to reach out on projects.

Guiding Principles for Consultation that help create and maintain strong relationships:

• Accountability. Provide accurate, timely information and demonstrate how it has made use of input received from participants.

• Clarity. There will be well defined objectives for, and limits to, consultation and active participation during the process. Clarity regarding respective roles and responsibilities of all participants will be provided.

• Timeliness. Consultation will begin as early as possible in the process to allow a greater range of opportunities and issues to emerge and to raise the changes of successful issue resolution.

What it is:

Promoting Understanding is about creating many opportunities for all participants to learn new things that improve the quality of their contributions to the process.

Why does it matter?

• High quality opinions are formed when they’re based on an understanding of the consequences of different courses of action.

• Sometimes opinions are based on misinformation or incomplete information.  It’s important to explain technical details in a way that’s objective, easy to understand, and directly linked to the decision(s) at hand.

• People learn in different ways – some are visual, some prefer to read the details, others prefer to listen. Promoting understanding is a strategy that recognizes these differences and accommodates them through multiple communication tactics.  This ensures that as many people as possible have the ability to be well informed.

• The credibility of the source often influences the perceived credibility of the information. Strong processes that use “promoting understanding” as a strategy give participants the opportunity to learn things from a number of different sources – fellow participants, technical experts, elected officials, etc.

• People often have very strong opinions that at first appear inflexible. The reasons behind such opinions can often be translated into a list of conditions which may be possible for the proponent to address. Once people understand that these conditions can be met their whole perspective can change and they find they’re willing to live with an option that before may have seemed untenable.

Example of how it matters:

• In one of the few areas undeveloped on the North American waterfront, a premier piece of property was being considered for redevelopment.  Historically the area had been home to primarily industrial, commercial and institutional uses; however interest in residential development was being expressed by a number of stakeholders. Strong opinions on both sides of the residential issue were shared – with some strongly in favour and others strongly opposed. Through workshop discussions it became clear, however, that the majority of participants would be able to live with residential development providing a number of conditions were met (e.g. buffers put in place between new residential and existing uses, and provision of local community amenities like community centres, libraries, schools and parks). The process then focused on the municipality’s ability to deliver on the conditions under which residential would be acceptable.  The ultimate plan for the site met these conditions, included residential development, and received significant community support.

Step 1:

Develop an Engagement Plan

The first step in any engagement process is to come up with an overall plan that identifies what decisions will be made through the course of the project and when, what information those decisions will be based on, and how feedback from the community and other stakeholders will be considered.

Sample of tool used to support this tactic:

Step 2:

Map Stakeholders & Build a Database

The second step in any engagement process is identifying who needs to participate.

c. It’s often helpful to map the issues and players to get a feel for the relationships between them and to help identify and fill any gaps.

d. Based on the stakeholder list, create a database of names, emails, and phone numbers.

Do this in a spreadsheet (not in a word processing software).

Here are a few tips to consider when setting up the database:

• First name and last name should be separate columns (so the database can be sorted by either first or last name)

• Include the affiliation of each contact, as well as their phone number and email (and mailing address, if relevant)

e. Flesh out the database by talking to people that are already in your list.

• Joe Smith from the Provincial Media Development Corporation provided names and contact information for all of the film industry companies in the area

• Local elected officials provided the names and contact information for the presidents of all the local residential associations

• Local public school provided contact information for the school’s parent association

• President of local resident association provided contact information of interested homeowners

f. At this stage it is often helpful to add a few new columns to your database.

• A column titled “source”. Use this column to make a note of where the contact name came from so you have an answer when people ask “how did that name get on the list?”

• A new column called “constituency” or “membership”. Use this column to make a short note about the number individuals each organization represents (if you know). For example a resident association represents all residents (typically home owners) in a defined neighbourhood which could include dozens of homes on a number of different streets. Your data base doesn’t necessarily need to include the names of every resident in every house because you connect with these people through their representatives at the resident association.  This means that your database doesn’t have to be exhaustive, but you do need to have a defensible list of contacts that can connect with larger networks. These “nodes” in the network are an important resource in the process.

• A column that identifies the outreach tools that each association or group uses to stay connected to their members/constituents. Outreach tools include things like newsletters, email updates, meetings and events. This tells you a lot about the legitimacy of a group as representative of others. Also note whether these mechanisms are only to get information OUT, or do they also enable constituents to bring information IN. It’s important to verify that the person who claims to be speaking for a particular constituency can demonstrate that they consulted that constituency.  

