Comments on: The quality of public dialogue in Richmond http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/archives/2005/10/the-quality-of-public-dialogue-in-richmond.html Personal weblog for James Christopher Hardie Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:44:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Chris Hardie's Weblog http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/archives/2005/10/the-quality-of-public-dialogue-in-richmond.html#comment-67938 Chris Hardie's Weblog Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:19:13 +0000 http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/?p=105#comment-67938 <strong>To challenge and be challenged in conversation</strong> I attended a presentation recently where the person speaking was talking about when it is and is not appropriate to challenge your host's views, perhaps at a dinner party or other social event. He noted that in some cultures, it's perfectly appropri... To challenge and be challenged in conversation

I attended a presentation recently where the person speaking was talking about when it is and is not appropriate to challenge your host's views, perhaps at a dinner party or other social event. He noted that in some cultures, it's perfectly appropri...

]]> By: Chris http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/archives/2005/10/the-quality-of-public-dialogue-in-richmond.html#comment-277 Chris Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:51:49 +0000 http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/?p=105#comment-277 Mel: Point taken about the issue being quality and not quantity, although I do believe there are those rare cases where, "if you build it exactly the right way, they will come," and perhaps that's what I was pining away for more than anything... Mel: Point taken about the issue being quality and not quantity, although I do believe there are those rare cases where, "if you build it exactly the right way, they will come," and perhaps that's what I was pining away for more than anything...

]]> By: Mel http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/archives/2005/10/the-quality-of-public-dialogue-in-richmond.html#comment-276 Mel Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:37:16 +0000 http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/?p=105#comment-276 Having formerly worked for news services at the Pal-Item, I can tell you that the problem with the dialogue on the opinion page is simply a lack of a diverse letter-writing body. I understand the word limit and wait between submissions seem problematic for ideas to really be explored, but perhaps if it weren't the same ten people writing in to espouse their neo-con world-view or condemn us all to hell, those limitations wouldn't have to be in place. And honestly, I have so many mixed feelings about the editorial voice of the paper because of my experience there, but I will say that if you write a letter and it fits the guidelines, they really will print it. It's not the paper's guidelines that are dissuasive toward community discussion, it's the general apathy of the community at large. I'm not sure how I follow that if more spaces were available for public dialogue, people would make use of them. Perhaps I'm being cynical, but no one is really taking advantage of the venues in place. Having formerly worked for news services at the Pal-Item, I can tell you that the problem with the dialogue on the opinion page is simply a lack of a diverse letter-writing body. I understand the word limit and wait between submissions seem problematic for ideas to really be explored, but perhaps if it weren't the same ten people writing in to espouse their neo-con world-view or condemn us all to hell, those limitations wouldn't have to be in place. And honestly, I have so many mixed feelings about the editorial voice of the paper because of my experience there, but I will say that if you write a letter and it fits the guidelines, they really will print it. It's not the paper's guidelines that are dissuasive toward community discussion, it's the general apathy of the community at large.

I'm not sure how I follow that if more spaces were available for public dialogue, people would make use of them. Perhaps I'm being cynical, but no one is really taking advantage of the venues in place.

]]> By: Pila http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/archives/2005/10/the-quality-of-public-dialogue-in-richmond.html#comment-275 Pila Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:06:38 +0000 http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/?p=105#comment-275 Excellent post. Both you and Mr. Kemp are right about the lack of fora available for pulbic discussion and decision making. A few years ago, when the county gov't had decided on building a new jail, a group of citizens decided to let the County Commissioners know that they wanted the new jail to be located somewhere other than the old Swain-Robinson site. I was not part of that group, nor did I particularly agree with their stance on the jail. Nevertheless, the people in the group had rights as citizens to make their feelings knows to county officials. The county officials acted as if they had all the answers and that nothing was open to debate. Several months later, the Commissioners received an award from a state association of counties (or some such. Sorry I can't remember the name of the group.) The award was for having to deal with a group of disgruntled citizens who had dared to question their decision on the jail. The Commissioners laughed and joked about how the jail interest group had disrupted the process, made their lives difficult, etc. I thought it was shameful. Excellent post. Both you and Mr. Kemp are right about the lack of fora available for pulbic discussion and decision making. A few years ago, when the county gov't had decided on building a new jail, a group of citizens decided to let the County Commissioners know that they wanted the new jail to be located somewhere other than the old Swain-Robinson site. I was not part of that group, nor did I particularly agree with their stance on the jail. Nevertheless, the people in the group had rights as citizens to make their feelings knows to county officials. The county officials acted as if they had all the answers and that nothing was open to debate. Several months later, the Commissioners received an award from a state association of counties (or some such. Sorry I can't remember the name of the group.) The award was for having to deal with a group of disgruntled citizens who had dared to question their decision on the jail. The Commissioners laughed and joked about how the jail interest group had disrupted the process, made their lives difficult, etc. I thought it was shameful.

]]> By: Chris http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/archives/2005/10/the-quality-of-public-dialogue-in-richmond.html#comment-268 Chris Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:25:34 +0000 http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/?p=105#comment-268 Thanks, Thomas - I hope it was the implications of the dissection and not the method itself that seemed disheartening. I tried to cover government meetings in my mention of City Council in the last item, but I think you're right that they're under-represented here as perhaps one of the more intentionally designed public discussion spaces, and also (as you said) one of the least effectively used. I'm always so excited to see the incredible turnout at government meetings about the issues that matter to us, and usually equally as dissapointed in the failure of public officials to really hear what is being said. Let's hope that tendency is an unfortunate function of the office holders, and not the process itself. Chris Thanks, Thomas - I hope it was the implications of the dissection and not the method itself that seemed disheartening.

I tried to cover government meetings in my mention of City Council in the last item, but I think you're right that they're under-represented here as perhaps one of the more intentionally designed public discussion spaces, and also (as you said) one of the least effectively used. I'm always so excited to see the incredible turnout at government meetings about the issues that matter to us, and usually equally as dissapointed in the failure of public officials to really hear what is being said. Let's hope that tendency is an unfortunate function of the office holders, and not the process itself.

Chris

]]> By: Thomas Kemp http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/archives/2005/10/the-quality-of-public-dialogue-in-richmond.html#comment-267 Thomas Kemp Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:58:31 +0000 http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/?p=105#comment-267 Chris: Your careful dissection of the breakdown in community in modern society is very disheartening, but I appreciate your optimism for the future. I think I found myself generally falling within the parenthesis (explosive angry yelling, paternalism or monarchy, snap judgments, knee-jerk fear-mongering, heated debate, or silence and avoidance) when it comes to public dialouge. One area that you did not cover was government meetings, which are the institutionalized mechanism for public decision making. I have a fair degree of skepticism about the vitality of the public's interests and means to influence local government, but there is supposed to be some level of interaction/airing of views at public meetings. Most public officials devise ways to make decisions outside of public meetings, and that clearly undercuts the interest any citizen would have in showing up for those meetings, but the structure is there. Chris:

Your careful dissection of the breakdown in community in modern society is very disheartening, but I appreciate your optimism for the future.

I think I found myself generally falling within the parenthesis (explosive angry yelling, paternalism or monarchy, snap judgments, knee-jerk fear-mongering, heated debate, or silence and avoidance) when it comes to public dialouge.

One area that you did not cover was government meetings, which are the institutionalized mechanism for public decision making. I have a fair degree of skepticism about the vitality of the public's interests and means to influence local government, but there is supposed to be some level of interaction/airing of views at public meetings. Most public officials devise ways to make decisions outside of public meetings, and that clearly undercuts the interest any citizen would have in showing up for those meetings, but the structure is there.

]]>