Dialogue and Decision Making

Dialogue and Decision 1

GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY

Dialogue and decision-making:

Understanding dialogue and factors measurably influencing City decision-making processes

By Colin G. Gallagher, RPCV

EMPA 396 – Cohort No. 5

September 2, 2009

Instructor: Dr. Mick McGee


Table of Contents

Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................3
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................3
Definitions.....................................................................................................................................4
Hypothesis, Variables, Sub-Hypotheses, and Delimitation of the Study .....................................7
Assumptions of the Researcher .....................................................................................................8
Potential for Resultant Actions .....................................................................................................9
Literature Review ..........................................................................................................................9
Dialogue and Decision-Making ....................................................................................................9
Social Capital as a Resource: Community Well-Being and Development .................................10
Resource Utilization and Network Development: Precursors to Dialogue Opportunity ............11
Methodology .................................................................................................................................14
Data Collection ...........................................................................................................................14
Anticipated Issues .......................................................................................................................16
Areas of Measurement for Internal and External Utilization......................................................17
Results and Findings ....................................................................................................................18
Results of Data Analysis .............................................................................................................18
Findings.......................................................................................................................................25
Conclusions and Policy Recommendations ...............................................................................27
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................27
Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................27
Policy Recommendation I: Conduct Dialogues Regularly with Enhanced Facilitation ............27
Policy Recommendation II: Establish Presentation Opportunity for Participants .....................28
Policy Recommendation III: Enhance and Redirect Participation to Civic Centers .................29
Areas for Further Research ........................................................................................................30
References .....................................................................................................................................31
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................36
Appendix A (Dialogue Worksheet Questions Utilized by Dialogue Participants) .....................36


Abstract

Dialogue opportunities can be utilized as a specialized form of civic engagement, and in

this context dialogue is distinct from decision-making. Organizations that implement a program

of dialogue opportunities can utilize dialogues to influence decision-making. This study

describes the City of Salinas experience in 2009 with dialogue opportunities, and presents

research on whether the 2009 dialogues influenced decision-making processes at the City

Council level in a measurable way. The research analyzes data which aids in the understanding

of whether such dialogues utilized in similar circumstances would influence decision-making,

and reveals determining factors. A set of recommendations is added to make this research

accessible to leaders in any organization facing challenges of developing productive dialogue

while keeping organizational activities efficient.

Introduction

As is the case with many local governments across the country, the City of Salinas

experienced a reduction in revenue through 2008 which resulted in plans being developed by

management and elected officials to significantly alter previous budgetary plans. As part of this

process, the City Council authorized the submittal of a grant concept to Common Sense

California, a nonprofit organization which provides grants for civic engagement purposes to

local governments. The grant concept was co-authored by the researcher (in the researcher‟s

capacity as an employee of the City) and a Deputy City Manager of the City of Salinas. The

grant concept submitted to Common Sense California was intended to result in funding of four

independently facilitated dialogues on the theme of service levels and choices, with the

informational results of City residents‟ participation in the dialogues intended to be documented,

summarized, and delivered to the City Council prior to its action in the budget hearings for the


Fiscal Year 2009-2010. The City was successful in obtaining the grant, and the dialogues were

implemented on February 26th, 2009, March 16th, 2009, April 1st, 2009, and April 23rd, 2009.

Each of the four dialogues was independently facilitated by Viewpoint Learning, Inc.,

and the researcher aided in reservation of facilities, advertisement, food preparation, and other

similar administrative tasks for the dialogues. For one of the dialogues, at the request of

management, the researcher served as a bilingual English-Spanish translator. The question that

evolved from the researcher‟s observations of and reflections upon the dialogue processes was

whether these dialogues, and the informational result, had any impact or influence on the City

Council decision-making process for the adoption of a budget for fiscal year 2009-2010. After

the conclusion of the dialogues, the researcher made a final decision and commitment to examine

this question further through research which would involve data analysis, and to establish a

hypothesis for the final graduate (capstone) course for the Golden Gate University Executive

Master of Public Administration program that would address the dialogue question.

Development of an understanding of dialogue opportunities should begin with a clear

understanding of some of the basic definitions that have been used by organizations that have

programmed civic engagement activities into their work plans. Many organizations have found

as a routine part of their operations that a carefully programmed set of public outreach activities

is necessary to help further the goals of the organization. At the same time, many organizational

members are taking part in activities consistent with the Wojcicki (2001) definition of “civic

engagement” (p. 10) which is best defined as the “process of people‟s involvement” (E.

Wojcicki, personal communication, August 14, 2008) in “the specific organized and informal

activities through which individuals get drawn into community and political affairs” (Wojcicki,


2001, p. 10). This definition has been provided by Ed Wojcicki, currently Associate Chancellor

for Constituent Relations at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

In personal discussions during the first half of 2009, the researcher, along with a group of

established civic engagement practitioners, discussed the meaning of civic engagement in the

United States today through an online message board established by the researcher using

LinkedIn. Access to and moderation of the message board, titled „Civic Engagement and

Dialogue Practitioners,‟ was provided by the researcher. These discussions helped the researcher

gain insight into how various practitioners‟ perspectives on civic engagement have evolved.

A specialized kind of civic engagement emerges when „dialogue‟ opportunities are

presented. For the purposes of this study, „dialogue‟ shall be understood to be defined as per the

ViewPoint Learning (2009a) definition of "a special kind of discourse employing distinctive

skills to achieve mutual understanding and mutual trust and respect" (ViewPoint Learning, Inc.,

2009a) which is guided by "ground rules of dialogue" (ViewPoint Learning, Inc., 2009b). When

people participate in such a dialogue, they can become part of a „collaborative network.‟ The

definition of „collaborative networks‟ used for this paper is consistent with a portion of the Gloor

(2006) definition of collaborative innovation networks:

The individuals in COINs are highly motivated, working together toward a common goal

– not because of orders from their superiors (although they may be brought together in

that way), but because they share the same goal and are convinced of their common cause

(…) usually assembl(ing) around a new idea outside of organizational boundaries and

across conventional hierarchies. (Gloor, 2006, p. 11)

For the purposes of this study, in „collaborative networks,‟ one can observe a cooperation

which does not require the direct orders (nor direct and indirect permissions) which are


characteristic of the activities of an organization‟s formal hierarchy. This cooperation

nonetheless can continue to advance organizational interests through the increase of “civic

engagement” (Wojcicki, 2001, p. 10) in circumstances resulting from the participants‟ work on a

concept or issue for which Katz and Kahn‟s (2005)“feedback” (p. 485) is needed at some level

by an organization. In certain cases, the activities of such a collaborative network will influence

decision-making processes – however, whether the extent and level of influence is measurable

will depend on a variety of factors, including the proximity of the network‟s activity in time to

the decision-making processes which are closely tied to the concerns of members of the network.