Sample of tool used to support this tactic:

Step 3: 

Develop the Content & Create the Materials to Inform Discussion

The third step of the engagement process focuses on identifying the information that people need to meaningfully participate in the process, creating the tools that will be used to convey that information, and preparing the key questions that will be asked to seek the feedback required.

Examples of typical key messages and focus questions:

Common tools and when to use them:

Step 4:

Draft & Distribute Invitations

The fourth step focuses on getting people to participate.

a. Identify what would make people interested in participating in the process.

The culture plan will guide where and how the city supports local arts, culture and heritage activities. By participating in the development of the culture plan, people will have the opportunity to inform and influence where the city’s efforts are directed. As a result, the persuasive statement used in invitations was:

• “Your participation is critical to understanding the unique culture of [city] and in creating a successful culture plan.”

• “Learn how your ideas and advice can influence the city’s culture plan.”

• “Tell us what you think about the different ideas being considered for the city’s culture plan.”

• “Come hear how your input has been incorporated into the city’s culture plan.”

c. Design the invitation with all of the information on it.

d. Distribute the invitation.

• Notices in organization newsletters (craft guilds, local chamber of commerce, live music publication, etc.)

• Emails (which were forwarded to the above networks)

• Phone calls to network leaders (to encourage them to distribute the invitations to their networks)

• Postcards in local shops, cafes, and art galleries (as above)

• Other options include: posters, flyers, road signs, web updates, Facebook updates, Twitter updates, text messages.

TWO THINGS TO REMEMBER WHEN MAKING INVITATIONS:

• Typically invitations go out at least two weeks in advance. Check for statutory requirement (if any), sometimes a minimum of three weeks is required.

• It is also standard practice to send at least one reminder after sending the initial invite.

Step 5:

Develop a Meeting Plan

The fifth step focuses on anticipating everything required to successfully deliver a meeting.

NOTE ON TOOLS:

Meetings can take a number of formats. Our experience is that the process followed in the case study above (i.e. workshop approach with self-facilitated small table discussion) is by far the most effective. A few notes on consultation formats:

• Workshops (with rectangular or round tables set up with 4-8 chairs around each, and no head table) are the default approach we use for all meetings. This approach enables all participants to receive an overview presentation, and then enables facilitation and discussion both at small tables and among the full room. The small table discussions typically last anywhere from 10-30 minutes and provide an opportunity fro participants to share ideas and perspective. Tables are tasked with finding the common ground among their views, and to also identify where opinions differ. This is a critical part of the process of finding the common ground required to move projects forward. It is at these small table discussions that people get a first-hand experience of what it's like t view a project through the "lens" of another participant. Small tables also enable everyone to get involved, particularly those less comfortable speaking in front of large audiences. When tables report to other tables on the results of their discussion, the process of understanding the range of opinion in the room, and ultimately the opportunity to identify the common ground, continues. This full room plenary discussion is as critical as the small table discussions because it is important to give participants the opportunity to address the full room.

• Town hall meetings (with a head table, theatre style seating, line ups at microphones for comments, questions and answers) can be effective for communicating information to participants, however they are not designed to maximize opportunities fro meaningful interaction and learning among participants or between participants and proponents. The first challenge is that the rom set up signals as "us" versus "them" environment as all of the participants chairs face one way and the presenters sit behind  table facing them. The experience of lining up at a microphone can also be stressful, and often the time used at  the microphone is very high stakes since it is a participant's one and only opportunity to get their most important point across. The back and forth thinking, idea exchange, exploring and relationship building that is critical to learning new perspectives and finding common ground is very difficult in this environment.

• Open houses (with display boards staffed by proponent team members available to talk with participants one-on-one) can be very effective way for participants and proponents to understand and explain issues and opportunities specific to one participant. From our experience, open houses are very useful when delivered as part of a workshop, with display boards available and staffed before, during and after the meeting for participant review.

There are many tools that can be used to supplement in-person public meetings. A few include:

• Webcasts and PowerPoint presentations (with voiceover) which are posted online and can be viewed outside of the meeting to support members of the public in providing feedback (typically collected through the identical discussion guide/focus questions used at the public meeting).

• "Workshop in a box" which is a downloadable consultation toolkit which supports participants interested in organizing their own meetings with their own networks concerning a project. The "workshop in a box" is typically identical to the workshop delivered to the broader public by the project team.

• Visiting existing meetings which are already being held by community/organization leaders with their networks. An example of this would include being invited to present to a resident association as part of one of their regular monthly meetings.

d. Identify how much time will be spent on the overview presentation, the information that needs to be covered and who will deliver it.

