Perceptions of Public Officials and Citizens of the Public Decision-Making Process in the Midwest United States
Jeff Ehrlich,Ed.D
Assistant Professor, Health Care Leadership,
Associate Dean of Hauptmann School for Public Affairs
Park University
911 Main, Suite 915
Kansas City, Missouri, United States, 64105
Becky Stuteville,Ph.D
Assistant Professor, Director of Masters of Public Affairs,
Hauptmann School for Public Affairs
Park University
911 Main, Suite 915
Kansas City, Missouri, United States, 64105
Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Who attends public meetings?
Review of the Literature
Why do people attend public meetings?
How should public meeting and the public participation process be designed?
How should conflict be dealt with?
How do you define civility?
Methodology
Citizen Responses
Public Officials
Why do people attend public meetings?
Fearful
Anger
Passion
Frustration
Self-Interest
How should meetings be designed?
Design
Conflict
How do you define civility?
Limitations and Delimitations
Conclusion
References:
Abstract
Citizen participation in governmental decision-making is often regarded as an essential feature of democracy in the United States. The importance of citizen engagement in public and civic life is grounded in the United States’ heritage; yet the process which the public and decision-making officials encounter is often less than democratic. This research explored the responses of appointed public officials and compared the responses to those held by community members who attend publically held meeting and forums.The overarching research question asks: Does an opportunity exist for the general public and public officials to work collaboratively in an authentic effort of public discourse in the United States? Using data collected via focus groups with citizens and personal interviews with public officials, the study sought to identify what common ground exists between the expectations between the various public groups and officials.Three primary themes emerged from the focus groups and public official interviews; structure, procedure, and civility.
Introduction
Citizen participation in government decision-making is often regarded as an essential feature of democracy in the American political system. The importance of citizen engagement in American civic life is grounded in the country’s heritage, beginning with the Puritans’ democratic tradition and later finding expression in the ideas of Thomas Jefferson (Cooper, Bryer, and Meek 2006; Kathi and Cooper 2005). This ideal of meaningful citizen involvement in a democracy, however, has not always translated into practice. In the United States, authentic citizen involvement has been limited by the system of representative democracy and the “ethos” of American administration (Kathi and Cooper 2005).
America’s Founding Fathers intentionally designed a system that would temper the will of the masses by utilizing a system of representation as opposed to direct democracy. Kathi and Cooper (2005) argue that “though democracy requires some degree of citizen participation in governance, in a representative democracy, participation is an elusive ideal” (560). The principles of representative democracy continue to define the parameters of citizen participation in the United States even after the emergence of more direct forms of democracy such as the initiative and referendum.
Citizen participation in governmental decision-making in the United States was further complicated by the professionalization of public administration in the 20thCentury (Cooper, Bryer and Meek 2006). The 19th Century and early 20th Century ushered in Progressive reforms which created “barriers against the influence of citizenry on the day-to-day administration of government” (Cooper, Bryer, and Meek 2006, 77). The public administrator was placed at the center of the decision-making and policy implementation (Kathi and Cooper 2005) while citizens were relegated to the periphery. This relationship persisted throughout the 20th Century, and into the early 21st Century. As recently as 2007, Yang and Callahan argued that “meaningful, authentic participation is rarely found, as many public officials are reluctant to include citizens in decision making, or if they do, they typically involve citizens after the issues have been framed and decisions have been made” (249).
The system of representative democracy and culture of administrative professionalism continue in the United States, but the relationship between public administrators and citizens is being reconsidered. According to Vigoda (2002), the interaction between public administrators and citizens has progressed along an evolutionary continuum. The most recent transition in this evolution is from the perspective that citizens are customers that require responsiveness from public administrators to the notion that citizens are partners who collaborate with public administrators (Vigoda 2002).
The idea that citizens and government/public administrators are partners who must collaborate (Vigoda 2002) parallels the governance movement in public administration. Governance is a vague term that has multiple meanings (Meehan 2003; Rhodes 2001, and Sloat 2002), but governance often involves sharing public power, new arrangements for making and implementing policy away from the center, and increased reliance on partnerships and networks (Meehan 2003). The term “governance ‘refers to collective problem-solving in the public realm rather than to the relevant agents of the political associations involved’” (Caporaso 1996, 32, quoted in Sloat 2002).
The tension among the constitutional structure in the United States, the culture of professionalism in public administration, and the recent emphasis on collaboration and governance has implications for the relationship between public administrators and citizens. If governance calls for “’collective problem-solving in the public realm’” (Capoaso 1996, 32, quoted in Sloat 2001), then the current state of citizen participation may provide insight into the obstacles and opportunities for more collaborative problem-solving with citizens in the future.