The term „decision-making processes‟ shall here be defined as those processes by which

appointed or elected officials make decisions by voting in a public hearing setting, including that

aspect of the processes which involves the determination by the officials of what factors those

officials will use to evaluate information associated with the decision as the point of voting

approaches. Decision-making processes involve months or years of time prior to a decision.

For the purposes of this study, "the ground rules of dialogue" shall be understood to be

defined as they are described according to ViewPoint Learning (2009b):

1. The purpose of dialogue is to understand and learn from one another. (You cannot

"win" a dialogue.)

2. All dialogue participants speak for themselves, not as representatives of groups or

special interests.

3. Treat everyone in a dialogue as an equal: leave role, status and stereotypes at the door.

4. Be open and listen to others even when you disagree, and suspend judgment. (Try not

to rush to judgment).

5. Search for assumptions (especially your own).


6. Listen with empathy to the views of others: acknowledge you have heard the other

especially when you disagree.

7. Look for common ground.

8. Express disagreement in terms of ideas, not personality or motives.

9. Keep dialogue and decision-making as separate activities. (Dialogue should always

come before decision-making.)

10. All points of view deserve respect and all will be recorded (without attribution).

(ViewPoint Learning, Inc., 2009b)

I. HYPOTHESIS AND VARIABLES

The research described in this paper begins with the hypothesis:

Engagement opportunities provided through dialogues on service levels can influence

decision-making processes in a measurable way.

The dependent variable is: Influence decision-making processes.

The independent variable is: Engagement opportunities provided through dialogues.

II. SUB-HYPOTHESES

a. Dialogues influence decision-making.

b. Dialogues bring the general public more proximate to the decision-making itself.

c. Dialogues increase civic engagement.

d. Dialogues, as implemented in the City of Salinas, have revealed measurable

differences from prior years‟ decision-making patterns in response to public input.

In order to develop conclusions and recommendations within the timeframe established

for the research project and capstone course, the study was delimited in a specific way. The

primary data from dialogues come from the City of Salinas, and include data that resulted


directly from the dialogues implemented in February through April of 2009 in the City of

Salinas, with secondary data coming from other comparable sources utilized in the narrative of

the research. The amount of available data focused the research upon analysis of information

provided by persons participating in the dialogues in 2009, as well as background information

from persons who participated in other ways outside of the 2009 dialogues. This background

information included a review of public record data available from the City of Salinas which

dated back to 1999. The research is limited to an analysis of data available from the City of

Salinas from 1999 through June 30, 2009, as well as narrative information from other cities.

Assumptions of the researcher relevant to this study are as follows:

There is a reasonable expectation that an increasing number of members of the

general public in the United States today have been, or will become interested in

matters involving governmental expenditure.

Members of the general public want to be able to influence how the government

allocates money.

Members of the general public believe that their thoughts and opinions should be

held in higher value by elected, appointed, and employed governmental agents,

and would take advantage of additional opportunities to influence or change what

is done with money allocated by government.

A system of a constitutional and democratic republic in the United States can be

maintained and enhanced through the practice of civic engagement, where

governmental agents and a growing number of members of the general public

increase the frequency, civility, and collaboration inherent in their interactions.

These assumptions will be re-examined in the context of this dialogue research.


The potential for action directly resulting from this research is significant. This is due to a

strong increase in the number of local government jurisdictions in California performing

participatory budgeting projects in recent years, along with an increase in consultation with, and

engagement of, members of the general public by a variety of local government jurisdictions.

Additionally, the federal government has recently increased its emphasis on engagement. Finally,

the findings from this research indicate that the public interest in dialogues can be transformed

into a useful tool for local government policy and budget development, if some modifications are

made to existing dialogue processes used by local governments. These modifications are

necessary to develop appropriate measures of influence on decision-making processes.

Literature Review

I. Works on Dialogue and Decision-Making

Early writings on the dialogue and decision-making did not have the benefit of primary

data coming directly from dialogues developed as a part of a local government effort; however,

various existing works did lay the groundwork for development of an understanding of how

dialogue might be utilized as a precursor to decision-making processes. As an example, Dialogue

Processes for Generating Decision Alternatives by Bergner (2006) not only described the

differences between dialogue and decision-making, but set out to “develop principled dialogue

facilitation methods (…) especially in cases where the decision-maker desires a comprehensive

search of possible actions and outcomes” (pp. 1-2), worked to “establish a foundation for future

theoretical and empirical research on dialogue processes in decision analysis” (p. 1), and

introduced a “decision-dialogue model” (p. 61) to explain the “relationship of dialogue processes

to the quality of decisions” (p. 11).


