Public Issues in Southwest Missouri

Personal accounts are not the answer to fixing Social Security but other changes and program cuts are going to be necessary for the program to last past the retirement of baby boomers.

At least, that was the perspective of most participants at a public issues forum hosted by University of Missouri Extension. The forum was aimed at deliberating Social Security, whether or not it needs to be fixed and some possible ways to fix it.

“We had a diverse group of attendees who considered three different approaches to dealing with or fixing social security,” said David Burton, civic communication specialist with University of Missouri Extension and moderator of the forum.

According to Burton, participants (even those approaching retirement) agreed with reducing Social Security benefits by eliminating the $250 funeral benefit, slowing annual “cost-of-living increases, removing the $90,000 ceiling on payroll taxes, setting up a national commission to develop a list of long-term options, lowering benefits for middle- and upper-income retirees, requiring Americans to work longer before becoming eligible for Social Security benefits and reducing the number of non-retirement related programs Social Security funds.

“The group also thought that for the long-term health of the program, the nation needs to revisit the purpose of Social Security. President Roosevelt said it should be one leg of a three-legged stool (pension, savings and Social Security) instead of what it has become – the only source of retirement for many,” said Burton.

The first approach deliberated dealt with reinventing the program with personal accounts, something proposed by both President Clinton and current President Bush.

“Overall, the group was opposed to this approach. Too many questions and concerns, the greatest of which was serious doubt that a majority of Americans would be responsible enough to manage personal accounts,” said Burton.

While some attendees said they would benefit personally, this was not seen as a way to solve the financial problems of Social Security itself.

In the post-meeting survey, 100 percent of participants disagreed with this statement: “People will get far better returns on their Social Security contributions if they control how their money is invested.”

Approach two of the deliberation emphasized that Social Security is a promise made to working Americans and to retires, and it is a promise that must be kept.

“The group agreed that Social Security is a promise that needs to be kept. However, no one thought the promise could be kept or maintained at its current level,” said Burton.

At this forum there was widespread agreement that benefits should be reduced (eliminate $250 funeral benefit), annual increases should be slowed, the $90,000 ceiling on payroll taxes should be removed and a national commission should be formed to develop a list of options.

In the post meeting survey, 90 percent of participants agreed with this statement: “We need to make drastic changes to save Social Security from bankruptcy.” Sixty percent of participants agreed with this statement: “We should scale back Social Security to encourage people to take more responsibility for their financial future.”

Revising Social Security for a new generation was considered in approach number three.

“It was interesting, even though the group was mostly older, they agreed that reform is needed in order for the program to continue,” said Burton.

Part of the reform embraced at this forum was addressing the fact that Social Security has been expanded beyond its original intent and is no longer just one leg of a three-legged retirement stool (pension, social security and savings). For many, it is the only leg.

“Participants felt like we need to begin the process of rewriting Social Security now but not implement new rules on people who are age 55 or older. It may seem unfair, but the younger generation will bare the blunt of most Social Security changes,” said Burton.

In the post meeting survey, 80 percent of participants agreed with this statement: “We should slightly reduce Social Security benefits for middle- and upper-income retirees to guarantee benefits for those who need them most.”

“What attendees at this meeting said loud and clear is that Social Security needs an overhaul that ignores partisan politics and instead focuses on making sure the program remains solvent into the future without increasing the burden on payroll taxes,” said Burton.

All I can say is that great minds think alike. My post last week about searching for the American President “idol style” was picked up and printed in the Springfield News-Leader. The editorial got online comments and I got six phone calls at work as a result.

It seems that other people have had this same idea. One person is working on a book with this type of plot. Another wanted to see something like this done but on a more local basis. Two other people with connections to the entertainment industry called to say projects with a similar theme/idea (projects which I promised not to mention specifically) are also in the works.

But the kicker is when I found out that a show like this was tried in 2004. It failed (partially because it only aired on Showtime) but Mark Burnett is working another attempt at this idea for this year.

The first show, done in the summer of 2004, was known as “American Candidate.” Montel Williams was the host. Here is what Burnett’s production company had to say about the program:

“American Candidate is a ground-breaking television series in which the American
people will identify a People's Candidate that they would like to see run for
President of the United States.

AMERICAN CANDIDATE will attempt to identify one individual who has the qualifications and qualities to be President of the United States.

AMERICAN CANDIDATE will debut with 12 contestants from all walks of life. Over the course of 10 weeks, those 12 will face-off against each other in a series of challenges designed to test their presidential mettle and to show viewers what really goes on in the making of a presidential candidate. Week-by-week, the original pool of candidates will be winnowed down. The final episode will be a showdown between the remaining two candidates, and one person will emerge victorious -- the "American Candidate."

The winner received $200,000 and a nationwide media appearance after the show so the winner can address the nation. After winning “American Candidate,” Park Gillespie dropped out of the race for a seat in the South Carolina House of Representatives. The Republican Party in that state basically told him to take a hike. So, just like the show itself, Park bombed.

But brace yourself, Mark Burnett is going to try it again. This time his show, “The Independent,” is being partnered with MySpace.com and is going to appear on a “major network.” The prize money is still too small but here is the official word from a story written by Michael Schneider in Variety.

