South East Drainage Community Panel Process Review Summary March 2015

South East Drainage Community Panel Process Review Summary March 2015 Prepared by Barbara & Brenton Chappell from Simply Speaking (The views expressed in this review are those of the author based on deliberative practices, action research and feedback gathered from participants during the process) 1 P a g e

CONTENTS CONTENTS... 2 Introduction... 2 Background... 2 Methodology... 3 General Overview... 4 Review of the Remit... 5 Communications... 6 Expert Witnesses... 7 Stakeholder Input... 7 Panel Deliberations... 8 Conclusion... 10 Introduction The Citizen s Jury process was originally developed by the Jefferson Centre in the USA in the 1970 s. It was designed to allow decision-makers to hear the people s voice. A Citizen s Jury provides an unparalleled opportunity for citizens to learn about an issue and deliberate together to find a common ground solution. Decision-makers who watch a Citizen s Jury project in action or listen to a jury s recommendation are able to learn what an informed public wants and why. This information can be an invaluable resource for elected officials and other decision-makers at the local, state and national levels 1. At the conclusion of a Citizen s Jury, the decision-makers review the recommendations made by the jury to inform their final decision. This is the critical end point to all the effort expended by everyone involved in the process. In some cases decision-makers may accept the majority of recommendations, however there may also be times when the recommendations made by the jury are not acceptable to decision makers. The motivation for this review is to identify what activities and behaviours support the acceptance of recommendations and what may have contributed to any non-acceptance. Background The South East Region of South Australia is a highly modified landscape. Broad-scale land clearance and an extensive cross-catchment drainage system have converted what was once a wetland dominated landscape into agricultural production on a vast scale. There is a long history of drainage in the South East. The first drains in the lower South East commenced in 1863 and the majority were constructed between 1949 1972 largely to remove water logging to maintain the region s productivity and improve accessibility. More recently, the South East drainage system is also being managed to enhance natural wetlands. 1 Citizen s Jury Handbook, The Jefferson Centre (2004) 2 P a g e

Across the long history, a wide range of funding models has been attempted which span different rating methods, community shares and betterment approaches. Past funding measures may be judged to be successful because they delivered the funding required to pay for an extensive program of works. However, past approaches appear to have failed a fairness test (in the view of newdemocracy Foundation) creating impetus for review: that is the fundamental task to be given to a panel of everyday citizens spanning the entire affected region. A Community Panel process was undertaken to provide the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation with recommendations for how to pay for the maintenance of the drainage system. The Remit or Charge for the Community Panel s deliberations was: How should we pay for maintaining our largest local infrastructure asset the South East Drainage Network? The State Government will commit $2.2 m per annum. The questions for the panel were: Do we want to spend more than that, and if so, how do we fairly share the cost across the region? 2 Methodology The methodology outlined in this review provides an account of the process used to facilitate the South East Drainage Community Panel. The approach was based on the Citizen s Jury process originally developed by the Jefferson Centre in the USA in the 1970 s. The newdemocracy Foundation was commissioned by the Minister for the Department for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation to oversee the process. newdemocracy is a not-for-profit research group with a particular focus on best practice citizen engagement and innovations in democratic structures. The Remit was established by the Executive Director of newdemocracy and endorsed by the South Australian Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation. newdemocracy designed the project concept and the Panel deliberations were facilitated by consultants from Simply Speaking. The steps the Community Panel worked through were developed through testing in community settings with consideration given to application and outcomes. The key activities included: providing detailed balanced information about the issue hearing a wide range of views from Expert Witnesses questioning those views and seeking out any additional information to build understanding group work that is managed by a neutral facilitator to ensure everyone has a fair say and the deliberations of the Panel are kept on track in response to the Remit group interactions that give everyone a voice, which is achieved through mixing the Panel members in their groups trusting one another to do parts of the work working together in a variety of ways such as small group discussion, brainstorming, task work and full panel discussions to build understanding in preparation for development of recommendations continuing the research and discussion in between face-to-face sessions via an on-line platform designed specifically for the Panel 2 NDF Proposal for SA Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources Aug 2014 3 P a g e

