In the late 1970s, in the face of tough new environmental laws and pressures from citizen groups, government agencies adopted new and needed community consultation strategies.

Foremost among these was the requirement to hold public meetings when new policies, projects and plans were being proposed.

Called by different names — public engagement, civic participation or stakeholder involvement — the rules of the road shifted. Above and beyond formal legislative and regulatory "hearings," the public secured new forums for the discussion of important issues. Government agencies created programs to fulfill the new meeting requirements and smart businesses integrated earlier public consultation into their plans.

The new public meetings came with high hopes: earlier notice of impending changes, more responsiveness from slow-moving bureaucracies, additional forums for diverse voices, a more level playing field between corporations and communities, and new checks and balances against back-room dealing.

Sadly, something happened on the way to the Promised Land.

Today, too many public meetings are combat zones, formulaic and orchestrated productions by project proponents on the one hand and well-organized opposition testimonial campaigns on the other. Neither of these are bad in and of themselves but many members of the public remain frustrated that their input is not taken seriously. They have lost faith in any kind of public engagement and seemingly with government itself. Many businesses are also disillusioned. They feel victimized by the perceived tyranny of the minority that comes out for a meeting.

Missing in this picture are safe spaces where people of sensible intelligence and reasonable goodwill who disagree with each other can still maintain lines of communication. Too many public meetings are battlefields that leave little room for respectful debate, rigorous deliberation and joint fact-finding.

In a growing number of instances, meetings also become volatile. Some are disrupted or hijacked. Others devolve into yell fests that are then amplified on the Internet. Some examples:

» At a community meeting on proposed changes at an Oahu school, a small group of opponents held 150 parents hostage by refusing to agree to ground rules or time limits, then preventing anyone who might hold a different view from speaking.

» At a Kauai public meeting to provide results of a financial study on a contro- versial water project, 100 people showed up only to have the meeting appropriated by angry individuals chanting and yelling objections to any discussion.

» At the University of Hawaii, three public informational meetings on classified research were planned but protesters hogged the floor; the third session was canceled. And again at UH, one of two finalists for president, Lt. Gen. Frank Wiercinski, was jeered and picketed because of his military background.

In a functional democracy, everyone has a right to express opinions and register objections. In a more mature democracy, people also listen to each other with a modicum of respect and engage in robust and productive discussion. More and more of our public meetings fail this test.

Public meetings have become springboards for other agendas. People with concerns about anything, even if it is completely off topic, can show up to be heard and take discussions sideways. Office seekers use public meetings to create wedge issues and raise their political flags.

Public meetings shouldn’t go away. They are, however, ripe for reinvention. In the face of complex issues like the future of local agriculture, the state of our public hospitals, the management of pesticides, the transition to renewable energy, or the performance of our schools, we can do better. Joint fact-finding, tele-conferences, rigorous small group conven- ings, study circles, policy dialogues and other forms of analytic deliberation that bring diversity and robust give-and-take discussion are out there waiting for us.

Done well, these will help reduce some of the dysfunctional friction that is going on — and help us zero in on the heart of important debates.