More recently, the Engagement Streams and Process Distinctions Framework by the

National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (2009) was refined to add new processes used

in the field of dialogue, and to indicate which processes are used in the specific categories of

engagement known as:

Exploration,

Conflict Transformation,

Decision-Making, (and)

Collaborative Action. (National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, 2009)

II. Social Capital as a Resource: Community Well-Being and Development

The notion that dialogue may somehow be utilized as a type of engagement between

decision-makers and the public in a manner which influences representative government has its

roots in early American history. In a seminal work, The Community Center, Hanifan (1920)

provided ideas for how this process might begin. Hanifan (1920), then State Supervisor of Rural

Schools in West Virginia, defined “Social Capital” (p. 78) as

that in life which tends to make (…) tangible substances count for most in the daily lives

of people; namely, good will, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the

individuals and families who make up a social unit, -- the rural community, whose logical

center in most cases is the school. (p. 78)

In Hanifan‟s (1920) work, the concept was tied to the economy directly:

First, then, there must be an accumulation of community social capital. Such

accumulation may be effected by means of public entertainments, picnics, and a variety

of other community gatherings. When the people of a given community have become

acquainted with one another and have formed a habit of coming together occasionally for


entertainment, social intercourse, and personal enjoyment, then by skillful leadership this

social capital may easily be directed towards the general improvement of the community

well-being. (p. 79)

Gittell and Vidal (1998), in Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a

Development Strategy, provided the first modern examples of how community can be built from

the ground up with their work on a “social capital perspective on community development

practice” (p. 33). In Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community, Putnam

(2000) defined “social capital” (p. 19) as “connections among individuals – social networks and

the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (p. 19), and provided a full

description of the idea of “bridging (or inclusive)” (pp. 22-23) social capital in the context of

“networks” (p. 22), while crediting Gittell and Vidal with “coining the labels” (p. 446) of

“bridging” and “bonding” (pp. 22-23) forms of “social capital” (p. 19). According to Wojcicki

(2001), social capital is “the resource, or collective power, emanating from connections among

individuals, from social networks, and from social trust, norms, and the threat of sanctions, that

people can draw upon to solve common problems.” (p. 10) Wojcicki (2001) briefly and

comprehensively covers the subject of concept of social capital, its modern history, and how it

may be most precisely defined by viewing it as a resource.

III. Resource Utilization and Network Development: Precursors to Dialogue Opportunity

In Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Burt (1992) stated that “(t)he

task for a strategic player building an efficient-effective network is to focus resources on the

maintenance of bridge ties.” (p. 30)


Burt described a critical rule to network organization design: “The first design principle

of an optimized network concerns efficiency: Maximize the number of nonredundant contacts in

the network to maximize the yield in structural holes per contact” (Burt, 1992, p. 20)

The implication from this reference to an “optimized network” (Burt, 1992, p. 20) is that

there is a critical value in the sort of connections made when individuals who do not normally

interact develop a connection with one another. Burt‟s “structural hole is a relationship of

nonredundancy between two contacts” (Burt, 1992, p. 18). Thus, where bridging can occur

between one person in a „collaborative network‟ and another person not already associated with

the network, one or more of the following several opportunities arise: the possibility of

expansion of the network, a development of an awareness of the organization(s) associated with

the „collaborative network‟ on the part of the person making contact with the „collaborative

network‟ member (a potential result of “civic engagement” (Wojcicki, 2001, p. 10)), and

awareness of the possibility for idea exchange and economic opportunity on the part of the

„collaborative network‟ member and on the part of the person who has made contact with the

network through a member. It is these bridging activities which form the class of interactions

most critical to creating an environment favorable for economic growth while fostering dialogue.

Some skill and discretion is necessary for maintenance of this bridging activity, for as

Burt (2000) has also pointed out, “brokerage across structural holes is the source of value added,

but closure can be critical to realizing the value buried in structural holes” (p. 1). This statement

is based in part on Burt‟s (2000) observations resulting from network analyses of five studies of

managers utilizing questions about trust, socialization, reporting (hierarchical) relationships, and

others (Burt, Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital, 2000).


Part of the reason why these bridging activities can be utilized for economic purposes has

been commented on by Grandori and Soda (1995), who defined “(a)n inter-firm network (as)

(…) a mode of regulating interdependence between firms which is different from the aggregation

of these units within a single firm and from coordination through market signals (prices, strategic

moves, tacit collusion, etc.) and which is based on a cooperative game with partner-specific

communication.” (Grandori & Soda, Inter-firm networks: antecedents, mechanisms and forms,

1995). Later, Grandori (1997) provided further detail on this concept in the context of “social

networks” (p. 910) in a work on inter-firm coordination, in which it was reasoned that

as long as the interests of interdependent firms are convergent in selecting a set of actions

preferred by everybody, and as long as the number and combinations of players and / or

matters (…) is small, whatever the types of mechanisms employed for coordination, they

will not have to be formalized into external and internal contracts in order to achieve

effective and efficient coordination. The reason for this claim is that the establishment of

formal contracts entails a variety of transaction costs, including set up and administration

costs; search, decision, and negotiation costs; and possibly costs of loss of cooperative

atmosphere. (…) Transactional interdependence can also be managed informally, as long

as the game is seen as cooperative. (pp. 910-911)

The “inter-firm coordination” (Grandori, 1997, p. 897) thus need not take place only within the

context of formalized hierarchies. Citizen working groups, ad-hoc meetings, conversations, and

dialogue opportunities in a variety of formats held over the short-term for a specific purpose, or

over the long-term for an evolving or broader purpose, can and do present economic benefits to

organizations that utilize them. Evidence of increasing social capital and development of

networks such as those referred to above are factors that will make more likely the increase of


civic engagement activities that may influence decision-making, including (but not limited to)

dialogue opportunities. While highly developed social capital and strong collaborative networks

are valuable precursors to dialogue opportunities, they are not preconditions for dialogues.

Specific modern sources which have been referred to in the process of studying potential

economic benefits of bridging social capital are Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences

by Putnam (2000), Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bordieau vs. Putnam by Siisiäinen (2000,

July 5-8), A major difference in definitions: Social capital, civic engagement, and civil life by

Wojcicki (2001), Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: Which type is good for economic

growth? by Beugelsdijk & Smulders (2003), and A Multilevel Model of Group Social Capital by

Oh, Labianca, and Chung (2006).

Methodology

I. Data Collection

Baseline data was derived from a period of approximately ten years of decision-making

prior to the implementation of the dialogues. Proposed and approved City of Salinas budgets and

minutes of meetings were reviewed for the ten-year period to determine whether existing

mechanisms in place that were provided for the public to interact with decision makers might

have influenced the decision-making process for the budgets passed during the baseline period.

