Tag: Public Engagement

Categories
Branding Local Government Public Engagement

The Power of Branding: The Public Engagement Asset

When it comes to branding, jurisdictions should consider public engagement as part of their strategy. 

Read as an appetizer…

Public organizations and their jurisdictions should integrate public engagement into their branding strategy, mirroring how businesses manage their brand image. A positive community brand attracts businesses, conventions, and tourists and relies on residents’ trust in their local government. Trust is foundational for public institutions and crucial for political participation and social cohesion. Yet current data shows growing public mistrust of government. To help (re)build trust, increasing transparency and community cooperation is essential. Public engagement, facilitated by technology platforms, enhances transparency, fosters involvement, and boosts trust, positively impacting a government’s brand and image. Creative communication strategies and the right technology enable an open, progressive local government to build and maintain a strong brand.

Read as the main course…

Note: This is a reprint of a blog post contributed to PublicInput.com) 

ReaJust as companies work to improve the image of their brand, many local governments do the same.  Creating and maintaining a favorable community image has always been a key component of any economic development strategy. Typically falling on local chambers of commerce and convention and visitors bureaus, promoting a positive community brand helps attract businesses, conventions, and tourists.

Continue reading “The Power of Branding: The Public Engagement Asset”
Categories
Civic Engagement Local Government Public Engagement

Public Engagement and the CIO

(This is a reprint of a blog post contributed to PublicInput.com)

CIOs and IT see a greater role in public engagement

Modern-day government is adding democracy to their list of CIO priorities. In the 2020 State CIO Survey conducted by the National Association of State CIOs (NASCIO), “Digital services and emerging technologies” took over as the #1 priority replacing cyber security which had held that spot for four years. While CIO/IT engagement with citizens has addressed many public policy areas, those exchanges were never as critical as in their new role that began in March 2020.

When COVID-19 struck, public officials retreated from conventional public engagement practices for the health and safety of themselves and for the members of their communities. Despite this, the imperative for local governments to remain open and continue dialog with residents and facilitate their participation in deliberations remained –particularly in times of crises

Many local governments were unprepared technologically and procedurally for a seamless transition from conventional, in-person meetings to virtual ones. As a result, the circumstances propelled by the pandemic set the stage for an incredible transformation in the IT government space.

CIOs and their teams became the central government employees in public meetings. They were the architects and managers to build and at times run the platforms for public bodies and the public to virtually connect and collaborate.

The expanding CIO role is being recognized by government leaders who are realizing their value beyond traditional technologists and as key players and enablers in the future of government-citizen collaboration.

“We have also seen concrete evidence that technology is expected by the general public and important for communicating and engaging at scale.”  CIO quote from NASCIO survey

Leveraging Technology

Most CIOs and IT staff were challenged early on in the pandemic to cobble together multiple technologies to replicate and comply with traditional in-person meetings and requirements.

Today, many have found end-to-end solutions offering the best fit to bring more diversity, equity, inclusion, and meaning to public engagement and decision-making processes.

Expanding the role and influence of CIOs and IT to ensure the government has a secure and manageable platform that improves both the quantity and quality of collaboration with residents offers both an opportunity and a challenge.

In this year’s NASCIO survey, “with responses being collected a full year after the pandemic began, one answer overwhelmingly stood out as the biggest driver for state governments’ need to digitize: ‘better online experience for citizens.’”

A survey from Emerging Local Government Leaders (ELGL) echoed this at the community level. Asked which areas of government where software and technology adoption were made during the pandemic would become permanent, 83% of respondents identified “community engagement.”

What does this new role of “democracy enabler” mean for CIOs and for their departments?

This larger role illustrates the importance of technology solutions to public engagement in governing today. The responsibility to contribute to successful engagement is spread across a broader spectrum of government employees, each contributing their talent to the process.