A PowerPoint presentation was delivered by the Project Manager. Key points covered in the presentation included:

• Look back. Reminder on when current watershed plan was developed, what the context in that year, and the key messages/directions in the plan.

• Change in context. Describe change circumstances in context since the previous plan was created.

• Activities since the previous plan was created.

• Current task. Describe rationale for updating the Plan.

• Current conditions. Provide update on the current conditions in the watershed.

• Vision and objectives. Describe the work done to update the vision and objectives.

• Strategic directions. Describe three cross-cutting strategic directions that are emerging: redevelopment/intensification; importance of stormwater management retrofits; and parks renewal.

• Next steps. Review next steps in the process of updating the plan, including: next steps consultation and the date the plan will be completed.

e. Identify materials required to support the meeting.

• Large map of watershed (one per table)

• Sign-in sheets (including name, email, affiliation - if any, and phone numbers)

• Hard copies of presentation (optional)

• Signage (to direct people to the meeting room)

f. Identify people required to support delivery of the meeting.

• List names of all people from the project team, including consultants, who are expected to attend. There needs to be a reasonable balance between the number of project team members at the meeting and the number of stakeholders.

• Identify who will be responsible for taking notes and writing the meeting report.

• Staff resources: Project Manager for the conservation authority; Watershed Director from conservation authority; Support staff from conservation authority; Municipal staff (e.g. from planning department, water and wastewater department); Facilitator; Notetaker.

 g. Identify supplies required at the meeting.

• Pens for sign-in sheets

• Name tags (mailing labels work well) and markers

• Masking tape

• Flipchart paper, flipchart stand, flipchart markers

h. Identify catering to be provided at the meeting.

• Basket of apples, tap water in jugs with cups, oatmeal cookies

i. Combine all of the above information into one document, order it chronologically and title it “Agenda Detail”.

j. Develop focus questions for participant workshop.

• What do you see as the three big issues to be addressed in the updated watershed plan?

• Do the updated vision and objectives reflect your perspectives and priorities for the watershed? Could they be improved? If so, how?

• What kind of public consultation ideas would you like see to considered for the subsequent rounds of consultation?

• Do you have any other comments or advice for the conservation authority regarding the watershed plan update?

k. Create a participant workbook, including a one-page agenda (draw directly from the Agenda Detail) and the focus questions (with room to write).

d. Facilitate discussion during “Questions of Clarification”.

• The facilitator reminded participants that this was the opportunity for them to ask the presenter about anything that was unclear or missing from the presentation.

• The facilitator also reminded participants that this was not the time to “weigh in” with opinions or advice – that was what the remainder of the meeting was designed to do.

• The facilitator was methodical in moving from one side of the room to the other and from the back to the front to get as many people as possible.

• If someone raised their hand more than once, the facilitator went first to a participant who had not yet had a turn. It can be hard to remember who has had a chance and who hasn’t, so tricks to remembering include:  moving from the front of room to the back (or left to right) or using a seating chart to keep a speakers list.

• There were more questions than time available, so the facilitator asked people who still had questions to raise their hands during the small table discussions (and a resource person would be sent to help answer).

e. Move to small table discussion. 

• A number of participants left (about 25 of the 120 participants) after the presentation. This is common because some people only attend the meeting to get updated on the information available. They either do not want to provide feedback or prefer to share their feedback outside the meeting (often creating a comprehensive written response and/or requesting a special meeting with the project team).

• The facilitator provided instructions to start the small table discussion. At that time each table was provided with one copy of the Participant Workbook that had been photocopied on another colour of paper (e.g. yellow). All participants still had their Participant Workbook on white paper that they had picked up at registration. The table was instructed to identify someone to take notes on behalf of the table on the yellow version of the Participant Workbook. All table members could also hand in their individual workbook or send it in by mail or email later.

• The project team was actively listening to the discussions. They moved around the room and only joined tables briefly, if necessary, to answer a question. 

f. Facilitate a full room discussion. 

• The facilitator asked each table to report on the highlights of their discussion.

• Constructive statements were encouraged. For example, when one person said that their table felt that “the City doesn’t care enough about the health of people in this community” the facilitator asked permission to turn that comment into the following piece of advice which was “the City needs to demonstrate that they care about the health of people in this community.”

• When the facilitator did not understand what somebody said, the participant was asked to paraphrase their remarks and/or explain further.

• When opinion was strongly divided, the facilitator asked participants who disagreed with a particular proposal “Are there any conditions under which this proposal would be acceptable to you? If so, what are those conditions?”

