January 9, 2025 • 41 mins
Why government organizations must build digital trust.
Today, my guest is Kate Burns. Kate is the Executive Director of MetroLab Network, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit that connects local government organizations with universities to bring the latest in scientific research and innovation to the living lab of communities. MetroLab is a partnership ecosystem and runs projects to discover, implement, and scale innovative solutions for local government. Kate has a background in municipal government and in policy, and she's passionate about thriving cities and communities. She worked in Kansas City and Seattle, so understands the many different types of communities that are striving to adopt digital and innovative technology.
Kate and I decided to wrestle with a timely challenge for cities. The evolution of the digital town square. As social media platforms shift in ownership and purpose and as the audience starts to fragment across many separate platforms, it's becoming less clear where the digital town square will be in the future. What was once a common expectation—that journalists, administrators, politicians, and citizens could mingle freely and share ideas and concerns—seems to be eroding or at least changing.
Resource Links:
- Kate Burns LinkedIn
- MetroLab LinkedIn | X
- Town and Gown Definition
- Ed Edelman Trust Barometer
- Kansas City Resident Satisfaction Survey Results
- Revenge of the Tipping Point, Malcom Gladwell
Amazon | Indigo | Kobo - Streetfight: Handbook for an Urban Revolution, Janette Sadik-Khan & Seth Solomonow
Amazon | Indigo | Kobo
Recorded in January of 2025
This is a show about the people that make digital public service work. If you'd like to find out more, visit northern.co/311-podcast/
We're going to keep having conversations like this. If you've got ideas of guests we should speak to, send us an email to the311@northern.co.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Paul Bellows (00:00):
This is The 311 Podcast.
(00:02):
And I'm your host, Paul Bellows.
This is a show about the peoplethat make digital work for the
public service.
If you'd like to find out more,you can visit northern.co
that's, Northern dot C O.
Today, my guest is Kate Burns.
Kate is the Executive Directorof MetroLab Network, a
(00:22):
Washington, DC based nonprofitto connect local government
organizations with universities,to bring the latest in
scientific research andinnovation to the living lab of
communities.
MetroLab is a partnershipecosystem and runs projects to
discover, implement, and scaleinnovative solutions for local
government.
(00:42):
Kate has a background inmunicipal government and in
policy and she's passionateabout thriving cities and
communities.
She worked in Kansas City andSeattle, so understands the many
different types of communitieswho are striving to adopt
digital and innovativetechnology.
Kate and I decided to wrestlewith a timely challenge for
cities.
(01:03):
The evolution of the digitaltown square.
As social media platforms shiftin ownership and purpose and as
the audience starts to fragmentacross many separate platforms,
it's becoming less clear wherethe digital town square will be
in the future.
What was once a commonexpectation--that journalists,
administrators, politicians, andcitizens could mingle freely and
(01:25):
share ideas and concerns seemsto be eroding or at least
changing.
Here's my conversation with KateBurns on the digital town
square.
Kate, welcome to the podcast.
It's great to have you here.
Kate Burns (01:39):
Thanks for having me, it's good to be here.
Paul Bellows (01:41):
Kate, I wanna get you to talk about just a little
bit about who you are and theorganization that you run in the
U.S.
out of DC.
It's a really interestingorganization.
I've read everything you've puton the web so far.
I've been pouring through it.
When I came across MetroLab, Iwas really fascinated and I plan
to use some of the work thatyou've released with some of my
clients and some of my work'cause there's some just
(02:02):
excellent work on datasetclassification models and some
really deep thinking has gone onthere.
I'm wondering how did you getinto this role?
What was your journey here?
And then tell me a little bitabout the origin story of
MetroLab and what MetroLab hasbeen doing in the community.
Kate Burns (02:16):
I think a maybe easy way to summarize who I am as a
person is a nerd that likes andhopes to make a difference.
I walked outta college with ajournalism degree, worked at an
engineering firm and nerded outon infrastructure for about
five, six years.
Then I went to law school and,knew almost immediately I wanted
to work for a local government.
(02:37):
I had the fortunate opportunityto intern for the mayor of
Kansas City.
Right when I started, I wasasked to write memos on a whole
bunch of new things, includingthis new company called Uber,
who showing up in our city, andI just really took to it and
started thinking about how ourlaws as a city could either
(02:59):
support innovation and where wewanted to move things forward
with our smart city project withCisco at the time, or also
prevent some of those unknownharms that these new potential
services, could have, so, how dowe ensure background checks,
those things?
I worked for the mayor of KansasCity for three years as an
innovation policy advisor onshort term rentals like Airbnb
(03:22):
and Uber and Lyft.
After that did similar work forthe mayor of Seattle,
Washington, where we worked ondata governance, surveillance,
Uber and Lyft, again, and indifferent ways, more from the
sort of workforce perspective.
And that entire time I was apart of MetroLab and MetroLab
was started in the Obama WhiteHouse, with their smart city
(03:42):
announcement to grow town gownrelationships between cities and
Universities, around emergingtechnologies.
So, we had a lot of localpartnerships, letters signed,
mayors, and university provostto work together on emerging
tech.
MetroLab served as the nationalconsortium for that effort.
Since that time, we are a fullstanding nonprofit for almost
(04:03):
six years now and really supportchanging the relationship and
dynamic between cities andresearch.
Not just from around emergingtechnology, but on all issues
that pertain to cities.
So affordable housing, mentalhealth, digital connectivity.
We really want to infuse ourlocal governments with science
and research, and we do that bya lot of our partnerships with
(04:26):
universities.
It's been an honor to serve inthis role at MetroLab.
I've been here for three yearsnow and continue to just really
nerd out on some city issues.
Paul Bellows (04:37):
You did j school to law school to local
government policy.
You are a nerd.
I like it.
This great.
Yeah.
Kate Burns (04:42):
Yeah.
Paul Bellows (04:43):
And we wear it proudly.
'cause it's good to be a nerd.
I love it.
One of the best things I everheard, I was doing an interview
with the city planner for theCity of Edmonton, where I live,
and we were discussing a projectIt was sort of research oriented
conversation.
I remember at one point he satback in this chair.
We were talking about thecomplexity of cities and massive
surface area that, you know,cities, we're a mile wide and an
inch deep.
(05:03):
That burned into my brain.
It's just cities are this,massive surface area of
services, and there's so muchgoing on.
And cities do so much with suchscant resources.
They're some of the mostinnovative organizations, or
certainly can be when things aregoing well and when you have
strong leadership.
So, I love what MetroLab hasbeen about.
There's a conversation that thatyou and I decided we were gonna
(05:23):
have today,'cause when we firststarted talking, like, we can
dive into your dataclassification model, dataset
classification.
There's some really interestingthings that are fascinating to
me, but I pitched you anotherconversation and that's what you
went for, which is why I knew wewere gonna enjoy talking to each
other.
I want to talk about the townsquare.
We plan to release this podcastepisode in January of 2025, and
we're at a really interestingmoment in public discourse.
(05:48):
Where I think the places we goto have conversations have
changed radically.
It's not that we had this thingfor time immemorial and that
we've just recently lost it, butsomething new got introduced
just recently, which is theconcept of this digital town
square, this place we have bigconversations, where we have
international conversations,where we hold people to public
(06:11):
account.
We can leverage things likeshame to hold bad actors to
account, and where it's reallycultural and social pressure
counts.
And it really seems like thathas changed radically in the
last year, we had this thing andit felt like a public utility, a
public good and feels like thatslipped away or it's slipping
(06:31):
through our fingers in some way.
I'd love to hear from you, likeTwitter was, a place where
people felt like there wereopen, transparent conversations,
and in January of 2025, at thismoment in time, it just feels
less so.
I'm curious in your network withthe clients you work with,
whether it's university ormunicipal, local government,
(06:54):
what are you hearing and seeingfrom the people that you work
with in terms of this emergentplace of dialogue that just
seems to have become a differentthing and distributed to
multiple different platforms.
The focus has gone, thecommonplace seems to have
disappeared.
People have changed theirbehaviors and gone to different
places.
What are you seeing?
Kate Burns (07:13):
Yeah, I'm excited to talk about it because I'm kind
of obsessed with the question ofhow are people getting their
news and I think that it's notjust, where can we have a
conversation with each other,but how am I getting
information, and how do I givesomeone else information, and
it's been changing for sometime, especially with social
(07:34):
media.
That really changed, how localgovernments talk to their
communities.
There was somewhat of hesitancyof is this the space for us?
And then it was.
I personally, when I was workingin a city hall, relied on it to
connect to my peers in othercities.
I got to hand select,for betteror for worse, who I was
(07:57):
following directly.
I followed journalists directly,rather than going to someone's
news site.
And so at the time felt like Ihad a really tailored experience
in addition to other newssources.
And I think what's reallyhappened is algorithms have
changed the input output of howwe think of it.
(08:19):
I think that's really somethingthat has changed the discourse
and what I'm seeing no longer isit really, am I having the same
experience as you are Paul onTwitter?
It's been really more cateredfor us in different motivations
and different reasons why.
I think it's, looking at how wethink of these digital
(08:40):
conversations in a, it's in afew ways.
