The dark arts of effective public testimony

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Persuasion (noun) – the action or fact of persuading someone or of being persuaded to do or believe something.

by Ted M. Coopman 

Providing feedback to elected officials is the best way to influence decisions and policies that directly affect our community. Because few people take advantage of the opportunity, your testimony can have a disproportionate impact if you communicate your concerns and desires in a compelling way. 

However, that “disproportionate impact” can cut both ways depending on what you say and how you say it. Reviewing the transcripts of public testimony given before the Eugene City Council and other boards and commissions published in Whole Community News can offer insights and lessons for what works and what doesn’t when making your voice heard.

Elected officials are people, who knew?

Unfortunately, having a thick skin is a prerequisite for any sort of public service. This even extends down to rather innocuous roles like neighborhood association boards. Some people think it is okay to heap invective and insults on those who have made the serious commitment for public service. 

Community leaders may excel at having a “poker face” as their constituents hurt insults and project evil intentions on them, but they are the same as everyone else in how they internally react. Obviously, insulting someone is not a great way to gain compliance. Humans are contrary beasts. Ask someone to do something and they may do it. Tell them to do it and perhaps not. Threaten them—forget it! 

“I mean, like, can you just put up the banner of just saying you don’t care about human beings if you’re going to allow this kind of stuff? It’s absolutely disgusting.” -Testimony before Eugene City Council (names omitted to avoid making it personal or calling people out)

Learn to expect the expected

Back in the day, I worked with anarchists in Santa Cruz, California as some tried to get the city council to do/not do certain things. Often this involved accosting the mildly liberal councilors with invectives. As some expressed their frustration I told them; “What did you expect? Once you call someone a Nazi, they tend to stop listening.”

Moreover, insults often push people more firmly to counter whatever your position is, even if they are inclined to support it. 

In my work as an activist in coalitions, I could almost word-for-word repeat an idea that someone had denounced when presented by someone they disliked—and get it embraced! In this way, advocates, even the most intelligent and well-meaning, can be their own worst enemies. 

Performance art

In protest and politics, some people are more interested in performance than policy. They need to publicly show everyone their identity, ideology, and moral superiority, or perform their outrage through invective and character assassination. They become antagonists instead of advocates. 

The audience is not their target, and their goal is not to change policy or others’ behaviors. Instead, it is to perform for their fellow zealots. They seek to dominate others through fear or simply flooding the zone with so much s—- that anyone not on their team simply gives up and leaves. 

The “cruelty as the point” charge leveled at the MAGA right is mirrored by cancellation puritans on the left. While at its onset speaking out is about getting the desired outcomes, the focus changes to cathartic venting that poisons the well of the public forum.

The enemy of my enemy can also be my enemy

I have issues with more than a few of our local elected officials. At times I question their integrity, intelligence, motivations, competency, and respect for the public and democratic process. What I do not question is their firm belief that they are doing the right thing. 

I ran for City Council, but I don’t envy my victorious opponent sitting on the dais and getting yelled at for several hours every week or getting vicious emails and phone calls. I recently met someone who had served on a local school board and resigned when she started to get death threats against her and her kids. 

While you might oppose someone on policy grounds, that does not justify threats or abuse. Such people may succeed in driving out those they dislike, but they also drive away from public service those who may bring passion and dedication to the position. 

My experience running for council was made horrible by those who felt it was okay to attack me personally in the most vicious ways. They succeeded in ensuring I would never subject myself to that again but also made it challenging to get other qualified citizens to step up and serve. This makes life worse and government dysfunctional, which hurts everyone. Moreover, the voting public gets turned off and fails to show up. No one likes swimming in the sewer.

So, what, so what, so whatcha want?—Beastie Boys

Protest is easy, policy is hard

Like them, hate them, but the people who sit in power are, well, in power. If your goal is to influence them to get them to do or not do something, you must make a persuasive case. 

That brings us back to public testimony and persuasive strategies. I am not speaking to the zealots and gaslighting trolls who pollute our public forums, but to the majority who desire to influence public policy. As an academic and activist policy wonk, I am looking at the “how we get there” as much as what we want to happen. 

How does your garden grow?

There are broadly three types of people who provide public comment: perennials, annuals, and weeds. 

• Perennials, sometimes known as public intellectuals, are testimony “frequent flyers” and opine on a wide variety of topics.
• Annuals are big on commenting in certain areas, either broadly (i.e., environmental issues) or narrowly (i.e., bike lanes).
• Weeds, not normally engaged or active, pop up when something either directedly impacts them or a particular issue happens to spark their interest (or ire). 

Perhaps the most effective show of public interest is when a large number of weeds show up on an issue. (I don’t mean weeds in a pejorative sense, just as in sudden, unintended, or unexpected.)