“Mark Burnett Prods. is partnering with MySpace to discover the modern-day Mr.
Smith. The two entities are behind “Independent,” an online project targeted to become a full-fledged TV series built around a search to find the next great politician.

The show, timed to the 2008 elections, hasn’t yet been pitched to networks. It comes with a $1 million prize … and a catch: Winner must donate the money to a political cause or use it to run for office.

“This is the ‘American Idol’ of political action,” said Burnett development head Roy Bank. “We’ve been exploring for a while how to do something in and around what is going to be the topic on everyone’s tongues next year — the elections. We wanted it to be legit, and there’s no greater democracy in play right now for people in their 20s than MySpace.”

Bank dismissed similarities between “American Candidate” and “Independent,” however. “That was smaller, with no public interaction,” he said. “That’s the biggest
difference. This is real people, real constituents, with interaction here.”

What do you think? I’d love to hear your comments.

American Idol continues to reign supreme on television. Millions of people call each week to select their favorite talented singing adolescent. The show is all the rage on the Internet, in classrooms and around the office water cooler.

Why do we not have that same level of interest in American politics?

Over 35 million votes are cast in just two hours for American Idol contestants – each week. Meanwhile, in the 2004 presidential election (which was open all day), 122 million Americans cast a vote. Why is there so much difference between the participation rates in these two elections?

I have an idea that might help change this trend.

Why not host a national television show (starting this summer) called "American President?" Have people apply or tryout to run as the "citizens candidate" for President. Get a group of about 100 solid candidates (from varied backgrounds, experiences and with varied ideas) that could do the job but don't have the money backing them to campaign nationwide.

Then, each week, have the candidate’s present ideas or solutions to various problems facing our nation. Then each week selected groups of candidate’s debate issues and Americans then vote on who stays and who goes home.

Each week the group gets smaller and each week interest in the show, and the solutions proposed by candidates, increases.

When the show is down to the top 10 the show could start airing “candidate” profiles. Each week, candidates would be given five or 10 minutes to address the American public and present their ideas on how to tackle certain issues.

By the time the final person is selected in "American President" we would have a viable and well-known third-party candidate who would have national support and recognition.

Perhaps part of the show's prize would be money to begin a national campaign. If the show finished up in time this person could be showing up in national primaries.

Since this is my idea, I'm even going to volunteer to be a judge or consultant to the program. I work pretty cheap.

Something like "American President" might get citizens more engaged in the election process. If we could just get young Americans as interested in the Presidential race as they are American Idol, that would be a great success story.

Circulation numbers for newspapers are going down nationwide. A report in Editor & Publisher documents this trend. The Newspaper Association of America says daily circulation nationwide has dropped 2.1 percent in the last six months. The downward trend can also be seen with weekly newspapers in southwest Missouri.

Still, the decline in readership has some concerned about the future of our democracy. How do citizens stay informed? How can they fully understand the issues facing our country? How do the get the information they need to be an active citizen?

Some say Americans are going elsewhere for their news. Audiences for radio appear healthy and cable news channels have seen growth.

Readership of online news sources is also up. In fact, I have a friend who has never subscribed to a newspaper. His parents didn’t subscribe to a newspaper when he was growing up and he didn’t after getting married. However, he has, within the past year, become a daily reader of online news content (from area and national newspapers).

That example makes me wonder if readership is really down or just going elsewhere. I don’t know of any studies right now that answer that question.

However, if newspapers are losing circulation I think there are some core reasons why.

Over the past 10 years, study after study has found that American citizens are losing confidence in the news media. This includes a study published May 28, 2003, by USA Today and Gallup Poll that found only 36 percent of Americans “believe news organizations get the facts straight.”

The downward trend began in the 1980’s and gained steam in the 1990’s, long-before the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times gave the credibility of large newspapers a black eye. Nationally, a majority of citizens no longer trust the news media in general, and newspapers in particular.

Some citizens think the news media covers up real stories for the sake of owners or advertisers. Others find liberal bias in much of what is written and said (or left out). Still others find the news sensationalized and hyped for the sole purpose of profit. Meanwhile, others say the news media is nothing but entertainment while the real hard issues of our culture get ignored.

Meanwhile, this downward trend may be harming our democracy. What do you think?

Finding ways to develop public policies in a democracy to deal with violent children was the purpose of a recent program entitled “Violent Kids: Can We Change the Trend?”

All of the participants in this forum were childcare providers and they offered a unique perspective on an issue that frequently grabs headlines nationwide.

“The make up of this forum was unique and so was the shared perspective. This group basically agreed that violence in media and entertainment plays a role but parents who are absent or just simply don’t parent are the biggest part of the equation,” said David Burton, University of Missouri Extension’s civic communication specialist and forum moderator.

The focus of the forum centered around three very different choices.

CHOICE ONE

Choice one said violence saturates the popular culture, immersing kids in a social environment where violence is portrayed as accepting, exciting and without consequences.

“Folks who took this position say it is time to ban violent entertainment to children under 17 and increase investment in television and after-school programs for children to provide healthy alternatives to the harmful popular culture,” said Burton.

In general, participants agreed that parents too often use different forms of indoor entertainment – television, the Internet and video games – to raise their children instead of being more actively involved in their lives.

CHOICE TWO

Choice two put the emphasis on giving more help to children at risk of violence. This approach says cultural violence is a minor distraction from the real tragedy -- no system for helping troubled kids before they slip into serious trouble.

