Town Hall Meetings Have Gone Out of Style

Error message
In order to filter by the "in queue" property, you need to add the Entityqueue: Queue relationship.-
County NewsImagine taking a seat in a space that resembles a theater or a house of worship or a courtroom. Now imagine having a real conversation with anyone in that space — particularly the main speaker, standing quite far away from you, maybe even standing on a stage or sitting on a dais.Town Hall Meetings Have Gone Out of Style
-
County News Article
Town Hall Meetings Have Gone Out of Style
Imagine taking a seat in a space that resembles a theater or a house of worship or a courtroom.
Now imagine having a real conversation with anyone in that space — particularly the main speaker, standing quite far away from you, maybe even standing on a stage or sitting on a dais.
We don’t go to court, or the theater or our worship spaces, with an eye toward having a back and forth dialogue with the judge or the actors or the clergy (though some preachers surely entice some “amens” and “hallelujahs,” but that’s about all). We come to receive something — maybe entertainment, inspiration or justice — without expecting to play much of a role in the event itself.
But that is the very setting we expect our own citizenry to accept when we invite them for a chat. We may call it a “town hall meeting,” but we have migrated pretty far away from the New England tradition of giving every resident a direct voice in the town’s affairs.
Instead, we are privileging some citizens over others by expecting people to speak in front of a crowd of hundreds or thousands. It should not surprise us that the citizens who most often take advantage of that opportunity are an infinitesimally small percentage of the population as a whole — often the angriest among us, or those with more extreme points of view, for whom a microphone represents a golden opportunity to vent.
And why, you may ask, would they be angry?
Picture this. You come home from work and without prior warning, your spouse has redecorated your entire home, even thrown out some furniture you liked. Maybe you like the new look, but chances are, you would be so taken aback by the process that you could not even form an opinion on what the house looked like. You would probably feel so slighted not to have been consulted ahead of time that you forget all about whether you like the new look.
Constituents often feel the same way. They read in the paper or hear on the news that their elected officials are leaning toward a major policy decision, or have even already made that decision, and only then are they scheduling a “town hall” to talk to their constituents about it. Imagine if you read a headline that read, “County plans to remove all statues with ties to the Confederacy.” Even if, ultimately, county residents determined that those statues belong in a museum or elsewhere, they would likely take umbrage at being told that was happening, rather than given the chance to weigh in on what should happen.
Nothing about the current iteration of a town hall meeting befits its name. Agendas or objectives for the gathering are seldom seen. Crowds drown out the speaker. Attendees never get to share their views, or get questions answered, much less influence policy decisions. Insults are even exchanged — both by the crowd and the presenter.
Who benefits from this? It might seem like a constitutionally protected expression of the right to assemble, petition and speak, and to a degree, it is. But what happens when my opinion is different from the cheering or sneering many? Chances are I will choose to hold my tongue — or the organizer will end the meeting when they have had enough of the verbal abuse. So, my elected official is unable to hear my point of view — and, undoubtedly that of many others — and may make policy decisions with incomplete, or even inaccurate information about his constituents’ views.
Unquestionably, however, elected officials need to face their bosses (constituents) and take accountability for their actions, or do their jobs as decision-makers by asking their bosses what they should decide. But the most recent wave of town hall meetings — or perhaps pep rallies for angry constituents — suggests the model needs an overhaul.
If, indeed, the purpose of these kinds of gatherings is to allow the elected official to understand his constituents’ point of view than conversation held around a single table, in a smaller group, with the help of a facilitator who keeps the group focused on its agenda and mindful of its discussion agreements, could yield far better results than the status quo.
So, too, could thoughtful uses of technology improve the people’s access to those in power. A basic social media account, on Facebook or Twitter for example, can reproduce some of the same dynamics at the packed gymnasium — unvarnished vitriol, limited information exchanged, many voices silenced. But a moderated video chat with multiple participants who can see one another, or a televised meeting that enables participants to call or send a text message (and even be part of a small group in those contexts), can change the dynamics of the conversation significantly.
Of course, in many contexts, elected officials have thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of constituents. Perhaps the time has come for investment in a “conversation corps” — an army of trained facilitators who make civil, civic dialogue possible for people all across the country, in settings that feel comfortable, familiar and inviting.