Writing a report which records the recommendations and any dissenting points of view of the Panel. In preparation for the Panel deliberations a series of 8 South East stakeholder workshops and dropin sessions were held throughout the South East region between the 2 nd and 3 rd December 2014. Stakeholders refer to all people in the South East of South Australia. The meetings provided an overview of the Community Panel process and the drainage network; information on how to prepare a public submission; and opportunities for members of the South East community to nominate Expert Witnesses for the Community Panel to hear from and documents they should read. A survey listing all the nominated Expert Witnesses was distributed to the South East community and resulted in a short list of six people who presented to the Panel on the second day of their deliberations. Four more Expert Witnesses were called by the Panel on day 3 followed by a face-toface session with the South East Water and Conservation Board members. One final Expert Witness was called on day 5 in the final weekend. The outcomes of the stakeholder workshops are documented in a report available on the Natural Resources South East website http://www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/files/573c47e2-50f4-4880- 8e48-a4250097bdd7/community-panel-stakeholder-rep.pdf Monitoring and evaluation was continuous throughout the project from October 2014 to March 2015 through weekly project meetings and reports and evaluation of all interactions with the South East community and the Community Panel. The summary reports of these evaluations are available as Appendices to this review on request. Process Evaluation The intention of the process evaluation is grounded in respecting the efforts of all participants involved including the Community Panel, South East stakeholders, Natural Resources South East, newdemocracy, and Simply Speaking; and in learning from the experience to improve future Community Panels (Citizen s Juries). The review includes aspects of the process that presented the strongest challenges and gained most attention from participants: The Remit Communications Expert Witnesses Stakeholder input Panel deliberations General Overview In response to the Remit members of the Community Panel spent considerable time reading public submissions, research papers and the information provided by the Expert Witnesses. They based their recommendations on their analysis of this information and their shared deliberations. Consequently, the Panel chose to go beyond the Remit and answered the questions based on what they had discovered throughout the process. In their report they provided the reasons for their response to the Remit. They were unanimous in their resolve that the South East community should not be directly charged to fund the on-going maintenance and operation of the drainage network 4 P a g e

since (in their reasoning) the system provides benefits not just to landholders or even the wider South East community but to the whole State of South Australia 3. The verbal and written feedback from the Panel throughout the period of deliberations indicated they enjoyed the process with many of them indicating they got a lot more out of the experience than they had expected. Frustrating, exhausting, exhilarating. Amazed at the quality of the final result Very hard work but a good process to be involved in I enjoyed it but I did not change my mind Review of the Remit The Remit the Community Panel was given to address in their deliberations generated considerable discussion throughout the process to the extent that it warrants review to inform the framing of future Remits. In reviewing the communications, the feedback and the outcome of the process, it was evident from the onset that the community and Panel became focused on preventing another cost to the region which set the tone for the Panel s deliberations. The Jefferson Centre writes: The charge (Remit) is arguably the most important element of the entire project. The charge will guide the agenda, the witness selection, the deliberations and the form of the recommendations. The charge must be clearly written and focused, but cannot bias or lead the jurors towards any particular answer. The charge defines the scope of the project, so it must be written in such a way to present a manageable task to the jury. It is most productive to have the project staff draft a preliminary charge after consultation with the sponsors. The draft can be refined after further consultation with the sponsors, partners and an advisory committee. The purpose and benefit of including a number of people in the drafting of a Remit is the value to be gained from a range of perspectives. In collaborative writing when people naturally bring their values, beliefs and assumptions into the process, the people involved can challenge these individual contributions. In the case of the Remit put to the Community Panel, one of the key arguments related to the placing of responsibility for additional funding on the South East region. In the interests of continuous improvement, the recommendations are: assign the drafting of the Remit to an Advisory Committee and test it with a sample population to capture any unforseen deficiencies or misconceptions in the context of the Remit be aware of words in a Remit that may polarise a jury and stakeholders. For example, a reframe of the Remit without the words across the region, would have read, Do we want to spend more than that, and if so, how do we fairly share the cost? 3 South East Drainage Community Panel Final Report 15 March 2015 5 P a g e

Communications Transparency in the process is a key factor in gaining public trust in the capacity of the Community Panel to complete the assigned task of addressing the Remit. Communication via a range of media and community meetings is the pathway to demonstrating what is happening throughout the process and to make the general community aware of who is on the Panel. newdemocracy writes: The role of the media in supplying information about the exercise is crucial. We have noted in other processes that the community should have the chance to see and identify with the people involved: an evoked response of people like me made the decision will see the recommendations earn widespread trust. Natural Resource South East directed the contracted facilitators to develop a comprehensive communication and engagement strategy that identified key messages for target audiences and deadlines aligned with key dates throughout the process. The coordination and implementation of the communication strategies uncovered a number of logistical issues that created intense challenges for staff and will require attention if communications for any future Community Panels are to be improved. Government policies and procedures that extend across departments and agencies have the potential to create miscommunication; which in the case of the Community Panel process resulted in a number of missed opportunities to gain media coverage. In addition to this, the capacity for media coverage through the local press was contingent on the papers picking up the media releases from Natural Resources South East. Interestingly, in the lead up to the stakeholder meetings a number of community members gained media coverage through the local press and radio; and at the conclusion of the Community Panel deliberations, a number of members gave interviews and had articles printed. This level of initiative from jury members is not unusual and as such it may present a way for organisers to increase the transparency of the process and input from the broader community. The risk may lie in jurors speaking on behalf of the rest of the jury without their input and approval. As soon as the Community Panel members were confirmed, they were invited to join an on-line forum (Zilino) so they could introduce themselves and start to get to know one another in the lead up to their first face-to-face meeting. This was a closed forum for the Panel members to enable them to openly discuss sensitive issues. Approximately 30% of the Panel members signed up within the first two days and in between the period of weekend deliberations a core group of Panel members posted information, responded to discussions and accessed the library of documents provided by a variety of sources. All the documents on the Zilino site were also posted on the Natural Resources South East website www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/southeast for all stakeholders and the general public to access. In the interests of continuous improvement, the recommendations are: assign direct responsibility for organising media coverage involving the Minister and/or Cabinet to a Natural Resource South East staff member 6 P a g e

