All playbooks
Conversation Playbook
Municipal Government — Elected Leader
Better Conversations | Stronger Relationships | Better Outcomes
Before the conversation
- Frame it for participants: Clarion listens for positions, common ground, and open questions — not to judge anyone or take a side. In a politically diverse room, the tool itself can't afford to become another participant in the argument.
- Let real disagreement happen. A successful public conversation isn't one where everyone agrees — it's one where people leave understanding why a decision was made.
- Separate the person from the position. Structure tough conversations — a council and a manager, two officials who disagree — around issues, expectations, and commitments, not personalities.
Ask across all four domains
Self-Awareness
- "Where might we be more confident in this decision than the evidence actually supports?"
- "What are we assuming residents want that we haven't actually tested?"
Self-Management
- "How do we stay steady when a conversation turns personal instead of substantive?"
- "What's our plan if this decision doesn't land the way we expect?"
Social Awareness
- "Who isn't in this room, and how might they see this differently?"
- "Where do residents feel unheard, even if no one's said so directly?"
Relationship Management
- "What do we actually agree on here, even if we disagree on the rest?"
- "What's one commitment we can state publicly by the end of this conversation?"
Questions for common municipal issues
Pull the one that matches what's actually on the table tonight.
Restoring Trust
- "What would it take for you to trust this decision, even if you still disagreed with it?"
- "Has trust broken down over what was decided, or over how it was decided?"
Community Division
- "What's one thing the other side gets right, even if you disagree with their conclusion?"
- "What would it look like to disagree here without it becoming personal?"
Leadership & Staff
- "Where do we actually disagree on the issue, versus how we're communicating about it?"
- "What would need to be true for this working relationship to function, regardless of who's right?"
Housing & Affordability
- "What tradeoff are we really being asked to make here, and who bears the cost of each option?"
- "Whose voice is missing from this conversation who will be most affected by it?"
Budget & Infrastructure
- "What happens if we don't act on this now, and who feels that first?"
- "What are we actually prioritizing here, once the numbers are set aside?"
Growth & Development
- "Where does this debate stop being about facts and start being about identity or fear?"
- "What compromise would let both sides feel heard, even if neither gets everything?"
A structure worth applying
Positions → Agreement → Disagreement → Open Questions → Commitments
What Clarion surfaces after any conversation — a shared, factual account of what was actually said. Not another set of minutes; a way to understand what happened.
Listen → Understand → Challenge Ideas → Common Ground → Differences → Next Steps
A model for structuring a public meeting itself, in place of people lining up to make competing speeches at a microphone.
A "What We Heard" Standard
A simple public summary after a major conversation: what we heard, where we agree, where we disagree, what's still unanswered, what happens next — transparency as a repeatable practice, not a one-time promise.
What you'll be able to see afterward
- Whether people actually felt heard, not just whether a decision was popular — the difference between "I disagree, but I understand why" and "nobody listened to us."
- Where disagreement is about the issue and not the relationship — useful for the toughest working relationships in local government.
- A record of the conversation itself, not just its outcome — useful for building trust over time, not just winning one meeting.
Leader reminders
- Clarion supplements — it does not replace — official minutes, public-records obligations, or human decision-making.
- Route any use touching nonpublic meetings, personnel matters, or sensitive settings through counsel first, for your state's open-meetings and public-records requirements.
- Publish the "What We Heard" summary yourself — Clarion can help build it, but the credibility comes from a person standing behind it.
The Value of Clarion
Make different perspectives visible without taking sides — clearly identify positions, areas of agreement and unresolved disagreement.
Help people understand why decisions were made — capture the questions, alternatives, concerns and reasoning behind public decisions.
Strengthen trust through transparency — give elected officials, staff and the public a clearer picture of what actually happened in the conversation.
Improve difficult public conversations — identify opportunities for better listening, constructive disagreement, participation and civility even when consensus is not possible.