Written and oral public testimony serves a variety of functions in driving policy, including: 

• Informational: Public testimony is way to get information and perspectives to policymakers who may not be getting it from other sources, such as staff, city management, or influential people with access.
• Political cover: Public input can validate policymakers in making certain choices. Everything you do as a policymaker will impact some constituencies negatively or positively. Resources are limited and there are always trade-offs no matter what choice you make. 
• Numbers: Staff regularly provide a count of those who support or oppose policies or initiatives. Well-supported policies tend to get enacted and broad opposition can kill others. A lot of feedback is a good barometer of public sentiment. An important caveat is that diversity matters. Having the same 20 people showing up every week all saying the same thing has diminishing returns. At some point the lack of diversity can start to undercut the message.  
• Relationship building: Regular, high-quality, sane testimony lets policymakers get to know you. You can build up a reputation and gain political and social capital. Key to this is showing support for good decisions, acknowledging when you have been wrong, lauding quality work by staff, and bringing a bit of empathy as well as good humor.

The habits of highly effective speakers

There are some basic strategies that reduce stress while effectively getting across your thoughts to City Council or any board or commission.

Persuading your audience. Successful public testimony is concise, focused, and has a specific concrete request for action. While you can be critical, avoid name calling, invectives, and personal attacks, especially toward city staff, managers, and city councilors. Councilors can be protective of staff who they interact with every day. Remember, you need their cooperation to get results, and no one likes being called names. Remain polite even if you are angry. The goal should be persuasion not simply venting.

Organize your comments.  State your name, basic information that adds credibility to your opinion (e.g., credentials, proximity to the issue or problem, experiences), and the topic you are addressing. A good approach is to start with a salutation and some sort of positive comment, such as thanking council members for the opportunity to speak. If you have never testified before, say so, and why you decided to speak out. Always have a specific “ask,” or the action(s) you wish them to take. Don’t make listeners guess or leave the solution up to policymakers. Qualify yourself – do your homework and be informed about the topic. Do not ask for something that is illegal, outside their authority, or functionally impossible. Otherwise, they will simply stop listening. Open and close with your “ask.” End with a thank you.

Timing your testimony.  Spoken public testimony is limited to three minutes but often will be reduced to two minutes if many people are waiting to speak. Prepare a two-minute and a three-minute version of your comments.

• Print out your testimony in an easy-to-read large font. Paper is more reliable than your phone.
• DO NOT rely on impromptu or “off the cuff” speaking. Few have that skill and you are likely to sound like a rambling mess.
• Rehearse by reading aloud in front of a mirror. 
• Sign up the day of the meeting to speak, whether in-person or online.
• Consider emailing your comments as well.
• Plan on being there for a couple of hours, depending on the number of people speaking.

Get used to disappointment (Or: I have lost so often you think I would be better at it).  Being an advocate is like playing poker. If you can win 10% of the time, you are doing great.  In 30-plus years, I have had a lot of losses, some minor wins, and a few epic victories. You rarely will get everything you want.  Even a partial win is still a win.  Policy is a game of inches and details. Getting even a minor adjustment can bring huge dividends or at least blunt some impacts of a catastrophe. 

Don’t get discouraged. Public officials respect persistence and consistency. In reality, all voices do not matter, but your voice can matter if you care enough to learn how the system works and how to operate successfully within it.

---

Western Exposure is a semi-regular column that looks at issues and challenges from a West Eugene perspective – a perspective that is often ignored or trivialized by city leadership and influential groups and individuals largely based in south and east Eugene. 

Western Exposure rejects the fauxgressive party line, performative politics, and unicorn ranching policy in favor of pragmatism focused on the daily experiences of residents and small businesses in Eugene—and West Eugene in particular.

Ted M. Coopman has been involved in neighborhood issues since 2016 as an elected board member and chair of Jefferson Westside Neighbors and has 30+ years experience as an activist and community organizer. In a 2025 national competition, JWN’s neighborhood e-newsletter was awarded first place and its print newsletter awarded third place.

He earned a Ph.D. in Communication (University of Washington) and served on the faculty at San Jose State University from 2007 to 2020. Ted’s research on social movements, activist use of technology, media law and policy, and online pedagogy has been published and presented internationally and he taught classes ranging from research methodology to global media systems.

He and his spouse live in Jefferson Westside with an energetic coltriever and some very demanding and prolific fruit trees.

---

Ted M. Coopman’s Dictionary offers the following definition of Unicorn ranching: 1. Expending massive amounts of effort on ideas that will never happen because they are functionally impossible, impractical, or illegal. 2. Belying a complete and at times willful ignorance of the constraints of economic, social, or political policy that undercuts the rancher’s legitimacy in the eyes of decision-makers. 3. Demonstrating a willingness to obstruct meaningful progress on issues over minor emotional or ideological reasons or unrealistic expectations. See also: “Yeah and I want a pony for Christmas and that’s not going to happen either.”