plan all media releases for the project to the Ministers office with sufficient time to allow for approval for paid placements in local media work with Panel members to increase community awareness and input through their networks, local media outlets and social media platforms provide an on-line forum for stakeholders to post questions and provide feedback to the Panel throughout the period of deliberation. Expert Witnesses As indicated previously a number of Expert Witnesses were selected by stakeholders in the South East community. The Witnesses presented to the Panel and spent time in conversation with them on a number of days. Whilst the Panel members valued the expertise of the Witnesses, they were critical of the way they got to interact with them and the variation in the amount of time they had with them. One of the Panel members queried why they had not been given the list of Expert Witness to select who they wanted to hear from and also questioned why a profile and outline of what the Witness was going to cover had not been provided to the Panel to help them digest the information. The facilitators interaction with Expert Witnesses is critical in a setting where politics are at play. There needs to be time for guidelines to be set and consistently agreed to with Witnesses to support the work of the Panel. In the interests of continuous improvement, the recommendations are: Provide a list and profile of suggested Expert Witnesses to the Panel so they can review and determine who they want to hear from and what they want to hear about Request Witnesses to attend a briefing with the facilitator before their presentations Provide questions on a pro-forma to the Expert Witnesses to help them prepare their presentations and provide the information that the Panel has requested Require copies of Expert Witness presentation material a week before their delivery for distribution to Panel members Facilitate a Q & A session with the Witnesses and invite them to spend time with the Panel members over a lunch time extended to 1 hour to allow for more discussion. Stakeholder Input Stakeholders refer to all people in the South East of South Australia. As indicated previously, stakeholder workshops and drop-in sessions were held prior to the commencement of the Community Panel deliberations to provide opportunities for the general community to have input to the process. Over the three weekends of deliberations 34 stakeholders attended the sessions as observers. A number of the people who attended to observe the Community Panel at work indicated they were aware of the sessions because they had received an invitation to be on the Panel or they had attended the stakeholder information sessions or knew someone on the Panel. The attendance did not appear to indicate broad representation across the region by stakeholders or an awareness of the process through media communications. One observer commented that many of the Panel members were people who were generally involved in discussions at a representative level in the region. 7 P a g e

A number of Panel members actively gathered feedback from stakeholders by attending meetings and speaking to people in their local areas. The other source of how people were accessing information on the process is the number of hits on the Natural Resources South East website. A total number of 36 Public Submissions were received. A common message throughout the submissions was that people did not want another levy and the Panel responded to this in their deliberations and final report. The question here is, how representative were the submissions given the indication of limited awareness of the process through the limited media communications? As part of the Communications and Engagement Strategy an on-line forum of stakeholders had been considered, however due to policy challenges, a decision was made to forgo the on-line forum and facilitate stakeholder input through attendance at the Community Panel meetings where they could pose questions and provide feedback to the Panel on the process. There is evidence from other Citizen s Juries conducted in South Australia that stakeholder input is increased marginally through on-line participation. In the interests of continuous improvement, the recommendations are: As a way to overcome difficulties with engaging a broad representation of stakeholders across the region such as general postage, internet access through low speed broadband connections, and restrictions through media use policy use random selection to target representative input from stakeholder across the region using phone interviews, direct mail, email and texting. Work with Panel members to increase community awareness and input through local media including local radio and the ABC (Panel members demonstrated they could access these media) Set up an on-line forum for stakeholders to provide input to the process and pass on comments and feedback to the Panel for consideration in their deliberations Panel Deliberations In the weeks leading up to the Community Panel weekends the facilitators together with the project team reviewed the session plans in detail to ensure they presented the highest levels of support to the Panel in their deliberations. The Panel members provided feedback at the end of each session and the facilitators evaluated each session to determine what changes were needed to improve subsequent sessions. Some of the standout areas for improvement included: The importance of selecting venues that provide enough space for the Panel to spread out comfortably to do their work and allow enough space for observers to see what is happening but not be too close as to disturb the Panel in their deliberations. In two of the venues, Panel members reported not being able to hear what was going on because observers were talking in the background. They also commented on not having enough space to spread out their paperwork and find space for note taking and writing. A further consideration in venue selection is the clear expectation that the comfort of the Panel members can be assured. The air-conditioning in the venue for the second weekend was unable to deal with the high temperatures over the weekend. Panel members commented this had a considerable impact on their capacity to work on their task. The catering at this venue was also a letdown for the process. The start time for each day was 9:30 am. The majority of Panel members were usually at the venue by 9:00 am and there were days when this extra half hour would have been useful. For 8 P a g e

