Organizing for America | Michael Alford's Blog

Michael Alford's Blog

Yes we did! Helping to elect Barack was just the first step though. Now let's harness our passion to help him implement a new America... of the people, by the people, and most importantly... for the people. Let me know how I can help!

Positive Lessons Learned from Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff’s Healthcare Reform Town Hall on Tuesday 8/11/2009

By Michael from Santa Monica, CA - Aug 21st, 2009 at 1:03 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Please help me figure out how to get this to those that are preparing for future events...

Positive Lessons Learned from
Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff’s Healthcare Reform Town Hall
on Tuesday 8/11/2009

On Tuesday 8/11/2009, I attended a very well run Town Hall event that provided some very clear lessons on how to overcome the organized attempts at disruption and fear/hate mongering led by the radical right and corporate anti-reform supporters.

My thanks and congratulations go to Congressman Schiff and everyone involved in this event. This is the first such event that I have attended, and it was a very positive experience overall. (I was drawn to attend in an attempt to balance out the rowdy anti-reform crowds that I have seen on TV trying to dominate such events.)

The event had at least the expected 2000 people present, and despite the vocal attempts of anti-reform people, the event was kept relatively civilized and constructive.

A large part of this success is due to the obvious efforts of the event organizers to actively manage the event, rather than utilize a normal town hall format, which the anti-reform sponsors have recently managed so well to game to their advantage.

Below I list my observations, which I highly recommend that all Democratic legislators and town hall event planners study before/while planning their own events to discuss healthcare reform.

I also recommend that you contact Congressman Schiff, the event planners at his office and the City of Alhambra, the moderator Dr. Bruce Hensel, and the Alhambra Police Department for their own lessons learned.

Things done right to support a constructive dialog:

Don’t assume that this will be a normal town hall event. Treat this as a unique event with its own necessary preparation steps to ensure success.
The anti-reform sponsors have worked hard to game the format employed by normal town hall gatherings. Do not reward their efforts by passively playing along.
Be very clear on the goals of anti-reform sponsors…

· To agitate the radical right

· To prevent constructive dialog on this topic by disrupting and monopolizing the event

· To limit opportunities for reform supporters to spread their message

· To propagate intentional lies about reform goals/methods

· To intimidate supporters of healthcare reform from participating

· To wear down and intimidate pro-reform legislators

Do not limit attendance.
Attendance limits reward organizers who can bus in their supporters early during working hours so as to claim all available seats. Limits thus penalize people with jobs who find that by the time they can arrive after work and traffic the event is filled and they will not be admitted.
Hold the event outdoors.
This reduces the impact of people shouting to disrupt the event. During the first half of our event a number of anti-reformers attempted to shout non-stop to reduce dialog, but the open air dispersed their volume. They could not effectively compete with the sound system used by the podium speakers, and eventually they gave up and shut up.
An outdoor venue also supports the ability to avoid attendance limits.
Our event was held at a grassy area outside the library at the City of Alhambra Town Hall.
Use a high-quality sound system for the podium speakers.
The sound must be loud enough to be clearly heard by all in the audience, without distortion. Use a professional company for this and test it in advance.
Allow signs
Pro-reform audience members were obviously more polite and less likely to resort to out-shouting their opponents. Signs provided an alternative means for them to make their opinions known.
There will be many crazy signs from the anti-reform movement, such as pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache. This is acceptable vs. the benefit of providing more civilized members of the audience with a means to communicate.
Use a professional moderator who is knowledgeable about healthcare reform.
Dr. Bruce Hensel, Medical, Health, and Science Editor/Reporter for NBC4 performed this role very admirably at Adam Schiff’s event. I recommend that organizers of similar events contact him to learn his own lessons learned.
The moderator should feel free to guide the discussion with the goal of providing constructive dialog.
Do not provide microphones for audience speakers, have the moderator restate their questions for the audience.
This reduces both the incentive for and impact of grandstanding and attempts to disrupt.
Not hearing amplified ranting also discourages other members of the audience from piling on with more shouting/chanting in an attempt to disrupt/monopolize the event.
It also allows legitimate, but nervous/awkwardly phrased questions to be restated in a manner that supports better dialog.
Have audience members line up to approach the front to ask questions
This is necessary for them to be heard by the moderator and legislator, since they will not be issued microphones. It also allows the moderator to more clearly call on people to come forward and speak.
At our event there was a pseudo line which formed as people moved forward to reach the front where they might be called on. This provided a cooling off period where people are required to behave in a civilized manner before speaking. Make sure that latecomers to the event are able to join the line as well as people that camp it before hand.
Using a line does not mean that the next person to speak is predetermined. At our event the line was a few people wide, and the moderator retained the right select the next speaker. This helps him/her try to balance the questions based on impressions of which side people may support, and to avoid calling on obviously disruptive people.
(I was able to move through the crowd, line up and eventually ask a question, even though by the time I arrived the event was just starting with over 2000 people present.)
Have sufficient room at the front for the selected speaker to step forward away from the line and speak.
Having the person separate themselves from the line makes it more clear who is to speak. It also reduces any potential intimidation from other people in line.
At our event a little girl was able to step up and ask a question without feeling intimidated.
Use a panel format
This allows the moderator to select appropriate experts to speak, and perhaps more importantly will avoid having the legislator get trapped in a cycle of having to continuously defend him/her self. The legislator remains free to speak up as desired though. It also supports the impression that the legislator is not the only person supporting reform.
Do not feel that the panel needs to be overly balanced so as to include people that do not support healthcare reform. The goal should be to support discussion of what type of reform, rather than having panelists attack the very concept.
Panelists should be warned though that due to the contentious nature of the anti-reformers, there may be limited opportunities to have a real debate, and much of the time may be spent simply defending the concept of healthcare reform.
Give the panelists a few minutes each at the beginning to state their positions once they are introduced.
At our event, the panelists were…

