I suppose I’m not clear on if there was an actual engagement technique? There was one part of the article that talked about how the sessions were not conducive for change, rather, conducive for formality.

First and foremost, establishing a concrete technique or approach would have been more beneficial and strategic than the approach they took. The conversation should have been facilitated more intentionally (doesn’t sound like there was any facilitation) where people came to the table with issues/and or challenges they see/feel in the system and potential solutions to induce tangible change.

I understand why and how the hearings took place the way they did, as this topic, in particular, is extremely sensitive, and how do you have a “public forum” but limit people from discussing hard topics with personal stories – it’s a difficult situation to be in. Ultimately, a public forum or open house just shouldn’t have happened. Another technique like a nominal discussion or focused conversation would have been more beneficial.