Perhaps the resources of iconic internet brands can be brought to bear in this regard — taking the vast reach of their platform and creating small, diverse conversational cross-sections of a community or a county. Imagine the possibilities if we could talk to someone with whom we disagree, even passionately, and find even the smallest sliver of common ground. It is difficult to find someone for a conversation like that, but it has become easier with technology.
Ultimately, as a country, we should expect more of our elected officials and how responsive they are to our concerns. But they will only change if we change the conversation.
Imagine taking a seat in a space that resembles a theater or a house of worship or a courtroom.2017-11-13County News Article2023-04-11
Imagine taking a seat in a space that resembles a theater or a house of worship or a courtroom.
Now imagine having a real conversation with anyone in that space — particularly the main speaker, standing quite far away from you, maybe even standing on a stage or sitting on a dais.
We don’t go to court, or the theater or our worship spaces, with an eye toward having a back and forth dialogue with the judge or the actors or the clergy (though some preachers surely entice some “amens” and “hallelujahs,” but that’s about all). We come to receive something — maybe entertainment, inspiration or justice — without expecting to play much of a role in the event itself.
But that is the very setting we expect our own citizenry to accept when we invite them for a chat. We may call it a “town hall meeting,” but we have migrated pretty far away from the New England tradition of giving every resident a direct voice in the town’s affairs.
Instead, we are privileging some citizens over others by expecting people to speak in front of a crowd of hundreds or thousands. It should not surprise us that the citizens who most often take advantage of that opportunity are an infinitesimally small percentage of the population as a whole — often the angriest among us, or those with more extreme points of view, for whom a microphone represents a golden opportunity to vent.
And why, you may ask, would they be angry?
Picture this. You come home from work and without prior warning, your spouse has redecorated your entire home, even thrown out some furniture you liked. Maybe you like the new look, but chances are, you would be so taken aback by the process that you could not even form an opinion on what the house looked like. You would probably feel so slighted not to have been consulted ahead of time that you forget all about whether you like the new look.
Constituents often feel the same way. They read in the paper or hear on the news that their elected officials are leaning toward a major policy decision, or have even already made that decision, and only then are they scheduling a “town hall” to talk to their constituents about it. Imagine if you read a headline that read, “County plans to remove all statues with ties to the Confederacy.” Even if, ultimately, county residents determined that those statues belong in a museum or elsewhere, they would likely take umbrage at being told that was happening, rather than given the chance to weigh in on what should happen.
Nothing about the current iteration of a town hall meeting befits its name. Agendas or objectives for the gathering are seldom seen. Crowds drown out the speaker. Attendees never get to share their views, or get questions answered, much less influence policy decisions. Insults are even exchanged — both by the crowd and the presenter.
Who benefits from this? It might seem like a constitutionally protected expression of the right to assemble, petition and speak, and to a degree, it is. But what happens when my opinion is different from the cheering or sneering many? Chances are I will choose to hold my tongue — or the organizer will end the meeting when they have had enough of the verbal abuse. So, my elected official is unable to hear my point of view — and, undoubtedly that of many others — and may make policy decisions with incomplete, or even inaccurate information about his constituents’ views.
Unquestionably, however, elected officials need to face their bosses (constituents) and take accountability for their actions, or do their jobs as decision-makers by asking their bosses what they should decide. But the most recent wave of town hall meetings — or perhaps pep rallies for angry constituents — suggests the model needs an overhaul.
If, indeed, the purpose of these kinds of gatherings is to allow the elected official to understand his constituents’ point of view than conversation held around a single table, in a smaller group, with the help of a facilitator who keeps the group focused on its agenda and mindful of its discussion agreements, could yield far better results than the status quo.
So, too, could thoughtful uses of technology improve the people’s access to those in power. A basic social media account, on Facebook or Twitter for example, can reproduce some of the same dynamics at the packed gymnasium — unvarnished vitriol, limited information exchanged, many voices silenced. But a moderated video chat with multiple participants who can see one another, or a televised meeting that enables participants to call or send a text message (and even be part of a small group in those contexts), can change the dynamics of the conversation significantly.
Of course, in many contexts, elected officials have thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of constituents. Perhaps the time has come for investment in a “conversation corps” — an army of trained facilitators who make civil, civic dialogue possible for people all across the country, in settings that feel comfortable, familiar and inviting.
