CORPORATE (DPI) CONCURRENT CITIZENS' JURIES
CORPORATE (DPI) CONCURRENT CITIZENS' JURIES
Department for Planning and Infrastructure
27 - 28 March 2003
The Citizens' Juries were a means of addressing two issues -
enabling DPI staff to experience a community engagement technique, the
Citizens' Jury, being trialled with the community; and encouraging
staff to deliberate on innovative ways to better integrate the two
critical functions of the Department - transport and land use planning.
The Minister and Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI)
had been encouraging the implementation of a variety of new community
engagement techniques. However, many Departmental staff had no
opportunity to be involved. This was problematic since the Minister was
expecting DPI to lead the way in implementing community engagement
initiatives that would engage citizens in problem solving complex
issues and share in the decision-making. To enable the maximum number
of DPI staff to experience a Citizens' Jury, it was decided to hold
three juries concurrently.
The newly formed DPI (an amalgamation of the Departments of Planning
and Transport and some part of Main Roads) has the task of achieving
greater sustainability by integrating land use and transport. World
wide, this issue has great currency. Economic booms and economic
rationalism has often led to finance being prioritised to the detriment
of the environment and the social fabric of the community. The current
focus is on achieving a better balance between the triple bottom line -
environmental, social and economic factors. To do this effectively, the
Department will need to change the way it does business.
The initial 'challenge' to Jurors was as follows:
"To determine what we can do as a Department - our people,
and projects - to better integrate land use and transport. We want the
end result to provide socially, economically and environmentally sound
outcomes for WA."
During the process, jury members voiced their difficulty with
dealing with a brief that encompassed both internal and external
components, with no clarity as to where the focus should be. The
wording was altered in an attempt to address these issues. The
following is the brief that was deliberated by Jury members:
"To determine how to integrate land use and transport
planning (policies, services and department) to improve social,
economic and environmental outcomes for WA"
Several techniques were trialled during this consultation:
Citizens' Jury was used as an internal Departmental technique rather
than its usual application as a method for community consultation.
juries were held simultaneously on the same topic, with an attempt to
synergise the findings, rather than holding a single Jury. This enabled
more staff to be involved, and trialled the principle of
"triangulation", a method to enhance the potential of synergy.
Questioning was utilised, trialling the potential of capacity building
with jury members to improve their skills in deliberation.
Agreements with Decision Makers
The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and DPI Corporate
Executive agreed to the format of the Juries. It was agreed that the
Juries would verbally present their findings to the Corporate Executive
at the conclusion of the deliberations and would present a full report
to the Corporate Executive as soon as possible after the event. The DPI
Corporate Executive agreed to consider the Jury report and inform the
Juries and the rest of the Department what DPI would be able to
implement, with an action plan, and what they could not, with reasons
Human Resources carried out a random sample of the DPI staff, using
staff numbers rather than names to ensure fair representation. The
sample was stratified by level within the Department's hierarchy, to
enable all levels of staff to be represented on each Jury. The sample
was also stratified by section, to ensure an equal mix of the original
Transport and Planning Departmental staff, and to include sections
involved as well as those not involved in the issue of integration.
Three consultants experienced in Citizens' Juries facilitated the
juries. Three staff members acted as scribe / synthesisers for each
Jury. Their task was not to minute take but rather to ensure each
jury�s key issues and findings were reported. Each Jury consisted of 15
members, each stratified according to staff level and section to ensure
dialogue both across and up and down the organisation.
Process - Prior to the Jury Proceedings
All participants were given several articles on examples of land use
and transport integration in Australia and overseas, as well as an
outline of the Citizens' Jury process and the Agenda for the two days.
Participants were asked to read these introductory briefing materials
before the Jury proceedings.
Jurors were also asked, as a result of their reading and experience,
to devise a potential vision for DPI integrated land use and transport,
and to determine the questions that would need to be asked to
understand how to reach their vision.
Process - Overview
The Jury hearings and deliberations were over two consecutive days.
The first day's agenda involved the examination of five Expert
Witnesses. Each Witness was asked to prepare a 10-minute address. The
Witnesses represented different areas of expertise, including planning
and transport academics, practitioners and users, the Minister for
Planning and Infrastructure, and the Director General of DPI (who did
not give a presentation, but answered Jury questions).
The Jurors compiled and agreed to a prioritised set of questions to
ask the Expert Witnesses. The Expert Witnesses responded as a panel to
the Juries' questions.
