Engaging deliberative democracy at the grassroots: prioritizing the effects of the fiscal crisis in New York at the local government level.

• Author: Salkin, Patricia E.
• Position: II. Deliberative Democracy: Participatory Governance and Vehicles for Civil Discourse as an Alternative for Municipal Fiscal Decision Making through Conclusion, with footnotes, p. 755-785

2. DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY: PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE AND VEHICLES FOR CIVIL DISCOURSE AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR MUNICIPAL FISCAL DECISION MAKING

   The preceding Part explained the challenges facing local government officials with respect to making difficult fiscal budgeting decisions, especially in the context of the current economy and the present environment of unfunded mandates, fixed government costs, dwindling revenues and now a property tax cap. As documented above, municipal officials have been trying since the late 1970s to undo many unfunded mandates, meeting with only minor periodic relief. Required expenditures, including payments pursuant to public sector collective bargaining agreements and public pension fund contributions, account for a significant percentage of municipal budgets. (181) Many required local expenditures can be traced to federal and state statutes and directives, and therefore do not fall within the exclusive purview of each individual municipality to control. (182) Further, absent a constitutional amendment to allow for initiatives and referenda in New York, local residents have little power to force state legislators to provide relief from these fiscal requirements. While municipal officials and advocates continue the important work of educating federal and state lawmakers about the costly impacts of these mandates and requirements on local governments, the current fiscal crisis presents the perfect storm to positively engage members of the public in taking greater ownership and interest in fiscal issues, and in providing meaningful input into the local budgeting process. A number of participatory frameworks exist from deliberative democracy processes to civic engagement strategies. This Part of the Article addresses different models that offer potential opportunities for the public to provide meaningful input and articulate preferences and priorities when it comes to the allocation of limited dollars to support local government service delivery.

   The most identifiable method of public engagement is the public hearing. (183) Typically, however, state enabling statutes simply require one public hearing prior to local legislative decision making. (184) For example, as part of the town budgeting process in New York, the budget is drafted by the budget officer who then turns the tentative budget into the town clerk, after which the town board reviews the budget and modifies it as needed. (185) The town board then conducts a public hearing where town residents may voice their concerns. (186) After the public hearing occurs, the town board may change the preliminary budget further, but state law does not require another public hearing. (187) The local government, however, may prescribe additional requirements. (188) The required public hearing is not an effective method of public engagement for a number of reasons. First, hearings typically do not promote dialogue between members of the public and decision makers because to satisfy the law, legislators need only provide an opportunity for the public to speak. The legislators need not respond. Next, members of the public speak to the decision making body, but they do not have the opportunity to engage each other in conversation. Furthermore, members of the public typically have only a limited amount of time and to provide comments, and individuals are often prevented from speaking more than once during the hearing. These limitations mean that members of the public cannot respond to other comments. Public hearings can leave members of a community dissatisfied and frustrated, feeling disconnected and lacking ownership in the ultimate decision.

   1. Deliberative Democracy

      In the participatory governance model, however, active involvement of residents in government decision making which may include deliberative democracy and collaborative governance is preferable. (189) It is when the vote is taken from the politicians and placed into the "public sphere" that accountability and justification will emerge within government decision making. (190) For this to occur, the public must be united by a shared "collective identity." (191) That is to say, the public should engage in collaborative techniques to shape their opinions collectively, working together to form a policy that reflects those collective opinions.

      The theory of deliberative democracy suggests that the public can improve democracy by questioning and participating in governance, ensuring that government is run by the public's standards. Deliberative democracy is founded on principles of accountability and discussion between members of the public to facilitate a deliberation that will better inform the public's opinions. (192) This method embraces a "talk-centric" model of democracy instead of a "voting-centric" model. (193) Further, scholars note that deliberative democracy is "a communicative process based on reason ... [and] is able to transform individual preferences and reach decisions oriented to the public good." (194) As a result, the laws and policies will be based on the input of individual community members. (195) People engaged in discussions will form opinions and decisions around the information learned and brought out through the discussions, (196) and after the discussions, a goal of the process is that the group will be bound by the decision it has made. (197) This deliberative process allows for more competent government decision making because it ensures that the decisions reflect the public's well-reasoned opinions. (198) In turn, this outcome connects the public with the governmental decision makers, doing away with the divide that is a cause for concern with most community members. (199)

      Essential to participatory governance is the concept of deliberation. (200) Deliberation is not to be confused with a debate. When parties debate over public policy, they each attempt to discredit the other side's arguments by identifying weaknesses. (201) On the other hand, deliberation is a process that involves "participants listen[ing] in an effort to better understand the other's viewpoint and identify questions or areas of confusion to probe for a deeper understanding. Deliberation is the thoughtful consideration of information, views, and ideas." (202) In essence, the deliberative model offers a process where differing viewpoints and interests can be expressed and participants can search for common ground.

      1. Methods of Deliberative Democracy

         Three methods of deliberative democracy have been identified: distributed deliberation, iterated deliberation, and decentralized deliberation. The first, "distributed deliberation," calls for different tasks during the deliberative process to be assigned to different groups. (203) "Distributed deliberation" recognizes that not all groups will be effective and attempts to maximize both effectiveness and efficiency by tasking different groups with different goals. (204)

         The second method, "iterated deliberation," is where a decision making body solicits the help of a deliberating body that will deliberate on a suggested proposal and then send the proposal back to the governing body for correction, after which the proposal once more is sent back to the deliberating body for another round. (205) This process embraces the notion of self correction on behalf of the governing body and invites criticism from the deliberative body. (206)

         "Decentralized deliberation" is the third method of deliberative democracy that limits the deliberative process to a unified system where all interested groups can engage in the deliberative process. (207) Participatory budgeting is the most commonly cited example of a decentralized deliberation process. (208) Participatory budgeting allows the public to be involved with budgeting priorities, resulting in a "reflective preference" of the public which is then integrated into the local government's budget. (209) Such a participatory democracy framework holds that the citizens must have taken a direct part in the decision making process such as making and hearing arguments, creating policies and choosing between alternatives provided. (210)

      2. Civil Discourse

         Civil discourse is the overarching term within deliberative democracy that describes the different levels and methods of participation that the public can utilize. (211) The concept levels the playing field for all participants and seeks to eliminate the adversarial and hierarchical systems for a more efficient way to reach conflict resolutions. (212) The goal is to achieve a respectful way in which community members can engage in discussions to improve the government decision making process and become more actively involved in informing policy decisions. (213) As such, public participants become a part of public policy decision making instead of standing idly by waiting for the policy effects. (214) Within the broader theory of civil discourse, citizen advisory groups, citizen panels, citizen juries, citizen initiative, negotiated rule making, mediation, compensation, and benefit sharing are all forms of public participation. (215)

         For example, Project Civil Discourse, an initiative of the Arizona Humanities Council, engages community members in dialogue sessions involving controversial public policy issues. (216) A core principle guiding this effort is respecting the opinion of all the participants in order to have a successful collaboration. (217) One of the recent Project Civil Discourse sessions focused on a local finance topic, "Arizona's Sales Tax Referendum Town Hall: A Demonstration of Civil Dialogue and Discussion." (218) The May 2010 session attracted 100 people who gathered to better understand "the implications of the sales tax vote on Arizona's budget, and more importantly to demonstrate how an issue such as taxes can be discussed in a civil and respectful way." (219) The large group was divided into smaller tables where trained...