Public engagement is more than collecting input and feedback from residents. It is a central theme for public institutions to build and rebuild trust among constituents and the opportunity to collect more informed input from subject matter experts in their communities that lead to better decision-making for the whole.

Expect to see an ongoing role for IT as local governments continue to utilize virtual methods along with conventional forms of public engagement to provide residents and public officials with a blended, or hybrid environment that takes advantage of the benefits offered using both formats.

Categories
Public Engagement

IAP2 Tech Panel Discusses Virtual Engagement

(This is a reprint of a blog post contributed to PublicInput.com)

PublicInput had the pleasure of joining other public engagement tech companies on a virtual panel at the 2021 IAP2 North America Conference. Sharing our experiences, insights and predictions surrounding virtual public engagement with our colleagues and practitioners is always an enjoyable and productive experience.

Dr. Kristin Williams with PublicInput, joined Aaron Bernard of Spatial Media, Ward Ferguson of Jambo and Joseph Thornley, of 76Engage. Aaron’s Spatial Media colleague, Rohan Aurora, moderated the panel that addressed three questions concerning the impact of the pandemic on public engagement, adapting new technologies to existing engagement practices, and future predictions.

Below is a summary of the exchange that ensued.

Question #1 – The Pandemic: 

What were the impacts and trends that emerged in engagement?

This was a retrospective question to explore lessons learned. A general observation from the panelists addressed how unprepared technologically and procedurally many public institutions were to respond when conventional, in-person engagement and deliberations were halted. However, everyone acknowledged and credited local governing bodies for their quick actions and creativity, along with a seasoned group of public engagement practitioners to respond and adapt to the dire circumstances and the need for continuity of our public institutions.

Panelists noted the presence of new government staff who not only attended the virtual public meetings (VPMs) but were also running them on behalf of their organizations: the CIO or IT department. Their chief role was to ensure virtual meetings would be convened with as little disruption as possible.

The panelists cited their own experience working with customers and feedback from public engagement practitioners about the challenges to integrating technology platforms in their proceedings, however, there is general acceptance of their benefits for using virtual public meetings in the future and interest in blending them with in-person deliberations currently and to continue after the pandemic subsides. These views were also noted in a study by Engaging Local Government Leaders (ELGL) and others that found support to continue the use of virtual meetings and mirrors the thoughts of PublicInput.

Data collected over the past 18 months demonstrate VPMs are having a positive impact on public engagement. And with the resurgence of the COVID Delta variant governments are not in a hurry to cast aside their role in governing and democracy. VPMs provide a sustainable option for increasing public participation and offer jurisdictions an effective input and feedback tool to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in their deliberations.

Providing a “win-win-win-win” scenario benefiting public engagement practitioners, governing bodies, govtech solution providers, and residents, the panelists were optimistic about wider adoption and a bright future for VPMs.

Question #2 – Adaptation: 

What are people doing today that could be improved with tech?

The moderator asked panelists to share advice with the attendees from what they have learned and are seeing in virtual public engagement practices. Panelists suggested that 2020 was a tumultuous year for public participation due to the pandemic, the social injustice protests surrounding police reforms and a divisive, polarized presidential election followed.

“We are at a pivotal point in the relationship between the government and constituents,” noted Dr. Williams. There was mutual agreement that trust in government and trust in society had suffered and one way to help rebuild trust was through greater transparency, inclusive participation and accountability. And solutions to address those challenges will have to come through greater use of technology to encourage and facilitate greater collaboration between government and residents.

Panelists also discussed the benefits and potential liabilities for governments using social networks as public engagement platforms versus the government’s own and managed engagement platform. There was some disagreement on this topic between PublicInput’s Williams and Jambo’s Thornley. Thornley argued against their use as it provides private social networks with free data from the public. Williams suggested there were some roles for social networks in public engagement as communication and information providers. Both panelists agreed to continue the conversation beyond the IAP2 session as this is an important, unresolved topic surrounding data ownership, security, and privacy.