Especially for cities andcounties and thinking of how do
I talk to my constituentsdirectly, so my resident base,
but it's also how am I good atmy job?
How do I know ideas to take fromother places, how do I know
where other people have triedsomething gone wrong?
And that's gotten a littletrickier.
(09:02):
I think people are whether it be'cause of algorithms whether it
be because people have leftcertain platforms And I think
that is a debate in and ofitself is should we have one
place where everyone goes to, oris it a healthy conversation to
have many?
I don't know.
Paul Bellows (09:17):
It's interesting that you went straight to news
there's also been an enormouschange.
You look at just theconsolidation in newsrooms over
the last two decades.
I'm gonna date myself here, butin the 1900 and eighties when I
was first becoming media aware,there was such a thing as local
news and you would hear storiesabout city hall and the local
zoo and that frustratedconstruction project, and.
(09:41):
the person who had triplets.
Most news was local stories.
There was a local paper thatinterviewed City Hall and talked
about local sports team andtalked about like local arts
scene.
And then there was this sectioncalled national.
And then there was a sectioncalled international, right?
You could read about what washappening in the world, but I
think now the predominant feedof news is global.
(10:02):
And it's very filtered based onwhich particular networks I
choose to watch.
So there are very disparateexperiences of news.
And I know that's true in the USAnd it's also true where I live
in Canada, that there are veryspecific editorial biases around
different media networks, andthey own the entire channel.
(10:23):
Even just 15 years ago, therewere two independent
entertainment newspapers in mycity.
Now there are zero.
There were two major newspapersin my city.
Now there's one that is about aquarter of the size and gets the
feed from Toronto.
And then there were about sixnews outlets and now there are
just a couple.
Again, it's editorial control isoutta my region.
(10:46):
It's sort of a nationallymandated editorial strategy.
So news has changed.
We don't even get access to thekind of news that we used to
have.
You went to J school, one of mygood friends who is a full-time
journalist now works at a travelagency.
He can't find work.
There just isn't work forjournalists anymore'cause we're
not producing news.
The economy of news has changed.
From a journalism background,how do you watch that unfold?
Kate Burns (11:10):
Yeah, that's tough.
Local news is so vital to somany ecosystems all over, and
there is a few journalismtheories about the news over
time.
And people's trust with it.
So when people were explicitlytrusting the news when it was
really only print mid 20thcentury, people trusted what
(11:32):
they read.
It wasn't just here's to thinkabout.
But here's how to think.
And then it shifted to wherethere was some questioning of
the news, but it really informedthe topics of the day.
It told me what to talk aboutwith everyone else.
So, even those theories areevolving.
Everyone is a creator now, butthere are different standards to
(11:54):
that.
There are journalistic standardsbefore you publish something
with anonymous sources versussomeone who, is not necessarily
a journalism institution onpublishing news.
So I think, that is theproliferation and just the
amount of things that couldqualify as news is overwhelming.
(12:17):
And that is a thing in and ofitself as to what's cutting
through all of this news now towhat I want to read.
My guess is that with the trendsthat we're seeing, I do think
that there's going to be morevalue into printed papers again,
because an algorithm cannottouch my physical copy of the
(12:38):
news.
I'm gonna read exactly what's onit.
And same with books.
We thought when, online bookswas gonna, crash the book
industry and it hasn't, becauseI think there is some value
there and I think what we'regonna see is some rearrangement
of what the value is in terms ofnews and what I can trust.
So I anticipate that what mightmake some sort of return is the
(13:03):
good old fashioned homepage of awebsite with a printed version
of something where an algorithmcannot touch it.
I think that, the development ofAI is kind of the opposite.
So algorithms are really basedon personal context of what I
anticipate you are going to readbased on what I know about you.
There's a lot of debate abouthow much or lack of context that
(13:24):
AI has.
Especially with cities in thework that MetroLab has been
doing with our AI task force.
There is some concern fromcities over the ability to read
context.
So what the word safety means tome might not be safe to you.
And there's no way that AI candiscern that.
In part of our world and wherewe're getting news, there's too
(13:44):
much, almost from the algorithmsinput, but with AI and where we
see increased use of that,there's not enough.
And how do we marry that.
Paul Bellows (13:53):
Also there's a really interesting moment where,
what AI appears to be doing is,and I agree with you that AI, at
least today, at a currentgeneration technology, is not
very good at understanding me asa person necessarily, but that
may continue to evolve.
We'll see, that's certainly thepromise of the tech overlords is
(14:14):
that this is what's coming, butwe also then were talking about
more of a hyper personalizedexperience, which actually takes
me a step back from the townsquare, so, if AI continues to
like, so we have algorithms andthen we have AI algorithm, which
is a whole other layer ofstriving for personalization.
This move to personalizationactually takes me farther away
(14:37):
from differing opinions frompeople who disagree with me from
critical thinking, the more thatthe algorithm the tailors to me,
the less critical thinking I'masked to do as an individual and
the fewer places we have thosecommon conversations happening.
I do agree with you, I amoptimistic that eventually It's
like I can have a lot of junkfood at Christmas and eventually
(14:58):
I'm like, I'm gonna need a saladnow, like in November, or
January, I'm gonna eat a saladand I'm hoping that in terms of
like intellectual property diet,people are gonna start to need
salads, of just, TikTok is greatand I just really need to read a
book now.
Coming back to that concept ofthe town square, and that place
in a city where the neighbors Imight disagree with, the people
(15:21):
I may not be aligned with, thepeople who have maybe a very
different vision of the city andour community and I come
together to hash out those ideasand hear common voices, and to
hear common thought, and tomaybe even hear from the
institutions themselves.
I'm curious as publishers, ascommunicators, as you are
talking to your clientele, yourcommunity members, what are they
(15:42):
attempting to do?
Where are they finding successand where are they struggling?
Kate Burns (15:47):
It's a great question.
Community engagement is alwaystop of mind.
I think for local government.
it is how can I be better at it,how can I ensure what I am doing
is with and for my residents.
And that it's hard.
It takes work.
There are different structuresto it, we've seen cities where
they have a centralizedcommunications department or
every department is left totheir own communication efforts.
(16:09):
And while that seems like anuance, it's really important to
have a conversation about howpeople are talking, at least
from the city hall.
There's some really greatlessons learned in best
practices that we know of, like,go to where the people already
are.
Neighborhood associations thatare having convenings, you
should go to them and not havethem come to you.
You should try and havecommunity engagement
(16:31):
opportunities that are notduring working hours.
Across neighborhoods, across thewhole city, and these things
take budgets, they takecapacity, they take trust.
This is a moment, this is amoment for government right now
with trust that they can do withthe services that they need to
do and that they want to do, andthey're gonna do it in
(16:51):
partnership with theirresidents.
I think having that two-wayopportunity is, really key of
not of knowing when to seekfeedback and then returning it.
So, for example, there's a lotof, engineering projects that
have to go to community designboards or have an open comment
(17:11):
period, and that design of anengineering project is 80% 90%
done, and it's really just Hey,does this look okay?
When are the opportunities fromearly on in, in not just
infrastructure projects, but howcities are really thinking about
public space, for example, likethe physical public space, the
digital public space.
(17:32):
How can we talk really earlyabout what that can look like to
serve a lot of our residents.
So, we're not just meeting everyThursday at 2:00 PM where people
who know when that meeting istaking place and have the time
to participate.
But I can really hear from thesingle mom who has an opinion
but can't show up.
So I think, I think we need tokeep experimenting.
(17:55):
and putting our poker in thefire, whatever you'll call it,
the iron in the fire, in as manyplaces as we can and come back
to our community as often as wecan.
I think that really we need tojust continue resourcing that,
we need to continue pressingupon that, there's a lot of
digital work that is reallyimportant.
There's also, snail mail is usedquite a bit.
(18:17):
For example, with residentsatisfaction surveys, coming
from Kansas City, proud, proudKansas City-ian, and they have a
30 response rate on their snailmail in the mail.
eye paper resident satisfactionsurvey, which is great.
Paul Bellows (18:33):
30 percent.
30 percent enormous.
Kate Burns (18:36):
Yeah.
It's enormous.
And really a way to find out howyour city is doing from the
residents themselves.
What I'm really honing in on, Ithink is the conversation
experience between local serviceprovider and their residents.
I think that there are othertown squares to think about,
like how residents can talk toeach other, how they can learn
(18:57):
and think about their needs andthen bring that voice to their
city hall.
And I think that there's a lotof really interesting work to do
there.
Paul Bellows (19:05):
Since it was introduced to me last year, I've
been obsessed with thispublication called the Ed
Edelman trust barometer.
They're a comms agency and theydo an annual survey.
They've done a Canadian focussurvey for 2024, and I'll share
the link in the show notes forfolks that want to pursue it.
it's fascinating, they do thisannual trust barometers, they
call it, and it's really lookingat trust in public institutions.
(19:26):
Their findings were, and I don'tthink this is a surprise, that
in 2024, trust was at an alltime low, in institution
specifically, people got theirnews through social channels
more than official editedpublished channels, so authority
has been diminished, and trustin institutions is just rock
bottom.
