Frequently asked quesitons
We know you have questions ;-) So we collect them here, grouped by area, with a focus on how to avoid some of the possible pitfalls with citizen's assemblies. Feel free to add a comment (if you're a member) or send us an email to highlight any potential pitfalls we haven't heard about yet.
Public trust in the process
How do we prevent early distrust or opposition from derailing the assembly?
- Start with clear transparency commitments and early trust-building steps, like releasing requested documents and explaining decision processes. Demonstrating responsiveness early signals sincerity and lowers resistance.
How do we prevent the government from giving the assembly only safe, low-impact topics?
- By having the topic and scope co-designed with an independent oversight group and citizen representatives. This ensures the mandate is meaningful and publicly justified.
How do we prevent the government from ignoring the assembly’s recommendations?
- Require a formal government response to every recommendation within a set timeline. The response must publicly explain what will be adopted, adjusted, or not pursued.
How do we prevent the assembly from repeating or inheriting mistrust caused by earlier government mistakes?
- Acknowledge past failures honestly and show early action on transparency requests. A “clean-slate pact” that outlines commitments from both city staff and citizens can help reset expectations.
Avoiding selection or process bias
How do we prevent doubts about whether the assembly truly represents Vancouver?
- Use stratified random selection with demographic quotas for age, gender, neighbourhood, renters/owners, income levels, and Indigenous identity. Publishing the selection method builds trust.
How do we prevent people from being excluded because they can’t afford the time or cost?
- Offer stipends, childcare, food, transit, and digital support as needed. Removing barriers ensures that the assembly reflects the full community.
How do we prevent language barriers from excluding key communities?
- Offer translation, interpretation, and multilingual materials for any languages spoken by significant local groups. Inclusive communication improves representation and trust.
How do we prevent expert bias or one-sided information from shaping the outcome?
- Use an independent expert panel that includes multiple viewpoints and lived-experience witnesses. All briefing materials should be neutrally reviewed before they’re given to participants.
How do we prevent facilitators from steering or influencing discussion?
- Hire professional, independent facilitators who rotate across groups. Audits, observer roles, and published facilitation rules keep the process fair.
Producing trusted & useful recommendations
How do we prevent invited participants from doubting their right to represent the community?
- Explain the random-selection method clearly and repeatedly. Once people understand why they were chosen, confidence and legitimacy increase quickly.
How do we prevent rushed or shallow deliberation?
- Use a multi-week process that separates learning, discussion, and decision-making. Enough time ensures participants can understand the issue before reaching conclusions.
How do we prevent the assembly from producing so many recommendations that officials can cherry-pick?
- Have the assembly rank and prioritize its top recommendations. A clear top-tier list (e.g. top 5 or top 10) strengthens accountability and keeps the outcomes focused.
How do we prevent concerns that decisions are being made behind closed doors?
- Livestream plenary sessions and publish all materials — agendas, slides, expert Q&A, minutes, and recommendations. Transparency builds confidence in the process.
Continuing improvements to democracy
How do we prevent this from being a one-off exercise with no long-term impact?
- Create an ongoing, independent office for citizen deliberation that tracks progress and hosts future assemblies or mini-panels. This maintains continuity and keeps government accountable.