“Participants who took this position say we must take a systematic approach to identifying troubled and at-risk children, treating those who are traumatized and rescuing more from chronically abusive homes,” said Burton.

In general, participants felt that mental illness was a very small part of the problem. Certainly less significant than parents who are afraid to discipline or don’t teach respect.

CHOICE THREE

Choice three said the root cause of violence in America is a meltdown in society and a lack of moral discipline. The problem is that too many children grow up in permissive homes where they are not taught the boundaries between right and wrong.

“Folks who liked this approach said that as a society, we need to take a much firmer hand in raising disciplined and respectful kids and parents have to be held accountable when their unsupervised children cause trouble,” said Burton.

In general, participants felt parents should be held more responsible for the actions of their children but that other institutions, like the juvenile system, are also failing our children.

FEEDBACK

Based on pre- and post-forum questionnaires, participants did change some of their views as a result of the forum.

For example, before the forum, 60 percent of participants said they were not sure about what should be done on this issue. After the forum, 60 percent said they had a definite opinion about what should be done.

A majority of attendees, 90 percent, said a “ban on the sale and advertising of violent movies, song lyrics and video games to children” was important.

There was also a strong sense that we should “expand character education programs in schools,” a statement that found 100 percent of participants said was important.

The idea that we need to “treat juvenile violence as a mental health problem,” got less support, with only 50 percent of attendees saying that was important.

“Making parents who do not supervise their children accountable when the children commit crimes,” was rated as important by 60 percent of attendees.

One-hundred percent of participants said it was important to “increase efforts to rescue children from abusive homes.”

Another statement, “too many parents and teachers are no longer teaching children the difference between right and wrong,” was something that 90 percent of attendees said they were concerned about.

And perhaps most telling, 90 percent of participants favored this statement: “We should restrict and control extreme violence in the popular media even if this places some limits on freedom of expression.”

For more information on these forums, contact David Burton at (417) 862-9284. More information is also available online at http://extension.missouri.edu/greene or at the National Issues Forums website.

The newest issue book put out by National Issue Forums deals with the hot topic of education.

The following is from the introduction to the issue book "Too Many Children Left Behind: How Can We Close the Achievement Gap?"

In a nation that prides itself on providing equal opportunity for all, too many low-income and minority children are falling behind their peers in school. In an increasingly competitive global arena, the United States cannot afford to ignore this widening achievement gap. What can be done to close it?

This issue book presents three possible approaches for dealing with this problem:

Approach #1: Raise Expectations and Demand Accountability
African Americans, Hispanic, and Native American students in many schools have become victims of what President George W. Bush calls "the soft bigotry of low expectations." If we are to close the achievement gap, we must push for increased academic performance of all students, and make educators accountable for the results.

Approach #2: Close the Spending Gap
Schools in low-income, high-minority districts often lack science labs, computers, up-to-date textbooks, and well-qualified teachers who most often choose to work in better-paying, better-equipped suburban school districts. We cannot realistically expect more of poor, minority students until these resource and funding inequities are addressed.

Approach #3: Address the Root Causes
Problems that show up as poor academic performance begin long before low-income minority children come to school. And they cannot be remedied unless we address underlying causes, such as unresolved health problems, poor nutrition, stressful living conditions, and lack of parental support, which are the source of these deficits.

For more information, find the discussion books online at www.nifi.org or check out these material links:

Download the Issue in Brief, Too Many Children Left Behind.pdf (260 K)

Download Forum Questionnaire for Too Many Children Left Behind.pdf (37 K)

Doing a reader’s survey for a publication is one way to involve the public in the evolution (and improvement) of a publication.

The use of reader’s surveys (or focus groups) to improve a publication is nothing new. Publications in larger markets have been doing these for decades. But the idea of doing a reader’s survey at a smaller market publication (or weekly newspaper) is fairly new.

One reason why reader’s surveys were not as prevalent (or maybe even as relevant) for weekly newspapers and small market publications was because those publications practiced real community journalism. The owner or publisher was active and visible in the community. Staff members lived in the same community, sent their children to the public school, shopped at local stories and went to a local church – the same as the people they wrote about. If a reader had an idea (or complaint) about the newspaper they were able to easily pass that information along to the owner, publisher or editor.

Now, small market publications have more turnovers in staff and owners. Plus, the staff and owners are too busy in other areas to be very active in the community. The dynamic with the community has changed (in many cases but not all). That change makes reader surveys more important now than ever before.

Readership surveys are important for any publication (online or in print). Time is probably the single biggest factor for not doing a reader’s survey but if done right, the information gained from the survey could save the editor time and increase both circulation and readership.

The goal of the survey is to find out why people read the newspaper/publication, why they do not read the newspaper/publication, what they like to read, what they hate about the publication and what information they need the most.

Experts on this topic, including one that spoke recently at the annual conference of the Ozarks Press Association, say focus groups work well for reader surveys. The other option is to put a publication survey in the newspaper itself and offer a significant coupon, prize or gift to persons who complete the survey and turn it in. One person suggested giving one-year subscriptions to readers who answer the survey.