But they also had a recipe forinstitutions for starting to
(19:49):
remedy that and approaching it.
They said, the number onestarting point is learning to
listen to people, and thenlearning to respond effectively
to what they're actuallythinking, feeling, saying.
And that aligns with what youwere just talking about, and I
love the example of Kansas City.
We live in this digital agewhere we're supposed to have
magic technology for everything.
A piece of paper in the mail isabout as old school as it gets.
(20:11):
But it, you know, a 30 returnrate, you know, I'd be curious,
for you, like you're in DC atthis point, but you're a Kansas,
Would I say Kansas City-ian?
Kate Burns (20:20):
Yes.
Paul Bellows (20:21):
Okay, great.
I got it right.
First guess.
Okay, Good.
Good.
What do you see as outcomes in acommunity?
What is the social capital oftrust?
What has that allowed KansasCity to do, that maybe as a,
now, a resident of DC orwherever you live, municipally
there close to DC that you mayor may not be seeing in that
community.
I'm just curious what you canactually see as a measurable
outcome when trust is builtthrough good communication.
Kate Burns (20:44):
The best I use this example all the time from years
of that resident satisfactionsurvey consistently, every year
residents told us I amdissatisfied.
With roads and infrastructure,I'm dissatisfied.
And so the city did a great job.
There were some reallyinnovative leaders to do this.
The mayor, the city manager,folks that ran our city program,
(21:07):
that said, you have told us youdon't like this.
You're not satisfied.
We wanna pass a bond to get younew infrastructure.
And it overwhelmingly passedbecause we showed the residents
you are telling us this, a wayfor us to fix this is this path
and it overwhelmingly passed.
There's two other examples, Ihave.
One, is as we were reallystarting to figure out what we
(21:27):
wanted to do with ordinancesaround Airbnb, VRBO and the
like, I was able to see a lot ofthe 3 1 1 complaints related to
it.
As a policy wonk, I was lookingfor things like increase in
crime, or impact on marketvalue, things like that.
And overwhelmingly the responsethat we got was my neighbors and
(21:49):
Airbnb hosts, and I just don'tlike it.
And to me, it was really hardfor me to quantify that data
point.
And it taught me such a lessonthat that is a value statement
in and of itself.
It's not, you know what I mean?
It was different than what I wasanticipating.
and at the heart of zoning andall that.
And so it really made me thinkabout how to take in trust and
(22:14):
feedback.
The other, and last example I'llsay is, a common thorn in the
side of conversation for localgovernments is bike lanes and
putting a bike lane removingparking, and small businesses
rightfully wondering, what isthe economic impact going to be
to me.
And I think it's a muscle thatwe need to continue to build
(22:34):
efficiently.
And together is, I think it's onlocal governments to tell the
story, to build that trust.
So there is a great project.
MasterCard did some economicreporting.
In New York city on an areawhere they closed the street
completely to be bike andpedestrian only.
And from their research, theycould see that it was an
increase in a few milliondollars to the businesses that
(22:57):
were there, they saw increase ineconomic growth because of the
closure.
They could specifically nail itdown to that.
And I think that's just like howKansas City said, you're telling
us we don't like this passageIrvine.
That's the same thing of smallbusinesses.
You're against these bike lanes,but look at this.
you actually we've got data toshow you that it can increase
(23:17):
your business.
And so I think, there needs tobe some openness to residents
who saying, I just don't likeit.
I think that there needs to besome data behind, we understand
this might be a hard change, butwe really have the facts to
show.
this will actually have betteroutcomes.
And I think that's where trustand listening can really start
(23:38):
to build.
Which brings this full circle ofdata classification, which is we
need to bring our open data.
We need to have proof points.
We need to be able to back upthe arguments.
The bike lanes thing happens inevery city that I know.
I don't know a city that isn'thaving this argument right now.
As you look at alternate formsof transportation and, economic
disparity and people's differingneeds and different points in
life, students versus seniorsversus working parents.
(24:00):
We all have different needs fortransportation and bikes are an
essential part of that network.
I love street fight, the book,just talk about the impact in
New York city of Shutting downcar traffic and every measure of
life improved, essentially, whenthey did that, like happiness
improved, economic outputimproved, local business growth
improved, and congestionimproved the quality of traffic
(24:23):
improved because fewer peoplewere driving, when you know,
when you, but without data,without evidence that that's a
hollow argument, and people willfill a void with whatever
information seems most obviousto them.
There's something else youtalked about that I think is
also essential to the concept ofthe town square.
The concept of the institutionneeds to learn to listen to and
respond to people with effectivecommunication, data backed
(24:46):
communication, evidence-basedcommunication.
But you also brought uppeer-to-peer communication.
The town square is a place wherewe meet our peers.
We hash out what we want for ourneighborhood.
We hash out what we want for ourblock.
And I actually, I love the pointabout the Airbnb feedback of, I
don't like it'cause I don't knowthe people that are living next
to me versus I know the peoplethat are living next to me, they
(25:07):
have been there for a while, Ican have a relationship with
these folks versus they'restrangers, they won't be here
tomorrow.
And I think there's somethingreally interesting in that as
well, just as the humancreature, the way we behave and
what we prefer and how we likecommunity, we like neighbors,
we're a social creature.
Where have you seen thatworking, whether it's an analog
(25:28):
process or a digital process?
Communities enabling or findingways for people connect to one
another.
Is that something that lives inyour realm of experience?
I think it really depends.
I think from the peer-to-peernetwork, maybe starting there
from cities.
That took a lot of learning onhow different cities were
(25:51):
staying with that example ofshort-term rentals.
How we were approaching that,because there are arguments on
both sides of that.
For example, if a city issuffering from blight and
there's abandoned homes,arguably Airbnb can be the way,
and VRBO and short-term rentalscan be the path towards
investments into homes andrevitalizing neighborhoods.
So you could counter with, I,you may not like this on this
(26:14):
level, but it will actuallyimprove the long term value in
public placemaking for yourneighborhood in the long run.
Having that sort of venue tohave that conversation is really
important.
I'll tell you where it getsreally complicated and harder is
with things.
The longer it takes for you toexplain something, the harder it
(26:35):
is to have communications on it.
AI is there.
And that's what we've seen withour data governance work.
Paul Bellows (26:40):
Yeah.
Kate Burns (26:40):
In the US The laws around privacy are generally
what the reasonable personexpects.
And it's like my favorite thing.
I wish I had more time to writeit on this.
The law acknowledges that if I'min a phone booth with four walls
and someone hears myconversation, my privacy has
been violated.
But if I'm in a restaurant andan open booth and I'm, and you
and I are talking and someonehears us, it's different.
(27:02):
It's we're in an openenvironment.
The hard part is that I maybe asa citizen or resident that
doesn't use technology.
I don't actually know what myphone can do.
I don't know what thereforeexpect in terms of my privacy
being violated.
And so I think there's a lot oflevel setting that needs to
happen.
(27:23):
And that's takes time.
that takes, a lot of work andvenue findings.
So all to say to talk to eachother.
Both from a, someone apolicymaker to their residence
as well as a policymaker fromone city to another.
All of that is changing and wehosted a round table, a closed
(27:44):
round table on AI.
And I asked everyone, I said,how are you all finding the
latest news on what's going onwith AI?
And 75%, our number one responsewas conferences, in person
convening.
So we're seeing a real influx ofin-person convenings,
newsletters, and audio, likethis very opportunity, really be
(28:08):
a more trusted source of news.
I think that all of those areinteresting.
The convening one is there's abarrier in terms of money and
time to participate in thoseconversations.
it's changing and I thinkthere's some work to do.
Paul Bellows (28:23):
It does come back, to cities, the mile wide and an
inch deep, just doing so muchwith so few resources.
I know from my colleagues inmunicipal government, the idea
of traveling to conferences ischallenging to get travel budget
approved.
It's not always a good look.
I went to a conference.
We flew someone to Miami.
We flew, oh, my, c my, my taxdollars are going to flying.
People around for these junkets.
No.
This is actually professionaldevelopment for the people who
(28:46):
run our city, which isessential, but it's a hard thing
for a citizen to hear,especially when, as you say,
that there's a pothole.
There's a, that traffic lighthasn't been fixed.
Why are we spending money onairfare and conferences, but
it's so essential to develop thepublic service, and to have
professionalism in the publicservice.
But that's a hard message todeliver to folks.
It'd be, with the change in thedigital town square, just the
(29:09):
fact that we do, we had a placewhere it felt like everyone was
gonna go, where we could havethese open conversations where
we could curate a network.
It's less true now.
There are multiple places.
It's harder to find yourcommunity, but maybe that drives
us back to in-person.
Maybe that drives us back tomore analog.
Maybe that drives us back todigital versions of analog
(29:29):
activity.
Maybe that's where we go next.
More grassroots organizing, morepeople talking to people.
Kate Burns (29:35):
Right.
Paul Bellows (29:36):
That, that could the outcome here, which isn't
the worst outcome.
Kate Burns (29:38):
It's not, I think they, I think we will find a
way.