Budgetary data, City Council minutes, Finance Committee minutes, and Measure V Committee

minutes were obtained for all instances in which meetings occurred for the period of 1999

through 2009. Dialogue data was obtained from the City of Salinas in the form of worksheets

which participants completed for the dialogues. Data exists for such dialogues from the City of

Salinas only for the year of 2009, as this was the first instance of dialogue utilization by the City.

Interviews were conducted with all City of Salinas Council members after the June 30, 2009 to


determine key factors in their decision-making. A qualitative analysis was conducted based on

available data. Most data was obtained through California Public Records Act requests delivered

to the City of Salinas by e-mail, with standard language in the requests asking for electronic

records in lieu of hard copy wherever possible. It is important to note that during this data

collection process, while the budgetary data required was disclosed quickly, not all of the budget

data was electronically available, as only those budgetary reports and presentations from 2003

forward were available online, and request for electronic copy for budgetary reports from earlier

years did not yield direct access. To obtain access to earlier years of data, the researcher found

that it was necessary to schedule office visit hours at the City of Salinas to review and determine

what budgetary reports and pages would need to be copied in order to obtain basic budgetary

information that would indicate levels of recommended and adopted expenditures on a

departmental basis, so that these could be reviewed in the context of any records which

documented public comment during or prior to the corresponding meeting or hearing when the

decision(s) were made. In contrast, the minutes of all meetings from 1998 forward were available

electronically, which revealed that while a detailed accounting and record of what transpired in

the meetings was available, the budgetary information itself was not directly available

electronically. This observation is led to the formulation of part of the policy recommendations

which have resulted from this research process.

The period from March of 2007 through February of 2009 was classified as a

„preliminary civic engagement period‟ for the purposes of evaluating budget hearing data for

fiscal decisions made during that time, since the City had a formal civic engagement program in

place beginning in March of 2007 which included Council District meetings with Council

members, Mayoral Town Halls, Community or Neighborhood Cleanups, and large-scale events


known as Resource Fairs involving substantial multi-agency and nonprofit collaboration and

heightened public involvement. This period could be characterized as a time of significantly

increased engagement activity programmed by the City, with significant participation by

residents, from March of 2007 up to the start date of the first of four dialogues. The period of

time from February through April of 2009, when the grant-funded dialogues were implemented,

may be referred to as the „dialogue period.‟

Secondary data which were referred to during the research include participatory

budgeting dialogue data in narrative format from Common Sense California (the grantor

organization for the City of Salinas 2009 dialogues on service levels and choices), including an

extended interview with the Executive Director of Common Sense California which was useful

to the researcher in gaining perspective on other dialogue projects in California. These data were

utilized by the researcher as background information.

Elected officials who cast the deciding votes for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget hearing of

June 30, 2009 for the City of Salinas were interviewed, and the interview results and dialogue

information from worksheets submitted by the public were analyzed along with the actual result

of the decision-making (the adopted Fiscal Year 2009-2010 City of Salinas budget). The City

Council members were not asked to participate in interviews until after the Fiscal Year budget

hearing for 2009-2010 was complete. The population sample, for the purposes of this research, is

all 2009 dialogue participants who submitted worksheets to the City of Salinas as part of the

dialogue process. The researcher procured these worksheets after the dialogues were complete

through the California Public Records Act request process.

Some issues were anticipated prior to this research, including the possibility that Council

members might be unavailable for comment on the interview questions, and that difficulties in


resolution of what staff should do about revenue shortfalls would make data collection and

research on the subject more sensitive and difficult to complete. Other issues anticipated were

concerns regarding the impending adoption of a budget balancing plan for Fiscal Year 2010-

2011 which proposed significant alterations to the budget allocations represented by the adopted

Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget. Since the period under study ends with the June 30, 2009 Council

action on the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget, the budget balancing plan for Fiscal Year 2010-

2011 is not considered within the context of this study.

The researcher observed possible areas of measurement. These following possible

quantitative measurements were evaluated as a possibility for internal and external utilization:

- Determination of the number of decision-makers directly involved in endorsing or approving a

dialogue grant concept

- Determination of the number of decision-makers directly involved in observing each of the four

dialogue opportunities in 2009 funded by Common Sense California

- Determination of the number of instances in which particular participants are directly

connected to a policy-making action.

- Determination of the number of participants involved at a dialogue, and number of participants

in subgroups within each dialogue.

- Determination of the total number of participants involved in dialogues where the informational

outcome of the dialogues is directly connected to a decision.

- Determination of the number of policy-making decisions which are influenced or potentially

may be influenced by the dialogues. (This determination would require a system of measurement

of influence levels, as there must be a threshold level below which it would be understood –

based on the values inherent in the measurement -- that a decision is effectively not influenced.)


Results and Findings

The results of the analysis are presented below in summary format. There were four

dialogues, and the number of participants at each varied, as did the results of the preferences

indicated by the dialogue participants. However, across the board, some patterns became evident

which persisted in each dialogue despite differences in group sizes and demographics from one

dialogue date to the next. At each dialogue session, the choice labeled as „Enhance Salinas as a

Community‟ (Choice 3) was supported by the highest percentage of participants, and at each

dialogue session, the service area for which cuts would be most acceptable to the participants

was administration.

A key budgetary report in the context of the dialogues was a ViewPoint Learning

summary report which was presented to the City Council on June 16, 2009, two weeks prior to

the City Council decision by vote on the budget on June 30, 2009 for the staff recommendation

on the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget. In this budgetary report, which was provided to the City

Council as a presentation without an accompanying staff report, it was reported that forty-eight

percent of the participants supported Choice 3 (Enhance Salinas as a Community), that thirty-two

percent supported Choice 2 (Preserve the Current Level of Services in Salinas), and ten percent

supported Choice 1 (Minimal Government Services at Minimal Cost). The researcher determined

that the primary data provide different percentages than those provided in the ViewPoint

Learning summary report, as shown in the following figure that cumulatively illustrates the

selection provided by each participant that completed the „Final Judgment‟ portion of the

worksheet provided during the dialogues. In the view of the researcher, the reason for this

difference is because the information gathered from the dialogues (completed dialogue

worksheets) was provided by City management to City temporary or part-time staff for


tabulation prior to the production of the report by ViewPoint Learning, which is likely to have

caused errors in the process of information transfer, data tabulation, and presentation. The

following figure (Figure One) is based on the researcher‟s own tabulation of primary data

available (completed dialogue worksheets obtained via a public records request).

