Collaborative Governance Resources

Collaborative Governance Resources

Legislation about Citizen Participation in the U.S. & Other Nations

Summary Prepared by Jessica Prue, Syracuse University

Mandatory Citizen Participation in the United States

1.U.S. Federal Level:

  1. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) found that by the end of 1978, citizen participation requirements were included in 155 separate federal programs, which involved over 80 percent of all grant funds at that level.
  2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969: Requires public participation in the planning process for new Forest Management Plans every 10-15 years
  3. Like NEPA, there are thousands of laws, ordinances, and state and federal regulations that mandate citizen participation. In other words, with the same ordinance language, some/most municipalities do a simple formal notice to affected neighbors, identify a date for a formal public hearing, and put a check in the check box.
  4. See Lisa Bingham’s attached article from the Wisconsin Law Review about the legal infrastructure supporting Collaborative Governance.

2.Washington State: Growth Management Act (GMA)

  1. The GMA was enacted in 1990 to guide planning for growth and development in the state. The Act requires local governments in fast growing and densely populated counties to develop and adopt comprehensive plans with citizen input.
  2. Many areas launched extensive public participation programs in order to obtain the maximum amount of citizen participation to develop Comprehensive Growth Management Plans.

3.Oregon State:HB 2895, created an opportunity for a statewide pilot of the Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR).

  1. The Oregon CIR is a process designed to allow citizens of Oregon to evaluate statewide ballot measures.
  2. A panel for the Oregon CIR is made up of 18-24 randomly selected voters. Participants are first contacted at random, and if interested, they are added to a large ‘jury pool’
  3. Oregon CIR is a five-day professionally mediated process
  4. Healthy Democracy Oregon helped pass this bill.

4.Portland, Oregon:

  1. Portland City Council unanimously adopted principles to guide the City’s public involvement processes on August 4, 2010.
  2. Principles include partnership, early involvement, building relationships and community capacity, inclusiveness and equity, good quality process design and implementation, transparency, and accountability.
  3. Public involvement reports must be submitted each time a measure is considered at City Council.
  4. More information is available at:

5.New Orleans, Louisiana:Home Rule Charter,§ 5-411: mandates citizen participation, particularly for land use/planning issues.

  1. The master plan is available at:
  2. Includes a section titled “Community Participation Program,” which recommends a basic structure for the neighborhood participation requirement now in the City Charter. The details of this section do not have the “force of law” because the charter requires that the neighborhood participation system be established by ordinance.

6.San Francisco, California: In 2001, legislation established a grant program, funded by the City, which would invite neighborhood assemblies to self-organize.

  1. Invites all neighborhoods to incorporate a non-profit Neighborhood AssemblyPlanning Council
  2. Provides neighborhood delegates to citywide Congresses
  3. The City, County or other Sponsor provide the assemblies with aDepartment or Center that supplies technical supportto neighborhood assemblies
  4. More information is available at:

7.Massachusetts (and New England) Town Meetings:

  1. In 300 Massachusetts towns (of 351 towns and cities total), citizens gather to deliberate and decide the budget for the town, the zoning laws, and other matters.
  2. In addition, there are Town Meetings held throughout New England.

Voluntary Citizen Participation

  1. King County, Washington: "Citizen Councilor Network" was adopted with a unanimous vote by the King County Council on September 9, 2007, after receiving over 80,000 signed petitions to Initiative 24. The newly created network organized the "Countywide Community Forums" (CCF) to engage self-selected residents from across the county in discussions and dialogue about important regional issues. Round 6 of CCF began this September 11, 2010.

Mandatory Citizen Participation Outside of the United States

  1. Law 69/2007, Italian region of Tuscany: Invites citizens to petition for deliberative, participatory processes to address local problems. A local Authority helps determine an appropriate process format and provides public funding. The agency at the center of the problem is obliged to act on the ensuing recommendations.
  1. LogoLinks Resources Document, “Legal Frameworks Supporting Citizen Participation: Synthesis Report) (see attached)
  2. Report contains information about citizen participation laws in several regions and nations
  1. UK’s Local Government Act 1999:
  2. Introduced best value reviews, including consultation with local taxpayers and service users, as one of the key ways of improving the quality and effectiveness of council services.
  3. In July 2002, the House of Commons jumped on the bandwagon with their, “In the Service of Democracy” consultation (engagement) which represented the most comprehensive effort by a national government to gain input on their policy options.
  1. European Charter of Local Self-Government (1985): enacted by The Council of Europe.
  2. Provides that the principle oflocal self-governmentshall be recognized in domestic legislation and, where practicable, in the constitution
  3. Considers that public responsibilities should be exercised preferably by the authorities closest to the citizens

Additional Resources

  1. Beth Offenbacker’s Database: on Current Research for the page about the Mandated Engagement Database).
  2. Cooper, Terry L. 1983. Citizen participation. InOrganization Theory and Management,Edited by Thomas D. Lynch, 13-46. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
  3. Bingham, Lisa (2010). The Next Generation of Administrative Law: Building the Legal Infrastructure for Collaborative Governance.” Wisconsin Law Review. (see attached article)
  4. USDOT FHWA web site, Best Practices and Recommended Guidelines
  5. Kettering Foundation. Citizensand Politics: A View from Main Street.
Top View