· Dr. Benjamin Chu, President, Southern California Region, Kaiser

· Dr. Richard Brown, Director, UCLA Center for Health Policy Research

· Jerry Flanagan, Health Care Advocate, Consumer Watchdog

· Leeba Lessin, President, CareMore Health Plan

Have a visible, but not overbearing, police presence for crowd control, especially near the front.
The Alhambra Police Department is to be commended for very successful crowd control which helped to protect the panelists and audience, as well as the spirit of the event itself. Their firm, but restrained guidance should be seen as a model of police support for civilized debate in a democracy. They were visible, but not at all overbearing. This helped lead to an almost carnival atmosphere where people were confident of their safety, without feeling intimidated by the government.
The 3-4 police between the audience and the podium helped ensure that the “line” of people moving forward to ask questions remained civilized. At one point they were required to step in and handle a minor disruption, but this in no way detracted from the event as it was handled firmly, but with restraint. Once I asked my question, an officer politely, but firmly asked me to step back if I was done with my question. I happily thanked him for his efforts and rejoined the crowd.
Perhaps most importantly, keep a sense of humor, and don’t allow yourself to be intimidated
Congressman Schiff was very good at this, including occasionally joking in a friendly manner with the crowd about their “passionate debate”. He began the event by specifically asking everyone to act in a positive manner, which also helped. He also clearly stated that he was not going to be able to please everyone, while making visible attempts address anti-reform questions. A very impressive balancing act during a challenging event in my opinion.

Potential improvements:
A few minor points might be improved upon…

When asking how many people in the audience are for or against healthcare reform, know that the second side asked will typically be louder than the first.
This is because they have time to prepare themselves, and have the ability to gauge how load they are willing to shout to surpass the first asked side. If you want to even out the chance for the more polite pro-reform side to present their numbers, I recommend that you ask first how many oppose healthcare reform, and then how many support it. At our event, the Congressman’s final question of how many people were undecided produced a predictable, but humorous response of only a handful of people.
Have the front area specifically reserved for people in line to ask questions,
Allowing people to remain in the front area allows more aggressive anti-reformers to crowd the more valuable positions towards the front where they can more effectively disrupt and intimidate.
At our event the crowd was allowed to be a little too close to the podium, which allowed a small mob of anti-reform shouters to have more than their fair share of influence.
Have police expel people that obviously attempt to disrupt the event
As mentioned above, at least one person as able to stand near the front and shout at the top of his lungs non-stop for about half the event.
Obviously the desire to address this has to be balanced with any potential for actual or perceived police intimidation. As stated, at our event, the open air venue and excellent sound system used by the podium speakers eventually caused this person to quit yelling, so perhaps this is not always necessary.
Try not to call on any one panelist too frequently
Mixing it up keeps all panelists involved and reduces the impression that any “pet-panelist” is being given too much attention.
Set the crowd’s expectations by clearly stating that there will be a period of at least ½ hour for the legislator and panelists to introduce themselves and give their positions before questions will be taken from the audience.
This will help control the anti-reformers’ desire to go straight to questions so that they can dominate the event. (It obviously won’t reduce their desire for this, but it will make their chants for questions to begin sound more rude, which will encourage the rest of the audience to discourage them.)
Possibly use a lottery to decide who is initially allowed to be up front for questions.
Assuming that the lottery is held immediately before the event, instead of well in advance, this would keep people from being able to camp the front.
The challenge here would be to come up with a method that would allow this to be done quickly and fairly, so it doesn’t become a distraction.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Disappointed in President Obama's Organizing for America Health Care Forum

By Michael from Santa Monica, CA - Aug 20th, 2009 at 5:37 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Billed as a strategy session and “an incredible opportunity to huddle with the President and discuss how we're going to pass real health insurance reform this year”, what we got was preaching to the choir by our Professor in Chief, rather than a discussion of strategies to actually move this forward.