Some important questions to ask in the survey include the following:

• Have you looked in a newspaper during the last week?
• If so, which newspapers do you read?
• What time of day do you read the newspaper?
• How long do you spend reading the newspaper?
• How often to you read the newspaper?
• Do you find this newspaper to be accurate?
• Are mistakes corrected?
• Please rate the job this newspaper is doing with covering local government, public schools, elections (and other topics important in your community).
• Are the editorials fair, conservative or liberal?
• What could we do better?
• How interested are you in the following: columnists, school news, sports, government news (and other top items in your community).
• What would be one change you would like to see made at your newspaper?
• How much of the news in this newspaper do you find to be accurate?
• To what extend to you find this newspaper to be fair?
  

If you have done a reader’s survey in the past post a comment here. I’m sure other publications would be interested in both the questions you asked and the results of those surveys.

Finding ways to restore the public's trust in the news media is the purpose of public issue forum materials developed by the Kettering Foundation. Free resources any individual or group can use to conduct an issue forum or study circle on “News Media and Society” can now be found at http://extension.missouri.edu/swregion/news.

A series of six news media issue forums were held in Springfield, Mo back in 2003. A total of 95 people attended and deliberated all sides of this issue before making choices and finding common ground.

It was apparent from the forum’s beginning that a majority of citizens no longer trust the news media.

Some citizens think the news media covers up real stories for the sake of owners or advertisers. Others find liberal bias in much of what is written and said (or left out). Still others find the news sensationalized and hyped for the sole purpose of profit.

Over 80 percent of participants agreed that irresponsible journalists are eroding public trust in the news media. The blame, however, was placed on owners, with 85 percent of participants saying the news media is "more concerned with profits than with public service."

There was also universal agreement that the “failure” of America’s news media is a serious challenge to the functioning of our democracy. There was some difference regarding the source of the news media’s failure and few solid solutions on how to fix it.

Only 15 percent of participants agreed with licensing journalists like lawyers and teachers.

"The ownership of too much of the media industry rests in a handful of huge companies," was agreed with by 85 percent of forum participants. There was support for public broadcasting among 48 percent of participants but the issue of tax money being used was a concern.

There was support for making the media more accountable to public interests, but no suggestions of how this could be accomplished without government involvement.

The idea of “getting citizens involved” with the news media was the most appealing to participants. There was agreement that citizens need to engage the news media more and take a more active role.

There was also agreement that the news media needs to do a better job of listening to the citizens of their community. In fact, 93 percent of forum participants agreed, "the local media should initiate community discussions of civic issues in their communities."

This issue of restoring the public trust is a serious one for the future of our nation's democracy. It is serious for the news media too, especially when you consider that 50 percent of participants agreed with giving the federal government power to “more strictly regulate the news media."

In case you think I’m making these numbers up, a series of forums on the same topic done with 60 participants on Jan. 13, 2004 at the Classic Center in Athens, Georgia found similar results. The forums were conducted by students in a leadership program organized with assistance from the University of Georgia.

Here are the numbers from that forum.

Irresponsible journalists are eroding public trust in the media.
64 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

Broadcast journalists are more interested in improving their ratings than in serving the public.
80 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

The news media are more concerned with profits than with public service.
89 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

The ownership of too much of the media industry rests in a
handful of huge companies.
85 percent agreed or strongly agreed

Citizens should have more influence in setting standards for the news media.
64 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

Boycotts are an effective way for citizens to exert influence on the media
59 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

Journalists should develop a set of standards for news coverage that they would all be expected to follow.
87 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

Journalists should be licensed as other professionals, such and doctors and teachers, are.
41 percent favored or strongly favored.

We should increase government funding for public broadcasting.
59 percent favored or strongly favored.

The federal government should more strictly regulate the media industry.
23 percent favored or strongly favored.

Local media should initiate community discussions of civic issues in their communities.
86 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

Citizens should start their own news sources, such as Web sites or newsletters, to address issues their local media fail to address.
79 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

And, there you have it, some good food for thought and maybe even some action.

University of Missouri Extension's program known as EXCEL, an Experience in Community Enterprise and Leadership, builds community leadership capacity. What distinguishes EXCEL from other approaches to leadership development is its high degree of flexibility, local control, inclusiveness, and focus on the future of community governance.

There are EXCEL programs or similar community leadership programs all over the state.

Barton County has an active EXCEL class again this year.

Over 1000 people representing approximately 60 towns throughout Missouri have participated in 40 locally-based, EXCEL-type leadership development programs. A telephone survey of those associated with the various programs revealed the following:

• "The local United Way now raises three times as many funds as 3 years ago. Most members of their board are graduates. The board seems better organized, more focused, and makes better use of resources."
• "The county fair was reborn and is phenomenal now. Many fair board members were EXCEL participants."
• "A campaign for passing a school levy was directed primarily by past participants of the program."
• "At least a couple of big projects have been initiated by alumni, such as raising $3 million for the YMCA."
• "Any project that goes on in the community has EXCEL participants involved. A pool of net workers who call on each other has been created."

If a community needs to build a pool of community leaders then this program is one way to do that successfully.

A program known as Citizenship Education Clearing House (CECH-UP), organized from the college of Education, University of Missouri - St. Louis and University of Missouri Extension, has a free program that teaches middle school students about about local government.

To become informed and active citizens, students must do more than read about government; they must get involved in the political process and practice the skills of democracy.