I think we're I think not to getpolitical, but I think either
side of the fence, like theelection in the US in November,
2024 made a lot of people say,huh, how are people getting
their news?
How are people talking to eachother and I think there will be
some sort of concrete changes tocome from that of how people are
(30:02):
talking to their residents andwhat you were saying earlier,
Paul, where trust is withgovernment generally, the mayor
of Oakland got recalled, thislast election.
and so we're seeing, at thelocal level as well as in this
post Covid era, we're learningall together how we're talking
to each other and even how we'reworking together.
(30:24):
What is return to work?
looking like?
How are we actually our day today economies shaking out like
that is still, the dust is stillsettling.
I think that after the electionthen is, more or less expedited,
been a catalyst to figuring thatout.
That was really some sort ofresults I think often about what
(30:45):
if the election had gone indifferent ways, on, on every
level.
Would we have had this bigquestion mark of how are these
conversations, communications,doing?
I dunno.
And that just goes to of howpowerful elections really are
and what they teach us.
Paul Bellows (31:01):
I have to declare recency bias be because I just
last night finished MalcolmGladwell's Revenge of the
Tipping Point.
He talks about 25 to 30 percentbeing the critical mass number.
If you can bring 25 to 30percent of people to a belief or
an idea, that shifts the Overtonwindow.
That that is where the cascadestarts, the avalanche of belief
or ideation starts.
(31:22):
And it is interesting that welive in an era where we have
these social platforms thatappear to be neutral at one
point, not suggesting that theyhave been weaponized, but to say
they can be weaponized, and theycan be used for very specific
purposes to bring a set of ideasforward to, and again, you hear
an idea enough and it becomesvalid through repetition.
(31:46):
That, that's just how we are asa species.
this is just a known human biasof, if I hear it enough, I start
to give it validity at the veryleast.
And we can make ideas real.
So ideas get made real andpeople vote based on those
ideas, and then you look at apoor local government saying
what is my toolkit here?
I need to listen.
I need to communicate, a papernewsletter feels, brittle in the
(32:10):
face of global, multi-billiondollar social networks and the
algorithm and the amplificationeffect, but boy it's the tools
we have.
I'm curious, do you see folks,finding a middle point?
I'm a technologist at heart.
I'm a nerd.
I don't believe technologycontains the answer to anything.
It's just, by definition, youstill need to bring your why to
(32:31):
it.
Do you see anyone who's findingnew ways forward, taking maybe
the Kansas city model of just areally effective newsletter with
a 30 response rate and finding adigital corollary to that type
of an action is anyone winningin that space, in your network?
Kate Burns (32:46):
That's a good question.
First let me say I readsomething the other day and I
hope to find it, to, to creditit, that says, overwhelmingly,
local ballot initiatives aresuccessful.
So like the G.O.
Bond, like things to fundschools, and I find that really
interesting.
Like people believe in theircommunities and they understand
(33:08):
money is being taken out forthis to go into this, my
community, and I think wherethings have gotten really
interesting is that nationalstory when things go up to
different levels of governmentwe also saw a lot of split
tickets in the US of where,there was a divide between the
presidential outcome and thestate or congressional outcomes
of a certain locale.
(33:30):
So I think I think there's ashift in understanding there.
In terms of, who's really doinga great job of talking to their
residents, I think everyone, Idon't know if anyone would tout
us.
like I've done it, I've reachedthe mission.
I've reached the best way to doit.
I think everyone is reallytrying to find it.
(33:51):
and It really depends how youdefine success In terms of those
outcomes.
I'll give you an example, InSeatle, we had our surveillance
ordinance.
We were the first city to pass asurveillance ordinance on the
local level.
And what it did, it requiredcity council to pass approval of
procuring legislation thatqualified as surveilling someone
(34:12):
And so that was a highthreshold, a high barrier to do
and it required certain.
and It was rep, it was alsoretroactive on technologies.
We had already procured thatqualified as surveillance, of
which we had 29.
So we had in legislationspecific community engagement
requirements, includingin-person requirements, and we
held those across the city.
(34:33):
The large majority of thetechnologies that qualified as
surveillance were used bypolice, and a lot of our experts
that came to speak on thetechnologies were uniformed
police, and the dynamic thatimmediately created was stifling
in the room and people had ahard time talking about it.
(34:55):
In one viewpoint you could say,look at Seattle.
They are actively creatingopportunities for the police to
talk to their community aboutthe technologies they're using.
But what really happened is wedid not have that many people
show up.
And the conversation wasprobably a little, not little,
but edited especially based onyour relationship or perception
of how the police are doing inyour city.
(35:16):
We continue to try and talk tocities across the country and
across North America to say whois really doing this?
Who feels like you're gettingsome response from your
residents, but I think it is,truly, a moving target.
Paul Bellows (35:28):
Which doesn't surprise me.
I would love to say that in mynetwork, I'm seeing, people who
have just thrived in this space,but it is just absolutely
greenfield right now of how dowe do this in the digital space?
I feel like cities have gone,they're still in web 1.0 in
terms of the metaphor of how thetechnology works.
And I'm not a deep believer in1, 2, 3, all of this like just
the metaphor, we have this oneway published, but how do we
(35:50):
listen to people digitally?
That does feel like a bit of a,an emerging frontier of how can
we gather information?
Maybe we find opportunities inAI.
Not to say we hand overownership of listening, but to
say just synthesizing, feedback,like looking for patterns, kind
of like analysis tools.
We have generative AI, which arethe latest flavor, but just
simply just machine learning,neural networks, the ability to
(36:11):
analyze large volumes of data.
Maybe there's hope there for ustoo and some opportunity as
well.
MetroLab is a network forlistening.
It is a network forcommunication.
It's a network for people tohear each other.
You're doing this thing thatwe're talking about here that
we've said needs to happen.
And so I'm really grateful forthe work that MetroLab does.
Like I said, I'm already acustomer of your work.
(36:31):
I'm already gonna be borrowingand amplifying and citing and
referencing, and pointing backand encourage to people to join.
But really grateful for sometime with you today.
Just as we're wrapping up here,what makes you hopeful right now
in in terms of what you'reseeing?
What are you energized byheading into 2025 here?
There are some dark clouds interms of trust in public
institutions.
Where are you seeing rays ofsunshine?
Kate Burns (36:52):
I love this question.
What am I hopeful for?
I think that the last 10 yearsof civic innovation and all that
it has meant including some ofthe cities doing their first
chief innovation officer tothinking about digital equity
plans.
(37:13):
I think it is better positionedus for this moment.
I think that we are in a moment,we are in a moment of technology
disruption.
I think AI is like we're back inthe 1990s where someone just
created the internet.
I really do.
Like it's gonna disrupteducation, how we get jobs.
How we perform our jobs, all ofthese things.
And so it is a 10 yeardisruption and I'm hopeful that
(37:37):
local governments are empoweredand have really amazing people
within them to move thismovement forward, especially as,
I think the political future inthe US is on a week by week
basis up to see what is to comeand to see what changes will be
(37:58):
made.
But one thing is guaranteed isthat there will be change.
There will be change.
The thing that I would counterto that is that there's a lot of
hope and belief in cities thatare being our laboratories of
change and that.
Secretary Buttigieg has said,now more than ever, we need to
look at safe cities.
I believe that a hundredpercent.
And that is to say that is thelevel of government in the US
(38:20):
that gets the lowest, amount ofresources, as you said, right?
It's the low, the smallestbudgets, the smallest amount of
staff.
And so I think it's a call toeveryone inside city halls, if
not to universities.
To figure out how to supportthese service providers, these
policy wants, who wanna do good,how do we all do it together to
(38:43):
help empower these serviceproviders who have taken the
last 10 years to really thinkabout innovation and government
and think about these disruptivemoments so that we can really
figure this out together.
And I have been so fortunate tomeet this network of innovators
and I am hopeful because ofthem.
Paul Bellows (39:05):
I am hopeful because of you, Kate Burns.
Thank you so much for joiningus.
Kate Burns (39:08):
You're welcome.
Thank you for having me!
Paul Bellows (39:11):
Let's continue to amplify the things that are
important, and it's the irony iswe hear nonstop news about
federal issues Most ofgovernance, most of what affects
people comes from cities, comesfrom local government.
The vast majority of the workhappens at the local level.
And that's what we need to startturn, turning a spotlight on.
So thank you.
Thank you for sharing with ustoday.
Kate Burns (39:32):
Thank you Paul.
Paul Bellows (39:34):
Thanks so much for listening.
Kate and I could likely havetalked for hours about this
topic, but some of the themes wedid get to included: The concept
of a digital town square hasshifted in the last few years.
And cities are struggling todeal with a more fragmented
platform ecosystem.
Two.
The availability of local newsand community oriented news has
changed significantly in thepast decade so information diets
(39:58):
are shifting.
Three.
Trust in local institutions hasbeen eroded.
And community engagement tacticsneed to shift as well.
More analog approaches can bejust as valuable as high tech
approaches.
Four.
Peer to peer communication andcommunity building is winning
the day.
But this can be challenging forinstitutions who may be cut out
(40:20):
of the communication loop.
And five.