The day 2 agenda included an overview of what was learnt from day
one, followed by deliberation, with each Jury formulating its own
visions, strategies, justifications and additional questions to be
During the final session, the combined Juries synthesised the
separate Jury recommendations to form a single set. These were
presented to members of the DPI Corporate Executive
Following each day's proceedings, participants gave feedback on what
was beneficial and what could be improved.
Several days after the jury proceedings, a small group of volunteer
representatives of each jury met to finalise the report for submission
to Corporate Executive. Since it had been agreed with jury members that
the recommendations would not be altered, the task was essentially to
format and make the report more presentable.
Process - Jury Proceedings - Day 1
Facilitators outlined the aim of Citizens' Juries, the Jury
'challenge' and an overview of the proceedings. Participants introduced
themselves to other members of their Jury. This was followed by a
capacity building session on the first level of Strategic Questioning -
describing the issues / problems:
- Focus questions - identifying the situation and key fact
necessary to understand the issue.
- Observation questions - what one sees and the information one has
questions - still gathering information by focusing on the meaning
given to events and how the person thinks about the situation; also
what motivations are ascribed to key players.
- Feeling questions - concerned with bodily sensations, emotions,
Jury members worked in threes to practice questioning, answering and
observing. This exercise was carried out using unrelated issues in the
beginning. This was followed by using the questions to describe the
'challenge' - integrating land use and transport.
Members within each jury shared their suggested questions. Following
this session there was a plenary of all three juries, at which
participants prioritised and selected the critical few questions to ask
At the time the questions were formulated, the jurors had not yet
heard the presentations of the Expert Witnesses. Although the practice
in strategic questioning enabled useful questions to be formulated,
obviously, this situation was far from ideal.
Preferably, the presentations should have been given first so the
juries could have prepared their questions accordingly. Alternatively,
jurors could have read an outline of the Experts' presentations prior
to the proceedings. Unfortunately, neither option was implemented,
largely due to Expert Witness time constraints. However, there was an
opportunity to ask additional questions following the Witness responses.
The Expert Witnesses were asked to attend the lunch break prior to
the hearings so they could see the questions to be asked and have the
opportunity to think of responses.
A representative from each Jury asked their Jury's prioritised
question. Most of the Expert Witness panel members responded to each
question. The scribes wrote a synopsis of the key themes. This material
was made available to jury members if needed during the deliberations
After the hearings, Jurors separated into the three jury groups to
overview what had been learnt from day one and what questions remained
During the final session of day one, all participants filled out a
feedback form on what was beneficial and what could be improved.
The comments were analysed overnight, and alterations to the
following day�s agenda were made accordingly.
Process - Jury Proceedings - Day 2
The Facilitators presented a synopsis of the feedback comments from
day one. As a result of feedback, the Jury 'challenge' was altered and
A capacity building session was given, explaining the longer levers
of Strategic Questioning - digging deeper, strategic questions:
- Visioning questions - concerned with identifying ideals, dreams,
questions - concerned with how to get from the present towards a more
ideal situation: this is about identifying the person's change view
that will affect their strategies for change.
- Considering all the alternatives - examining the possible options
for achieving the vision as well as how change could happen.
- Considering the consequences - exploring the consequences of each
the obstacles - identifying likely obstacles (within and beyond the
person) and how these can be dealt with; obstacles may include
attachments, doubts, values or needs of any party; focus on what is
stopping change from happening.
- Personal inventory
and support questions - concerned with identifying one's interest,
potential contribution, particular skills, assets, resources and the
support needed for action.
- Personal action questions - getting down to specifics; actual
Jurors again practiced the questions in groups of three, with one
questioning, another answering and the third observing. In this
instance, the strategic questioning addressed the 'challenge'.
Jury members were asked to write down their visions for the future
and to discuss them with their fellow jurors in the following session.
Each of the three juries reported back their recommendations to the
In order to create a single set of recommendations, the
recommendations were divided into three groups - one relating to
visions focusing on external conditions, two focusing on visions
relating to internal conditions. Jury members divided into subsets,
forming new groups with the task of synthesising the findings in one of
The DPI Corporate Executive was invited to the proceedings to hear
the findings of the Juries. A representative from each sub group
presented their group's recommendations to the Corporate Executive.
There was some time for discussion. However, Corporate Executive agreed
to await the final jury report before deliberating on what could and
could not be implemented. It was agreed that the Executive's response
would be distributed to all jurors and to the Department.
The final session of the day involved a feedback session of the
benefits and concerns of the two days' deliberation. Several
representatives from each jury volunteered to help write the final
report for the Corporate Executive. It was agreed that the final report
would be distributed to all jury members for their input before its
submission to the Executive.