Missouri Local Government CECH-UP shows students how to get involved in the governance of their own communities. Based on a successful program model started in St. Louis area schools, the statewide version includes over 1,700 students statewide.

The program has put together a new website that includes a video about CECH-UP. In fact, the video is a great tool to show teachers and administrators and local government officials to get them excited about the program.

Here is what you need to know, in a nutshell, about the program:

This what CECH-UP has to offer:

* Handbook/website www.cech-up.org
* Classroom Visits with local government officials (arrangements made by Extension Staff)* Site Visits to city hall (Extension staff helps makes the arrangements and CECH-UP pays for bus transportation)
* Teacher Workshop
* Mini-grants for project expenses (up to $500 per teacher) Application is on our website * Projects Fair (if we can get at least three schools in your area to participate…we will host a projects fair in your area)
* $100 Stipend for teachers (just a small “thank you” for teacher who fully participate)

Enroll now to participate in the Local Government CECH-UP Program for the next school year. Contact Program Director, Karen Pippin by email pippink@umsl.edu or by phone (314) 516-6853.

Over the past 10 years, study after study has found American citizens are losing confidence in the news media. The downward trend began in the 1980’s and gained steam in the 1990’s, long-before the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times gave the credibility of large newspapers a black eye.

I’ve conducted a public issue forum, “News Media and Society,” over 15 times in the last three years and one of the things citizens complain about is the perceived “arrogance” of the news media. One of the factors contributing to that perception is that citizens don’t feel like media outlets admit when they are wrong.

That is why Amy Brant’s editorial, “The best of intentions can often prove to be a mistake,” in the weekly Republic Monitor newspaper (Republic, Missouri) was so refreshing this week. Here is an excerpt:

Last week, when I wrote my column and shared my feelings on the situation of
moving the cooperative program (at Republic R-II Schools) into mobile
classrooms, my heart was in the right place, but as I quickly found out, not all
of my information was accurate.

Before you say anything -- I know-a good journalist wouldn't have done that. …

The column was written Tuesday for Wednesday's paper, but by the time I found out at Tuesday night's school board meeting that I was wrong, it was too late -- the newspapers were already on the stands and in the mail.

Therefore, it is my intention this week to let you know of my mistake, and try to communicate the correct information …

Editors and reporters of all shapes and sizes -- both locally and nationally -- make mistakes of fact in stories. Some of those mistakes may be intentional (bias) and others may be unintentional (miscommunication).

The difference with the error outlined in this editorial is that the editor of the Republic Monitor had the guts to admit to the mistake publicly. She corrected the information in the same space she made the mistake one week before and she did it with the same zeal.

It takes big shoulders for an editor to openly say, "I was wrong."

She didn’t pass the blame to anyone else and she didn’t defend the error with fuzzy, situational ethics.

If the rest of the American media establishment was this honest -- and went this far to correct errors in a manner equal to the error itself -- I think public opinion about the news media would improve.

Kudos to Amy Brant for honestly admitting to making a mistake instead of demonstrating “arrogance” like others who make a habit of defending their work, no matter the facts.

Remember, these comments come from the summary report on the democracy forums held nationwide last year. The authors of the guide conclude the summary report but asking if there was any common ground among participants?

Yes. Forum participants shared these understandings:

• Something is fundamentally wrong with the way we live and that what’s wrong relates to what’s going on in Washington.
• People are less connected to their communities than they used to be, a reality that negatively affects not only the quality of life but also the democracy.
• People want public officials to be more accountable, but lack a clear sense about how to accomplish that goal.
• Many saw no entry point by which they could make a difference, especially in terms of national politics.
• People want to be more than passive spectators; they want to be deciders instead of bystanders, they want to have their voices legitimized and their concerns validated.
• Even some civically active participants professed to being shut out of venues they assumed to be “public spaces.”
• People yearn for something that’s been lost in public life and want to break down the isolation. They are looking for the ties that bind in a democratic society, a greater sense of “being in this together.”

The Kettering Foundation’s report from public issue forums on revitalizing democracy in America has an entire section that deals with the role of religion in democracy. I’m going to include an portion of the report here:

While agreeing that broadly shared moral values are vital to a democratic society, participants shared a respect for, but no common conviction about the role of religious values in a diverse society. In the forums, some participants pointed to the decline in the moral behavior of political leaders as evidence of the need to bring religious values into politics.

Some agreed with a man in El Paso, Texas, “We could [use] … a bit more faith and morals … in the political structure.” Addressing a broader point, another man argued, “The underlying purpose [of separating church and state] is not to keep religion out of government; it’s to keep government out of religion.” An Atlanta woman agreed, saying, “I believe in the separation of church and state but not [a separation between] religion and state.”

Participants in fact seemed to agree that a healthy democratic society stands on a bedrock of basic moral values shared by the populace. Within this context, many said these values stem from religion. A woman in a Los Angeles forum said that religious morals and ethics are “what make … the country better.… It makes us stronger.” Indeed, a few implied that religion is the sole source of such values like a woman in an Atlanta area forum who said, “Without religion, we don’t have any reason to do the right thing.”

But as the forums progressed, a tension emerged. On the one hand, some felt that the country has lost its moral bearings and that its public and private morality is not what it used to be. In a forum in El Paso, a man complained, “We have an absence of … morals [today].… [It’s] almost like the church, the values … [that] were the basis … [of American] democracy …[are] … no longer important; those things are passé.”

