I. CIVIC INFRASTRUCTURE SCAN

National Civic League Center for Democracy Innovation (CDI) partnered with three pilot communities to identify themes that hinder effective public meetings and provide recommendations to improve public meetings for communities and public officials.

These communities are:

· Boulder, Colorado;

· Mesa Public Schools in Mesa, Arizona; and

· The Community Police Advisory Board (CPAB) and Fayetteville Next advisory commission in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

II. THE PROBLEM

Official public meetings are typically structured in outdated ways, with limited opportunities for public engagement, usually confined to brief “public comment” periods. This setup tends to foster contentious exchanges instead of collaborative, productive discussions.

While there is no “one size fits all” problem or solution related to civic engagement, CDI identified common themes between the communities, including poor or limited attendance of public meetings, polarized atmospheres and environments that feel unsafe and/or unruly, limited speaking time or access, lack of transparency or awareness of how public meetings contribute to policy decisions.

III. CIVIC ENGAGEMENT SCORECARD

To address these challenges, CDI employed its Civic Engagement Scorecard to develop an internal civic measurement infrastructure. The scorecard is completed by public meeting attendees and qualitatively measures attendees’ experiences. Its purpose is to provide public officials with a mechanism to track efficacy of public meetings.

Specifically, the scorecard asks attendees to:

· Rate their overall experience;

· Provide information about their participation in public meetings; and

· Rate the quality of engagement, information, decision-making, and community connectedness

IV. RESULTS ACHIEVED

The Civic Infrastructure Scans and Civic Engagement Scorecards provided CDI with the information necessary to make tailored recommendations to each community.

V. CONCLUSION

CDI’s Civic Infrastructure Scans resulted in concrete and practical recommendations for Boulder, Mesa, and Fayetteville public officials to increase civic engagement, responsive to the needs and individual characteristics of each community.

Boulder, CO Case Study

I. COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS

Boulder has a vibrant civic landscape with diverse organizations that promote local democracy, though engagement is often led by older, established residents. While the city has a highly educated population and growing Latina/o and student communities, voices from these groups, and others remain underrepresented. Public engagement occurs through email lists, Nextdoor, and WhatsApp, but cross-neighborhood collaboration is limited.

II. PUBLIC MEETING THEMES

The Boulder Civic Infrastructure Scan identified four themes identifying common concerns of public meeting attendees:

1. Being Heard and Transparency of Decision-Making;

2. Functionality of Public Meetings;

3. Equity and Engagement; and

4. Functionality of Boards, Working Groups, and Sub-Committees

III. CDI RECOMMENDATIONS

CDI presented the City of Boulder with five recommendations aimed at improving City Council Meetings and facilitating broader civic engagement in the community:

1. Replace the open public comment portion of council meetings with an open deliberative process and rotate meetings among different locations in Boulder;

2. Upgrade Boulder’s digital engagement capacity via a text-enabled engagement process and/or the creation of a large, standing survey panel to improve public feedback;

3. Adapt public engagement processes prior to the Annual Council Retreat (which produces the Council’s upcoming priorities) to be more responsive to community concerns;

4. Upgrade community infrastructure to support the inclusion of diverse attendees; and

5. Offer an annual training workshop for Council members and community leaders to strengthen essential skills in “engagement leadership.”

IV. CONCLUSION

Improved and diversified outreach methodology will promote attendance and diversity goals, and an open deliberative process will advance transparency and increase awareness of how community voices impact decision-making.

Mesa, AZ Case Study

I. COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS

Mesa is a diverse community with a highly educated and aging population that is diverse, with significant Hispanic and Native American communities. Civic life is supported by a mix of neighborhood organizations, faith-based groups, and civil society organizations. While Mesa Public Schools have partnerships with the City of Mesa and Arizona State University, public participation in school board meetings remains low, especially among Hispanic residents and students. Tensions around issues like transgender guidelines and political polarization hinder productive dialogue. Despite these challenges, the community shares a goal of improving student success, creating an opportunity for unity through a focus on student outcomes.

II. PUBLIC MEETING THEMES

The Mesa Civic Infrastructure Scan identified four themes identifying common concerns of public meeting attendees:

1. The Need for Civil Dialogue at the Governing Board Meetings;

2. The Need for Improved Public Comment Opportunities;

3. Diversifying Participation in Public Meetings; and

4. The Need for New and Repurposed Spaces for Student and Community Participation.

III. CDI RECOMMENDATIONS

CDI presented the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board with four recommendations aimed at improving City Council Meetings and facilitating broader civic engagement in the community:

1. Adapt the existing “Here to Listen” survey into a texting-enabled engagement process to foster listening, deliberation, and idea-gathering;

2. Support student leadership by creating district-wide roles (e.g., non-voting student board membership or a student advisory committee);

3. Experiment by replacing traditional public comment (open-microphone format) with texting-enabled deliberation to keep meetings on-topic; and

4. Upgrade community infrastructure for diverse engagement by building social cohesion through exercises like empathetic role-playing and sharing meals.

IV. CONCLUSION

CDI’s Civic Infrastructure Scan of Mesa identified political polarization as a primary obstacle to effective public meetings of the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board. CDI’s recommendations promote the advancement of social cohesion. By moving away from traditional mechanisms of public comment, CDI predicts that the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board can mitigate the impact of political polarization and focus public attention on practical objectives.

Fayetteville, NC Case Study

I. COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS

Fayetteville is home to one of the largest military bases in the world. As a result, its population is markedly transient, which challenges community engagement and the retention of institutional knowledge. CDI’s report is focused on improving the quality of experiences in the Community Police Advisory Board (CPAB) and Fayetteville Next (FN) Commission meetings.

The CPAB reviews and recommends improvements to police practices, as a liaison between the police and the community. It struggles with low public attendance due to a lack of awareness and confusion about its role.

FN works to engage young adults (19-39) through events and outreach, aiming to strengthen the community and retain young people for long-term economic stability. It has had more success with outreach, but some question the impact of its efforts on public decision-making and view its social events as too informal and disconnected from public issues.

II. PUBLIC MEETING THEMES

The Fayetteville Civic Infrastructure Scan identified three themes identifying common concerns of public meeting attendees:

1. Public Outreach/Participation is Particularly Difficult in a Transient Community;

2. Residents Want to Feel and Be Heard; and

3. Residents are Unclear About How the Policymaking Process Works and How CPAB and FN Fit into the Process.

III. CDI RECOMMENDATIONS

For CPAB, CDI recommended that the organization create a clear throughline of the relationship between CPAB’s recommendations and the policy decisions of the City Council and police department, use texting-enabled engagement processes to foster more effective communication, and to rotate meeting locations for improved accessibility.

For FN, CDI recommended that the organization identify a local policy issue that may facilitate youth engagement, use live-polling or texting-enabled platform to help develop more targeted programs, and hold an event at City Hall for increased transparency of the policy-making process.

IV. CONCLUSION

CDI’s Civic Infrastructure Scan of Fayetteville identified population transience and uncertainty regarding the impact of advisory boards on policymaking as primary obstacles to civic engagement through CPAB and FN.

National Civic League Center 
for Democracy Innovation