This article is written by John Burgoyne, senior associate at the Centre for Public Impact.

The first town hall I helped organise was a failure.

But, while the day did not go according to plan, it offered valuable lessons and sparked an idea for how we might reimagine town halls to work better for everyone.

Seated in the front row at my first town hall, a gathering of government and residents to discuss topics relevant to the community, I remember the pride I felt watching my supervisor on stage.

She, a project planner at the consulting firm I was interning for, was delivering a presentation summarising our recommendations to improve their residential parking system.

This was the culmination of months of research with our local government partners, and this town hall served as an opportunity to engage our most important stakeholder – residents whom our ideas were designed to help.

• Want to write for us? Take a look at Apolitical’s guide for contributors

My supervisor’s presentation was intended to give residents a brief introduction to our work before walking them through a set of interactive prototypes they could provide feedback on.

After the presentation, I turned around to gauge the audience’s reaction. Instead of the excitement for the prototypes I was hoping for, their faces revealed a wide range of emotions, from eager curiosity to jaded scepticism.

While it seemed as if we struck a chord among some in the group, it was the latter group, unfortunately, who influenced what happened next.

Before turning to our prototypes, we were met with a flurry of aggressive questioning on previous events and topics that had frustrated a subset of the residents. These points did not seem relevant to the information my supervisor had shared and we struggled to regain control of the agenda.

We had less time than initially planned for the prototypes, and the feedback we received was more accusatory and less constructive than we had hoped.

An event meant to involve the community and gain buy-in ended up having the opposite effect. Where did we go wrong?

Learning from failure

My supervisor, who still serves as a trusted mentor, wisely viewed the failure as a learning opportunity.

She shared a valuable lesson in our debrief at the office the next day: the importance of knowing your audience. While we had engaged with senior stakeholders in the city in advance of the town hall, we should have more deliberately sought out the perspective of those who were most impacted by the city’s existing parking system.

As my interest in resident and citizen engagement began to grow after the internship, I found myself learning more about town halls and their inherent problems.

What I experienced is concerningly common. It seemed that well-intentioned, thoughtfully planned town halls often diminished government’s legitimacy, rather than building it. Why were these events falling short?

The answer lies in my supervisor’s wisdom: know your audience. Town halls were originally designed to provide information and give an opportunity for the audience to share their views. In a world where trust in government is high, residents can engage in a productive discussion among trusted colleagues who respect each other’s perspectives.

“Many people no longer think the government can be a force for good or change in their lives”

We, however, live in a world where trust in government has been declining. Where government faces a legitimacy crisis. Where, as one respondent of a recent Pew study noted, “Many people no longer think the government can actually be a force for good or change in their lives.”

Town halls operate on the baseline assumption that audience members feel that government trusts their opinion. Our research at the Centre for Public Impact indicates that people increasingly feel this assumption is flawed. Rather than feeling connected to their government, people feel that they – and their voices – don’t belong.

As a result, most people do not show up to town halls, leaving audiences who are not representative of the diverse communities governments aim to serve. Dangerously, the most vocal residents can have an outsized influence on issues, while those who do not have the time or desire to attend are left behind, exacerbating the legitimacy problem town halls are designed to fix.

Introducing the reverse town hall

So was our town hall doomed from the start? Is the lesson here to retire town halls for good in the face of modern problems?

While I do not think town halls alone will solve all of our problems, I believe they can be redesigned to help.

In their current format, power is concentrated with the information deliverers. They stand on a stage while the audience sits beneath them. They have a microphone for themselves while the audience shares one microphone. They choose which information to share (and which not to) while an audience member can usually contribute no more than a single question.

“What if town halls inspired authentic conversations, forged deep connections and ultimately sparked a sense of belonging in a community?”

While these power dynamics rob residents of agency, I think they actually can be quite helpful — if reversed. Specifically, I propose we intentionally redistribute power from government to residents for a “reverse town hall”.

What if residents were the ones sharing information while government listened? What if town halls became a forum for those with the most valuable perspectives — the people most impacted by problems — to use their voice? What if they inspired authentic conversations, forged deep connections and ultimately sparked a sense of belonging in a community?

Our research suggests that local governments are well-positioned to build a sense of belonging among those they serve. In a recent conversation with our People’s Panel — a group of residents who share their perspectives on government — they highlighted the important role a mayor plays as the voice of the community. What if the mayor was the one in the front row taking notes on the priorities residents shared?

The reverse town hall starter kit

While it may seem like a simple change in power, it would certainly not be easy. It involves inspiring community members to sacrifice their time and energy. It involves asking government to re-examine its role. It involves prioritising inclusiveness so that those who may not otherwise attend a government-organised event feel safe and supported to use their voice.

For this type of event to truly give a voice to those who feel most left behind, the following considerations should be taken into account. Note, this list is not exhaustive but hopefully provides a good starting point:

  • Place – to change mindsets, a change of setting is in order. Instead of the traditional government building, meeting in a safe space where community members feel comfortable is important. For example, San Francisco “redesigned the table” with residents to pick places that are familiar and safe for community members.
  • Time and money – not everyone has the time to take out of their day to attend a meeting. Event organisers can partner with employers to recruit residents you aim to reach, finding a time when they can leave work and receive subsidies to attend the event. See this co-design session for an example.
  • Facilitation – bringing in an outside facilitator who prioritises equitable contributions from attendees is critical to ensuring that it′s not just the loudest voices who have the final say.
  • Purpose – the event should be framed around a common purpose that is specific to the needs of a community. This could be as broad or specific as you like, as long as it is well defined and clearly based on real conversation needed, not just engagement for the sake of “ticking the box”.
  • Bias for action – when residents are given a voice, their expectations for action will be raised. City governments must not only listen, but work with their partners to act on the challenges raised. Beyond just a listening session, funds should be earmarked for the ideas coming out of this type of meeting.
  • Transparency and technology – even with an intentional recruitment strategy, it is impossible to reach everyone in a community through a single meeting. The results of the conversations should be shared broadly among other residents through technology platforms. If there is a potential idea or action coming out of the meeting that you know will affect others, safe online spaces can bring those people into the conversation. For examples of how governments can use technology to be more transparent, see our recent paper published in partnership with Engage Britain.

Despite my first town hall being a failure, I still believe in the positive potential of town halls. There is no substitute for face-to-face interaction in forging human connections and fostering a sense of belonging. If you believe there is promise in the idea of giving residents more power and are interested in exploring what this type of event could look like in your city, reach out to our team here!

John Burgoyne

Picture credit: Antenna on Unsplash