This is a time of disruption,which means both danger and
opportunity.
Institutions need to learn tolisten and respond, not just
broadcast.
I hope you enjoy thisconversation with Kate Burns.
Please do subscribe to the 3, 1,1 podcast and follow the mini
(40:41):
conversations we're going to bereleasing throughout the coming
year.
I'd like to thank my colleagueswho work with me on this
podcast.
Kathy Watton is our showproducer and editor.
Frederick Brummer and AhmedKhalil created our theme, music
and intro.
We're going to keep havingconversations like this.
Thanks for tuning in.
If you've got ideas for guests,we should speak to send us an
(41:03):
email to the311@northern.co.
The public service is about allof us.
And when it's done, right,digital can be a key ingredient
for better world.
This has been The 311 Podcast.
And I've been your host, PaulBellows.
This is The 311 Podcast.
(00:02):
And I'm your host, Paul Bellows.
This is a show about the peoplethat make digital work for the
public service.
If you'd like to find out more,you can visit northern.co
that's, Northern dot C O.
Today, my guest is Kate Burns.
Kate is the Executive Directorof MetroLab Network, a
(00:22):
Washington, DC based nonprofitto connect local government
organizations with universities,to bring the latest in
scientific research andinnovation to the living lab of
communities.
MetroLab is a partnershipecosystem and runs projects to
discover, implement, and scaleinnovative solutions for local
government.
(00:42):
Kate has a background inmunicipal government and in
policy and she's passionateabout thriving cities and
communities.
She worked in Kansas City andSeattle, so understands the many
different types of communitieswho are striving to adopt
digital and innovativetechnology.
Kate and I decided to wrestlewith a timely challenge for
cities.
(01:03):
The evolution of the digitaltown square.
As social media platforms shiftin ownership and purpose and as
the audience starts to fragmentacross many separate platforms,
it's becoming less clear wherethe digital town square will be
in the future.
What was once a commonexpectation--that journalists,
administrators, politicians, andcitizens could mingle freely and
(01:25):
share ideas and concerns seemsto be eroding or at least
changing.
Here's my conversation with KateBurns on the digital town
square.
Kate, welcome to the podcast.
It's great to have you here.
Kate Burns (01:39):
Thanks for having me, it's good to be here.
Paul Bellows (01:41):
Kate, I wanna get you to talk about just a little
bit about who you are and theorganization that you run in the
U.S.
out of DC.
It's a really interestingorganization.
I've read everything you've puton the web so far.
I've been pouring through it.
When I came across MetroLab, Iwas really fascinated and I plan
to use some of the work thatyou've released with some of my
clients and some of my work'cause there's some just
(02:02):
excellent work on datasetclassification models and some
really deep thinking has gone onthere.
I'm wondering how did you getinto this role?
What was your journey here?
And then tell me a little bitabout the origin story of
MetroLab and what MetroLab hasbeen doing in the community.
Kate Burns (02:16):
I think a maybe easy way to summarize who I am as a
person is a nerd that likes andhopes to make a difference.
I walked outta college with ajournalism degree, worked at an
engineering firm and nerded outon infrastructure for about
five, six years.
Then I went to law school and,knew almost immediately I wanted
to work for a local government.
(02:37):
I had the fortunate opportunityto intern for the mayor of
Kansas City.
Right when I started, I wasasked to write memos on a whole
bunch of new things, includingthis new company called Uber,
who showing up in our city, andI just really took to it and
started thinking about how ourlaws as a city could either
(02:59):
support innovation and where wewanted to move things forward
with our smart city project withCisco at the time, or also
prevent some of those unknownharms that these new potential
services, could have, so, how dowe ensure background checks,
those things?
I worked for the mayor of KansasCity for three years as an
innovation policy advisor onshort term rentals like Airbnb
(03:22):
and Uber and Lyft.
After that did similar work forthe mayor of Seattle,
Washington, where we worked ondata governance, surveillance,
Uber and Lyft, again, and indifferent ways, more from the
sort of workforce perspective.
And that entire time I was apart of MetroLab and MetroLab
was started in the Obama WhiteHouse, with their smart city
(03:42):
announcement to grow town gownrelationships between cities and
Universities, around emergingtechnologies.
So, we had a lot of localpartnerships, letters signed,
mayors, and university provostto work together on emerging
tech.
MetroLab served as the nationalconsortium for that effort.
Since that time, we are a fullstanding nonprofit for almost
(04:03):
six years now and really supportchanging the relationship and
dynamic between cities andresearch.
Not just from around emergingtechnology, but on all issues
that pertain to cities.
So affordable housing, mentalhealth, digital connectivity.
We really want to infuse ourlocal governments with science
and research, and we do that bya lot of our partnerships with
(04:26):
universities.
It's been an honor to serve inthis role at MetroLab.
I've been here for three yearsnow and continue to just really
nerd out on some city issues.
Paul Bellows (04:37):
You did j school to law school to local
government policy.
You are a nerd.
I like it.
This great.
Yeah.
Kate Burns (04:42):
Yeah.
Paul Bellows (04:43):
And we wear it proudly.
'cause it's good to be a nerd.
I love it.
One of the best things I everheard, I was doing an interview
with the city planner for theCity of Edmonton, where I live,
and we were discussing a projectIt was sort of research oriented
conversation.
I remember at one point he satback in this chair.
We were talking about thecomplexity of cities and massive
surface area that, you know,cities, we're a mile wide and an
inch deep.
(05:03):
That burned into my brain.
It's just cities are this,massive surface area of
services, and there's so muchgoing on.
And cities do so much with suchscant resources.
They're some of the mostinnovative organizations, or
certainly can be when things aregoing well and when you have
strong leadership.
So, I love what MetroLab hasbeen about.
There's a conversation that thatyou and I decided we were gonna
(05:23):
have today,'cause when we firststarted talking, like, we can
dive into your dataclassification model, dataset
classification.
There's some really interestingthings that are fascinating to
me, but I pitched you anotherconversation and that's what you
went for, which is why I knew wewere gonna enjoy talking to each
other.
I want to talk about the townsquare.
We plan to release this podcastepisode in January of 2025, and
we're at a really interestingmoment in public discourse.
(05:48):
Where I think the places we goto have conversations have
changed radically.
It's not that we had this thingfor time immemorial and that
we've just recently lost it, butsomething new got introduced
just recently, which is theconcept of this digital town
square, this place we have bigconversations, where we have
international conversations,where we hold people to public
(06:11):
account.
We can leverage things likeshame to hold bad actors to
account, and where it's reallycultural and social pressure
counts.
And it really seems like thathas changed radically in the
last year, we had this thing andit felt like a public utility, a
public good and feels like thatslipped away or it's slipping
(06:31):
through our fingers in some way.
I'd love to hear from you, likeTwitter was, a place where
people felt like there wereopen, transparent conversations,
and in January of 2025, at thismoment in time, it just feels
less so.
I'm curious in your network withthe clients you work with,
whether it's university ormunicipal, local government,
(06:54):
what are you hearing and seeingfrom the people that you work
with in terms of this emergentplace of dialogue that just
seems to have become a differentthing and distributed to
multiple different platforms.
The focus has gone, thecommonplace seems to have
disappeared.
People have changed theirbehaviors and gone to different
places.
What are you seeing?
Kate Burns (07:13):
Yeah, I'm excited to talk about it because I'm kind
of obsessed with the question ofhow are people getting their
news and I think that it's notjust, where can we have a
conversation with each other,but how am I getting
information, and how do I givesomeone else information, and
it's been changing for sometime, especially with social
(07:34):
media.
That really changed, how localgovernments talk to their
communities.
There was somewhat of hesitancyof is this the space for us?
And then it was.
I personally, when I was workingin a city hall, relied on it to
connect to my peers in othercities.
I got to hand select,for betteror for worse, who I was
(07:57):
following directly.
I followed journalists directly,rather than going to someone's
news site.
And so at the time felt like Ihad a really tailored experience
in addition to other newssources.
And I think what's reallyhappened is algorithms have
changed the input output of howwe think of it.
(08:19):
I think that's really somethingthat has changed the discourse
and what I'm seeing no longer isit really, am I having the same
experience as you are Paul onTwitter?
It's been really more cateredfor us in different motivations
and different reasons why.
I think it's, looking at how wethink of these digital
(08:40):
conversations in a, it's in afew ways.
Especially for cities andcounties and thinking of how do
I talk to my constituentsdirectly, so my resident base,
but it's also how am I good atmy job?
How do I know ideas to take fromother places, how do I know
where other people have triedsomething gone wrong?
And that's gotten a littletrickier.
(09:02):
I think people are whether it be'cause of algorithms whether it
be because people have leftcertain platforms And I think
that is a debate in and ofitself is should we have one
place where everyone goes to, oris it a healthy conversation to
have many?
I don't know.
Paul Bellows (09:17):
It's interesting that you went straight to news
there's also been an enormouschange.
You look at just theconsolidation in newsrooms over
the last two decades.
I'm gonna date myself here, butin the 1900 and eighties when I
was first becoming media aware,there was such a thing as local
news and you would hear storiesabout city hall and the local
zoo and that frustratedconstruction project, and.
