Loading...
Thoughts on Ad-Hoc Committees- BornoTHOUGHTS ON AD HOC COMMITTEES TO ADVISE LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS Steve Lindorff, 2092 Vela Norte Circle (Resident since 1990) In my almost 40 years of experience working in local government, I have gained consi- derable experience in creating and implementing citizen participation processes and working with various kinds of citizen committees Over the time that I have worked for the City of Jacksonville Beach, we have built of replaced eight major public buildings. In every case, these buildings were conceived, designed, funded, and built through coor- dination between city staff, technical consultants, and the elected leadership of the city. No committees! That being said, having sat through the workshop meeting, it was apparent that there is agreement that there is a problem with the current police facilities and something needs to be done. There was Tess agreement on the location, size, and funding of a facility to solve this problem; and some sentiment that a citizen committee could be helpful in re- solving those issues. So. based on my experience, I offer the following: First, some basic "rules" 1. Don't appoint a committee to do what you were elected to do, i.e., to govern the City. In the same light, don't appoint a committee to give yourself political cover or to avoid or transfer blame for something if you are reluctant to do what you were elected to do. Don't appoint a committee if you have no intention of giving good faith considera- tion to their findings. If your mind is already made up, you are wasting your time and the time of those that you appoint to the committee. Make a motion, get a second, and have a vote. Once that's over, accept that we live in a representative democracy where the majority rules, EVEN WHEN YOU THINK THEY ARE WRONG! Some potential pitfalls 1. You, the elected officials, have to decide what problem you are trying to solve. Then and only then you might choose to form a committee to assist you in solv- ing it. a. If you aren't sure that a new police facility is needed, a committee may be helpful in making that determination. b. If you believe that some kind of facility is needed, but aren t sure where it should be located or how big it should be, committee may be helpful in making that determination c. If you believe that the facility is needed, but don't think the City cannot af- ford it; you probably don't need a committee (see #2 and #3 above) 2. If you believe that an ad hoc committee is needed and would be a productive use of people's time, it has to be inclusive. a Every effort needs to be made to extend an invitation to participate to any potentially affected individuals, including all sides on the issue b. It also has to the right size ("the amount of chaos in any committee system is directly proportional to the number of persons on the committee) c. To populate a committee only with those who agree with you is, at best, disingenuous (again, see #2 and #3 above). 3. Public meetings and ad hoc advisory committees can be fairly easily high jacked as some "stakeholders' are very adept at bullying others into silence and ac- quiescence. Others may find it easier to "get their way" by staying out of the process rather than participating in it. 4. It s your decision to make, but you need to very careful in automatically assuming the input from lay persons is more valid than that supplied by experts. Also 'out- side" experts aren t always better than your `inside" experts But, it is also impor- tant to remember that issues that are perfectly clear to the professionals may not be clear at all to a lay person 5. In any public decision making process, it is impossible to make everyone happy. Total agreement is impossible to attain. Consensus is extremely difficult to ob- tain. The best one can hope for is a substantial effective agreement on a course of action, i.e., informed consent or, essentially, "I don't like everything about it, but I can live with it." 6. One's legitimacy is greatly enhanced by advancing an alternative, i.e., being for something instead of against everything, and is more likely to lead to reaching a level of informed consent. BUILDING A SOUND APPROACH TO ENGAGING CITIZENS — Developing a parti- cipative process that leads to decisions that even if everyone doesn't like it, they won't attack the process and they can live with the outcome. Process Goals 1. To build (or rebuild) trust between citizens and government 2. To allow people to develop an informed judgment (vs. simply holding an opinion) about the issue or problem to be solved. Informed Judgment vs. Opinions: Judgment is based on knowledge and facts. Public opinion is not always based on facts. Public opinion alone is not always good for problem solving. To develop informed judgment you need clarification of information and the opportunity to hear other perspec- tives and values. 3. To encourage face to face deliberation so people can understand and gain a perspective of the positions of others. Deliberation requires people to agree to help define the problem and dis- cussions to be framed constructively. Guiding Principles -- Every public process must be open, fair, and honest 1. Don't appoint a "blue ribbon" panel. Open it so anyone who is interested can par- ticipate 2. All information, pro or con, is shared. 3. All voices are equal and treated even-handedly. Key Questions 1. Identify the problem 2. Establish the non-negotiable elements of the decision 3. Identify potentially affected groups (including opponents and public "insiders") 4. Set the sequence of decisions — what needs to be decided and when, move from the general to the specific, what information is needed.