A Fundamental Breakdown

A citizen observing the big conversations in the General Assembly about the shifting roles and powers of the federal and state governments could easily think that legislators have forgotten Virginia’s regions, cities, counties and towns. Indeed, metropolitan areas are given no role and localities, creatures of the state, are increasingly looked upon as nuisances or treated as “special interests.”

Residents of South Hampton Roads will soon see the result of this disrespect for the region and its citizens when tolls are placed on not only the new Midtown Tunnel, but also on the Downtown Tunnel and the new Jordan Bridge.

Any time a Virginia locality wants to create or adjust revenue sources it must go to the General Assembly for permission. Virginia Beach, for example, is considered one of the best-run cities in the nation. Yet, it must go hat in hand to the General Assembly to get permission to prevent persons from pointing laser pens at Oceana airplanes or to try and “equalize” local tax imbalances created by state legislation.

The over-regulation by the General Assembly is inefficient, costly to taxpayers and keeps local control away from regional and local citizens.

But an even greater irony is developing: over-regulation of regions and localities is being coupled to financial abandonment.

One would have a hard time finding a state legislator comfortable saying it out loud, but the de facto message is clear: Virginia’s regions and localities are on their own financially. Some are calling this the “new normal”; increasing obligations with no money.

As one example, the proposed state budget is suggesting a not so subtle shift of teacher pension costs to localities. This will add millions of dollars of new burdens to local governments at a time when the school systems’ primary revenue source, real estate tax receipts, have declined significantly during the current 3-year old housing crisis.

The proposal to shift teacher pension costs to locals is especially ironic in view of last year’s decision by the General Assembly to defer hundreds of millions of dollars in state pension obligations, while accelerating sales tax collections—essentially counting money today that will not come until the future—to balance the Commonwealth’s budget.

Equally troublesome for metropolitan regions and its citizens has been the historic growth in traffic congestion caused by the state. Long-term transportation plans and funding have yielded to construction deferrals, short-term financial gimmicks and selective toll financing.

The back logging of these state transportation responsibilities only increases future costs.

Isn’t it time, again, to look at Virginia’s governance issues: not just its ideological debates with the federal government, but it fundamental relationships with cities and counties?

Citizens and civic leaders have been asking for government reform for decades. Some readers will recall the Hahn Commission of 1968, a state-convened commission that recommended significant reform of Virginia’s governance system. The Commission’s recommendations, including regional planning, were widely applauded across the state. In retrospect, they were bold, visionary and responded to the changing needs of citizens, regions, localities and the state. The problem is the General Assembly gutted the proposals.

Forty-four years later, the problems have grown more seismic but little has changed about the state’s governance policies. Virginia’s metro areas and its cities, counties and towns remain powerless to make many decisions that Virginia’s citizens believe ought to be hashed out, at least initially, at the regional and local levels.

In these regards, our citizens are ahead of the curve and ahead of legislative leadership. Already, citizens, businesses and the public, in general, live and function in their own metropolitan area, unbounded by borders. They live here, but shop, work, drive their companies delivery trucks, go to movies and much else in a different jurisdiction. It is time that governance caught up with the realities and need for regional decision-making, at least for those government functions that exceed, in today’s world, the capacity of any one or a few jurisdictions to manage.

Many believe that it is impossible to reform state governance. It’s too big and complicated for the birth state of Thomas Jefferson to tackle. Yet, reform, if not transformation, is possible. Mr. Jefferson, himself, greatly feared the development of dependence because of government structure. He wanted people to be able to pursue liberty and freedom at the most basic levels.

How do we do something about the governance gridlock? Here’s one way:

The Governor and General Assembly have the power to call on state college and university presidents to convene as a Commission to organize a careful analysis of Virginia’s governance. Virginia’s state colleges and universities are politically neutral, geographically and demographically representative and uniquely qualified to provide substantive thinking, research and ideation skills. College presidents understand the history, cultures and traditions of the state as well as the disciplines and skills necessary to plan for the future. Virginia’s colleges and universities are additionally equipped with technology that allows them to bring the state’s citizens into the discussion.