I was ESPECIALLY disappointed to hear the President refer to the select panel as a legitimate negotiating method, and to hear him praise the Republicans on it, including Senator Grassley who has promoted the lies about death panels, as acting in good faith.

Surely Obama can’t be this naïve!!

First of all, how can that panel be legitimate when half of the members are Republican in the first place. This is not the proportion that was elected. Voluntarily giving them equal weight has only prevented any real reform from moving forward. A perfect example of this is how the single payer option was never considered, because these Republicans would never go along with it. This freed them to target any public option as socialized medicine, which it now sounds like we are moving away from as we try to compromise with them.

The American public elected a Democratic majority to get the job done. In giving away our majority to do so, I can only assume that enough Democrats have been bought out by special interests so that no intent to actually deliver effective healthcare reform has ever been intended. Instead apparently we only wanted to sound like we are trying to accomplish it, while at the same time stacking the deck against ourselves.

Secondly, the actions and comments from these three Republicans have shown that they have no interest in passing anything. Grassley himself, after warning people to be afraid for grandma, recently said that he would never support a bill that a majority of Republicans would vote for. Given the underhanded tactics that they and their pundits use, it should be obvious that they have NO interest in a dialog in good faith, and are only negotiating as a means to drag out the process with a series of endless compromises, while they foster an environment of hatred and intolerance for reform.

Wake up Mr. President!!!

Quit letting the Republicans and Blue Dogs play you for a fool.

It’s time to show less compassion and understanding and instead more backbone and righteous indignation.

Call out the liars as despicable and unpatriotic.

Quit trying to convince the Blue Dogs to support reform by watering it down, and instead make it politically impossible for them to act against it.

Stop portraying the anger in America as legitimate debate and instead demonstrate how it is manufactured astro-turf.

If you don’t feel like you can do this and be a nice guy, assign a senior hard-ass to do it for you. The movement desperately needs someone to lead the counter charge.

It also needs more clear organization...

Your discussion today only vaguely stressed the need for people to talk to their friends and neighbors, and offered a couple of talking points in response to a couple of questions.
Lame! We need someone who is actively providing clear instructions on what and how to help.

At a minimum, there should be a 3-5 point bullet list of talking points that everyone is pushing. Shorter, sound bite length talking points, which you can then lecture on to your heart’s content.There needs to be clear instruction on who to contact to help.We need to take the tactics of our opponents, refine them so they are morally acceptable, and then deploy them in a clear fashion.This movement needs a General to guide it.

Now unfortunately, I missed the beginning of the Forum due to internet issues, so maybe the initial speakers provided this leadership and guidance.
If so, I’ll be very, very happy to see more information coming from them in the future.

So far though, this effort seems like a weak, half-hearted attempt to capitalize on the exact same volunteer structure used during the election, without realizing that it needs more focus and clarity to work for an issue-specific movement. And for God’s sake, don’t think that we will win in the end based on the pattern of the election! A lot of the reason that we won convincingly is that the Republicans imploded towards the end of the election.We can’t count on that now, especially given that there are such powerful special interests whose profits are directly threatened by the reform movement.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Can you tell I was happy to help? :-D

By Michael from Santa Monica, CA - Nov 7th, 2008 at 5:35 pm EST

Calling for Obama on election day...

http://pictures.match.com/pictures/11/14/61114I.jpeg

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Hungry to assist our new administration! ISO input on how to help.

By Michael from Santa Monica, CA - Nov 7th, 2008 at 3:11 am EST

Now that I've worked to help put Barack into office, I would so very much like to actively help move our nation forward to a better place.

My perfect scenario would be to find a job that could use of my talents as a VP/director in a role that would help better people's lives, rather than just improving a corporation's bottom line.

I would love to hear peoples thoughts on how I can find a position where I can help support our new administration's work to tackle our country's daunting list of challenges.

I'm currently working as a VP, Project Office in a relatively large IT organization.

Can anyone suggest what steps I might take to find an opportunity to assist that makes full use of what I can offer?

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

Posts

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.