by Rob White
In late December, the Vanguard posted an article about crowdsourcing public participation for discussions on an Innovation Park (Can Davis Use “Crowdsourcing” to Help Develop Innovation Park? – December 31). One of the points of the article was that public participation methods need to modernize and use today’s technologies, and it pointed out that “getting everyone into a room might be problematic, but engaging discussions on Facebook, Twitter, and sites like the Vanguard might be a better way to go”.
As some of the comments on the article noted, there are many obstacles to implementing new technologies in the world of public participation. And as an interesting reaffirmation of that point, I read a recent article on Governing.com entitled “The Failure and the Promise of Public Participation – Outdated laws and overly formal procedures for public meetings are eroding trust in government. There are better ways than three minutes at the microphone,” by Mark Funkhouser and posted January 6, 2014. http://www.governing.com/gov-institute/funkhouser/col-failure-promise-public-participation-government.html
Funkhouser’s article is based on a recent study entitled Making Public Participation Legal (http://www.allamericacityaward.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Making-Public-Participation-Legal_Layout-1-8.pdf) and cites a Knight Foundation report (http://www.soulofthecommunity.org/) that “found that attending a public meeting was more likely to reduce a person’s sense of efficacy and attachment to the community than to increase it.” He goes on to say that the “sad fact is no surprise to the government officials who have to run — and endure — public meetings.”
He further comments that “every public official who has served for any length of time has horror stories about these forums. The usual suspects show up — the self-appointed activists (who sometimes seem to be just a little nuts) and the lobbyists. Regular folks have made the calculation that only in extreme circumstance, when they are really scared or angry, is attending a public hearing worth their time. And who can blame them when it seems clear that the game is rigged, the decisions already have been made, and they’ll probably have to sit through hours of blather before they get their three minutes at the microphone?”
Though his comments can be seen as somewhat tongue-in-cheek, Funkhouser’s point rings true that it can be challenging to sit through public meetings to then have a very short three minutes to make your point. And some of the pending decisions and deliberation, like long-term fiscal sustainability or new development, can have significant outcomes on the community. So three minutes can sometimes seem to be infinitely small amounts of time to truly have a dialogue.
He then laments, “so much transparency and yet so little trust. Despite the fact that governments are pumping out more and more information to citizens, trust in government has edged lower and lower, pushed in part no doubt by the lingering economic hardships and government cutbacks resulting from the recession. Most public officials I talk to now take it as an article of faith that the public generally disrespects them and the governments they work for.”
Funkhouser then arrives at a similar conclusion as the Vanguard when he states, “clearly the relationship between citizens and their governments needs to be reframed. Fortunately, over the last couple of decades lots of techniques have been developed by advocates of deliberative democracy and citizen participation that provide both more meaningful engagement and better community outcomes. There are decision-making forums, “visioning” forums and facilitated group meetings, most of which feature some combination of large-group, small-group and online interactions.”
And he also comes to a similar conclusion as some of the commenters by noting “here’s the rub: Our legal framework doesn’t support these new methods of public participation. This fact is made clear in Making Public Participation Legal, which was compiled by a working group that included people from the National Civic League, the American Bar Association, the International City/County Management Association and a number of leading practitioners of public participation.”
“The requirements for public meetings in local governments are generally built into state statutes such as sunshine or open-meetings laws or other laws governing administrative procedures. These laws may require public hearings in certain circumstances and mandate that advance notice, along with an agenda, be posted for any meeting of an ‘official body’ — from the state legislature to a subcommittee of the city council or an advisory board of some kind. And a ‘meeting’ is one in which a quorum attends. So if three of a city council’s nine members sit on the finance committee and two of the committee members happen to show up at a public meeting, they may risk having violated the open-meetings law.”
And this is particularly true in California with the very rigorous rules laid out by the commonly referred to Brown Act and open meeting laws.
So what’s the solution? Ironically, Funkhouser arrives at the solution Davis put in to place years ago with citizen advisory boards. BUT, they are not the same structure as our current advisory bodies. He makes the clear point that “it is with these citizen advisory boards that” there is the “best chance for beginning to reframe the relationship between citizens and their governments.” But “these boards have become increasingly reactive and more formalized, often following Robert’s Rules of Order and using public-hearing procedures that” just “replicate the limitations and disadvantages of city councils.”
Funkhouser states, “that’s a big problem. The whole purpose of these citizen advisory boards is to provide an entry point for citizens into government decisions, gathering information and providing a forum for citizen advice and opinion to be communicated to the governing body. With a little tweaking… they could be ‘ideal forums for deliberative democracy practices that can better mirror the organic processes of citizen-driven collective action.’”
He ends by saying, “in my experience, citizens are not apathetic but they are rational. Give them an opportunity for meaningful engagement with others in their community about issues that directly affect them and their neighbors instead of three minutes at the microphone, and they’ll show up. And the legitimacy and sustainability of government will be strengthened.”
