Page 395 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

378 Appendix B

confidence that the crisis was being well handled, and they did. But considerable
planning happened behind the scenes at premeetings to the public meetings, as
these public officials worked through what they were going to say, who was going
to take the lead on particular topics, and so forth. In particular, they worked
through any disagreements privately, so they could present a united front to the
citizens of Fargo.
■ During the meeting: A strong facilitator must keep the meeting focused and
ensure that all sides of the issues are heard. The meeting must be run tightly
but with enough flexibility to adapt to any contingencies during the meeting (a
change in topic, larger than anticipated audiences, organized protests). Dialogue
with those attending is necessary and should be encouraged even after the
meeting. Agency officials have to try to encourage a representative number of
citizens to attend the meeting.
■ Post meeting: It is essential to show the citizens how their comments were heard
and incorporated into future decisions. Officials should demonstrate a continued
interest in keeping in contact with the citizens (setting up future meetings, getting
phone lists, etc.). Audience members must be thanked for attending.
Generally, agency officials report more satisfaction with public meetings than
the public does because the public gets the very real sense that a decision has
already been made. It is no surprise that many citizens think their comments make
no difference to the agency that called the meeting. In addition, audience members
may not feel comfortable expressing their thoughts and feelings about the issue.
They also may be there for multiple reasons. Some come to see what their neigh-
8
bors think about an issue and to offer support. Sometimes, just attending such a
meeting may help the audience member feel that he or she has actually done some-
thing about an issue. Often, the issue is so controversial (e.g., police profiling and
local crime) that going to such a meeting provides members of the public with
information they desperately seek.
SHEDD is a model of public dialogue developed by communication scholars
W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen to meet the public criticisms of public meet-
9
ings. This model uses a strong facilitator who helps members of the public to be
heard and treats the public’s comments as an important and an integral part of the
total problem- solving process— it honors the public involvement in its own gover-
nance. It presumes the decision making will occur after the public's input.
■ Getting started: Agency leaders commit to hearing all sides of the issue even if
they do not want to. Trained facilitators actively listen and summarize participant
comments so that divergent comments are validated.
■ Hearing all viewpoints: The topic of the meeting should be compelling and of
interest to many different factions of the community. The agency leaders need to
work to make sure that those constituencies are invited and encouraged to attend
the meeting(s).

gal37018_appB_363_380.indd 378 3/30/18 11:13 AM