Such a study can be practical, future-focused, and have a specifically defined lifespan; say, no more than two years.

A study like this would be very much in the spirit of Mr. Jefferson’s concept of public education and citizen discourse in search for the common good. Its conclusions and an action plan would also, by virtue of substantial citizen involvement, carry the weight of public support, making them far harder for the General Assembly to ignore. In doing so, it would not only serve the immediate need, but also serve as a template for future statewide deliberations.

Jim Oliver, who served as city manager in Norfolk and Portsmouth and county administrator in James City County, is chairman of the Hampton Roads Center for Civic Engagement (www.hrcce.org).

Remarks Of The Honorable Gerald L. Baliles

Thank you for the invitation to be a part of the Virginia First Cities Coalition meeting in Charlottesville.

[Acknowledge three impressive friends and members of the 1st Cities coalition: Kimball Reynolds (Vice-mayor of Martinsville), Jim Regimbal (Fiscal Analytics), Maurice Jones (City Manager of Charlottesville.)

I recognize that your coalition comprises 13 of the state’s oldest and most historic cities and that you count yourselves as “proud centers of business, commerce and culture, with a diversity of opportunity for everyone.”

I agree with your assessment. In the course of my career, I have visited your cities, and, more recently, your websites, and I am fortunate to have friends – and, in some cases, relatives – in your cities.

I am particularly impressed with your website’s listing of legislative priorities and fiscal analysis.
The demographic information for your cities demonstrates a web of localities – people who live in one locality, work in another, and shop in yet a different jurisdiction. I can tell you from personal experience, that business prospects look at a region first. So do scholars and cultural leaders.

So the future of your cities and of adjacent counties will depend in large measure on whether the different parts of the region see the whole picture and can work together as a region. That will require, in my judgment, three “C’s:” commitment, consensus, and cash. And lots of the latter.

So, I salute your focus on specific issues for the purpose of enhancing Virginia’s First Cities Coalition. You have adopted an ambitious set of goals, and I have reached this profound conclusion: You have your work cut out for you, but you are right to be concerned about its future. A lot is at stake.

Your cities deal with a host of issues in education, public safety, land use, public health and natural resources. You are increasingly challenged by the costs of such services in an uncertain economic climate. Your task is to set the stage for the future. You have identified some of the challenges confronting you; now the question is what is required to moveVirginia’s First Cities and the rest of the Commonwealth forward and remain competitive in today’s uncertain environment.

Let me begin by stating what is obvious to all of us assembled here.

We have witnessed extraordinary changes in our country and Commonwealth. For several decades, Virginia has been one of the fastest growing states in the country, not far behind Florida, California, Arizona and Texas. Some of that growth is internally generated, but for the most part, it is migratory.

The people who come here bring their ideas, their creativity, their biases, customs and traditions. That has had an impact on the development of the political, cultural and social life of Virginia to a far greater extent than some people have realized.

There is also recognition that the Commonwealth has become much more a part of the nation than it used to be. There was a time when regional influences and parochial interests could exist in a vacuum, largely uninfluenced by national and international events.

Those days are long gone.

So in this uncertain world in which Virginia finds itself, globalization, rapid communications, and advancing technologies are changing all the rules. Our state’s population is growing older and more diverse, and more of us depend on proportionately fewer workers. The greater the uncertainty about the world and what Virginia may become, the more certain we must be of the importance of wise public investments for our future prosperity, and the responsiveness of governments at all levels to meet public needs.

Here’s the way I see things.

In order to compete in a changing economy, there must be an educated citizenry, social and cultural amenities, and a good infrastructure, among other things, and it requires building upon the accomplishments of one’s predecessors, not tearing them down and running from financing obvious public needs.

Sad to say, in the Commonwealth, a brand of politics has emerged in recent years – an undeniably successful brand of politics, that takes as its organizing principle the belief that Virginia can continuously prosper by ignoring capital investments required for Virginia’s future.