And I am confident that this is true for Davis. We can innovate and evolve our community engagement processes that will lead us to renew our leadership position in the area of public participation. These are exciting times and we have some opportunities that will need input from across the spectrum of the community. And I am committed to help figure out ways we can apply technology to increase the dialogue and provide our decision-makers with more meaningful input.
Happy New Year and I look forward to hearing you thoughts here on the Vanguard or email to me at rwhite@cityofdavis.org.
“Give them an opportunity for meaningful engagement with others in their community about issues that directly affect them and their neighbors instead of three minutes at the microphone, and they’ll show up.”
IMO, the public is not always informed enough about about the fact that citizen advisory boards exist, much less the issues these boards are addressing. I believe social media can play a significant roll in correcting this.
Enjoyed this piece, thanks for writing it.
Thanks for the article Rob.
This touches peripherally on another limit to effective communication. At a recent Vanguard editorial board meeting discussion of improvements to the current web site were significantly slowed by the inability to download images quickly. This raised the related issue of the lack of universally available wi fi in the city. In the last few years we have seen a virtual explosion of availability to communicate with one another instantaneously.
In Kaiser, we are using this ability to virtually meet with large groups within a region, or with smaller working groups across Northern California allowing us to fully communicate without leaving our offices thus saving huge amounts of travel time and allowing us greater availability to our patients.
The city seems to be lagging in creative uses of our current ability to communicate in real time. Some examples of technology used to increase citizen participation would be :
1) Continue ” 3 minute communication” at the mike for those who prefer the direct person to person communication
2) Broaden this form of interaction by allowing citizens to participate from home with streamed comments which could be shared electronically in real time on the televised city council meetings.
3) Create a comment board so that people at home could post comments in real time in reaction to staff presentation and/or city council deliberations on items for later consideration when an immediate vote is not being taken.
4) Create a city sponsored site specifically designed for posting of comments on specific issues perhaps similar in format to a “letters to the editor” page which has the disadvantage of time lapse between point and counterpoint or a Vanguard bulletin board type format so that citizens could interact directly with each other as new ideas are put forward.
These are just a few ideas of the top of my head. I am sure that those who are more tech savvy than I ( almost everyone) would have more and better ideas about how the city could use relatively simple and currently available technologies to facilitate more citizen involvement.
“the lack of universally available wi fi in the city.”
We have universal wi fi in the city. Virtually every cell phone is a wi fi hot spot.
My cell isn’t. Is there a charge associated with making it one?
Yes, I understand that. However, that is not particularly useful when trying to decide on format for the new site. I realize that this is a “first world problem” but it did slow down our deliberations considerably.
Thanks Rob – I agree that our citizen advisory boards (commissions, task forces and committees) are the natural venues for greater citizen engagement and do struggle with how to structure them to invite more of that engagement. These bodies usually have, as part of their mandate, to make formal decisions and thus some form of “Robert’s Rules” is necessary to assure full understanding of the recommendations going forward. So, I don’t see a way of fully moving away from the formalized process.
On the other hand, I think we could restructure meetings to create a process for more engagement as ideas are developed and evolve–as input into decision making. But this has to be structured by design, with clear objectives, key open questions and a format for input clearly laid out.
Soliciting meaningful input (as I said in the column on “crowdsourcing) requires careful preparation and facilitation. My experience in working with adult learners suggests to me that people DO want their voices heard and want to bring their experiences and ideas to the table and can do it best when they are clear what the parameters–the objectives and expected outcomes–of that process are. In other words when the conversation is “bounded”. There is a time for “brainstorming” but meaningful engagement helps participants move beyond merely tossing out ideas to developing more formalized products such as “key points to consider”, recommendations, agreements/disagreements, key questions, etc. Moving such activities into the virtual realm requires attention to structure no less than in face to face meetings.
I appreciate the focus on increasing citizen engagement in these articles and hope we will continue the dialogue. Thanks Rob.
Suggestion: I would love to see an article in this series on some “promising practices” being tried/used by other cities around the US. These practices could include virtual as well as face to face approaches.
The problem with citizens advisory groups is that for the most part other than perhaps Planning and the WAC, they are sparsely attended. So I’m not sure this gets us where we need to go.
Limited attendance may be due to the fact that people in general are unaware that they are happening. If the city did a better job of promoting them, through social media and news outlets this could change. I also think these commission should be actively engaging more with the public regrinding the issues they are addressing, through similar outlets.
I think a better effort could be made to make people feel more welcome at these meetings when they do attend, they should be treated as a participant rather then an observer, and I’m not sure this is always the case. (I have a similar gripe about PTA meetings, where the PTA board, and committee heads sit at a table with limited seating, any additional parents that attend often get stuck on periphery, needless to say this does not create an air of inclusivity nor does it promote active engagement.
don’t disagree.
DP, even the WAC was (for the most part) sparsely attended. However, because the WAC was streamed, and could be replayed on the City website, the actual attendance in the room was probably quite small when compared to the electronic audience.
