Want to Increase Trust in Government? Update Our Public Participation Laws

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12208
• Author: Matt Leighninger
• Date: 01 May 2014
• Published date: 01 May 2014

Perspective

Matt Leighninger is executive director

of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium,

an alliance of the major organizations and

leading scholars working in the f‌i eld of

democracy and citizenship. Over the last 20

years, he has worked with public engage-

ment efforts in more than 100 communities

in 40 states. His book

The Next Form of

Democracy

(Vanderbilt University Press,

2006) traces recent shifts in the relationship

between citizens and government and

examines how these trends are reshaping

our democracy.

E-mail: mattleighninger@earthlink.net

Want to Increase Trust in Government? Update Our Public Participation Laws 305

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 74, Iss. 3, pp. 305–306. © 2014 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12208.

Matt Leighninger

Deliberative Democracy Consortium

The outdated laws on public participation—

and the failed public meeting formats they

perpetuate—represent one of the key obstacles

to improving the relationship between citizens and

government. If we want to stem the rising tide of inci-

vility, mistrust, and policy gridlock, we need to reex-

amine the of‌f‌i cial processes for engaging the public.

Most of our public participation laws are more

than 30 years old, predating the Internet as well as

recent innovations in face-to-face participation. Key

terms, such as “public participation” itself, are rarely

def‌i ned.  is provides risk-averse legal counsel and

city attorneys with ample justif‌i cation for vetoing new

innovations. Increasingly, public of‌f‌i cials and staf‌f are

wondering whether the best practices in participation

are, in fact, supported—or even allowed—by the law.

Over the past year, the Working Group on Legal

Frameworks for Public Participation has produced

new tools, including a model local ordinance and a

model amendment to state legislation, to help create

a more supportive, productive, and equitable environ-

ment for public participation.

The Costs of Small-Minded Participation

Our of‌f‌i cial participation opportunities consist mainly

of public notice and comment periods, advisory

boards, and, above all, the traditional public meeting

that allows citizens three minutes each to address

their elected representatives.  ese formats lock in a

set of small-minded, unworkable assumptions about

public life.

In a conventional public meeting, the main reason

public of‌f‌i cials struggle is that the role they have

been given is not necessarily the one they envisioned.

Whether they are elected or appointed, most of‌f‌i cials

come into of‌f‌i ce assuming they have been elected to

make decisions on behalf of the public.  ey start

their careers in public life with a rush of conf‌i dence,

trust, and respect—only to f‌i nd, when the f‌i rst contro-

versy or key policy decision emerges, that the meeting

room is full of angry faces. Over time, this dynamic

becomes entrenched in their thinking, as public lead-

ers continually wonder why they do not have the trust

or respect of citizens.

In another part of the meeting room sit the public

employees, staf‌f ers who have many of the same feelings

about the lack of citizen trust and respect.  e frustra-

tions of both citizens and of‌f‌i cials are often taken out

on the staf‌f . As a result, public employees are usually

the silent, stoic characters in the room, trying to ride

out the emotional turmoil of the meeting so that

everyone will just allow them to go back to work.

 is attitude of government staf‌f ref‌l ects and rein-

forces their own blindered set of assumptions about

their role: when it comes to public problems, they are

the problem solvers, the only problem solvers, and

nothing but the problem solvers.  ey view “politics”

as a sideshow to their main job, which is to make sure

that the streets are cleaned, potholes are f‌i lled, buses

run on time, criminals are apprehended, and children

are educated. Citizens, nonprof‌i t organizations, faith

communities, and other nongovernmental entities

can contribute to these goals, but the meeting does

not provide opportunities to explore those sorts of

collaborations.

 e citizens who attend the meeting are, at least

visibly, the most frustrated of all.  e opportunity

they are given—which in most cases consists of three

minutes at an open microphone to express themselves

to the entire room—reaf‌f‌i rms their role as protesters

of public policy, complaining about decisions that

were made without their knowledge or input. In

many public meetings, the of‌f‌i cials and staf‌f are

barred from responding to anything said by citizens

( typically, this is because sunshine laws prevent

discussion by of‌f‌i cials of any topic that was not placed

on the agenda 72 hours before the meeting).

Even the physical setup of the room reinforces the

disparity in power and authority: citizens sit in rows,

Want to Increase Trust in Government? Update

Our Public Participation Laws