Figure One

After the dialogues were completed, and after the Salinas City Council‟s June 30, 2009 action to

adopt the recommended budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (with less available revenue, but with

Council direction to staff to avoid layoffs in Fiscal Year 2009-2010), it became evident that the

State takeaways from local government would be even more than originally anticipated. In the

context of the dialogues, the worksheets completed by the participants include, in part, suggested

areas for cuts. These suggestions are the participants‟ responses which the researcher has focused

on, due to revenue declines that the City experienced over the period of time in the months

leading up to the Salinas City Council June 30, 2009 budget vote. Figure Two cumulatively

describes the most acceptable cuts to participants who completed the worksheet section that

asked, "If it became necessary to make cuts, in what area would a cut be most acceptable to you?


(CHOOSE ONE).” The researcher observed that a few participants chose more than one. The

researcher tabulated the data by dividing a single vote amongst each participant‟s choices made.

Figure Two

Actual changes were evaluated in corresponding service areas, as shown in Figure Three.

Figure Three


Direct comparisons between dialogue results for service areas and subsequent

percentages of change in funding for service areas are not recommended. It would not be correct

to directly compare or correlate areas desired to be cut or enhanced by the participants to budget

percentages. Additionally, it was not possible with the data available to determine the

preferences of the participants (individually or collectively) on what percent or level each service

area should be cut or raised to, although it was possible to determine the service areas which

were most preferred by the participants for a possible cut or enhancement.

Some of the data reflected in Figure Three does not reflect eventual cuts which are

anticipated to result, but are not known with certainty at the time of submittal of this research

work. For example, the Recreation/Park category in Figure Three shows a nearly 29 percent

increase in funding from Fiscal Year 2008-2009 to Fiscal Year 2009-2010, but this number may

be misleading, since a 54 percent cut in the Recreation/Park category is anticipated for Fiscal

Year 2010-2011 in the City‟s budget balancing plan, with some of those cuts potentially

beginning in the middle of the Fiscal Year 2009-2010. Changes in the City of Salinas revenue

situation which might alter these figures could not be known at the time of submittal of this

research work. However, it is clear that cuts to Administration, Library, and

Environmental/Maintenance categories were made as part of the budget decision-making process

for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget, for which the vote was made on June 30, 2009.

While each participant could express a preference for the best ways of cutting and raising

revenue, only those who selected Choice 3, “Enhance Salinas as a Community,” were asked, “If

the City budget is increased, how should the additional monies be spent?” The participant

selections on enhancement are not examined in detail here, since for the purposes of this study,

the need to analyze whether the dialogues influenced decision-making, and the substantial


decline in revenue experienced by the City during the Fiscal Year 2008-2009, concentrated the

researcher‟s analysis of available dialogue data on the participants‟ preferences for what service

area cuts would be most acceptable. This portion of participants‟ preference represents responses

provided by all the participants, not only those who had indicated a preference for enhancement.

Finally, the Salinas City Council interview results were examined, with the past ten years

of budgetary reports, Measure V Committee minutes, and Finance Committee minutes serving as

background information for review of how the public has interacted with the City‟s decision-

making process and budgetary review in the past. There are seven Council members, which

includes one Council member per Council District and a Mayor, a Council member who covers

the City. Each Council member has one vote to exercise during culmination of a decision.

The Council member interview process was initiated by an e-mail request to all Council

members that contained the following standard request language from the researcher:

This e-mail is to request a time for a phone interview with you that would occur at some

point in the next week to week and a half. This interview is needed to help me complete

master's research for my final capstone presentation for a master's program, and will

take about five to ten minutes. The questions are oriented around decision-making and

how it occurs. Please contact me at (personal phone number) to let me know when a

good time for this interview would be.

The Council members were also informed that the results of the interviews would be

utilized for this research work without attribution. They provided the following answers in

response to the specific questions outlined below, with key words summarized by the researcher

from longer responses. The researcher documented the entire response of each Council member

word for word, then categorized the responses by dividing each response into four distinct parts,


before comparing the Council members‟ responses to each other for each question in a process of

observation and determination of key words which were repeated by various Council members

without knowledge of what other Council members had said in response. The Council members

were not limited in how they could respond (questions were open-ended, not multiple-choice),

with the exception of one question requiring a yes or no response.

1. What factors (during the months of January through June of 2009) influenced your

decision-making with respect to your decision-making process on your June 30, 2009

action on the recently adopted (FY 09/10) budget?

a. Finance Committee / Finance Director (3 of 7 Council members)

b. Employees / Employee Groups (2 of 7 Council members)

c. Projections (2 of 7 Council members)

2. Of the presentations that you received while in Council sessions (from January through

June of 2009) prior to the June 30, 2009 vote, which presentations had the most impact

and influence on you and your process of evaluation of the budget information presented

to you prior to the June 30, 2009 budget voting date (regarding the FY 09/10 budget)?

(Note: These could be presentations by staff, consultants, or anyone who made a

presentation to you while you were in Council session from January through June of

2009.)

a. Employee group presentations (3 of 7 Council members)

b. Employees speaking about personal impacts to them (3 of 7 Council members)

c. Finance Committee / Finance Director (3 of 7 Council members)


3. From January 2009 through June 30, 2009, did you seek out or request information (as

you evaluated information relating to the budget) apart from the various presentations

you received in Council sessions? (Note: The answer for this question is yes / no.)

a. Yes (7 of 7 Council members answered yes).