(09:41):
the person who had triplets.
Most news was local stories.
There was a local paper thatinterviewed City Hall and talked
about local sports team andtalked about like local arts
scene.
And then there was this sectioncalled national.
And then there was a sectioncalled international, right?
You could read about what washappening in the world, but I
think now the predominant feedof news is global.
(10:02):
And it's very filtered based onwhich particular networks I
choose to watch.
So there are very disparateexperiences of news.
And I know that's true in the USAnd it's also true where I live
in Canada, that there are veryspecific editorial biases around
different media networks, andthey own the entire channel.
(10:23):
Even just 15 years ago, therewere two independent
entertainment newspapers in mycity.
Now there are zero.
There were two major newspapersin my city.
Now there's one that is about aquarter of the size and gets the
feed from Toronto.
And then there were about sixnews outlets and now there are
just a couple.
Again, it's editorial control isoutta my region.
(10:46):
It's sort of a nationallymandated editorial strategy.
So news has changed.
We don't even get access to thekind of news that we used to
have.
You went to J school, one of mygood friends who is a full-time
journalist now works at a travelagency.
He can't find work.
There just isn't work forjournalists anymore'cause we're
not producing news.
The economy of news has changed.
From a journalism background,how do you watch that unfold?
Kate Burns (11:10):
Yeah, that's tough.
Local news is so vital to somany ecosystems all over, and
there is a few journalismtheories about the news over
time.
And people's trust with it.
So when people were explicitlytrusting the news when it was
really only print mid 20thcentury, people trusted what
(11:32):
they read.
It wasn't just here's to thinkabout.
But here's how to think.
And then it shifted to wherethere was some questioning of
the news, but it really informedthe topics of the day.
It told me what to talk aboutwith everyone else.
So, even those theories areevolving.
Everyone is a creator now, butthere are different standards to
(11:54):
that.
There are journalistic standardsbefore you publish something
with anonymous sources versussomeone who, is not necessarily
a journalism institution onpublishing news.
So I think, that is theproliferation and just the
amount of things that couldqualify as news is overwhelming.
(12:17):
And that is a thing in and ofitself as to what's cutting
through all of this news now towhat I want to read.
My guess is that with the trendsthat we're seeing, I do think
that there's going to be morevalue into printed papers again,
because an algorithm cannottouch my physical copy of the
(12:38):
news.
I'm gonna read exactly what's onit.
And same with books.
We thought when, online bookswas gonna, crash the book
industry and it hasn't, becauseI think there is some value
there and I think what we'regonna see is some rearrangement
of what the value is in terms ofnews and what I can trust.
So I anticipate that what mightmake some sort of return is the
(13:03):
good old fashioned homepage of awebsite with a printed version
of something where an algorithmcannot touch it.
I think that, the development ofAI is kind of the opposite.
So algorithms are really basedon personal context of what I
anticipate you are going to readbased on what I know about you.
There's a lot of debate abouthow much or lack of context that
(13:24):
AI has.
Especially with cities in thework that MetroLab has been
doing with our AI task force.
There is some concern fromcities over the ability to read
context.
So what the word safety means tome might not be safe to you.
And there's no way that AI candiscern that.
In part of our world and wherewe're getting news, there's too
(13:44):
much, almost from the algorithmsinput, but with AI and where we
see increased use of that,there's not enough.
And how do we marry that.
Paul Bellows (13:53):
Also there's a really interesting moment where,
what AI appears to be doing is,and I agree with you that AI, at
least today, at a currentgeneration technology, is not
very good at understanding me asa person necessarily, but that
may continue to evolve.
We'll see, that's certainly thepromise of the tech overlords is
(14:14):
that this is what's coming, butwe also then were talking about
more of a hyper personalizedexperience, which actually takes
me a step back from the townsquare, so, if AI continues to
like, so we have algorithms andthen we have AI algorithm, which
is a whole other layer ofstriving for personalization.
This move to personalizationactually takes me farther away
(14:37):
from differing opinions frompeople who disagree with me from
critical thinking, the more thatthe algorithm the tailors to me,
the less critical thinking I'masked to do as an individual and
the fewer places we have thosecommon conversations happening.
I do agree with you, I amoptimistic that eventually It's
like I can have a lot of junkfood at Christmas and eventually
(14:58):
I'm like, I'm gonna need a saladnow, like in November, or
January, I'm gonna eat a saladand I'm hoping that in terms of
like intellectual property diet,people are gonna start to need
salads, of just, TikTok is greatand I just really need to read a
book now.
Coming back to that concept ofthe town square, and that place
in a city where the neighbors Imight disagree with, the people
(15:21):
I may not be aligned with, thepeople who have maybe a very
different vision of the city andour community and I come
together to hash out those ideasand hear common voices, and to
hear common thought, and tomaybe even hear from the
institutions themselves.
I'm curious as publishers, ascommunicators, as you are
talking to your clientele, yourcommunity members, what are they
(15:42):
attempting to do?
Where are they finding successand where are they struggling?
Kate Burns (15:47):
It's a great question.
Community engagement is alwaystop of mind.
I think for local government.
it is how can I be better at it,how can I ensure what I am doing
is with and for my residents.
And that it's hard.
It takes work.
There are different structuresto it, we've seen cities where
they have a centralizedcommunications department or
every department is left totheir own communication efforts.
(16:09):
And while that seems like anuance, it's really important to
have a conversation about howpeople are talking, at least
from the city hall.
There's some really greatlessons learned in best
practices that we know of, like,go to where the people already
are.
Neighborhood associations thatare having convenings, you
should go to them and not havethem come to you.
You should try and havecommunity engagement
(16:31):
opportunities that are notduring working hours.
Across neighborhoods, across thewhole city, and these things
take budgets, they takecapacity, they take trust.
This is a moment, this is amoment for government right now
with trust that they can do withthe services that they need to
do and that they want to do, andthey're gonna do it in
(16:51):
partnership with theirresidents.
I think having that two-wayopportunity is, really key of
not of knowing when to seekfeedback and then returning it.
So, for example, there's a lotof, engineering projects that
have to go to community designboards or have an open comment
(17:11):
period, and that design of anengineering project is 80% 90%
done, and it's really just Hey,does this look okay?
When are the opportunities fromearly on in, in not just
infrastructure projects, but howcities are really thinking about
public space, for example, likethe physical public space, the
digital public space.
(17:32):
How can we talk really earlyabout what that can look like to
serve a lot of our residents.
So, we're not just meeting everyThursday at 2:00 PM where people
who know when that meeting istaking place and have the time
to participate.
But I can really hear from thesingle mom who has an opinion
but can't show up.
So I think, I think we need tokeep experimenting.
(17:55):
and putting our poker in thefire, whatever you'll call it,
the iron in the fire, in as manyplaces as we can and come back
to our community as often as wecan.
I think that really we need tojust continue resourcing that,
we need to continue pressingupon that, there's a lot of
digital work that is reallyimportant.
There's also, snail mail is usedquite a bit.
(18:17):
For example, with residentsatisfaction surveys, coming
from Kansas City, proud, proudKansas City-ian, and they have a
30 response rate on their snailmail in the mail.
eye paper resident satisfactionsurvey, which is great.
Paul Bellows (18:33):
30 percent.
30 percent enormous.
Kate Burns (18:36):
Yeah.
It's enormous.
And really a way to find out howyour city is doing from the
residents themselves.
What I'm really honing in on, Ithink is the conversation
experience between local serviceprovider and their residents.
I think that there are othertown squares to think about,
like how residents can talk toeach other, how they can learn
(18:57):
and think about their needs andthen bring that voice to their
city hall.
And I think that there's a lotof really interesting work to do
there.
Paul Bellows (19:05):
Since it was introduced to me last year, I've
been obsessed with thispublication called the Ed
Edelman trust barometer.
They're a comms agency and theydo an annual survey.
They've done a Canadian focussurvey for 2024, and I'll share
the link in the show notes forfolks that want to pursue it.
it's fascinating, they do thisannual trust barometers, they
call it, and it's really lookingat trust in public institutions.
(19:26):
Their findings were, and I don'tthink this is a surprise, that
in 2024, trust was at an alltime low, in institution
specifically, people got theirnews through social channels
more than official editedpublished channels, so authority
has been diminished, and trustin institutions is just rock
bottom.
But they also had a recipe forinstitutions for starting to
(19:49):
remedy that and approaching it.
They said, the number onestarting point is learning to
listen to people, and thenlearning to respond effectively
to what they're actuallythinking, feeling, saying.
And that aligns with what youwere just talking about, and I
love the example of Kansas City.
We live in this digital agewhere we're supposed to have
magic technology for everything.
A piece of paper in the mail isabout as old school as it gets.
(20:11):
But it, you know, a 30 returnrate, you know, I'd be curious,
for you, like you're in DC atthis point, but you're a Kansas,
Would I say Kansas City-ian?
Kate Burns (20:20):
Yes.
Paul Bellows (20:21):
Okay, great.
I got it right.
First guess.
Okay, Good.
Good.
What do you see as outcomes in acommunity?
