I left the sixth meeting of a Ministerial Task Force knowing something had to change. Not the agenda. Not the worksheets. Not the facilitation design. Something deeper.

The room did not explode. It faded.

Today, public engagement is happening in environments shaped by tension, mistrust, competing values and big emotions. Conflict is not some rare thing that shows up once in a while. It is often already in the room before the meeting even begins.

I am a big believer in agendas, protocols, roles, run-of-show documents, and knowing exactly who is doing what before a public engagement event begins.

And also, every once in a while, democracy walks into your community meeting with a clipboard.

Last year, I was deeply inspired by a thought-provoking article by Priya Parker titled "Why the more is not always the merrier" where she names the concept of generous exclusion. She offers this definition “ an intentional drawing of a temporary line for the good of the guests and to help activate and fulfill a gathering’s purpose”.

WHAT?! But really??!! How would that work?

Many of us have been well trained to look for what doesn’t work. Ever catch yourself responding to community members’ novel ideas or concerns with “Yes, BUT”, without considering what values, hopes, fears or beliefs are driving it? It’s no surprise – our organizations highly value “problem spotters and solvers”. Yet this can narrow our world so that all we see are our ideas and our ways of doing things.

This is the current context we are engaging in and it’s tough! Of course, we want to be open and welcoming of diverse views with a variety in perspectives. That gets extra complicated, however, when we aren’t all using the same baseline assumptions or understanding.