3a. If you did seek out or request information relating to the budget from January through

June 30, 2009: What information did you seek out or request, and how long did it

take you to obtain it? (If you sought out information on various dates or requested

information on various dates, please summarize briefly.)

a. Budget projection / Budget information (3 of 7 Council members)

b. Impacts to employees and members of the general public (4 of 7

Councilmembers)

4. Of the factors that influenced your decision-making (beginning with those factors you

considered during or after January 2009) before the budget vote on June 30, 2009, which

would you say was the most influential? (This may be one or more factors, please name

all that seem relevant to this question and identify which was most influential to you.)

a. Employees / Employees‟ stories (2 of 7 Council members)

b. People who will be impacted – employees and residents (4 of 7 Council members)

c. Revenue and Expenses / Projections (3 of 7 Council members)

5. In the days or weeks which passed just before the June 30, 2009 vote, was there any

factor or series of factors which altered or changed your thinking about any part of the

budget?

a. No (4 of 7 Council members answered no).

b. Yes (3 of 7 Council members answered yes).


i. Two of the three Council members who answered yes refer to budgetary

information from the State, the stimulus, and / or the Finance Director.

6. During the vote on June 30, 2009, what factors were most prominent in your mind which

contributed to your voting decision that evening? (Here, consider only those factors

which arose in your mind during the hours of the Council session on June 30, 2009.)

a. Budget reports (4 of 7 Council members referred to the budget report itself)

b. Layoffs versus No Layoffs (1 of 7 Council members referred to an agreement

reached by Council on the evening of June 30, 2009 to take a direction of no

layoffs and utilize furloughs)

The results of these interviews show clearly that the Council members considered

personal communications provided to them in a public venue to be a strong influence upon their

decision-making with respect to the budget.

Key findings of the research are described below:

1. The decision-makers (Council members) who voted on the budget, when interviewed,

did not cite the dialogues as factors in their decision-making process, although the

dialogues were supported by all Council members and were directly observed by some

Council members while the dialogues were being conducted.

2. Council members did cite people‟s stories, testimony, or comments when mentioning

factors that most influenced their decision-making processes.

3. Many Council members also directly cited financial concerns as a factor and cited the

Financial Committee or Finance Director‟s financial reports as influential.


4. The City Council meetings in the City Rotunda have provided a public space where

public remarks and testimony regarding issues of interest are regularly voiced, with

periodic increases in public comment on fiscal issues over the ten year baseline period.

5. Engagement opportunities through dialogues have influenced budgetary processes in

Salinas, but not through a means which is effective enough to measure easily.

6. Measurement of engagement opportunities through dialogues could be accomplished by

enhancing the use of existing facilities which have historically been well-utilized by the

public for communicating with the City Council.

7. The Finance Committee is not designed to facilitate public comment, and engagement in

that venue, based on the minutes, has diminished over the ten year baseline period.

8. The results of the dialogues have been presented by consultants and staff to Council, but

not by residents of Salinas to the Salinas City Council.

9. The provision of dialogues has increased the number of participants involved in civic

engagement activities in the City with methods not previously utilized.

Based on these findings, assumptions of the researcher were re-examined. The sense of the

researcher that a system of a constitutional and democratic republic in the United States can

be maintained and enhanced through the practice of civic engagement, where governmental

agents and a growing number of members of the public work to increase the frequency,

civility, and collaboration inherent in their collective interactions, holds true only if civic

engagement techniques are altered to connect the results of civic engagement directly to

decision-making processes. In the opinion of the researcher, people will only continue to take

advantage of additional opportunities to influence or change what is done with money

allocated by government so long as they can clearly see that their participation is valued.


Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

The research reveals that dialogue does influence decision-making, although it was not cited

as a factor in decision-making by the Council members surveyed. The alternative – that dialogue

does not influence decision-making – is not supported by the data, given the clear interest that

decision-makers expressed in obtaining budgetary information on their own, the emphasis

decision-makers placed upon personal stories as key factors in their decision-making process,

and the high level of interest in future dialogues shown by the participants based on indications

collected from the dialogue worksheets. The dialogue process did influence decision-making, but

lacked a direct connection to the physical location where the decision-making customarily

occurred. Such a connection, established far enough in advance of the decision date itself, could

have made the influence the dialogues had on decision-making processes quantitatively and

qualitatively measurable. The dialogue processes should be modified to increase involvement of

citizens in processes more proximately connected to decision-making actions that local

governments use to establish budgets and allocate revenue.

Evaluation of the research process, in the view of the researcher, reveals the following:

while the implications for the research are significant, the extent to which the research can be

meaningfully employed is limited until further research is conducted that would focus on

measurement in the context of dialogue and decision-making processes.

Below are three key policy recommendations with detailed recommendations resulting from

this research, which will aid local governments, members of the general public, and researchers.

A. Policy Recommendation I: Conduct dialogues regularly with enhanced facilitation.

1. Dialogues on a jurisdiction‟s budget should be conducted quarterly or with greater

frequency over a local government jurisdiction‟s fiscal year.


2. Dialogues should be facilitated with involvement by staff but facilitated by

residents of the jurisdiction, so as to encourage sharing and collaborative

ownership of the process. Staff facilitators should be drawn from a variety of the

jurisdiction‟s departments, and residents should be drawn from different parts of

the local government jurisdiction. Where it is possible to do so, consultants should

be contracted to assist with facilitation, particularly where the dialogue

implementation has not been previously performed in the jurisdiction.

3. One or more of the elected decision-makers of the jurisdiction should also be

provided with the opportunity each year to assist with facilitation. In this way,

elected officials who cast deciding votes on budgets will gain further appreciation

for the dialogue process and its potential for influencing decision-making

processes.

4. While dialogue processes are necessarily personal, involving and enhancing the

connections between people directly, instruments should also be made available

to allow people to review budget information and submit preferences online in a

survey format throughout the year.

B. Policy Recommendation II: Establish presentation opportunity for participants.

1. Dialogue participants should be provided with the opportunity to present the

information from the dialogues directly to the decision-makers along with their

personal stories. This opportunity should become part of the dialogue process.