• When 5 minutes were left, participants were asked if there was anything they hadn’t had a chance to say that they really needed to say before the meeting ended – and they were given that chance.

• The meeting ended on time. Be sure to know before the meeting what next steps will be taken after the meeting. This way you will be able to do a brief overview of the next steps with the participants at the end of the meeting.

g. Clean up after the meeting.

• People were asked to put any written comments in their own workbooks and the table workbooks in a "completed workbook” box at the registration table on their way out.

h. Debrief the meeting.

• The debrief for the proponents and facilitators happened by phone the day after the meeting in the afternoon.

• The discussion focused on the big picture, and whether people were generally supportive, not supportive, or mixed. For example, participants were pleased with the opportunity to share their thoughts and felt a number of the key issues had been identified. That being said, they felt additional outreach was required to connect with parents in the local school and that the update plan needed to include significantly more public health information. They requested that the team bring the city’s Medical Officer of Health into the process.

d. Identify the 3 to 5 most relevant messages from the meeting notes.  These act as an executive summary of the meeting.

• The messages need to reflect the main points discussed – they provide a high level description of the feedback received.

• One of the key messages could reflect the general sentiment of the meeting.  For example, "there may have been a considerable amount of frustration in the room however people demonstrated a willingness to work through it."  Or," people felt appreciative of the fact they were being included in the process."

• The key messages should highlight if there was a lot of agreement around any particular point or if there was a mix of opinion.

Here are examples of two key messages in the meeting summary:

1. Considerable support for where the City is directing growth and change. Participants expressed considerable support for where the Official Plan directs growth and strongly supported the Official Plan policies that protect neighbourhoods. Minor refinements to these policies were suggested.

2. Transit, services and affordable housing need to keep pace with development. Several participants discussed the relationship between land-use, density and transportation. Transportation and affordable housing were consistently raised as areas in need of improvement and investment. Many participants felt that a greater emphasis should be placed on providing improvements to transit and cycling infrastructure. Many also felt that there was an important need to build more affordable housing.

e. Combine the pieces of the report as follows:

• Page one includes the name of the meeting, the location and date, as well as a brief overview of the meeting purpose and number of participants. This typically takes up less than a quarter of a page. It is also important to note who wrote the report and that it is a draft that is subject to the review of participants at the meeting prior to being finalized. Include the date by which any suggested edits are due (about one week), and the name, phone and email to whom suggested edits should be sent. Once suggested edits are received (if any) this note should be updated to read “This report was subject to the review of participants at the meeting.”

• The rest of page one includes the key messages from the meeting.

• Page two includes a list of any questions of clarification asked by participants and the responses provided by the proponent. If there are a lot of questions it can be helpful to organize these by theme.

• Pages three onward would include a summary of the detailed feedback received (as written in step c).

• The final page should include a brief description of any wrap up remarks and next steps.

The following text was at the top of the overall consultation summary:

In [month and year], a public meeting was held at [location] as part of public consultation process being delivered as part of the [name of the project]. Approximately [number] people participated representing a broad range of perspectives and interests, including [for example, resident associations, school boards, businesses, industry associations, developers, planning firms, environmental and affordable housing advocates, students and the general public].  Discussions focused on what’s working with the Official Plan and what areas could be improved. This report is a compilation of the feedback received. 

f. Include relevant attachments at the back of the report, such as:

• A list of participants and their affiliation. List everyone – the consultant team, technical resources, politicians, volunteers, stakeholders, etc.

• Meeting agenda

• Presentation materials (though these are most commonly stored online)

• Detailed feedback from individual workbooks (optional)

• Other

g. Distribute the report with a brief cover note to meeting participants for review. Finalize the report based on any edits received.

From our experience, there are really only four ways to respond to the feedback you receive:

yes, you will act on the suggestion(s) made; no, you won't; you might; or you can't.

• If the answer is yes, explain how the feedback will be integrated into the recommended solution before it is finalized.

• If the answer is no, explain why, in your professional judgement, you are not comfortable supporting or acting on the suggestion. It is critical to include an explanation of the consequences associated with acting on the suggestions and the rationale behind your discomfort.

• If your answer is “maybe”, than you need to outline the process you will follow to get the additional information you need to decide whether you are comfortable refining the proposed solution. The process should include a timeline, the steps you will take to get the information, and who will be involved along the way.

• If the feedback is not within your jurisdiction, it is important to direct people to where their feedback should go.

Closing Thoughts

Every situation and project is unique, as are the people involved. Being flexible in how you apply the strategies and step suggested here is important – use your judgement and adapt where you need to.