Been to any good meetings lately? By Terry Brown Which comes first, good public-policy or strong public participation? Perhaps they both co-evolve, but a key part of the answer must be the mechanisms used to include all the stakeholders in the process of government. I've attended a lot of meetings in Duluth, as have probably most of the people reading this article. Every so often you strike one that's just plain bad. The circumstances that give rise to those meetings need to be addressed on a case by case basis. In this piece, I want to talk about City meetings in general, how well they work, and perhaps some ways in which they could work better. There are three areas that spring to mind. These issues are probably common to all meetings everywhere. There's no real point in spelling out who did what when, they matter because they affect how people are represented in their community. First up, the 900-pound gorilla in the corner seems to be notification. Two series of meetings on controversial topics that serve as examples are the Lakewalk extension and the Lester Park development proposal. I don't mean to single these issues out, but they're good examples of topics about which people are understandably concerned, and for which they want answers. In both cases people said, in the third or forth meeting on the project, ``this is the first meeting I heard about'', or ``this is the first meeting I heard about in time to attend''. Even more unfortunate was ``I don't know who wrote this neighborhood district plan, but I really like...''. Ouch. There's no way you'll ever ensure that everyone affected by an issue gets the message, and you certainly won't find a single convenient time when everyone can attend. But are enough of the people who need to know finding out? I suspect not, although a more objective answer would take more resources than anyone's likely to have any time soon. Advertising and direct mailing are expensive, and City budgets are always tight. But if people don't know about their opportunities to participate, it doesn't matter how well you run the meeting or how responsive you are to the concerns of those present, the people who weren't there have missed out. And the community has lost the opportunity to get those people's input. So, although it can be a significant part of a meager budget, it seems that getting the word out isn't something that can be skimped on. And perhaps it's also an opportunity for local media to make a contribution. They do of course already contribute to the community in this area with various public service announcements. Can local media and the City establish ongoing, user friendly, ``one stop shop'' sources for listings of irregular (issue specific) and regular meetings that affect the lives of everyone in Duluth? And don't forget the utility bill mailed to everyone's home once a month --- now there's an envelope looking for something more interesting to deliver. A second, less obvious but perhaps more avoidable, meeting pitfall is the weight given to the status-quo when a new vision is being sought. In a series of meetings run by a facilitator where the stakeholders may include both the public and the staff of the City department involved, the presence of the latter may inadvertently reduce the input of the former. This sounds counter intuitive, but there's a tendency for people who've been fulfilling a role for a long time to counter suggestions from the general public with positions like ``that's too expensive,'' ``you can't do it that way because,'' ``that's not what most people want,'' etc. These responses tend to be defensive, and understandably so, there's nothing more irritating than being told how to do your own job. In many cases, of course, these responses will be correct, although they could be delivered more constructively. In other cases, however, these responses can make it very hard to get ``out of the box'' idea wise. A simple solution is to hold distinctly separate meetings for the public and city personnel. These are cases where significant change may be involved and the City staff in question are quite legitimately also considered stakeholders in the process. With separate meetings the public will be able to fully spell out their ideas without premature dismissal from another stakeholder group. The facilitators should be able to help them clarify their goals and explain those to the other stakeholders so that real and sometimes innovative alternatives can receive due consideration. Finally, City and other governmental entities should be honest about how much input they're really looking for on a project. If they're going to accept suggestions and make changes, that's great. But if their processes don't really include public input, they should say so. Many governmental entities are directed by elected officials, and although it's good policy for them to keep the public informed, it's the elected officials the public must really rely on to set the direction for their community. It's essential that agencies that are required to accept and consider public input do so. It's great when those that aren't decide to do so. But when one just pays lip service to public input because it's the thing to do, people become frustrated and the situation is worse than it would have been after a purely informational meeting. Oddly enough, some even turn this on its head and appear to be uninterested in public input but then make changes to accommodate it --- the right result in the end, but a process more acrimonious than it needs to be. This last point is related to the issue of how early the public is involved in any initiative or proposed development. This isn't a meeting issue exactly, but it's a big factor in public acceptance and participatory democracy. Go to meetings, let people know what you think, don't let anyone say no one's interested. Speak to the issues, and tell the organizers what you liked and what you didn't like about the way the meeting was run --- if you do it in a positive way, everyone's better off. These articles are retained on the web for historical interest and do not necessarily reflect the views or goals of DPPA today.

[Index] [Previous article] [Next article]