While some called for greater morality in the culture, others raised the flipside of the issue, saying “morality” is essentially a private matter. Participants in a Bowling Green, Ohio, forum asked, “How do we accommodate everyone with a uniform moral code when diversity is what makes this country so great?”

Others were uncomfortable trying to impose one set of moral values on a vast nation, saying they did not want to exclude those with different cultures, backgrounds, or viewpoints. A South Dakota man illustrated the point:

“I have a problem anytime somebody starts to impose their values on me.…What’s appropriate for one person to believe is … not necessarily [appropriate]for another.”

Is it public or private morality? What do you think?

This summary text is from the national report on forums dealing with issue of revitalizing our democracy.

As they deliberated, people struggled to identify the underlying causes of their alienation and disaffection.

They talked about a loss of public space, including the design of many communities: subdivisions without sidewalks, gated communities, and the loss of areas where citizens meet informally and talk about whatever’s on their mind, including community problems and political issues. More and more Americans—and more and more children—are withdrawing, they noted, living in cocoons, content to stay home, indoors instead of being active in their community.

Participants felt that Americans today focus far too much on their rights and not enough on their responsibilities.

Some felt that our children’s moral values are at risk, adding they had questions about values education in the public schools. They also were troubled about how to balance their commitment to diversity with their own rock-hard traditional, moral values. The media, some argued, exacerbate people’s alienation in several ways including cynical reporting that in turn increases cynicism, and a focus on the divisions among us, which increases polarization.

When they turned to the political system, participants almost threw up their hands in despair. Money talks, they asserted; the system responds to special interests, not the broad, general public interest; the average citizen has no voice and is unrepresented. The idea of genuine reform is a fantasy they said, because those who are expected to enact the reforms are the ones who benefit from the status quo.

Moving Forward

At the end of these forums on democracy’s challenge, many concluded that their initial take was not quite right. At the beginning, they had seen this issue as something beyond their control—deteriorating moral values, a decline in community life, and an unresponsive political system are all something they felt powerless to affect. But by the end of the forums, many made connections—saw how community life relates to national affairs, how values education ties into community life, and how they both relate to what goes on in Washington.

And how all three add up to something larger than any of them. Not everyone felt this way, of course. Some left feeling as cynical and dispirited as when they came in.

Others left the forums “stewing” about the issue: more likely to see how some of the pieces fit, more aware of the trade-offs and conflicted about values: the role of the family, religion in politics, the role of the schools, community involvement, public service, and money in politics.

But on the whole, these results suggest that a national dialogue focused on public involvement about this deeply troubling issue might be the key to reducing the alienation, mistrust, and cynicism that are so widespread. Public deliberation just might rejuvenate the hope and public-mindedness that typify the nation at its best because by the end of the forums, some participants—although by no means all of them— concluded that they, after all, had a significant role to play in dealing with the issue.

By the end of the forums and after their long deliberations, some claimed the issue as their own: this is “our” problem not “their” problem, they said. Democracy’s challenge is a challenge facing citizens like ourselves.

For more on this issue check out www.nifi.org.

A report summarazing the results of the national issue forums done on revitalizing democracy has been released. For the next few weeks I'll be sharing some of the highlights from that report. Your feedback is welcome.

In National Issues Forums across the country, citizens came together to deliberate for several hours about the challenges facing the country— democracy’s challenge. This report on people’s thinking in those forums is divided into four main sections: a detailed summary of what happened in these forums; a description of key tensions in the deliberations that became apparent as people deliberated; particular interests, which outlines some ideas that participants gravitated towards; and important questions and answers about the forums which suggest that people do not connect to the issue as conventional wisdom suggests. Below is a brief summary of results.

Something’s Wrong

People in these forums felt that something is dreadfully off track in our democracy. Beyond their immediate sense that the nation is headed in the wrong direction and their low level of confidence in the leaders of both political parties, participants’ comments suggest that there is something else— something below the surface that is far more troubling. And during these forums, they grappled to identify what problems trouble them and what steps might be taken to deal with those problems.

Alienated and Disconnected

As people deliberated, many felt alienated from politics and community affairs—and powerless to do much about them. They felt that community engagement has sharply declined over the past few decades but, initially at least saw no connection between such engagement and the health of the democracy or their own feelings of alienation.

A Nation of Consumers

Some felt that Americans have become consumers in the democracy instead of its citizen-proprietors. People noted that gated communities, which segregate the privileged from the larger community, have become status symbols, something to aspire to. Some including a man from Texas said that Americans are actually taught to be consumers. “We were really groomed to be consumers.…Buy a bigger house and more cars.”

Spectators not Participants

In many forums, people saw themselves as part of the audience, bystanders in the democracy instead of active members with a sense of ownership. Others saw themselves as participants at the local level but not nationally. Citing their involvement with community organizations, some felt like citizens in their community, but not in the democracy.

Feel free to add your comments or take the online survey about democracy available through this blog. See the left hand column and click on the link to our survey on "Revitalizing Democracy."

This blog talks a lot about deliberation and democracy. Put the two together and you have deliberative democracy. What? Ever wonder what exactly that is. Well, here is a great explantion from Dr. Sandra Hodge with University of Missouri Extension. Dr. Hodge also gives examples of successful deliberation HERE and has a great website full of deliberation material HERE.