2. Participating members of the public should be asked as part of the dialogue

process – through the worksheet or other dialogue instrument – if they would like

to assist the jurisdiction by serving as a presenter of a portion of the dialogue


summary. In this way, some members of the public would be able to share the

experience with staff of presenting the results of the dialogues to the local

government jurisdiction‟s governing body.

3. Participating members of the public should also be asked as part of the dialogue

process if they would like to share their experience at the dialogue directly with

the local government jurisdiction‟s governing body (e.g., City Council or Board

of Supervisors) as part of an agendized component of the governing body‟s

meeting or hearing. These personal experiences and stories will be considered as

influential factors by the governing body in its decision-making process.

C. Policy Recommendation III: Enhance and redirect participation to civic centers.

1. Certain places (such as the City Rotunda in the case of Salinas) have a long and

well-documented record of being utilized as civic centers where people go to

comment or directly interact with their elected officials, and these places should

be utilized more extensively to deliberate and conduct dialogues on fiscal matters

of concern to residents in a local government jurisdiction.

2. Commissions and committees of high value to elected officials which have not

historically shown evidence of substantial public involvement (such as the

Finance Committee in the case of Salinas) should be provided with civic

engagement mechanisms -- public opportunities to engage through dialogue

directly with such commissions and committees in civic centers where evidence

of substantial public involvement has historically existed. As an example, the

Finance Committee of the City of Salinas should be re-oriented so as to allow for

quarterly dialogue opportunities with the public (with at least half of these


opportunities held in the City Rotunda and the other half held in well-utilized

civic centers around the City), preceded by neighborhood-level planning to

involve members of the general public and staff from departments throughout the

City in announcing each dialogue opportunity beginning two months in advance.

This would allow for substantial time for personal collaborative networks to

extend the reach of the announcement of the dialogue opportunities through direct

and personal communications in a manner beneficial to residents and which is

valued by the City Council as an influential factor in the decision-making process.

3. A performance-based scoring system should be developed to allow members of

the general public, as well as elected and appointed officials, to readily view the

levels at which dialogues conducted are or are not influencing the decision-

making process over time. This system should include measurable standards that

would be collaboratively developed by the public, staff, and elected officials.

Areas for Further Research

Additional research is recommended in order to determine whether or not dialogue

processes are improved. Dialogues do influence decision-making processes, however, a clear and

simple system of measurement of the level of this influence is needed. Because dialogue

processes observed by the researcher were not clearly measured in the context of their influence

on decision-making processes, a comprehensive assessment should be performed of existing

standards of measurement relative to additional dialogue opportunities utilized by various local

governments. Additional research on dialogue and decision-making should evaluate efforts of

governments that have already utilized dialogues prior to conclusion of budgetary decision-

making, and should evaluate how to best measure the influence of these and future dialogues.


References

Alves, A., Carneiro, L., Madureira, R., Patricio, R., Soares, A. L., & Pinho de Sousa, J. (2007).

High performance collaborative networks: a realistic innovation or just an academic

desire? In J. Legardeur, & J. Martin (Ed.), Towards new challenges for innovative

management practices. II, pp. 51-55. Biarritz, France: ERIMA.

Axelrod, R. H., Axelrod, E. M., Beedon, J., & Jacobs, R. W. (2004). You don't have to do it

alone: how to involve others to get things done. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers, Inc.

Bergner, D. (2006). Dialogue Processes for Generating Decision Alternatives. Stanford

University, Management Science and Engineering. Ann Arbor: ProQuest Information and

Learning Company.

Beugelsdijk, S., & Smulders, S. (2003). Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: Which type is

good for economic growth? European Regional Science Association. Jyvaskila (Finland):

Tilburg University.

Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (2005). The Concept of Formal Organization. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S.

Ott, & Y. S. Jang, Classics of Organization Theory, 6th ed. (pp. 203-207). Belmont

(California, U.S.A.): Wadsworth.

Block, P. (2008). Community: the structure of belonging. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers, Inc.

Borgatti, S. P., Brass, D. J., Burt, R., Coleman, J. S., Cross, R., Gladwell, M., et al. (2003).

Networks in the knowledge economy. (R. Cross, A. Parker, & L. Sasson, Eds.) New York,

New York, United States of America: Oxford University Press, Inc.


Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (2005). Mechanistic and Organic Systems. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S.

Ott, & Y. S. Jang, Classics of Organization Theory, 6th ed. (pp. 198, 199). Belmont

(California, U.S.A.): Wadsworth.

Burt, R. S. (2000, August 10). Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital. Pre-

print for a chapter in Social Capital: Theory and Research . (N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S.

Burt, Eds.) Chicago, Illinois, United States of America: University of Chicago and

Institute Europeen d'Administration d"Affaires (INSEAD).

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social

Network Analysis to Support Strategic Collaboration. California Management Review ,

44 (2), 25-46.

Fair, J., Gallagher, C. G., & Juarez Jr., J. (2008). Proposed Neighborhood Services Work Plan

for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. Salinas: City of Salinas.

Friedkin, N. E. (1993). Structural Bases of Interpersonal Influence in Groups: A Longitudinal

Case Study. American Sociological Review , 58 (6), 861-872.

Gagnon, M. A., Jansen, K. J., & Michael, J. H. (2008). Employee Alignment with Strategic

Change: A Study of Strategy-supportive Behavior among Blue-Collar Employees.

Journal of Managerial Issues , XX (4), 425-443.

Gallagher, C. G., Juarez, J., & Rifa, J. J. (2007). Proposed Neighborhood Services Work Plan for

balance of Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Salinas: City of Salinas.

Gittell, R. J., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a

Development Strategy. Thousand Oaks: Sage.


Gloor, P. A. (2006). Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage through Collaborative

Innovation Networks. New York: Oxford University Press.

Grandori, A. (1997). An Organizational Assessment of Interfirm Coordination Nodes.

Organization Studies , 18 (6), 897-925.

Grandori, A., & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-firm networks: antecedents, mechanisms and forms.

Retrieved August 16, 2008, from BNET Business Network:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4339/is_n2_v16/ai_17167886/pg_1?tag=artBody;c

ol1

Hanifan, L. J. (1920). The Community Center. Boston: Silver, Burdett, & Company.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (2005). Organizations and the System Concept. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S.

