Politics can be dirty, but what we have seen over the past year is simply political porn. Warnings have to be issued before newscasts. I have to stand over my children trying to get to Nikelodeon, DisneyXD or ESPN to make sure I don’t have to explain anything later, or often times I do if they heard something from a friend at school.
Yesterday I heard a state legislature tell me that the best place to train for legislative leadership is in the minority. After spending a few years as a Democrat in a Republican House of Representatives, this person when on to become the Majority Leader when the Democrats gained control.
Politics is cyclical. Those in the minority may soon have control of either or both chambers. Yet, according to an article in The New York Times, Polarization: It's Everywhere. According to the article and a new study from Pew Research, Republicans in Congress don't trust Democrats (and the feeling on the other side is mutual) and the voters certainly don't think very highly of those that we put in office.
When we don't trust each other we don't work well together, but in creating sound public policy we need that trust. To help restore the ability to work together, to accomplish a common goal or mission, I propose the creation of a Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution. They exist in states such as Washington and Oregon and in city's like Salt Lake City, but we need to bring these models to other centers of power where politics trumps policy and progress.
There will always be politics and opposing views and debates on issues -- that is healthy, but what Oregon Solutions or Salt Lake Solutions provides is "process".
To formalize and sustain this process, I propose creating an office similar to Oregon Solutions, which provides a system and process for problem solving, using collaborative governance as a method of public decision-making in which government leaders involve stakeholders from many areas of society, including community members, businesses, other government agencies and non-profit organizations in making decisions that affect how people are governed or how public resources are used.
Oftentimes issues are brought to the Governor’s attention through Regional Solutions Centers (RSCs), which are places for state agencies to collaborate with each other and among key stakeholders.
When an issue seems intractable, Oregon Solutions calls on Oregon Consensus to mediate and resolve conflict. Oregon Consensus focuses its work on issues regarding the environment, economic development, transportation and public health.
Both Oregon Solutions and Oregon Consensus are not government entities, but they are affiliated with Portland State University. The Oregon Legislature continues to fund this program ($1.2M). Washington also has a similar system.
Similarly, at a city level, Salt Lake Solutions is jointly funded by the City Council and the Mayor and is part of the city government. It is charged with the task of solving community problems by cultivating inclusive collaborations of public and private support. Ralph Becker, the Mayor of Salt Lake City, took that same model and created Salt Lake City Solutions, an office, in the city’s planning department, that is dedicated to community engagement and facilitation.
These organizations provide a system and process for problem solving, using community governance. This includes:
It takes the burden off the elected officials to drive politically charged issues to a neutral organization that can create the process to resolve them.
Each issue comes to the organization’s attention after the Mayor, Council or Governor defines a problem that needs to be solved. The Mayor/Governor designates an impartial convener to bring people together and develop an assessment of the proposed project. If the issue meets the criteria for resolution, a neutral or convener is selected to manage and help resolve the project through facilitated meetings.
If we can agree to disagree than let's work together to at least build a process to help resolve our differences.
Candidates in this election cycle can still take a few pages from the President's campaign playbook that helped him build a brand that connected with voters, such as:
While campaigns are a time for the voters to get to know the candidates, it is also the chance for the candidates to get to know the voters.
Sure they take their polls to see where the "pulse" is, but perhaps campaigns should be more of a listening tour, debates more like gripe sessions and elections about the people who listened best.
Effective listening provides a roadmap for creating key messages that form the basis of a solid agenda and a plan for deploying the necessary resources to create a solid plan for moving forward.
We need to listen harder...Who will be interested in talking with us?...What are they interested in talking about?...Where and on what terms would they like to comment and become engaged.
Then, once we listen, we can participate in the conversation, share ideas, collaborate and otherwise engage each other in creating a community once again.
I know that campaigns and elections are really about politics, personalities and egos, but it also should be about public engagement, open advocacy and honesty with ourselves as to the direction we must go to move our nation / state forward.
These are the principles for 'public engagement,' created by Endleman PR. Their philosophy of "advanced shared interests in a world of cross-influence."
Leadership is in part about "embracing chaos" for the "public good." Similarly, public opinion not only helps create chaos, it helps resolve it.
In this election, both Democrats and Republicans need to identify their key influencers, engage them and use their stories to influence untraditional voters that their party’s vision is the better one.
In 2011, we saw people protesting in the streets of Egypt, Syria and Libya demanding change, while others occupied Wall Street, Oakland, San Francisco, Detroit and other cities throughout America,. For a movement to succeed, those involved, should have a desire for progress through action, change through collaboration and growth by working together. For any movement to succeed, it needs a vision and the leadership necessary to carry out that vision.
As candidates prepare to run for election or reelection in 2014, they need to create a vision to rally their supporters around and suggest a plan of action once they are elected. Campaigns are no doubt political, but for today’s voter, candidates need to offer voters something more than just the same old negative campaigning.
Business and individuals today need stability. They need to know that what and whom they invest in will be around for a while to help them move forward. The challenge both Democrats and Republicans will have in this election is communicating a vision to help create that movement the activists tried to create in 2011.
Perhaps each party should try something new, something bold and rise above the politics and personalities and start focusing on the issues where everyone can agree. Democrats or Republicans can agree to disagree, but both must start making policy through consensus. While that message may not win elections, it will start the discussion to drive change in the state and in Washington.
Believe it or not, in 2012, Michigan was ranked the seventh-worst state for corruption, earning an "F" in the annual State Integrity Investigation study. The 2012 study, was a collaborative project of the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity and Public Radio International.
To come up with its ranking system, the study used 330 indicators of state accountability broken down in 14 categories.
Michigan received "Fs" in 10 of them:
Since the report was prepared, the Michigan Legislature has worked or is working on a number of these issues, FOIA reform, campaign finance and general oversight.
However, in being critical of the State of Michigan, Chris Andrews, the study's author, said, (in Michigan) "reform efforts are frequently launched, sometimes debated, always shelved. Meanwhile, special interests continue to make greater use of loopholes that allow them to influence the system without leaving fingerprints on the money spent doing it."
Michigan's score of a "58" was identical to what it earned from the same study in 2011, when it again ranked seventh.
New Jersey was the best-ranked state, followed by Connecticut, Washington, California and Nebraska. Georgia was ranked the most corrupt state, followed by South Dakota, Wyoming, Virginia and Maine. Michigan did receive an "A" in one category, internal auditing. The state also earned "B-'s" in state budget processes and procurement. In public access to information, Michigan scored a "D."
The study acknowledged there are positives. "Michigan's state government is not known for scandal. It gets many things right," Andrews writes. "It is not plagued by pay-to-play allegations in procurement, or by nepotism or cronyism in the civil service system. Its Freedom of Information Act usually, if not always, works to give journalists and others the information they request at a reasonable cost."
However, the study is overwhelmingly critical of Michigan, particularly over Michigan's campaign finance system and our lobbying laws. The legislature still has some time to improve our system and I know the State Bar of Michigan and Secretary of State are also working on some reform, but perhaps there is more work for a new legislature to tackle in 2014.