This paper will examine the perspectives that citizens and public administrators have regarding the public participation process at the local level. The study will utilize data collected by Consensus Kansas City, a consulting group, with input from17 focus group sessions in western Missouri and eastern Kansas, and interviews conducted with four public administrators in the same region to evaluate citizen and public administrator responses to four questions: 1) Why do people attend public meetings, 2) How should public meetings and the public participations process be designed, 3) How should conflict be dealt with, and 4) How do you define civility?
The responses by citizens and public administrators to these four questions will be compared to determine if there are commonalities and differences in their perceptions of citizens’ motivations to attend meetings, concerns with the substance and process of political participation, the nature of conflict, and the meaning of civility. By cataloging and comparing the responses of these two groups, this study will examine the challenges and possibilities for redefining the relationships between public administrators and citizens in the 21st Century. However, before addressing the four key questions, the paper will first examine who attends public meetings.
Who attends public meetings?
The success ofpublic deliberation relies on those interested in the issue or problem. Engagement in the discussion is an opportunity for those who wish to either be heard or to simply monitor and absorb the discussions. This wide range of opportunities for Unites States citizens to participate in the deliberation is perhaps rooted in New England town meetings that is centuries old. However, questions arise on whether this similar town meeting remains a legitimate form of debate and deliberation when a relatively small number of those registered to vote participate in the process (Williamson and Fung, 2004). Some question the efficacy of public meetings if the numbers of those who engage in the process are relatively small. Bryan (1999) argues that given the time and additional resources that many find as a hurdle to participation, roughly 20% of the population registered to vote in the United States. Getting citizens toattend public meetings is a significant accomplishment. The New York Timesreported that as fewer people attend public meetings, those who are professionally interested and those who are vocal advocates tend to dominate the proceedings, creating a “hostile atmosphere” (1996). Even with the Times article, Bryan posits that there is almost no connection between a public meeting’s aggregate socioeconomic measures and town meeting attendance. Bryan also states that if any bias does exist with those who attend those who are considered middle-class in socioeconomic indicators attend public meetings in substantial numbers over the ultra-rich or the disadvantaged.
Those who observe public meetings note that this venue does not draw a significant representation subsection of the public. As a result, attendance at public meetings is dominated by public officials, those who represent special interest groups, and others with a significant stake in the agenda of the public meeting (Poisner, 1996). It is noted that most of those in attendance do not speak, but merely listen to the proceedings. Because of the lack of general participation, often the impression taken away from a public meeting may not represent the views of the general public. Jansen and Kies (2005) maintain that citizens’ motivation to attend and participate is dependent on assumed political impact. This impact is absent if public official participation is limited or non-existent.
Shoul and Rabinowitz (2011) claim there are five community actions conditions to encourage collaborative work in order to work towards a collective result. These include:
- Community norms and policies that encourage collaborative behavior
- Mutually trusting relationships between different people and points of views
- Community networks and a web of organizational and individual relationships that is inter-connective
- Widespread use of community problem-solving process
- Leadership made up of respected community members
Shoul and Rabinowitz’s premise that community norms and actions may substantiate McComas, Besley, and Black’s (2010) research related to public meeting rituals. The authors state; “People may lose faith in the process and cease to participate if they believe their participation is limited through the strategic manipulation of rituals” (127). The act of ritualization and recognizing culture may have significant impact on participation of the general public.
Deficiencies in the amount and quality of education of the general public also influence attendance. There appears to be a lack of educational opportunities related to roles and responsibilities provided to citizens by local government and educational opportunities towards civic responsibilities. However, demand for these kinds of educational programs appear to exist (Lachapelle and Shanahan, (2008)
While focus on attendance and who attends public meetings, it is safe to say that public administrators also bear some of the burden of the number of participants. Poorly run public meetings have a profound influence over attendees returning to future meetings (Lachapelle and Shanahan, (2008).. Public administrators must also make clear what the intent of the meeting is. If there is an expert presenting information, the clarity and simplicity of explaining the information make the process of public meetings such that those in attendance will be more responsive to those leading the meeting. When public citizens are confronted with experts who fail to explain or fulfill their role, they have the right to challenge the experts. The lack of responding to the citizen public in a manner of respect, knowledge and understanding may lead to apathy and ultimately, low attendance at public meetings.
Review of the Literature
Why do people attend public meetings?
Why people attend public meetings is arguably linked to the question of why people participate in politics in general. This section of the paper will briefly examine why citizen participate in political acts. It will use McComas et. al’s (2006) three categories of research on “citizen participation in political activities” as a framework.
In their evaluation of why citizens choose to attend or not to attend public meetings, McComas et al. (2006) explain that there are three basic categories of research on citizen participation in political activities. These categories include: 1) “Rational incentives,” 2) “Socioeconomic Status and Mobilization Incentives,” and 3) “Relational Incentives” (674-678).
