June 10, 2003
On Public Involvement, City Staff Has Real Concerns (But Some Common Ground) With Neighborhoods
On Wednesday, June 4, a constituency discussion was held to gather input from city staff.on the work of the Citywide Public Involvement Standards Task Force, part of a series of such discussions with different constituencies around the city taking place this month.
While there was considerable overlap between what came out of this city staff discussion and what came out of the previous evening's Inner SE Neighborhood Associations constituency discussion, what struck me most was the extent of almost outright antipathy several staffers felt towards the city's Neighborhood Associations.
To be sure, this animosity was not communicated by everyone present. But it was all the more palpable when it surfaced because it was clearly more intense than the sense of frustration with the city communicated at the neighborhood association discussion.
While the neighborhoods clearly felt stymied by city processes and attitudes, many city staffers seemed to think that the neighborhoods were often obstacles to them doing their job, and demonstrated a very real concern that neighborhoods were asking for too much.
One of the starkest differences of opinion -- likely to become one of the largest sticking points in the continuing work of the public involvement task force to generate some form of citywide standards -- is on the matter of public involvement versus mere public notification or information.
When discussing what were termed "barriers to success," one staffer cited the "lack of external clarity about when it's appropriate to take something to the public." Staffers were finding, they said, "increased demand for public involvement [on] things that are basic maintenance kinds of efforts" and "increased demand to be involved at every level and every decision."
Another staffer picked up on this, saying that there was "confusion internally and externally between public information and public input."
"There are times," this staffer said, "when we need to inform people of what [we're] doing and not seek input." They acknowledged that in most discussions of this issue, this opinion is considered "heresy."
Yet another staffer challenged the expectations the public has that they "have a right to tell us how to do our job, tell us how to do everything." Continuing, this staffer said that "the public needs to understand clearly what they are being brought to the table for."
Concerns were also expressed that neighborhood associations with "strong opinions" can influence the outcome of a neighborhood discussion before the city "can even get through the door to discuss" the matter at hand.
Staffers also expressed their experience of having neighborhood associations or other community groups function too much as gatekeepers, keeping the city from finding out for itself what a community thinks. "Those gatekeepers," one staffer said, "are often off-base with their own populations."
"Efficient sampling methods to get real people's opinions," one staffer argued, "are sometimes resisted by the gatekeeper organizations." The concern, they continued, is with what to do if the gatekeeper has one opinion but a neighborhood survey conducted by the city shows the opposite opinion.
Even with this cultural divide on display, many staffers were clearly trying to offer one solution: Clarity.
"Clarity about what your purpose is," one staffer explained. "Is it public involvement or public information? Is it a combination?" The audience, schedule, and resources available should all be known up front and a good public involvement plan laid out, they offered. "Flexibility, the ability to respond to what we hear in the community," they continued. "The ability to add or delete components of the work if it makes sense takes resources, time, committment and clarity at the beginning."
One of the biggest concerns raised by neighborhoods is the frustration they feel when a decision or project appears to be a "done deal" by the time it's brought to them. "Sometimes it is a done deal," one exasperated staffer explained.
"Part of what staff needs permission to do is to make it clear that it is a done deal and what we're seeking from the public (if anything) is to inform them. Or what we're seeking are suggestions to make it the best done deal that we can." But even then, another staffer suggested, "Telling [the neighborhoods] that up front" will help foster a respectful relationship.
One of the more fascinating observations that surfaced during the discussion was on the issue of controversy, and the perception that a quality public involvement process will result in none of it.
There needs to be a "recognition of the inevitablity of conflict," a staffer said. "Too often we judge the success of an involvement effort to mean there's no conflict." This is, they said, entirely untrue.
One of the strongest expressions of frustration with neighborhoods came when one staffer asserted that the is a "strong neighborhood belief of 'not in my backyard ever.'" My own impression is that some of this may be the result of the neighborhoods own frustration with city processes, which may have led some of them to a more intransigent line of defense in response. But that's just a theory.
Clearly, there are some serious tensions between city staffers and the city's neighborhoods, if these comments are any indication. But the discussion also reflected some commonalities between these groups, when it comes to what needs to be done.
Both groups think that adequate public involvement -- setting aside the different opinions as to what threshold should trigger it -- require more time and greater resources, both on the city's end and out in the neighborhoods themselves.
Both groups think that increased avenues of communication and relationship-building are utter necessities for any improvement in how these parties interact with each other.
This extends as well to the issue of clarity: Both groups would obviously benefit from having the expectations of both city bureaus and city residents clearly articulated at the beginning of any public involvement process.
There is certainly a framework for common ground. But when you have neighborhoods, on the one hand, suggesting requirements that projects be halted if its found that they did not adhere to proper public involvement processes, and you have city staffers, on the other hand, worried about being bound by the "equivalent of the Administrative Procedures Act, where if you skip one part of it your process is dead" there is clearly a contexual gulf between the parties in question.
Simply on the basis of the two constituency discussions I've observed thus far, I think it's safe to say that the Citywide Public Involvement Standards Task Force still has its work cut out for it.
Comments (2)
Dave Lister on 11 Jun 2003
If the City government did not foul up virtually every project the neighborhood groups would probably not be insisting on such a high level of input and involvement. Who can blame the neighborhood associations for often taking an adverserial stance? They have no trust or confidence that the City will do the right things.
Jack Peek on 12 Jun 2003
"Done Deals"...is what got me into the recall effort on mayor Katz were the done deals that came before the neighborhood associations with "staff's" full knowledge that a project was done before input was sought from the neighborhoods.
The "loaded" meetings where when input was sought......plants of staff and city "wannabe's" gave testiomony supporting the city and in other similar cases the counties cause.
This is how a grouphome for (5) criminally insane men got slammed into the Foster-Powell neighborhood.