While we have witnessed people arriving in Virginia by the hundreds of thousands – yes, even millions – we have experienced a lack of sustained commitment to our infrastructure, especially education and transportation.

Roads are congested.

Many of our schools are overcrowded. College buildings have had maintenance deferred for years.
Mental hospitals have lost and fought to repair, regain and maintain their accreditation.

The Chesapeake Bay is fighting to improve its health.

Thousands of kids are still at risk in their communities.

Instead of tax investments, we talk of tax cuts.

These are not one-time problems, and these challenges are often most keenly felt in our older and historic cities.

In the early years of the 20th century, one of Virginia’s noted authors and editors, Virginius Dabney, once said, in commenting about Virginia’s approach to investing in itself: “God granted Virginia many advantages in location and geography, and Virginia spent many years waiting for God to improve upon them.”

I wonder what Virginius Dabney would say about our investment attitude today.

In my judgment, the foundation of any region’s economic vitality and growth is education and transportation. They constitute its building blocks, and we know in an economy where education is the new coin of the realm, if we don’t have an educated and highly skilled citizenry, we can’t compete, and if we can’t compete, we can’t grow.

It’s that fundamental.

Similarly, in an economy where the rapid and efficient movement of our people and goods from one destination to another is critical, if we can’t move our people and goods, we can’t compete. If we can’t compete, we can’t grow.

It’s that simple.

Let me say it again, in plain English.

The future of the economic vitality of the Commonwealth – and our First Cities - is tied to the strength of its financial commitment to education and transportation. Increasingly, they are the engines that drive our economy.

Cut the funds, and you can count on bleeding.

Fail to sustain momentum, and you can expect a roller coaster ride.

Strong commitments and sustained momentum will help maintain an economy of growth that, in turn, will produce the revenues to improve education and transportation and finance society’s interests in the arts and culture, our obligations to providing mental health services and medical care, along with meeting our responsibilities to protect our citizens, as well as our historic and natural resources.
So, where are we, and where do we go from here?

Frankly, no one knows at the moment. Clearly, the action or inaction at the federal level to deal with the increasingly larger annual deficits and national debt will affect state and local governments across the country.

Indeed, in the year 2012, we are likely to see a dramatic impact on Virginia’s cities and counties. The timing and resources of public investments at the state level are made by the Governor and the General Assembly, and unless there are very dramatic improvements in the performance of the national economy, the vibrancy of our state’s economic future will continue to be challenged. In some respects, the challenges confronting local governments are not new. For years, local governments’ financial problems have been studied by the legislature. Reports and recommendations have been made, some of them comprehensive, thoughtful and intelligent.

Yet, despite all that, Virginia has failed to give local governments the support needed to do their best work. The decade of the 90’s offered us a wonderful opportunity, but we didn’t take it.

Instead, we watched state revenues increase significantly, strengthened by rises in revenues from the sales and income tax.

Meanwhile, localities were largely confined to stagnant property tax revenues, while the state continued to shift cost burdens to the counties, cities and towns.

In the Morris Commission report of several years ago, along with the many other studies undertaken, there were proposals that could potentially change the fortunes of local governments, improve their abilities, or address their challenges. They have been debated and largely ignored.

Today I want to focus on three separate and distinct recommendations that I believe should be central to your discussion about the future of Virginia’s First Cities and their economic vitality. I’ve mentioned some of those thoughts to local government leaders on occasions past. But in Virginia, sometimes it takes a generation or so for the idea of change to be adopted.

Let me focus, first, on the powers and duties of local governments.

Many of the studies completed over the years have focused on revenue needs and sources of new income for local governments.

Obviously, resources are vitally important. You get what you pay for.

But some seem to suggest that an increase in resources alone, from whatever source, will straighten things out.

I do not accept that.

When you focus on money first, you put the cart before the horse.

We should first ask: What do we expect from local government?

And that gets into the old problem of definitions.

Think about it: What is a city? What is a county? Can you quickly define either one?