The first category of research on citizen participation is based on “rational incentives” (McComas et. al. 2006, 674). They contend that there are practical or rational reasons why people attend meetings. For example, people may indicate that they attend meetings because they are curious or they want to provide input to public officials. McComas et al. include Adams’s (2004) research on the functions of public meetings in this category of rational incentives. Adams (2004) argues that public meetings are not effective mechanisms for promoting deliberation or rational persuasion. They can, however, help citizens achieve other political objectives such as providing information to officials, showing support for or criticizing public officials, and communicating with other citizens.
McComas et al. (2006) also believe that it is likely that citizens weigh the costs of attendance against the benefits, and there is less incentive to attend meetings when the costs outweigh the benefits. Finally, they argue that the timing of the meeting is also a rational consideration. A citizen’s motivation to attend a meeting may be affected by how early or late a meeting is scheduled in the decision-making process. The second category, “Socioeconomic Status and Mobilization Incentives” is represented by the work of Sidney Verba and his collaborators (McComas et. al. 2006). This category of research highlights socioeconomic status and political efficacy. McComas et. al. explain that “in general, this research has found that people most likely to participate are those who have the greatest capacity to participate because of levels of education and relevant political experience, and those who believe they can make a difference (Almond & Verba, 1989; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Verba, Schlozman, & Brandy, 1995)” (McComas et. al. 2006, 676).
As early as the late 1960s’ Verba examined the problems of democratic participation. Verba (1967) argued that the likelihood that anyone will participate in politics is related to their resources, motivation, and the social structure and culture (Verba 1967). His evaluation of what motivates people to participate in general may be relevant to discovering why people attend public meetings. Verba (1967) examined at three different aspects of motivation:
- “Does the individual believe in the effectiveness of political participation?” Those who have not experienced successful participation are not likely to believe that they will be effective.
- “Does the individual have specific interests for which he considers governmental activity relevant?” People are more likely to attempt to participate if they believe that governmental activity is relevant to their needs.
- “Is political participation directly satisfying?” In addition to achieving a particular goal through participation, individuals may also find participation to be satisfying “in and of itself” or it may be socially satisfying. (Verba 1967, 64).
In other words, Verba’s work suggests that people will be motivated to participate if they believe that they will be effective based upon past success, if they believe that the governmental activity is relevant their own needs, or if they find participation itself to be satisfying.
The final category of research is on “relational incentives.” This body of research explains “participation based on citizens’ experiences with authorities and their decision-making procedures” (McComas et. al. 2004, 677). It looks at the effects that citizens’ perceptions of procedural fairness can have on their satisfaction with the process and outcomes.
These three bodies of research indicate that there may be many reasons why citizens decide to participate in political activities. Citizens may participate for practical reasons such as curiosity or the desire to criticize public officials. Citizens may also make a “rational” calculation of whether the benefits of participation outweigh the costs before deciding to engage. The efficacy literature suggests that citizens participate because they believe that they may be effective, the government activity is relevant to them, or they simply find the process to be satisfying. Finally, the procedural justice research implies that participation may be affected by whether or not citizens perceive the process to be fair.
How should public meeting and the public participation process be designed?
Although the literature on the design of public meetings is somewhat limited, the research on citizen participation does offer some recommendations for designing public meetings and the public participation process. For example, Crosby et. al. (1986) outline six criteria for citizen participation processes. First, the participants must be representative of the broader community and they should be selected by a method that is not manipulated by special interests or elected officials. Second, the hearing process should be structured in a manner that allows the average citizen to do an effective job at decision making. This means that citizens must be provided with accurate information, and given sufficient time to reflect on the information. Additionally, the agenda should be well planned, the group leader must facilitate, and participant views must be adequately recognized. Third, the procedures should be fair. Crosby et. al. (1986) concedes that there are no “perfect solutions” to some of the problems involved in ensuring fairness. For example, it is difficult to balance the desire to give everyone an equal opportunity to speak with the desire to run an efficient meeting. They conclude that “some combination of staff input, advocacy presentation, and an open agenda must be used in order to organize the information efficiently for decision making while at the same time being fair to the parties involved” (Crosby et al. 1986, 172). Fourth, the citizen participation process should be cost effective. The authors assert that if one form of citizen participation is significantly more expensive than another, the cost must be justified. Fifth, the method of participation should be “adaptable to a number of different tasks and settings” (Crosby et. al. 1986, 172). Finally, the recommendations made by the citizens who participate in the process should be given serious attention by public officials.
Similar recommendations have been made by Lukensmeyer and Boyd (2004).