Editor's note: This week's Insights column is written by former Knoxville council member Carlene Malone.
Citizen participation in government decisions is recognized as a legitimate and beneficial activity.
Since government's policies and actions profoundly affect our lives, it makes sense that citizens want to influence its decisions. The fact that people participate shows remarkable optimism. They believe that they and their government can improve conditions. Can public participation, filled with optimism rooted in good intentions, go wrong? Unfortunately, there are many ways in which it can, and often does.
Citizens and Politics: A View from Main Street America, a 1991 nationwide study published by the Kettering Foundation, found that many people feel that hearings and public opinion surveys do not provide the opportunity to learn about issues or to voice their concerns. Many feel these methods are no more than "window dressing." Americans agree that they need to be better informed. But the problem isn't that they need more information. They need different information than is offered currently. Interestingly, "Citizens don't expect public officials to blindly do what they want. But they do want to know their concerns are understood, represented and weighed in the decision making process." And they want officials to explain their decisions.
Very little has changed since the 1991 Kettering study. Locally, many citizens express frustration and anger when describing attempts to have their voices heard, concluding with statements reminiscent of the immortal words of Emo Phillips, "Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps."
Around the same time the Kettering study was published, the International Association for Public Participation, (IAP2), was formed. Its "Public Participation Spectrum," printed below, offers some insight into the issue. The association's web site, www.iap2.org, is informative and worth visiting.
The spectrum uses "level F public impact" as the variable that defines the five participation models. One level of public impact is not superior to another. Deciding which model to use depends on the specific circumstances. In my opinion, the "Consult" or "Involve" models are the most appropriate under most circumstances.
The spectrum shows how goals, expectations, and tools differ, depending on the level of public impact. Therefore, they are specific to each model. Knoxville does have solid examples of such a clear-thinking participatory process. When public participation is legally required and a formal process is adopted, as is the case with the Metropolitan Planning Commission, it seems to work well.
However, when government deals with specific issues on an ad hoc basis, such as solid waste or downtown redevelopment, the process falls apart. This is not to say that in order to be successful, participation efforts must be mandated or controlled by law. But, it seems to me that it is essential that a participatory model be carefully selected and thoroughly understood at the outset of every public process. And, once started, the process must adhere to the adopted model. Doing otherwise will frustrate the participants, yield questionable products, and remove accountability.
In any process, the question or problem must be clearly stated. Objective information and professional opinions relevant to the question must be available to the participants. It is the job of government and the media to assemble and disseminate information and it is the job of the public to attend to the information and, when possible, provide more. Expectations must be clear as to the role of the citizens and the government. There can be no confusion about who will make the final decision and when a decision is expected. And the final decision must include explanation.
Unfortunately, the process is often confused. Roles and expectations are unclear. Citizens arrive prepared to deal with a complex public issue only to be engaged in discussions without the benefit of objective information or professional advice. Citizens give their heart-felt opinions and receive great thanks for their trouble. The session more closely resembles an after-dinner parlor game than civic activity, and it actually thwarts the public good it was so determined to serve. What will be done with the citizens' comments is unclear. Occasionally the entire issue quietly disappears.
A confused process enables government to shed its burden of accountability. Frequently, the real decision-makers are elusive, shielded by a screen of several decision-making agencies, each charged with some narrow, to the point of meaningless, segment of the decision. Each is either unwilling or unable to address the issue in its totality or to address the citizens' concerns. Since no official or agency has, or admits to having meaningful responsibility, no official agency is held accountable.
As problems arise, public officials contend that they simply did what the people wanted and that everyone supported it, citing, of course, the public-input process. Forget the fact that the public was not, and rarely is, the final decision-maker. And forget, too, that they were not given adequate information when they did their "supporting."
Clarity and accountability are needed in any public process. Perhaps the present lack of both speaks to our inexperience with government-tolerated participation. But something is wrong when merely holding public meetings is sufficient to legitimize any work product, regardless of its quality.
Problem solving has been replaced by participation for the sake of participation. We have forgotten that the product is important. It is time for change, and the IAP2 Spectrum offers some ideas. Our future should not be determined by a parlor game.
October 24, 2002 * Vol. 12, No. 43
© 2002 Metro Pulse
| 