In years past, cities were manufacturing centers, densely populated, financially self-sufficient. Counties, on the other hand, were rural, thinly settled and administrative districts of this state, dependent upon state resources for basic operations.

Times have changed. But the nomenclature sticks.

And it’s holding us back.

We now have rural cities and urban counties.

We have small as well as large cities, declining populations in some counties and explosive growth in others.

In many areas of the Commonwealth, cities and counties are indistinguishable.

They provide essentially the same levels of service. Yet, cities and counties are governed by different laws, and their funding can depend upon their status as a city or county.

For these and other reasons, the time has long passed for us to re-examine the definition question.
Even more fundamental is the question of what we want local governments to provide.

In my judgment, once we have determined what levels of service we want local governments to provide – and whether cities and counties should be different – then we should be in a position to take the next step.

The next step would be to define the powers and duties of local governments, draft a generic charter and allow local governments to operate within the frameworks of that clearly defined charter without having to trot to the General Assembly, hat in hand, on an annual basis.

In an era of global communication and transportation, when businesses and individuals can operate virtually anywhere and make contact instantly with anyone, do we really have to maintain an 18th century attitude toward local government?

I am not saying that we should create 100-plus individual fiefdoms, because local officials can be just as overbearing as state officials. What I am saying is that we live in a time when we can draw closer to Jefferson’s ideal: that, indeed, we can locate political power – and resources – where people reside.

As I envision it, as a practical matter, the General Assembly’s local government function would be confined to periodic reviews of the legislatively approved local charter framework and required revisions to it.

Since local governments are creatures of the state, the General Assembly also would bear the obligation to identify and earmark sources of revenues sufficient for financing the specified functions of local governments.

Local governments have long been heavily dependent upon the taxation of property as the source of local government revenues. The practice is based in the history of the Commonwealth, long before there were weekly paychecks and steady income streams.

Suggestions have been made that reliance on property taxes could be reduced if the state would provide or share revenues derived from taxation on incomes.

Perhaps.

The answer to that question, fundamentally, will be easier to determine once state definitional questions have been answered. If more is expected of local governments, the General Assembly must find other revenue sources for local governments, perhaps in return for a reduction or elimination of property taxes.

So, first things first. Outline what local governments should do and define the terms of cities and counties. If there is no difference, say so. In the end, local governments would be healthier and more responsive to local needs and concerns. That could help Virginia’s First Cities to become first in economic, social and cultural vitality.

* * *

Second, let me focus on another recommendation or option for this group of cities.

The term “regional government” is often used loosely, without definition or context.

Here is some context.

The General Assembly possesses the constitutional authority to create, change and abolish local units of government.

Initially, all of Virginia was contained within six shires, out of which were carved, in a steady western movement, today’s 130 or so existing counties and cities.

And while the historical trend has been to create jurisdictions, there have been instances in which cities and counties have been abolished through merger.

In four mergers between 1952 and 1963, the voters of three Hampton Roads counties, five cities and one town abolished their existing local governments and formed four consolidated city governments: Hampton, Newport News, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. Since then, Nansemond County and the City of Suffolk have become one entity. Williamsburg and James City County share some obligations for providing public services. But for different reasons, not the least of which is job protection and territorial imperative, today consolidation of cities or counties is believed by many to be almost politically impossible.

Thirty years ago, planning district commissions were created as a means of encouraging the development of cooperative regional planning and programs, but without the power of implementation.
The PDCs have had a mixed record of success.

Historically, the seats of local governments were established by the General Assembly so that no citizen would be more than a day’s ride to the local courthouse.

Today, traffic permitting, no citizen is more than 30 minutes from the local courthouse and local government buildings. But with the arrival of technology, licenses can be renewed and taxes paid without ever visiting local government offices.

Clearly, any significant rearrangement of governing units now would have to be prospective in application – approved today, but not effective until, perhaps, ten years in the future – in order to overcome the practical and political problems of addressing positions of local power, employment, and influence.

Short of that consolidation step, there may be another way to achieve some of the benefits of efficiency and lower costs through cooperative programs, and increase thereby the potential of Virginia’s Regional Competitiveness Act.