example, on day one there was limited time for Panel introductions and the speed introduction session used as a poor alternative appeared rushed and was definitely very noisy in the small venue. On the final day an extra half hour at the beginning of the day would have been useful and allowed for the lunch break to happen earlier that it did. The process for the face-to-face deliberations and the roles of the Natural Resources South East staff, newdemocracy and Simply Speaking were unclear to the Panel members at the beginning and on review this was also true for the Project Team. This was demonstrated in a number of ways such as Panel members challenging the way they were being asked to work and them being unsure about who they needed to approach when they had a specific question or problem to resolve. This situation was rectified by clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the project team and explaining them and the process in a written information update to the Panel in preparation for their second weekend together and by walking through these details at the beginning of the session. This experience highlighted the importance of effective project management during the Panel process. The work of the Panel within the boundaries of the Remit was a tension throughout the process. It would appear from the outcome of the Community Panel process that there was considerable ambiguity within the Remit. In the original process proposal, a regional levy mechanism for funding the maintenance of the drainage is mentioned; however it was not articulated to the Panel during the process. The Minister informed the Panel that $2.2 million was all the government would commit to the maintenance of the drainage system. The Panel members challenged this throughout the process and each time they did this the boundaries around the Remit shifted. The Panel did a lot of independent small group work throughout the three weekends. On the final day a facilitator was assigned to each small group to support the groups to get through the remaining work within a constrained timeframe. A number of Panel members commented this worked better for the groups as there was someone to keep them on task and all voices were heard. The groups had been asked to nominate someone to do this throughout the sessions but it did not happen. The skill in small group facilitation within a Citizen Jury would be in balancing the free flow of dialogue and deliberation with task work. The moderation work of the National Issues Forum Institute is designed to bring this balance to group work. The amount of information the Panel had to digest was enormous and overwhelming for some. During the first weekend it was clear the Panel was not hearing a lot of what was being delivered to them. Process information was written up and delivered to them in preparation for the other two weekends and PowerPoint slides were used to convey concepts and messages to them throughout the sessions. Throughout the process the particular knowledge and skill base of Panel members became evident, as did the gaps in their skill base. Although there was a general understanding of what a recommendation might look like, the use of the SMART framework to draft recommendations did not appear to be something the majority of the Panel members were familiar with. Workshopping the application of the SMART framework to one of their recommendations would have been an effective way to improve this skill. Questioning how to equitably work within a constrained timeframe and produce a report that the Panel has had adequate time to draft, review and revise. Given this Community Panel was a tactical engagement process (i.e. a time bound approach), consideration should be given as to how a strategic engagement could provide a sustained dialogue with the community on this long-standing issue; or alternatively, use a pre-community Panel process (such as an issue 9 P a g e

discussion document drafted in consultation with stakeholders) to allow time for reading and digestion of a range of perspectives on the topic. Some of the standout areas that worked in the process included: The way the Panel members conducted themselves throughout the process was commendable. There were some tensions between members; however there were no overt displays of disruptive behaviour throughout the process. Panel members generously contributed their knowledge and skills in a variety of ways. The shared meals were valuable in bringing people together, however several people commented the long days and longer evenings were starting to take a toll on them. The tour of the drainage network was very well received by the Panel and gave them opportunities to get to know one another, become familiar with parts of the network they were unaware of and to understand the scale of the network. The capacity of members of the Panel to read and digest the Public Submissions and information from Expert Witnesses and Natural Resources South East, and to share and deliberate on their findings in the on-line forum and during the face-to-face sessions. The developing relationship with the Natural Resources South East staff. Staff made themselves available throughout the process and this was recognised and acknowledged by the Panel members. Panel members commented on how much they had learned about the drainage network and about themselves and each other throughout the process. Panel members reached out into their communities to gather feedback from stakeholders There was consensus on the final report among the Panel members. Conclusion In conclusion: the process activities that appear to have supported the acceptance of the recommendations made by the South East Drainage Community Panel include the way they worked consistently to understand the issue of funding drainage maintenance and how they made their recommendations as a result of their analysis of the information before them including the views provided in the submissions from the public. the process activities that did not appear to support the acceptance of the recommendations include what appeared to be ambiguity in the interpretation of the Remit and the Panel s initial level of understanding about the process during the first weekend. 10 P a g e