Question #3 – The Future: 

What does the future look like for engagement and technology?

The moderator suggested the panelists address this hypothetical question by identifying social and technological trends that have and could impact the future of public engagement. As an example, the moderator asked how tech support might foster or potentially present challenges to engagement practices.

There was total agreement among the panelists that a new era of public engagement and representative democracy is emerging thanks in part to a changing culture and enabling technologies. This includes new models for how governance and public engagement are administered and how to use media tools to rebuild public governance.

The panelists returned to the experiences of local governments during the pandemic and the use of VPMs and their potential to be at the center of public participation. This discussion included trending topics in public engagement around growing interest in blended, or hybrid models of public engagement that combine conventional, in-person methods with virtual models.

Panelists suggested as the new technologies become more ubiquitous and more user-friendly, the heavy emphasis on CIOs and IT will fade with the administration of these platforms directed by staff who traditionally played a role in public engagement.

Finally, panelists cited the opportunity to increase and expand the use of virtual public engagement to opportunities beyond council meetings and public project feedback to tap into the knowledge of their residents for contributions to solutions for the many socio-economic challenges local governments and communities are facing.

Categories
Democracy Local Government Public Engagement State Government

Virtual Meetings & State Legislatures

(This is a reprint of a blog post contributed to PublicInput.com)

More state legislatures are enabling virtual public meetings as an option for deliberations and public engagement.

Historically, government officials have been required to meet in person to deliberate about the public’s business. This has been particularly true for meetings that included constituents and their elected representatives. Some states even have laws requiring officials to attend meetings in person.

Face-to-face meetings between elected officials and the public are important.

This is because elected officials can’t ignore people that are right in front of them talking about a problem or a policy. It also helps them put a “face” to a certain issue or law. The public’s physical presence at a meeting can be very impactful when making decisions and could affect the outcome.

Times and technology have changed and public attendance at council meetings or committee meetings usually represents those who have a strong opinion for or against the issue that is being debated and may not represent the voice of the whole community.

The Pursuit of Alternative Means

In March 2020 as the COVID-19 virus became a pandemic, state and local governments were forced to shutter their buildings and halt their in-person proceedings. Alternative means had to be pursued to conduct the public’s business and for the continuation of governance.

For years, the public has had options to view or listen to their governing bodies’ proceedings electronically, whether online, televised, or by radio and officials were physically present in those proceedings. Now, the elected and the electorate would need to segregate from each other and conduct their meetings virtually. Yet, some states had laws that required meetings of public bodies to have the officials present which prevented them from attending virtually.

With the growing pandemic, states had to act fast to enable the government to continue to operate and in a way that would not violate their open government laws surrounding access, participation, and transparency of public meetings.

Executive orders became the norm in most states to enable their governments to continue operations, including holding virtual proceedings. Those emergency orders, however, had deadlines so it was up to state legislatures in those states that restricted virtual attendance to create formal alternatives for convening public meetings.

Fast forward to the summer of 2021

With a year and a half of a continuing (and resurging) pandemic, along with 18 months of positive data about the effectiveness of virtual public meetings (VPM), decisions by state and local governments to meet virtually have taken hold across the nation on whether or not there were legal restrictions preventing them. Today, VPMs as an alternative or complement to in-person meetings are launching a new era of public engagement for governments and for residents.

Recall that not all states have laws requiring in-person attendance by officials that prevent VPMs and therefore do not require legislative action to approve their use. Wyoming is a good example of a state that switched to VPMs over the last year and a half, including hybrid models, to ensure continuity of services and decision-making along with public outreach.

For those states that either required officials’ in-person attendance or wanted to revise legislation to ensure VPMs were included in their public meeting requirements, 17 states had bills filed over the last year that included language pertaining to VPMs, according to BillTrack50, a free research and tracking service of state and federal legislation and legislators from LegiNation, Inc.,

So far, four of the 17 states have signed and enacted legislation to support VPMs (California, Georgia, Nebraska and Utah), while seven are still in committees or have been approved by one chamber and crossed-over to the other. These states include Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and Washington. Bills addressing VPMs in six states died in committee or failed on the floor: Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada and Texas.