Synopsis of the Jury Report
Three Citizens' Juries of Department for Planning and Infrastructure
(DPI) staff were held simultaneously to resolve the challenge of:
"Integrating land use and transport though our planning
(policies, services and department) to improve social, economic and
environmental outcomes for WA"
The three Juries consisted of 15 members each, selected from a
random sample of DPI staff, encompassing all levels in the
organisation. The Jury proceedings were conducted over two days.
Participants were asked to read briefing materials of relevant articles
prior to the jury commencing. At the jury proceedings, jury members
examined expert witnesses using the technique of strategic questioning,
deliberated, developed visions, strategies and actions, and agreed upon
a combined set of recommendations.
As a result of the process the juries went through, the following
recommendations are made:
- A challenge to DPI that the spirit of what went on in the
two days' deliberation marks a turning point in DPI where we refocus
our efforts outwards as a unified Department, in a way that is
participative, positive, forward looking, with a sense of commitment,
passion and Esprit de corps.
By endorsing this challenge, the
organisation is demonstrating its willingness to consciously adopt a
different way of how it does its business. The challenge to all of us
is how we are going to take this forward.
the spirit of the DPI Citizens' Juries that Citizens' Jury volunteers
work with Corporate Executive to deliberate the recommendations and
determine a mutually agreeable action plan for implementation.
examining the visions, strategies and actions developed by the
Citizens' Juries, that the following key themes are given consideration:
consultation and communication so it involves informing, listening and
then together, problem solving, both internally within DPI and
- Developing business relationships and partnerships, both
internally within DPI and externally;
integrated teams to resolve issues - seeking out representative and
appropriately skilled resources to concentrate on the task;
staff to get on with the job through cultural change that involves
ownership, stakeholder involvement, understanding of people's differing
roles across the organisation, collaboration, and professional support;
- Bringing the whole organisation along with what
sustainability means to DPI, through education and alignment of what we
The Corporate Executive received the report and agreed to work with
a small group of jury representatives to work through an action plan.
One of the greatest successes of the Citizens� Juries was the
stratified, random sampling of staff. This selection technique gave
staff the opportunity to discuss issues of importance with people who
were new to them. Younger, less experienced participants, as well as
those on the lower levels of the staff hierarchy, were given the
opportunity to be heard, with their views taken seriously.
Participants found it difficult to understand what was actually
required from the 'challenge' they were given. Their key concern was
whether they were being asked how to improve the integration of land
use and transport internally within the organisation or externally
within the community. While the changed wording assisted sufficiently
to enable participants to move on with resolving the matter, it
remained a continuing issue.
Although Citizens' Juries often deal with complex issues where the
wording of the 'challenge' is broad, it would have been far more
comfortable if the issue and the wording had been more specific.
While the Expert Witness presentations were seen as highly useful,
the questioning was perceived by many to be less satisfactory. Some
expected the Experts to have all the answers, and hence were frustrated
with their responses. Some felt the responses lacked depth. Most said
they would have liked to prepare their questions after hearing the
presentations rather than before. However, this would have meant
keeping the Expert Witnesses waiting for several hours for the
questions to be prepared. If that was not feasible, then, it could have
helped if jury members could have read the outlines of the expert
witness presentations in their pre-reading briefing papers.
Many participants expressed appreciation for the opportunity to
learn the new technique of strategic questioning and found it to be
particularly useful. However, it was questionable whether this
technique should have been included within the jury proceedings. It
might have been preferable if there had been a briefing, capacity
building session prior to the jury proceedings.
Triangulation - three concurrent juries
The three concurrent juries allowed more staff to be involved and
enhanced opportunities to network and learn from others. However, the
synthesis was not easy. While prioritising the questions to ask of
expert witnesses was not difficult, the large number of jurors made it
prohibitive for most to engage in the questioning process.
The synthesis of recommendations at the end of the proceedings was
also problematic. To achieve this, jurors left their original jury
groups to form new subsets. This was far from ideal. The easy
relationships between jury members that had developed over the two days
were no longer there. There was insufficient time either to build new
relationships or to finalise the recommendations satisfactorily.
Another option might have been for each jury to have presented its
own findings to the corporate executive. After the event, an
integrating team could have worked on bringing the threads together.
Using a Citizens' Jury internally within the Department
There were differing views on the potential usefulness of this
technique within DPI. However, there was unanimity about the positive
- time to deliberate
- chance to talk to different people across the Department
- opportunities for participation via random sampling.
Most importantly, staff asked to be corporate citizens, who were
willing to volunteer, carried out the task with ability, good will and
creativity - mirroring the same effect as Citizens' Juries in the