Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
SUBJECTS › GOVERNANCE › Effective Public Participation and Communication
Effective Public Participation and Communication

Effective Public Participation and Communication

MRSC, September 2000

Contents

Introduction

"Process is our most important product."
- Quip from an exercise in developing a mission statement for a large Washington city.

In Washington State's culture of open government, the process of policy-making is every bit as important as the product of that process. Effective policy-making cannot occur without solid public participation. Open communications are essential to making that process work. This section contains a collection of tips acquired through experience while participating in both successful and unsuccessful processes.

Back to Contents

Communications Barriers

Effective communications among individuals with diverse backgrounds and interests can be difficult. The following are some factors that can create barriers to effective communications. They are listed here primarily to assist in heightening awareness of possible barriers to effective communications during the policy-making process.

  • Power Needs. Legislators and interest group representatives need to show that they are doing a good job for their constituents. They have a need to forcefully represent their members and to receive credit for accomplishments. Sharing credit is one of the most important things elected officials can do to win support for their proposals. Big problems occur when the process is structured to produce solutions where one side "wins" and the other side "loses." If at all possible, insure that an influential interest group does not lose on all of its issues. Sometimes it may be necessary to broaden the scope of the overall effort in order to find a "win" for an important interest.

  • "Political Irrationality" Versus "Technical Rigidity." Some technical staff may see political behavior as irrational. Elected officials may see staff as inflexible because they appear to hide behind the technical standards of their professions. It helps to understand the needs of the other parties to carry out an effective dialogue.

  • Different Perspectives. We see problems differently, experience the same event differently, hold different values, use different approaches to solve problems, and have different communication styles. In short, we are diverse. Any of these differences can get in the way of effective communications. Try to understand where other parties are coming from and to see things in their terms. Stephen Covey has written some excellent material on empathic communications in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Habit 5 is "seek first to understand, then to be understood."

  • Part-Time Versus Full-Time. Most city and town elected officials are part-timers who make their living in a non-governmental occupation or profession. Part-time officials have limited time available to spend on issues that staff may be paid to address. Some elected officials have much more time available than others to spend on their mayoral or councilmember roles. Those who have less time to spend on an issue may feel at a disadvantage.

  • Technical Expert Versus Citizens. Some experts may see citizens as lacking the knowledge and skills to participate effectively. This is unfortunate since value choice is at the root of the public policy-making process. Conversely, some citizens may feel that technical experts are suspect, especially if they work for government. They may be seen as part of the established order that wants to protect the status quo. This too is unfortunate since experts who understand their role can assist the identification of "win-win" solutions.

  • Public Apathy and Feelings of Powerlessness. Some officials believe that the majority of citizens are distrustful and apathetic about the functions of government. That may leave them wondering about how representative the participants are. Richard Nixon had his "silent majority," whom he believed supported his policies. On the other hand, there are citizens who feel powerless to influence government; they assume that "officials won't listen" and "you can't fight city hall." The reality of the policy-making process is that those who put in thoughtful time and effort have more influence on the outcome.

  • Formal Proceedings. Rules of order are needed, although formality can get in the way of open communications. Council chambers are formal and often place legislators on a podium above citizens. This does not create an impression that a citizen can really have an influence. Public process can be designed in ways to encourage, not inhibit, participation.

Back to Contents

Guidelines to Improve Public Process

Formal public hearings are part of the vocabulary of public process in America. While it is necessary to conduct public hearings to meet legal requirements, these hearings should by no means be the only opportunity for citizen involvement on important policy issues.

The formal public hearing setting can create a theater atmosphere, especially if the session is videotaped for community broadcast. Legislators and interest group representatives make speeches to the camera for the benefit of those watching at home. Formal hearings often bring out the most extreme positions. Interest group leaders often feel that they need to present a harder position than they might actually be willing to accept. They have to look like strong leaders, and their "opponents" will be making equally strong statements for contrary positions.

At a hearing, there is usually little, if any, room for reasonable discussion, give or take, or response to prior testimony. Usually there is a parade of speakers who come to read their prepared statements. Interest groups often feel that it is necessary to pack the place with supporters of their positions to influence legislators politically.

If this is the only means of public process, there is a high risk that the process will fail. On important public issues, there has to be solid public process before a hearing is scheduled, if there is to be any hope of reaching a solution that has a high level of community support. There are a number of techniques that can be helpful. Newsletters and other mailings can inform the community about issues, options, and the process of decision-making. Surveys can be used to assess community views and opinions about important issues. Community meetings can be structured to maximize opportunities for dialogue on important matters.

There is no one right method or one single set of techniques that guarantee success. A genuine willingness to be open, to listen, and to explore options and issues identified by the community will instill faith in the process. Citizens can sense very quickly whether their participation is really welcome. It is also important to structure and facilitate community meetings in a way that truly permits participation of interested parties.

The following guidelines can help to design a public participation process that has a strong chance of being effective:

  • For public meetings, including hearings, prepare and distribute a printed agenda showing the purpose and objectives of the meeting, an outline of subjects to be covered, time limits, and rules for participation.

  • Change physical setting of the meeting room to reduce feelings of separation and "power differences" between public officials and citizens. Sit around a table if possible.

  • Involve interested parties in the process of generating alternative solutions and approaches. Do this early in the process so that promising new alternatives can be fairly addressed.

  • Make sure there is plenty of opportunity for people to receive answers to questions. This usually does not happen at a hearing. Some agencies have successfully used informal "open houses" where there is ample opportunity for community members to view illustrations of alternatives, discuss the potential impacts of alternatives, and receive answers to specific questions.

  • Use small groups to involve participants. Many people are hesitant to speak out in large groups and may hold back good ideas.

  • Consider the use of portable microphones and a "talk show" or town hall format.

  • Listen to what participants are saying. Ask clarifying questions. Repeat what you heard to confirm the message. Use a recorder to write comments and suggestions on large sheets of paper that can be posted on the walls.

  • Use good graphics and handouts to illustrate and summarize the proposal(s).

  • Use a comfortable setting. Regulate room temperature so that the room is not too hot or cold.

  • Schedule meetings at times and places that are convenient to those you want to involve.

  • Use trained facilitators to conduct meetings if issues are especially controversial.

  • And finally, provide food! There is research showing that people are less likely to express anger if fed. You need to be careful, however, about the use of public funds. It is best if you can pay for food out of a fund generated from private donations.

Conducting an effective public participation process is hard work. And it can be frustrating, especially if you think you already have all the analysis and information you need to make a decision. There can be tension between the goals of democracy and the desire to make decisions quickly and efficiently. However, a truly participatory process can be very rewarding. Decisions are far more likely to be supported, even by those who might prefer a different outcome. Good will generated by the process can provide momentum to implement a difficult decision. Your community will gain experience, knowledge, and skill at working together to create the future.

Back to Contents

Public Participation and Communication Resources