What is the social capital oftrust?
What has that allowed KansasCity to do, that maybe as a,
now, a resident of DC orwherever you live, municipally
there close to DC that you mayor may not be seeing in that
community.
I'm just curious what you canactually see as a measurable
outcome when trust is builtthrough good communication.
Kate Burns (20:44):
The best I use this example all the time from years
of that resident satisfactionsurvey consistently, every year
residents told us I amdissatisfied.
With roads and infrastructure,I'm dissatisfied.
And so the city did a great job.
There were some reallyinnovative leaders to do this.
The mayor, the city manager,folks that ran our city program,
(21:07):
that said, you have told us youdon't like this.
You're not satisfied.
We wanna pass a bond to get younew infrastructure.
And it overwhelmingly passedbecause we showed the residents
you are telling us this, a wayfor us to fix this is this path
and it overwhelmingly passed.
There's two other examples, Ihave.
One, is as we were reallystarting to figure out what we
(21:27):
wanted to do with ordinancesaround Airbnb, VRBO and the
like, I was able to see a lot ofthe 3 1 1 complaints related to
it.
As a policy wonk, I was lookingfor things like increase in
crime, or impact on marketvalue, things like that.
And overwhelmingly the responsethat we got was my neighbors and
(21:49):
Airbnb hosts, and I just don'tlike it.
And to me, it was really hardfor me to quantify that data
point.
And it taught me such a lessonthat that is a value statement
in and of itself.
It's not, you know what I mean?
It was different than what I wasanticipating.
and at the heart of zoning andall that.
And so it really made me thinkabout how to take in trust and
(22:14):
feedback.
The other, and last example I'llsay is, a common thorn in the
side of conversation for localgovernments is bike lanes and
putting a bike lane removingparking, and small businesses
rightfully wondering, what isthe economic impact going to be
to me.
And I think it's a muscle thatwe need to continue to build
(22:34):
efficiently.
And together is, I think it's onlocal governments to tell the
story, to build that trust.
So there is a great project.
MasterCard did some economicreporting.
In New York city on an areawhere they closed the street
completely to be bike andpedestrian only.
And from their research, theycould see that it was an
increase in a few milliondollars to the businesses that
(22:57):
were there, they saw increase ineconomic growth because of the
closure.
They could specifically nail itdown to that.
And I think that's just like howKansas City said, you're telling
us we don't like this passageIrvine.
That's the same thing of smallbusinesses.
You're against these bike lanes,but look at this.
you actually we've got data toshow you that it can increase
(23:17):
your business.
And so I think, there needs tobe some openness to residents
who saying, I just don't likeit.
I think that there needs to besome data behind, we understand
this might be a hard change, butwe really have the facts to
show.
this will actually have betteroutcomes.
And I think that's where trustand listening can really start
(23:38):
to build.
Which brings this full circle ofdata classification, which is we
need to bring our open data.
We need to have proof points.
We need to be able to back upthe arguments.
The bike lanes thing happens inevery city that I know.
I don't know a city that isn'thaving this argument right now.
As you look at alternate formsof transportation and, economic
disparity and people's differingneeds and different points in
life, students versus seniorsversus working parents.
(24:00):
We all have different needs fortransportation and bikes are an
essential part of that network.
I love street fight, the book,just talk about the impact in
New York city of Shutting downcar traffic and every measure of
life improved, essentially, whenthey did that, like happiness
improved, economic outputimproved, local business growth
improved, and congestionimproved the quality of traffic
(24:23):
improved because fewer peoplewere driving, when you know,
when you, but without data,without evidence that that's a
hollow argument, and people willfill a void with whatever
information seems most obviousto them.
There's something else youtalked about that I think is
also essential to the concept ofthe town square.
The concept of the institutionneeds to learn to listen to and
respond to people with effectivecommunication, data backed
(24:46):
communication, evidence-basedcommunication.
But you also brought uppeer-to-peer communication.
The town square is a place wherewe meet our peers.
We hash out what we want for ourneighborhood.
We hash out what we want for ourblock.
And I actually, I love the pointabout the Airbnb feedback of, I
don't like it'cause I don't knowthe people that are living next
to me versus I know the peoplethat are living next to me, they
(25:07):
have been there for a while, Ican have a relationship with
these folks versus they'restrangers, they won't be here
tomorrow.
And I think there's somethingreally interesting in that as
well, just as the humancreature, the way we behave and
what we prefer and how we likecommunity, we like neighbors,
we're a social creature.
Where have you seen thatworking, whether it's an analog
(25:28):
process or a digital process?
Communities enabling or findingways for people connect to one
another.
Is that something that lives inyour realm of experience?
I think it really depends.
I think from the peer-to-peernetwork, maybe starting there
from cities.
That took a lot of learning onhow different cities were
(25:51):
staying with that example ofshort-term rentals.
How we were approaching that,because there are arguments on
both sides of that.
For example, if a city issuffering from blight and
there's abandoned homes,arguably Airbnb can be the way,
and VRBO and short-term rentalscan be the path towards
investments into homes andrevitalizing neighborhoods.
So you could counter with, I,you may not like this on this
(26:14):
level, but it will actuallyimprove the long term value in
public placemaking for yourneighborhood in the long run.
Having that sort of venue tohave that conversation is really
important.
I'll tell you where it getsreally complicated and harder is
with things.
The longer it takes for you toexplain something, the harder it
(26:35):
is to have communications on it.
AI is there.
And that's what we've seen withour data governance work.
Paul Bellows (26:40):
Yeah.
Kate Burns (26:40):
In the US The laws around privacy are generally
what the reasonable personexpects.
And it's like my favorite thing.
I wish I had more time to writeit on this.
The law acknowledges that if I'min a phone booth with four walls
and someone hears myconversation, my privacy has
been violated.
But if I'm in a restaurant andan open booth and I'm, and you
and I are talking and someonehears us, it's different.
(27:02):
It's we're in an openenvironment.
The hard part is that I maybe asa citizen or resident that
doesn't use technology.
I don't actually know what myphone can do.
I don't know what thereforeexpect in terms of my privacy
being violated.
And so I think there's a lot oflevel setting that needs to
happen.
(27:23):
And that's takes time.
that takes, a lot of work andvenue findings.
So all to say to talk to eachother.
Both from a, someone apolicymaker to their residence
as well as a policymaker fromone city to another.
All of that is changing and wehosted a round table, a closed
(27:44):
round table on AI.
And I asked everyone, I said,how are you all finding the
latest news on what's going onwith AI?
And 75%, our number one responsewas conferences, in person
convening.
So we're seeing a real influx ofin-person convenings,
newsletters, and audio, likethis very opportunity, really be
(28:08):
a more trusted source of news.
I think that all of those areinteresting.
The convening one is there's abarrier in terms of money and
time to participate in thoseconversations.
it's changing and I thinkthere's some work to do.
Paul Bellows (28:23):
It does come back, to cities, the mile wide and an
inch deep, just doing so muchwith so few resources.
I know from my colleagues inmunicipal government, the idea
of traveling to conferences ischallenging to get travel budget
approved.
It's not always a good look.
I went to a conference.
We flew someone to Miami.
We flew, oh, my, c my, my taxdollars are going to flying.
People around for these junkets.
No.
This is actually professionaldevelopment for the people who
(28:46):
run our city, which isessential, but it's a hard thing
for a citizen to hear,especially when, as you say,
that there's a pothole.
There's a, that traffic lighthasn't been fixed.
Why are we spending money onairfare and conferences, but
it's so essential to develop thepublic service, and to have
professionalism in the publicservice.
But that's a hard message todeliver to folks.
It'd be, with the change in thedigital town square, just the
(29:09):
fact that we do, we had a placewhere it felt like everyone was
gonna go, where we could havethese open conversations where
we could curate a network.
It's less true now.
There are multiple places.
It's harder to find yourcommunity, but maybe that drives
us back to in-person.
Maybe that drives us back tomore analog.
Maybe that drives us back todigital versions of analog
(29:29):
activity.
Maybe that's where we go next.
More grassroots organizing, morepeople talking to people.
Kate Burns (29:35):
Right.
Paul Bellows (29:36):
That, that could the outcome here, which isn't
the worst outcome.
Kate Burns (29:38):
It's not, I think they, I think we will find a
way.
I think we're I think not to getpolitical, but I think either
side of the fence, like theelection in the US in November,
2024 made a lot of people say,huh, how are people getting
their news?
How are people talking to eachother and I think there will be
some sort of concrete changes tocome from that of how people are
(30:02):
talking to their residents andwhat you were saying earlier,
Paul, where trust is withgovernment generally, the mayor
of Oakland got recalled, thislast election.
and so we're seeing, at thelocal level as well as in this
post Covid era, we're learningall together how we're talking
to each other and even how we'reworking together.
(30:24):
What is return to work?
looking like?
How are we actually our day today economies shaking out like
that is still, the dust is stillsettling.
I think that after the electionthen is, more or less expedited,
been a catalyst to figuring thatout.
That was really some sort ofresults I think often about what
(30:45):
if the election had gone indifferent ways, on, on every
level.