Perhaps the resources of iconic internet brands can be brought to bear in this regard — taking the vast reach of their platform and creating small, diverse conversational cross-sections of a community or a county. Imagine the possibilities if we could talk to someone with whom we disagree, even passionately, and find even the smallest sliver of common ground. It is difficult to find someone for a conversation like that, but it has become easier with technology.
Ultimately, as a country, we should expect more of our elected officials and how responsive they are to our concerns. But they will only change if we change the conversation.
Hero 1
About Larry Schooler (Full Bio)
Director of Community Engagement and Consensus Building, Engaged Public
Larry Schooler, the Director of Community Engagement and Consensus Building, Engaged Public is an award-winning mediator, facilitator and public engagement consultant. Mr. Schooler created the first public engagement division for the city of Austin, Texas and has worked with public administrators around the world. Mr.More from Larry Schooler
-
Blog
How counties are taking control of constituent communication
This blog post is sponsored by NACo partner Indigov. Enhance your government outreach! Discover the best strategies for effective constituent communication in our latest blog. -
Blog
Announcing 2023 Achievement Award Winners
NACo is pleased to announce the winners for the 2023 Achievement Awards. -
County News
‘Breaking Bad’ actor’s role of a lifetime: County commissioner
Steven Michael Quezada is what performers call a quadruple threat — he’s an actor, a writer, a producer... and an elected official. The string that ties all of them together? Bernalillo County, N.M. -
County News
Economic momentum, bipartisan hope mark Biden’s return to Legislative Conference
Not satisfied to coast on two years of legislative wins, President Joe Biden charted the path forward for what he called a blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America during his second consecutive address to NACo’s Legislative Conference. -
County News
Keith Carson channels Berkeley upbringing on Alameda County Board
A student government program that kept Keith Carson out of jail as a teenager helped him find a talent and passion for government and launched a career that has included 30 years on the Alameda County, Calif. Board of Supervisors. -
County News
President Biden to address 2023 NACo Legislative Conference
President Biden will join the Feb. 14 General Session at the NACo Legislative Conference.
-
Conference
2023 NACo Fall Board Meeting
November 30, 2023 – December 2, 2023Save the date to join county leaders for NACo's Fall Board of Directors MeetingRamsey County (St. Paul), Minn.113011:00 am<h3>Save the Date</h3>
<p>Save the date to join county leaders for NACo's Fall Board of Directors Meeting in Ramsey County (St. Paul), Minn. Nov. 30 – Dec. 2.</p>
-
Basic page
NACo High Performance Leadership Academy
The NACo High Performance Leadership Academy is an online 12-week program that will empower frontline county government professionals with the most fundamental leadership skills to deliver results for counties and communities.pagepagepage<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%" summary="medium-call-out transparent">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
Contact
-
Director of Community Engagement and Consensus Building, Engaged Public
Related Resources
-
Blog
How counties are taking control of constituent communication
This blog post is sponsored by NACo partner Indigov. Enhance your government outreach! Discover the best strategies for effective constituent communication in our latest blog. -
Blog
Announcing 2023 Achievement Award Winners
NACo is pleased to announce the winners for the 2023 Achievement Awards. -
County News
‘Breaking Bad’ actor’s role of a lifetime: County commissioner
Steven Michael Quezada is what performers call a quadruple threat — he’s an actor, a writer, a producer... and an elected official. The string that ties all of them together? Bernalillo County, N.M.
-
Press Release
Winfrey Begins NACo Presidency
Will County, Ill. Board Member Denise Winfrey was sworn in as president of the National Association of Counties (NACo) on July 24 at the conclusion of NACo’s 87th Annual Conference in Adams County, Colo. -
Video
NACo President Denise Winfrey Announces RISE!
During the 2022 NACo Annual Business Meeting, NACo President Denise Winfrey outlined her presidential priority, “RISE!” -
Video
2022 NACo Annual Conference Livestreams
Tune in for livestreams of select conference programming from the 2022 NACo Annual Conference & Exposition.
Related Events
-
30Nov2023Conference
2023 NACo Fall Board Meeting
Nov. 30, 2023 – Dec. 2, 2023Ramsey County (St. Paul), Minn.
More From
-
Announcing 2023 Achievement Award Winners
NACo is pleased to announce the winners for the 2023 Achievement Awards.
Learn More