The Obstacles to and Goals of Citizen Participation

Although citizen participation is not part of government ethics, it's important to keep reminding ourselves that it is central to government ethics, because it is a principal goal of government ethics programs.

Officials' ethical misconduct undermines citizen trust and participation, but there are also other obstacles that get in the way. One of these is the lack of opportunity to express opinions in public forums at a time when input can make a difference. This post will look at this sort of citizen participation and how to overcome obstacles to it, and then look at a consultant's deeper examination of the issue.

Public Comment Rules
The first time I spoke before a local legislature, I was there only to support neighbors who were concerned about a particular land use issue. The leader of this little group asked early in the meeting when they would be allowed to speak. The council chair said that he would let them know. The matter came up, there was a little discussion about it, and then they put the matter up to a vote. The group was not told it could speak. So I rose and asked why the group had not been asked to speak. The council wasn't happy. It was clear that they had no intention of giving the group a chance to speak, and that they did not care what the group said. Their minds were already made up. When I went up to the "reform" member of the council afterward, he turned his back on me. He refused to even talk about what had happened, especially why he had not intervened to let the group's views be heard.

Public comment rules have to be clear and liberal, or the interest of a body in getting through the agenda as quickly as possible, with as little hassle as possible, will prevent public input. Ambiguity and the "freedom" of each body to decide for itself in each instance usually means less rather than more citizen participation.

Clarifying and Regularizing Public Comment Rules
This issue arose recently in Jacksonville, according to an article in the Daily Record. Last year, Florida passed a law (attached; see below) that gives the public “reasonable opportunity” to be heard at meetings, but leaves the details to individual bodies. The Jacksonville council left it up to each committee chair to determine whether and when the public may speak, even though it had the power to make minimum requirements for public comment. The result, of course, is that most committees do not have a regular public comment period.

Even when there is a public comment period, it generally come before a committee reviews and, often, amends a bill. People have complained to the ethics commission, which is administered by City Ethics' president, Carla Miller. So Miller has asked the state attorney general to determine whether the public has a right to speak after amendments have been made, and for other clarifications of the new law.

Even though this is not strictly within an EC's jurisdiction, because an ethics program is effectively there to help increase citizen participation, it is actually a good area for the EC to get involved when elected officials fail to take a responsible leadership role by providing for as much participation as possible, given the need to get business done.

Doubts About Citizen Participation
Yesterday, publicceo.com ran a column by municipal consultant Otis White entitled "Why the Goals of Citizen Involvement Are Not What You Think." It's a very thought-provoking column.

The column begins with a controversial statement, one that I too have found to be true: "I know local government officials well enough to know some of their secrets. And here’s one: Many don’t really believe in citizen engagement. Or, if they do believe in it, they don’t think it actually works."

What he says next is where the thoughts start getting provoked:

If I had to depend on what passes for citizen engagement in most places — public hearings and public-comment periods at city council meetings — I’d be skeptical, too. These clumsy attempts at citizen engagement are good at producing three things: apathy, antagonism, and cynicism. That is, either no one shows up or every sorehead in town does. And on those occasions when a citizen with a good idea approaches the lectern expecting some sort of reaction from the city council or the staff, what does she get? Stony silence.

The second part of his explanation goes back to the minds of officials, and is the best formulation I've seen of this problem:

But there’s more to the doubts about citizen engagement than bad processes. Some elected officials genuinely don’t think it’s necessary. That’s because they believe they are how citizens engage with their government, through elections. “This is a republic, not a democracy,” I’ve been reminded by local officials over the years. “I didn’t get elected to run back to the voters all the time, asking them what to do.”

I've heard that "republic, not a democracy" line a lot myself, and it's always accompanied by a look that they understand, and I'm an idiot. This disdain for ignorant citizens by people who have more access to information and, they think, more understanding is another of the principal reasons why elected officials think little of citizen participation.

The Goals of Citizen Participation
White thinks that we are wrong about the why of citizen participation. He notes that the common belief is that citizen participation is meant to let elected officials know what people think about a decision they’re about to make.

This is where it gets really interesting. White believes that this kind of public engagement has limited value. "An opinion is only as good as the information, logic, perspective, and values behind it, and for reasons that are obvious, people who are most affected by a decision aren’t always its best judges."

From a government ethics perspective, when citizens are directly affected by a decision, they are conflicted and, therefore, do not act as ordinary citizens, focused on the good of the entire community.

White goes on to argue that opinions should not be the goal of citizen engagement. "The goal should be something deeper: an understanding of the interests and desires of citizens. And you cannot get that from a public hearing or a public-comment period." Why? Because by this point, most of the work has been done, without citizen input, and the people affected or who feel strongly about an issue are "angry or scared and in no mood to discuss deeper concerns."

The solution, therefore, is to start earlier, before plans are drafted, "perhaps even before problems are identified. By doing so, you’ll get a calmer dialogue and a much better sense of interests and desires." And you need to keep citizens involved, at every step.

"Here is the key concept: Citizen engagement is not an event (a town-hall meeting, a public forum, or a “My City 101” class, and certainly not a public hearing or public-comment period); it is a process."

White sees two goals to citizen participation:  understanding (of what is best for the community) and recruitment. By "recruitment," White means the involvement of individuals and groups in solving community problems and seizing opportunities. "That’s because the healthiest communities are those that share responsibility, where everyone does his part and all are held accountable." This involvement isn't about voting in referendums, it is about being involved, doing one's part, not simply leaving it to elected officials and board members. It's a more active (rather than reactive) vision of the citizen's role. Such a role is easier to fulfill if the processes of government are made open to participation, where now they are all but completely closed.

It really comes down to leadership. Without leaders who respect citizen involvement and are willing to put up with the pains that can accompany it (and with the complaints from officials in response to these pains), such a process is impossible. But that leadership does not have to begin with the mayor or the council or the manager. It can come from an ethics commission, as well. An EC may lack the authority to make changes, but it has the ability to make recommendations, to present to the community a vision of a different citizen participation process.

Check out a follow-up blog post on how to implement White's eye-opening approach to citizen involvement.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---