With that said, citizen observation at the time of the meeting is far less important for me than interactive citizen participation wherever possible. The two workshops conducted by the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) during their process were very interactive, and in a format that provided the members of the HESC with very valuable and somewhat broadly-based input to their process. The Summary Report put together by Bob Wolcott and his team at http://cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Advance-Planning/2008-Housing-GPU/pdfs/20070731/Workshop_1_summary-complete.pdf includes both summary information and pictures of the event. It is interesting to look at the results of the workshop in light of our current community dialogue about land use issues
KEY RESULTS OF COMMUNITY INPUT
RECEIVED AT COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 REGARDING SITES AND EVALUATION FACTORS
TOP TEN FACTORS (based on red dot tally)
1. Overall proximity to community facilities.
2. Acres of prime agricultural soils converted to urban use.
3. Opportunity to provide for identified housing needs.
4. Water supply and distribution issues; Sanitary sewer collection issues.
5. Maintain or “leap over” an Urban Agricultural Transition Area (UATA) designated in the City’s General Plan.
6. Opportunity to promote higher density housing in downtown and in neighborhood centers.
7. Opportunity to contribute to the City’s open space system consisting of connected “greenways.”
8. Bicycle mobility issues.
9. Mobility connections, connecting neighborhoods and bike paths.
10. Fire department services.
SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FACTORS
1. Impacts of new development traffic on existing neighborhoods.
2. Potential to encourage walkability, and access to walkable and bikeable amenities.
3. Best locations for student and university employee housing.
4. Proximity to Amtrak transportation hub.
5. Potential of providing for housing types and styles not now available in Davis.it is interesting
One of the other key challenges we face with our citizens advisory groups (commissions and committees and task forces) is that all too often they operate in subject-specific silos. We need more cross-commission communication and collaboration.
I recently made the suggestion at the joint meeting of the Council and the Open Space and habitat Commission (OSHC) that the commitment that each member of a commission, committee and task force know that when they are appointed that they will not only be responsible for attending the meetings of their commission/committee/task force (typically once a month), but also for attending the meetings of one other commission/committee/task force, acting as the official liaison to that other commission/committee/task force.
For example the seven members of the OSHC would then have official liaisons to the Finance and Budget Commission, the Business and Economic Development Commission (BEDC), the Innovation Park Task Force, the recreation and Park Commission. the Planning Commission, etc. That would mean that broader input and broader engagement would be supported (achieved) both de facto and de jure. Further, when the Goals laid out by Council for the City touch multiple interest areas, the commission/committee/task force most closely aligned with that particular issue/goal wouldn’t be operating in a vacuum, and surprises like the June 11, 2013 Council Meeting wouldn’t happen. Instead of constantly being reactive, we would/could be proactive.
I agree. I think this could provide a useful perspective while policy’s are being shaped by a commission (as opposed to after).
When I applied for an position on the Natural Resource Commission I focused my pitch on increasing public awareness of NRC related topics. Shortly after my appointment I emailed council member some of my ideas to do so. Not all are related to the digital age, and while some are NRC specific other commissions could adopt similar approaches. Here is a outage from the email:
I think it would be useful for the NRC to have an official PR coordinator whose duties would include things like: Communicating with other commissions on the work that the NRC is doing, coordinating and collaborating outreach effort with the city’s Conservation Coordinator, coordinate with groups like CoolDavis, occasionally write educational and informative articles for publication in local news media, monitor local news media and answer questions that arise there or correct misinformation. Be available to the public to answer any questions or concerns they may have regarding policies being addressed buy the NRC, or who may want to offer suggestion for issues that the would like to see addressed.
Better utilize the city’s Facebook Page. For instance, post NRC meeting times, agenda’s, and links to minutes.
Collaborate with whoever coordinates conservation outreach at UCD, and when possible keep our messages consistent. (I think things like having similar signage on waste containers would be useful for instance).
Work with DJUSD and look for ways to educate kids and their parents on conservation efforts. One example, until I read the Integrated Waste Management Plan I did not know that Birch Lane, my kids school, had a composting program. I think it would be great if we could work with schools and encourage them to share information about programs like these on their websites and in their newsletter.
A more specific idea, because Explorit has been on my mind lately. Work with Explorit to develop some exhibits that reflect and reinforce the resource goals of the city.
A side note the Natural Resource Commission has 7 regular members and 1 alternate.
12 people applied for 2 open spots on the commission (1 regular and 1 alternate). I don’t know all of the applicants but I do know that some, who did not receive an appointment had extremely impressive credentials. I’m not sure if there is a reason why the commission number is set at 7, (plus an alternate), but when this much interest is shown in a commission I wonder if it would not be prudent to consider expanding it’s size.
about five or six years ago, the old council limited the size of the council ostensibly to uniformize (if that’s a word), but really to cut down on public input. they then stacked the commissions with their yes people. that’s changed with the new council.
I’m going on the record to say, that while lots of public engagement can at times bog down the process, it’s worth the price of a more engaged citizenry, especially if people come to the table with the solution based idea’s and a collaborative attitude rather then a personal or political agenda that they refuse to waiver or compromise on. Unfortunately I don’t often see this as being the case.
I will say that Robb Davis fits this description which is why I was thrilled when I learned he would be running for a Council seat. Davis for Davis 2014!