A New Way to Govern

With or without needed changes to laws to enable VPMs across state and local jurisdictions, many public officials and residents are realizing the benefits along with the challenges of adjusting to VPMs and hybrid models that blend VPMs with in-person meetings.  Residents are enjoying the ease and convenience to learn about and engage their public officials without the challenges to their schedules including traveling to a meeting for whatever reason they may have.

Public officials are seeing the ranks of public participation swell and increased diversity among attendees. Key challenges facing public bodies such as inclusion to hear from more voices in the community are being facilitated using VPMs. The public’s personal preferences surrounding communicating and sharing information with public officials are being met and with greater ease. That helps build more trust between public officials and residents.

Whether out of necessity or in response to a disaster, state and local governments and their constituents are finding VPMs provide a new and welcoming way for governing and advancing democracy in their jurisdictions.

 

Categories
Local Government Public Information Public Meetings

Re-Examining Public Meetings

(This is a reprint of a blog post contributed to PublicInput.com)

Local jurisdictions rethink public meetings amid spikes in COVID-19 cases

Headlines from the pandemic outbreak in 2020?  No, these are announcements local governments have made in recent weeks as new cases of COVID-19 infections are exceeding totals recorded in 2020.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are reporting new outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infections, including COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection, associated with large public gatherings. Local governments are faced with a critical challenge regarding in-person public meetings in the midst of a resurgence in the pandemic as many jurisdictions returned to in-person deliberations

A Re-examination of Priorities

After vaccines became available and inoculations of U.S. residents increased with lower cases of COVID-19 infections being reported, local governments planned a return to in-person meetings. However, after more than a year of virtual public engagement — which came with its own set of challenges, but also returned major benefits — the data makes a strong case for continuing virtual proceedings.

Whether for ongoing health concerns or for the benefits to government decision-making, the evidence is clear: given the opportunity to participate virtually, the public will attend and in larger numbers than in person.

It’s understandable that elected officials have expressed a desire to return to in-person meetings for the face-to-face experience. However, successful virtual engagement has made an impressive impact as a way for governments to engage a larger and more diverse segment of their population.

Governments should not consider in-person or virtual meetings as an either/or decision. Instead, utilizing both methods in a hybrid model is a highly effective way to meet or exceed public information and communication objectives.

A New Era of Unified Public Engagement

Virtual public meetings are part of a new era of public engagement. Many state legislatures have recognized the benefits and have passed new laws allowing policies for continuing virtual public meetings to complement or supplant in-person meetings.

A recent survey from The Atlas, Engaging Local Government Leaders (ELGL), CivicPulse, CivicPlus, and Route Fifty reports 53% of responding jurisdictions that used virtual public meetings last year will continue to use them. Greater use of information technology by local governments over the last year has also increased expectations among residents for greater communication and information sharing with their governing bodies.

Click the image to view the “New Normal” survey report.

While the rise in COVID-19 cases should cause widespread alarm and a reexamination of public health policies in every state, governments are not facing the same great wall as they were in March 2020 when public communication and information processes came to a standstill. Proven options are available with virtual deliberations.

In Florida, the Treasure Coast newspaper editorial board has called on their county government to reinstate Zoom meetings permanently due to the increase in COVID-19 outbreaks and based on the fact virtual meetings facilitate greater public participation in government. The paper’s editorial stated:

Local governments around the state should not be looking to deep-six Zoom or any other video conferencing program they’ve used during the pandemic. They ought to be looking for ways to permanently integrate the services into the governing process. Zoom video conferences and Zoom commenting should be standard additions to the way local governments do business. Editorial Board – Treasure Cost Newspapers