This proposal could be called the “carrot and stick” approach.

In some future budget session - say, two or three years from now - the General Assembly could appropriate a one-time increase in local government funding to help address some of the unfunded state mandates, and then declare that any future increases to local governments would be limited to a cost of living factor, UNLESS two or more adjacent jurisdictions, whether cities or counties, combined or consolidated several major functions of government, there by achieving greater efficiencies and cost savings.

In those cases, state appropriations to such localities would be increased by some significant percentage – say 25% to 35%. Whatever the percentage, it would have to be significant enough to be a persuasive political force. The combination of combined cost savings and increased state appropriations could go a long way to improving the delivery of local government services across the region.

Whether such an approach would work in today’s stressed budgets of local governments and legislative resistance to significant change is anyone’s guess, but there is a danger to the future of local governments and their economic vitality, from the failure to re-examine the form and function of public delivery of local government services. There are opportunities for increased efficiencies and improved public services, and they should be explored.

* * *

Let me turn to the last of my recommendations – the reorganization of the legislative redistricting process and the impact upon local and regional governments.

It can be argued that some of Virginia’s local government problems can be attributed to inadequate or insufficient attention by their local representatives in the General Assembly. I happen to believe it.

Legislative districts are drawn in such a way to meet certain legal and political criteria, but the result is often a loss of “community of interest.”

Indeed, some localities across Virginia are divided among six or seven districts, with some legislators representing only a few precincts of those local communities.

Take a look at your own cities.

Meetings between legislators and local officials become difficult to schedule; attendance is spotty, interest may be not be fully appreciated, especially where multiple jurisdictions are included within a legislator’s district.

In Virginia, the House of Delegates is divided into 100 districts, the Senate into 40. The House and Senate districts are drawn separately for each body and often bear little resemblance to each other in terms of territory represented by legislators who actually may live in the same neighborhood or locality.

It can be argued that, to the extent possible, area senators and delegates should represent the same jurisdictions, yet in light of today’s number of delegates and senators, that is mathematically problematic.

So why not reconfigure the size of the House and Senate so that one senator and two delegates represent the same area?

If that were true, it would be possible to draw only one redistricting plan for Virginia’s General Assembly, instead of two, making it easier to draw House and Senate districts that would avoid slicing and dicing local governments six ways from Sunday.

Since there are many calls for reducing the size of government, why not reduce the size of the House of Delegates to 80, leaving the Senate at 40? That would mean that each legislative district would consist of one senator and two delegates, all representing the same territory.

For those who find that unpalatable, I suppose they could increase the size of the Senate to 50, leaving the House at 100, to achieve the same legislative result.

Of course, that might sound an awful lot like big government to some!

In either event, legislative districts could be more compactly drawn, recognizing and respecting communities of interest, perhaps improving better representation of citizens and their local governments.

Do this, and I believe we would immediately gain a more substantive representative arrangement and, most likely, more coherent results for the various regions and localities across Virginia.

* * *

So, those are my observations and three proposals for your consideration of the future of Virginia’s First Cities. Add them to all the rest.

Certainly such proposals would need to be examined and measured in the context of the state’s economic, social and political condition – and any required constitutional changes. And there would be some.

But let us avoid the debilitating disease of political inaction, of constant, unbroken procrastination.
Let’s get at it, because there’s a far better balance out there between state and local governments.
Once found, that better balance will diminish the fiscal stress presently bearing on local governments and regional prospects in Virginia.

Once found, that better balance will significantly improve the efficiency of governments at both the state and local levels.

Once found, local government officials will worry less over another round of unfunded state mandates and will feel free to focus all their energies on the citizens they signed on to serve and the vitality of their local economies.

Let me summarize our situation as I see it, pose questions for you to ponder in the days ahead, and offer some concluding thoughts.

Quite clearly, profound political change has become part of our era. It is rivaled only by the astonishing economic and technological changes taking place, as well as the extraordinary pressures arising from our population growth.

