About citizens’ juries

1. About citizens’ juries Max Hardy September, 2016

2. Why the growing interest in deliberative processes? Bored/dissatisfied with conventional processes FOMO We need some ‘light’, not just ‘heat’ Positive stories from participants/jurors These issues need a deep dive! We need to hear what the cross-section of the broader community thinks, not just those who are really unhappy

3. An Evolutionary Continuum Adapted from EranVigoda-Gadot Citizens as subjects Citizens as voters Citizens as customers Citizens as partners Role of Citizens Old New Role of Governance and Public Administration G & PA as rulers G & PA as trustees G & PAas managers G & PAas partners Old New Type of interaction Coerciveness Delegation Responsiveness Collaboration Old New

4. Examples of issues/topics • Managing stray/feral dogs and cats policy – South Australia • NDIS – review of pilot sites • Curfews – Adelaide and Sydney • Planning controls – City of Yarra • Rate capping/levies/tariffs – many • Co-designing air quality monitoring system – EPA • Wastewater solutions at 12 Apostles – PV and WW • Speed limits and street redesign – VicRoads • Redevelopment of open space/golf course – Bayside • Reform of governance – Geelong • Nuclear Waste – South Australia

5. Common objections or concerns They might come up with a wish-list we can’t implement This is one for the experts; not lay people Isn’t our Council a Citizens’ Jury? Internal How do we know we won’t end up with people who are drunkards, or idiots? I don’t think we can afford to have ordinary citizens make such important decisions How do we know the process is not social engineering to get solution Council wants Isn’t this just a way to silence our Council’s biggest critics? External

6. Risks with citizens’ juries • Stakeholders can feel marginalised • Sponsoring organisations may see as a way to disempower those with different points of view. • Broader community can feel left out, and be left out. • Stakeholders will not go on the same journey as jurors, and may well still be polarised • Stakeholders may choose not to participate and lobby decision-makers directly • Bright, newish shiny thing used inappropriately

7. Benefits of citizens’ juries • Potential for the really deep dive • Transformative for jurors • Jurors can advocate for process and outcome • Those with strong interests are required to pitch to citizens (rather than claiming to speak on their behalf when lobbying) • Clearer accountability with process outputs and ultimate decisions made

8. Citizens’ Jury – classic model • 12-24 randomly selected against stratified criteria • Usually 3-5 consecutive days in duration • Overseen by stakeholder steering committee, who choose witnesses to give evidence • Commitment by decision-makers to seriously consider and publicly respond to recommendations. • Consensus ‘verdict’ expectedthough majority reports still useful

9. Variables • Size of the jury/deliberative panel • Times/duration of process • How it is termed • Composition • Level of influence • Incentives • Remits • Codesign vs choosing between options

10. Imperatives for citizens’ juries

11. EthicalImperatives1. Gaining clear commitment from sponsors/decisionmakers • Are the open to it being different to their preferred outcome? • Are they really curious to know what citizens will support/recommend? • Are they willing for jurors’ report to be made public unedited? • Have they considered the relative merits of other processes? • Are they willing to respond publicly to their recommendations?

12. Do-ableImperatives2. Well-scoped remit • If the remit is really broad such as ‘How might this state best address it’s key health challenges over the next 20 years?’ it makes the jury’s task, and organisers/facilitators very difficult. Yet, even with such a remit wisdom can emerge. • Research tends to point to CJs being most useful for convergence – focusing on making choices between carefully crafted options, yet with room to craft • Stakeholder confidence in the remit itself is very important. • If the remit is extremely narrow then the value a jury can add might be missed. Example ‘Should we have designated bike lanes on Wellington St?’

13. Do-ableImperatives3-5. Design and structure • Equal time for content delivery and deliberation is a useful guide. • Lots of work, time and skill required. • Encourage jurors to learn as much as they can from all witnesses. • Not uncommon for extra time to be allocated after sitting days for jurors to finalise their report. This is for explaining and documenting rationale, not revisiting the verdict.

14. Influence imperatives1. Juries standing behind their report • Check in regularly to ensure satisfaction with process. • Whatever happens, it MUST be the juror’s report! • Juries will make judgments throughout as to whether they feel the process is genuine. If sponsor or facilitators are not genuine they will know! • Not uncommon for jurors to make public comments in support of process

15. “When I came into this process all I could see was a two-dimensional circle. Now I can see a three-dimensional object and I can’t go back.”

16. Influence imperatives2. Stakeholders believe process well run • They believe facilitators behave independently • Believe there is an appropriate balance of evidence-givers (witnesses) • Stakeholders believe their own perspectives have been well put, understood and appreciated.

17. “It’s such an honour to contribute to this process. And it’s great for a change that, unlike my shawl, I’ll be able to see the shades of grey”.

18. Finito!