Ott, & Y. S. Jang, Classics of Organization Theory (6th edition) (pp. 480-490). Belmont

(California, U.S.A.): Thompson Wadsworth.

Krebs, V. (2008). Social Network Analysis, A Brief Introduction. Retrieved August 16, 2008,

from Social Network Analysis software & services for organizations, communities, and

their consultants: http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html

Markus, K. A. (2000). Twelve Testable Assertions about Cultural Dynamics and the

Reproduction of Organizational Culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F.

Peterson, Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 297-308). Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation. (2009). NCDD's Learning Exchange. Retrieved

January 12, 2009, from National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation:

http://www.thataway.org/exchange/categories.php?cid=105&hot_topic_id=1


Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, M.-H. (2006). A Multilevel Model of Group Social Capital.

Academy of Management Review , 31 (3), 569-582.

Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (2000). The reinventor's fieldbook: tools for transforming your

government (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA, United States of America: Jossey-Bass.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New

York: Simon and Schuster.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of

Democracy, 6:1 , 65-78.

Putnam, R. D. (2000, March 19). Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences. Retrieved

July 20, 2008, from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/6/1825848.pdf

Schein, E. H. (2004). The Levels of Culture. In E. H. Schein, Organizational Culture and

Leadership (3rd edition) (pp. 25-37). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schuldt, R., Ferrara, B., & Wojcicki, E. (2001). Profile of Illinois: An Engaged State (Illinois

Civic Engagement Benchmark Survey Results). University of Illinois at Springfield,

Center for State Policy and Leadership (formerly the Institute for Public Affairs).

Springfield: Illinois Civic Engagement Project.

Scott, J. (1991). Social Network Analysis. London: Sage.

Siisiäinen, M. (2000, July 5-8). Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam.

Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä Region, Finland.

Sustained Dialogue. (2009). Results-Oriented Dialogue for Corporations and Organizations.

Retrieved March 1, 2009, from Sustained Dialogue Home:

http://www.sustaineddialogue.org/programs/results-oriented_dialogue.htm


ViewPoint Learning, Inc. (2009b). Viewpoint Learning, Inc.::Ground Rules of Dialogue.

Retrieved April 7, 2009, from Viewpoint Learning, Inc.:

http://www.viewpointlearning.com/about/rules.shtml

ViewPoint Learning, Inc. (2009a). Viewpoint Learning, Inc.::What Is Dialogue? Retrieved April

7, 2009, from ViewPoint Learning, Inc.:

http://www.viewpointlearning.com/about/dialogue.shtml

Wojcicki, E. (2001). A major difference in definitions: Social Capital, civic engagement, and

civil life. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from Civic engagement research of Ed Wojcicki:

http://www.edwoj.com/Links/research_civic.htm

Interviews

City of Salinas City Council Members

Executive Director, Common Sense California


Appendix A

The Future We Want for Salinas

FINAL JUDGMENT

1. Look back at the sheet describing the three choices. Which of the three comes closest to
your vision for the future of Salinas? (CHOOSE ONE)

 Choice #1: Minimal government services at minimal cost

 Choice #2: Preserve the current level of service in Salinas

 Choice #3: Enhance Salinas as a community

IF you chose option 3, please answer the following question: If the city budget is
increased, how should the additional monies be spent? Put a (1) next to your first
choice and a (2) next to your second choice.

___ Increase the police force

___ Provide after-school and summer programs for young people

___ Improve park & street maintenance

___ Provide services for seniors

___ Other (please specify)

2. If it became necessary to make cuts, in what area would a cut be most acceptable to you?
(CHOOSE ONE)

 Police

 Fire/EMS


 Park and tree maintenance

 Maintenance of City facilities

 Library and recreational programming

 Administration

3. In your judgment, of the several ways of raising revenue, which would you find most
acceptable? Put a (1) next to the choice you find most acceptable, and a (2) next to your second
choice.

___ Sales Tax

___ Extension of Measure V (for at least 5 years)

___ Parcel Tax

___ Transient Occupancy Tax

___ Lighting and Landscape Assessment

___ Utility Users Tax & addition of mobile phones

Do you find any of the above choices UNacceptable? If so, put an (X) next to the one choice you
find least acceptable.


4. How useful were the background materials in helping you think about the issues?

Very useful Somewhat useful Only a little useful Not at all useful

5. How useful was the discussion in helping you think about the issues?

Very Somewhat Only a little Not at all

6. How helpful was the leader in guiding the meeting?

Very Somewhat Only a little Not at all

7. Overall, how much impact did your participation have on your thinking about the issues
facing Salinas?

A lot Some Only a little None

8. What, if anything, was the most important thing you learned from today‟s session?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

For classification purposes, please provide the following background information:

1. How long have you lived in Salinas?

Less than 2 years 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years More than 20 years

2. Do you own or rent your home? Own Rent


3. What is the highest level of schooling you have completed?

Less than High School Graduate High School Graduate Some College College Degree

Post-Graduate Study/Degree

4. Do you have children aged 18 or under living at home? Yes No

5. What is your gender? Male Female

6. What is your age? 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-65 Over 65

7. What was your total household income before taxes in 2008?

$20,000 or less $20,001 - $40,000 $40,001 - $60,000 $60,001 - $80,000

$80,001 - $100,000 More than $100,000

8. What is your ethnicity? (Choose one)

White Latino African-American Asian American Indian/Alaska Native

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Other

The Future We Want for Salinas

Updates and Further Information

This meeting is one of four taking place in Salinas this year. Updates on the results and

information on related matters will be available in the coming months, and there may be

additional opportunities for you to participate in dialogue with other residents and city leaders.

Please check if you are interested in receiving the following:


____ Updates on the Community Dialogues

____ Information about important city matters

____ Information about opportunities for continued participation

Contact information (please print): Name:

Address: Phone: E-mail:

Dialogue and Decision Making

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Dialogue and Decision Making

Similar a Dialogue and Decision Making (20)

Dialogue and Decision Making