In recent years we have seen an international economy envelope the globe, placing new demands upon individuals, and new competitive pressures upon industries. Entire communities and regions have been affected. For Virginia’s First Cities, this one is no different.

It should require us to re-examine our assumptions, to look at ourselves anew, and to do things differently if needed.

Fifty years ago, Virginia was a different place. The full power of our people and our resources had not been realized. Our economy was but a shadow of its potential.

Beginning in the 1960s our chance arrived. Virginians ushered in a new day by acquiring new leadership and building a new economy.

Unlike the politics of many decades past, Virginians started to invest in public services. We acted to realize our potential.

Virginia began to put record amounts into education and transportation programs, and made economic development a standing commitment. The beginning of regional planning occurred with the creation of planning district commissioners.

During the next several decades, major investments were also made in mental health, corrections and law enforcement, as well as in environmental programs and initiatives.

Yet, we always recognized there was more to be done.

Sometime in recent decades our politics began to change, and so did our commitment to investments. Public needs were judged through the prism of ideology.

“Government by gridlock” became the subject of many worried conversations. More recently, we have just begun to realize the consequences of ignoring the growing needs of a growing state.

When the population is increasing or declining – as has happened in different parts of Virginia – the demands on land use, transportation and school systems also change. Can we afford to ignore those pressures?

When businesses are arriving, as they are in some parts of Virginia, the demands on local governments for services and support become greater. The needs cannot be wished away – can they?

It doesn’t stop there.

The costs of providing mental health services and support for the elderly are rising. Do we ignore all that, or do we try to find answers?

There are environmental tensions, also the product of a growing society. Do we put off the search for solutions, or do we try to bring people together for results, including more intelligent decisions regarding land use planning and related transportation issues?

Regional needs and local government pressures are increasing. How can we close our eyes and minds to their concerns?

In my judgment, these are some of the challenges confronting Virginia’s First Cities and our Commonwealth, and they must be addressed, regardless of which political party is in power. These challenges will require Virginia’s First Cities to think anew about their status, their role and their future. This is a sobering time, and we must do more than complain; we must become architects for future generations.

In case we’ve forgotten, the next generation is upon us.

It always is.

History tells us that the future is written in the actions of the present.

Our challenges in education and transportation, the environment and mental health, the arts and public safety, are such that we cannot afford to take a few steps forward and then take a break.

Our support of these public needs must be unrelenting, constant, and complete.

It must continue from year to year.

In Virginia, that commitment must continue from administration to administration – from generation to generation, and from state to regional and local levels of government.

Again, in my judgment, we can deal with the growing challenges of the Commonwealth and its First Cities, only if the political process exists as an instrument for constructive change, to be used as the means through which public attention can be focused on what lies ahead, and what we need to do today to prepare for it.

That is the real secret behind the four centuries-old success story that is Virginia.

It is also the key to Virginia’s future – and whether Virginia’s First Cities can be first for generations to come.

Thank you.

You can download these remarks as a PDF by clicking HERE

Kettering Foundation Taps HRCCE

NEWS RELEASE
DATE:  May 19, 2011                    
CONTACT:  Betsy McBride, 757.617.9253

A regional non-profit organization, the Hampton Roads Center for Civic Engagement (HRCCE), has been invited to join the Kettering Foundation’s “family” of Centers for Civic Life.  This prestigious designation comes in recognition of HRCCE’s work to include citizens in public problem solving.  

By accepting the invitation, HRCCE has agreed to enter into a “joint learning relationship” with the Kettering Foundation and other Centers for Civic Life.  This includes collaboration on research and processes designed to answer Kettering’s two central questions “What does it take for democracy to work as it should? and What does it take for citizens to shape their collective future?”   

