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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>Public Comment Rules</b><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>Clarifying and Regularizing Public Comment Rules</b><br>
This issue arose recently in Jacksonville, according to <a href="http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=542224" target="”_blank”">an
article in the <i>Daily Record</i></a>. 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>Doubts About Citizen Participation</b><br>
<a href="http://www.publicceo.com/2014/02/why-the-goals-of-citizen-engagement-ar…; target="”_blank”">Yesterday,
publicceo.com ran a column</a> by municipal consultant <a href="http://otiswhite.com/" target="”_blank”">Otis White</a> entitled "Why the
Goals of Citizen Involvement Are Not What You Think." It's a very
thought-provoking column.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
What he says next is where the thoughts start getting provoked:<blockquote>
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.</blockquote>
The second part of his explanation goes back to the minds of
officials, and is the best formulation I've seen of this problem:<blockquote>
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 <em>they</em> 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.”</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>The Goals of Citizen Participation</b><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
The solution, therefore, is to start earlier, <em>before</em> 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.<br>
<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Check out <a href="http://otiswhite.com/?p=273" target="”_blank”">a follow-up blog
post on how to implement</a> White's eye-opening approach to
citizen involvement.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---