Written by Dr. Hodge:

There are two threads in democratic thought. One is the institutions, rules and procedures—the machinery—of democracy: written constitutions, one person/one vote, political parties, free and fair elections, representative government, checks and balances, independent judiciary, etc.

The other has roots in the citizens’ forums of ancient Greece and Rome and in communities anywhere in which citizens come together to talk about their issues and their plans for the future.

In this workshop, we are taking about the second idea—about how people come together to talk about issues. It is called “deliberative democracy” because it builds on the capacities of citizens to think, talk and work together in their common interests. “Politics” in this tradition is what citizens do when they come together to work on their own problems in addition to the electoral, legislative and decision-making processes of governments.

1. For “politics” to work as it should—to have the qualities we want it to have—¬requires citizens to be actors. The political system won’t change by itself. People have to claim their responsibilities and act on those responsibilities, both by setting directions for government and by joining together in public action. The purpose of this workshop is to enable participants to create experiences in which citizens can develop their capacities as political actors. This workshop is about how people become political actors.

2. People can’t act together, either to set directions or build relationships to work together as citizens, without making choices, or decisions. This is always difficult because choices about what kind of community or country we want to have forces us to deal with what is important to people. While people share many values, the priority placed on them can vary and result in conflict.

3. When people have different concerns and competing solutions, this “choice work’ can really only be handled effectively in a deliberative dialogue. Deliberation is a particular form of reasoning and talking together in which we weigh carefully the costs and consequences of our various options for action, in the context of the views of others. Forums (gatherings of citizens) have to be deliberative if they are to lead to sound decisions.

4. Deliberation tends to change first opinions into more shared and reflective public judgment about how we should act. We discover what we share, despite what we don’t agree about. Deliberative forums create public knowledge (a deeper understanding of what people feel they need and why) and a public voice (a shared sense of concern).

5. Deliberation helps people find connections among their varied purposes and a shared sense of direction. People have to “work through” conflicts and deal with the trade-offs. They may not come to full and complete agreement, but may get to the point that they have reached a shared understanding of the problem, and possibly have a shared sense of direction for moving ahead and some idea of what people are and aren’t willing to do to solve a issue. Often we live our lives somewhere between complete agreement and complete disagreement. Public action becomes possible when citizens discover where their interests are interconnected.

6. Though not complete agreement or consensus, when people find a shared sense of direction, this provides common ground for action. Thus, deliberative forums create a basis for public action, which is often citizen-to-citizen actions that are mutually reinforcing, or complementary, because they serve compatible purposes. Public action can often make governmental action more effective. Sometimes citizen action is in itself more effective than government action.

7. The public knowledge or public voice that comes from a forum—about how citizens think and talk about an issue and what they are or are not willing to do to address it—is essential information for officeholders. When governments act in accord with public judgment, they acquire public legitimacy.

There is a new public issue book available and being released nationally by the National Issues Forums (NIF) and the Kettering Foundation. The title of this new guide is "The Energy Problem: Choices for an Uncertain Future."

The full-length discussion guide can be ordered from the E.C. Ruffalo Company for $3.90. An 8-page discussion-guide-in-brief and a moderator’s guide are available as free downloads from the National Issues Forums website at www.nifi.org. A companion video is currently in production.

The following is an excerpt from this new issue discussion guide, including an overview of the issue and three possible way of dealing with that issue:

America's way of life seems threatened by unstable sources of energy, while many see growing evidence of environmental damage. As demands for energy escalate, both in this country and in rapidly developing nations, we may soon reach a point of no return. It is time to face the difficult choices that must be made to ensure a sustainable future.

This issue discussion guide invites people to consider the following three approaches:

Approach #1: Unreliable Sources - Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Energy

Much of the oil Americans use comes from the Middle East and other politically volatile countries that cannot be relied upon to continue supplying our needs. This poses an ongoing threat to our security. The United States has many untapped reserves of oil and natural gas. Our best course of action is to make all possible use of these domestic energy sources.

Approach #2: Get Out of the Fossil-Fuel Predicament

The escalating use of fossil fuels is wreaking havoc on our environment. Most scientists agree that global warming has begun in earnest and unless we slow down the burning of fossil fuels, we face catastrophic climate changes. We must get serious about developing alternative energy sources such as wind farms and solar power, and rethink the use of another clean energy source--nuclear power.

Approach #3: Curb Our Appetite - Reduce Our Demand for Energy

We are missing the point when we go looking for new sources of energy. What we need to do is find ways to use less energy in the first place or to use it more efficiently. The United States is home to less than 5 percent of the world's population but uses more than 20 percent of its energy. Cutting back on consumption is the cleanest and most workable way to deal with impending shortages.

Would your community or organization want to host an issue forum on this topic?

Would an organization in your community be willing to host a local forum on work force development called “Building the Next Workforce: Making Choice for your Community?” It is part of a regional deliberation process being done through the Southern Workforce Summit.

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt is the Governor’s chair of the Southern Growth Policies Board.

From the forums that are held a document on workforce development will be presented at the Southern Workforce Summit on June 3-5, 2007 in St. Louis, Missouri and Governor Blunt will be hosting the meeting. To be included in that report information about the community forums must be communicated by March 1.