Would we have had this bigquestion mark of how are these
conversations, communications,doing?
I dunno.
And that just goes to of howpowerful elections really are
and what they teach us.
Paul Bellows (31:01):
I have to declare recency bias be because I just
last night finished MalcolmGladwell's Revenge of the
Tipping Point.
He talks about 25 to 30 percentbeing the critical mass number.
If you can bring 25 to 30percent of people to a belief or
an idea, that shifts the Overtonwindow.
That that is where the cascadestarts, the avalanche of belief
or ideation starts.
(31:22):
And it is interesting that welive in an era where we have
these social platforms thatappear to be neutral at one
point, not suggesting that theyhave been weaponized, but to say
they can be weaponized, and theycan be used for very specific
purposes to bring a set of ideasforward to, and again, you hear
an idea enough and it becomesvalid through repetition.
(31:46):
That, that's just how we are asa species.
this is just a known human biasof, if I hear it enough, I start
to give it validity at the veryleast.
And we can make ideas real.
So ideas get made real andpeople vote based on those
ideas, and then you look at apoor local government saying
what is my toolkit here?
I need to listen.
I need to communicate, a papernewsletter feels, brittle in the
(32:10):
face of global, multi-billiondollar social networks and the
algorithm and the amplificationeffect, but boy it's the tools
we have.
I'm curious, do you see folks,finding a middle point?
I'm a technologist at heart.
I'm a nerd.
I don't believe technologycontains the answer to anything.
It's just, by definition, youstill need to bring your why to
(32:31):
it.
Do you see anyone who's findingnew ways forward, taking maybe
the Kansas city model of just areally effective newsletter with
a 30 response rate and finding adigital corollary to that type
of an action is anyone winningin that space, in your network?
Kate Burns (32:46):
That's a good question.
First let me say I readsomething the other day and I
hope to find it, to, to creditit, that says, overwhelmingly,
local ballot initiatives aresuccessful.
So like the G.O.
Bond, like things to fundschools, and I find that really
interesting.
Like people believe in theircommunities and they understand
(33:08):
money is being taken out forthis to go into this, my
community, and I think wherethings have gotten really
interesting is that nationalstory when things go up to
different levels of governmentwe also saw a lot of split
tickets in the US of where,there was a divide between the
presidential outcome and thestate or congressional outcomes
of a certain locale.
(33:30):
So I think I think there's ashift in understanding there.
In terms of, who's really doinga great job of talking to their
residents, I think everyone, Idon't know if anyone would tout
us.
like I've done it, I've reachedthe mission.
I've reached the best way to doit.
I think everyone is reallytrying to find it.
(33:51):
and It really depends how youdefine success In terms of those
outcomes.
I'll give you an example, InSeatle, we had our surveillance
ordinance.
We were the first city to pass asurveillance ordinance on the
local level.
And what it did, it requiredcity council to pass approval of
procuring legislation thatqualified as surveilling someone
(34:12):
And so that was a highthreshold, a high barrier to do
and it required certain.
and It was rep, it was alsoretroactive on technologies.
We had already procured thatqualified as surveillance, of
which we had 29.
So we had in legislationspecific community engagement
requirements, includingin-person requirements, and we
held those across the city.
(34:33):
The large majority of thetechnologies that qualified as
surveillance were used bypolice, and a lot of our experts
that came to speak on thetechnologies were uniformed
police, and the dynamic thatimmediately created was stifling
in the room and people had ahard time talking about it.
(34:55):
In one viewpoint you could say,look at Seattle.
They are actively creatingopportunities for the police to
talk to their community aboutthe technologies they're using.
But what really happened is wedid not have that many people
show up.
And the conversation wasprobably a little, not little,
but edited especially based onyour relationship or perception
of how the police are doing inyour city.
(35:16):
We continue to try and talk tocities across the country and
across North America to say whois really doing this?
Who feels like you're gettingsome response from your
residents, but I think it is,truly, a moving target.
Paul Bellows (35:28):
Which doesn't surprise me.
I would love to say that in mynetwork, I'm seeing, people who
have just thrived in this space,but it is just absolutely
greenfield right now of how dowe do this in the digital space?
I feel like cities have gone,they're still in web 1.0 in
terms of the metaphor of how thetechnology works.
And I'm not a deep believer in1, 2, 3, all of this like just
the metaphor, we have this oneway published, but how do we
(35:50):
listen to people digitally?
That does feel like a bit of a,an emerging frontier of how can
we gather information?
Maybe we find opportunities inAI.
Not to say we hand overownership of listening, but to
say just synthesizing, feedback,like looking for patterns, kind
of like analysis tools.
We have generative AI, which arethe latest flavor, but just
simply just machine learning,neural networks, the ability to
(36:11):
analyze large volumes of data.
Maybe there's hope there for ustoo and some opportunity as
well.
MetroLab is a network forlistening.
It is a network forcommunication.
It's a network for people tohear each other.
You're doing this thing thatwe're talking about here that
we've said needs to happen.
And so I'm really grateful forthe work that MetroLab does.
Like I said, I'm already acustomer of your work.
(36:31):
I'm already gonna be borrowingand amplifying and citing and
referencing, and pointing backand encourage to people to join.
But really grateful for sometime with you today.
Just as we're wrapping up here,what makes you hopeful right now
in in terms of what you'reseeing?
What are you energized byheading into 2025 here?
There are some dark clouds interms of trust in public
institutions.
Where are you seeing rays ofsunshine?
Kate Burns (36:52):
I love this question.
What am I hopeful for?
I think that the last 10 yearsof civic innovation and all that
it has meant including some ofthe cities doing their first
chief innovation officer tothinking about digital equity
plans.
(37:13):
I think it is better positionedus for this moment.
I think that we are in a moment,we are in a moment of technology
disruption.
I think AI is like we're back inthe 1990s where someone just
created the internet.
I really do.
Like it's gonna disrupteducation, how we get jobs.
How we perform our jobs, all ofthese things.
And so it is a 10 yeardisruption and I'm hopeful that
(37:37):
local governments are empoweredand have really amazing people
within them to move thismovement forward, especially as,
I think the political future inthe US is on a week by week
basis up to see what is to comeand to see what changes will be
(37:58):
made.
But one thing is guaranteed isthat there will be change.
There will be change.
The thing that I would counterto that is that there's a lot of
hope and belief in cities thatare being our laboratories of
change and that.
Secretary Buttigieg has said,now more than ever, we need to
look at safe cities.
I believe that a hundredpercent.
And that is to say that is thelevel of government in the US
(38:20):
that gets the lowest, amount ofresources, as you said, right?
It's the low, the smallestbudgets, the smallest amount of
staff.
And so I think it's a call toeveryone inside city halls, if
not to universities.
To figure out how to supportthese service providers, these
policy wants, who wanna do good,how do we all do it together to
(38:43):
help empower these serviceproviders who have taken the
last 10 years to really thinkabout innovation and government
and think about these disruptivemoments so that we can really
figure this out together.
And I have been so fortunate tomeet this network of innovators
and I am hopeful because ofthem.
Paul Bellows (39:05):
I am hopeful because of you, Kate Burns.
Thank you so much for joiningus.
Kate Burns (39:08):
You're welcome.
Thank you for having me!
Paul Bellows (39:11):
Let's continue to amplify the things that are
important, and it's the irony iswe hear nonstop news about
federal issues Most ofgovernance, most of what affects
people comes from cities, comesfrom local government.
The vast majority of the workhappens at the local level.
And that's what we need to startturn, turning a spotlight on.
So thank you.
Thank you for sharing with ustoday.
Kate Burns (39:32):
Thank you Paul.
Paul Bellows (39:34):
Thanks so much for listening.
Kate and I could likely havetalked for hours about this
topic, but some of the themes wedid get to included: The concept
of a digital town square hasshifted in the last few years.
And cities are struggling todeal with a more fragmented
platform ecosystem.
Two.
The availability of local newsand community oriented news has
changed significantly in thepast decade so information diets
(39:58):
are shifting.
Three.
Trust in local institutions hasbeen eroded.
And community engagement tacticsneed to shift as well.
More analog approaches can bejust as valuable as high tech
approaches.
Four.
Peer to peer communication andcommunity building is winning
the day.
But this can be challenging forinstitutions who may be cut out
(40:20):
of the communication loop.
And five.
This is a time of disruption,which means both danger and
opportunity.
Institutions need to learn tolisten and respond, not just
broadcast.
I hope you enjoy thisconversation with Kate Burns.
Please do subscribe to the 3, 1,1 podcast and follow the mini
(40:41):
conversations we're going to bereleasing throughout the coming
year.
I'd like to thank my colleagueswho work with me on this
podcast.
Kathy Watton is our showproducer and editor.
Frederick Brummer and AhmedKhalil created our theme, music
and intro.
We're going to keep havingconversations like this.
Thanks for tuning in.
If you've got ideas for guests,we should speak to send us an
(41:03):
email to the311@northern.co.
The public service is about allof us.
And when it's done, right,digital can be a key ingredient
for better world.
This has been The 311 Podcast.
And I've been your host, PaulBellows.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.