HRCCE is one of nine new Kettering-related Centers currently working in unison on the public issue of high school “drop-out” rates.  To gather community views and data, HRCCE Board members are conducting interviews and also inviting online responses to a survey posted on the organization’s website at http://www.hrcce.org

The Hampton Roads Center for Civic Engagement was founded four years ago to “change the way public decisions are made in the region” with start-up funding provided by the Hampton Roads Community Foundation.  Organizational projects  include partnering with the City of Virginia Beach to involve all citizens interested in “envisioning” their city’s transportation future and an effort with the City of Hampton to provide a public process for Hampton citizens to consider and then generate community recommendations related to flooding, stormwater management and other waterway issues. Project sites:  http://www.envisiontransportation.com and http://www.hamptonengages.com

The Kettering Foundation is an independent, internationally-known research organization dedicated to understanding how institutions “relate to citizens trying to make a difference in shaping their common future.”

The mission of the Hampton Roads Center is “to support sustainable deliberative democracy in Hampton Roads and to connect public decision making with civil dialogue and the informed judgment of the region’s citizens.”  

2010 HRTPO Survey

You can read or download the study as a PDFdocument by clicking HERE

Regional Links

Go to Regional Spotlight...

Civic Engagement Links

• America Speaks
• American Library Association, Civic Engagement Membership Initiative Group, Libraries Foster Civic Engagement Blog.
• American Library Association Public Programs.
  See particularly: Resources for Public Programming, including ALA National Video Resources Project Website.
• American Political Science Association Civic Education Network.
• Animating Democracy.
• Both And Project.
• By the People.
• Carnegie Corporation of NY, Strengthening US Democracy Program.
• Center for Collaborative Policy, Collaborative Democracy Network.
• Center for Democracy and Citizenship, University of Minnesota.
• Center for Living Democracy.
• Center for Wise Democracy.
• Choices.
• CivicMind.
• Civic Practices Network.
• Civitas International Website (CIVNET).
• Civworld Citizens Campaign for Democracy:
• Close Up Foundation.
• Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago.
• Conversation Café.
• Deliberative Democracy Consortium.
• Democracy Campaign.
• Democracy Design Workshop, Ideas for Democratic Action.
• Demos.
• E-Democracy.
• e-The People.
• Everyday Democracy.
• Forums Institute for Public Policy: A Catalyst for Dialogue.
• Harvard School of Public Health, Met-Life Foundation Initiative on Retirement and Civic Engagement., Reinventing Aging.
• Harwood Institute, Charting a New Course for America’s Public Life.
• Institute for Study of Civic Values. Civic Literacy.
• Institute for the Common Good.
• Inter-American Democracy Network.
• International Association for Public Participation.
• Kettering Foundation.
• League of Women Voters Local Voices Project.
• League of Women Voters of Connecticut Education Fund Inc.
• Let’s Talk America.
• A Librarian at Every Table: Sources and Sites for Community Building.
• National Alliance for Civic Education.
• National Civic League.
• National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation.
• National Conference of State Legislatures/Trust for Representative Democracy.
• National Endowment for the Humanities, "We the People" Program.
• The National Issues Forums.
• Network of Alliances Bridging Race and Ethnicity.
• The New School - Civic Engagement Studies
• New England Center for Civic Life.
• Preview Forum: Using Media to Engage the Public and Journalists on Social Issues.
• Project for Public Spaces.
• Project Vote Smart.
• Public Agenda.
• Public Conversations Project.
• Red, White and Blue Coming Together.
• The Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement in America.
• Search for Common Ground USA.
• The September Project.
• Study Circles Resource Center.
• Sunshine Week: Your Right to Know.
• Sustainable Communities Network, Civic Engagement.
• Texas Forums.
• The People Speak.
• The World Café.
• Web Dialogues.
• World Citizen Foundation.
• World Democracy Movement.

Links to Local Government Websites

Municipal Websites:

• Chesapeake
• Franklin
• Hampton
• Newport News
• Norfolk
• Poquoson
• Portsmouth
• Smithfield
• Suffolk
• Virginia Beach
• Williamsburg

County Websites:

• Accomac County
• Gloucester County
• Isle of Wight County
• James City County
• Mathews County
• Northampton County
• Southampton County
• Surry County
• York County