By participating you would join more than 2,000 other citizens from 13 states who will engage in discussions about their community's and the Southern region's economic future.

Communities hosting a forum will also be recognized on Southern Growth Policy Board’s website and in print in the Southern Growth Policy’s Board 2007 Report on the Future of the South. More importantly, your community’s input will be used in developing the policy recommendations.

For more information on this initiative, visit: http://www.southern.org/forums.

The Southern Growth Policies Board will provide you with all the materials including a moderator's guide, discussion guides for citizen participants, and evaluation questionnaires. You can preview the materials at http://www.southern.org/forums/forumdownload.shtml.

If you have an interest in this topic, and if you think it is worth organizing, I would be willing to moderate the meeting. It would be a 2 or 2.5 hour event and it would likely be held during the day. The goal would be to get 15 or more business owners/leaders and/or educators to attend and participate.

Any community would benefit from being included in the report and by having some of these issues discussed.

Send me an e-mail at burtond@missouri.edu and let me know if an organization in your community wants to proceed.

After meeting its fundraising goals, the Lamar Community Betterment council is starting the next phase of its community visioning effort by partening with the Center for Community Studies at Drury University’s school of architecture.

University of Missouri Extension will assist in coordinating the work and supplement the community’s developing vision with related programs on entrepreneurship, sustainable development, housing development and revitalization.

Ideas gathered during recent town hall meetings are serving as a starting point. This preliminary input will be worked into vision statements for each of the 13 focus areas identified by citizens. The Drury architecture students will then consider the physical, aesthetic, social, cultural and economic factors that will shape the community’s vision for 2030.

Beginning the last week of January 2007, students will come to Lamar to tour and meet with concerned citizens, city leaders, and get a general feel for the area. Typically this includes touring specific sites, learning about the area’s history and exploring specific areas or buildings as candidates for example projects.

Drury architecture students will then develop area maps and diagrams, locating the current assets of Lamar. The students will then develop visioning concepts showing how these assets can be improved and linked to achieve the NextStep 2030 vision.

Their work will also include case studies that will report on towns and projects that have successfully accomplished some of the ideas that are being considered in the greater Lamar area.

Finally, the Drury architecture students will prepare displays, brochures and booklets for review during the Truman Days celebration in early May.

For Lamar, this work will serve as a cornerstone for updating city comprehensive plans and in developing private grant proposals. The primary goal of the project is to develop quality pieces to include in a D.R.E.A.M. Initiative application during the summer of 2007.

The Lamar Community Betterment Council and University of Missouri Extension have been key to bringing this project together. Other contributors to the project fund include John and Sharon Gulich, US Bank, the City of Lamar, and Barton County Chamber of Commerce.

The NextStep 2030 process will resume at 6 p.m., Thursday, Jan. 18, 2007, in the meeting room of the Thiebaud Auditorium. This working session will review and revise preliminary vision statements for the 13 focus areas.

For further information contact Jeff Barber with MU Extension at (417) 682-3579 or by e-mail at barberj@missouri.edu.

Over the past 10 years, study after study has found that American citizens are losing confidence in the news media.

The downward trend began in the 1980’s and gained steam in the 1990’s, long-before the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times gave the credibility of large newspapers a black eye.

Finding ways to restore the public's trust in the news media is the purpose of public issue forum materials developed by the Kettering Foundation and being delivered in southwest Missouri by University of Missouri Extension.

Free resources any individual or group can use to conduct an issue forum or study circle on “News Media and Society” can now be found at http://extension.missouri.edu/swregion/news.

A series of six news media issue forums were held in Springfield, Mo back in 2003. A total of 95 people attended and deliberated all sides of this issue before making choices and finding common ground.

It was apparent from the forum’s beginning that a majority of citizens no longer trust the news media.

Some citizens think the news media covers up real stories for the sake of owners or advertisers.

Others find liberal bias in much of what is written and said (or left out). Still others find the news sensationalized and hyped for the sole purpose of profit. Meanwhile, others say the news media is nothing but entertainment while the real hard issues of our culture get ignored.

Over 80 percent of participants agreed that irresponsible journalists are eroding public trust in the news media. The blame, however, was placed on owners, with 85 percent of participants saying the news media is "more concerned with profits than with public service."

There was also universal agreement that the “failure” of America’s news media is a serious challenge to the functioning of our democracy. However, there was some difference regarding the source of the news media’s failure and few solid solutions on how to fix it.

Only 15 percent of participants agreed with licensing journalists like lawyers and teachers.

"The ownership of too much of the media industry rests in a handful of huge companies," was agreed with by 85 percent of forum participants. There was support for public broadcasting, with 48 percent supporting more funding (although the issue of tax money being used was a concern).

There was support for making the media more accountable to the public interests, but no suggestions of how this could be accomplished without additional government involvement.

The idea of “getting citizens involved” with the news media was the most appealing to participants. However, it was not without concerns. There was agreement that citizens need to engage the news media more and take a more active role.

There was also agreement that the news media needs to do a better job of listening to the citizens of their community. In fact, 93 percent of forum participants agreed, "the local media should initiate community discussions of civic issues in their communities."

This issue of restoring the public trust is a serious one for the future of our nation's democracy. It is serious for the news media too, especially when you consider that 50 percent of participants agreed with giving the federal government power to “more strictly regulate the news media."