Reader Note: This article is about online public comment forums (OPCFs) – that are becoming increasingly prevalent across the US. The author, Michael Alvarez Cohen, is a co-founder of Peak Democracy -- a company that has powered over 600 OPCFs, with over 70,000 attendees, for about 40 local government agencies and elected officials.

Across the US (and in other democracies) public hearings have been a mainstay of civic engagement and feedback to government leaders.  Indeed, public hearings are often the most influential channel for feedback to government decision makers. However, this long-standing tradition of democracies has become incompatible with the lifestyles and mindsets of many citizens. This incompatibility is especially problematic for citizens with moderate views or an inclination to compromise, as well as parents with young children, adults with busy work schedules, and people that aren’t too mobile (i.e. infirmed or incapacitated).

This article details a series of problems with public hearings, and then culminates with an explanation of how online public comment forums complement public hearings in ways that (1) address their deficiencies, (2) enhance the perspectives and deliberations of government decision makers – and ultimately, (3) increase public trust in government.

The Problem:
The conventional approach to making decisions in local governments culminates at the city council meeting (or facsimile). These meetings are typically run under Robert’s Rules of Order, and each issue incorporates a public hearing. This public hearing isn’t the only source of community input to the decision makers, but it’s typically the only channel of public input that is officially unfiltered and open to the public. This transparency imbues the public hearing with extraordinary influence.

As the only official, unfiltered, transparent forum for citizen feedback, many residents, decision makers, and journalists erroneously conclude that the feedback at a public hearing is representative of the community. In other words, if the public hearing is dominated by one-side of an issue, then many mistakenly conclude that the community must be commensurately for that one-side. Likewise, if the public hearing is polarized by uncompromising opposite sides of an issue, then many mistakenly conclude that community must have few if any people that have moderate views on the issue and would advocate for compromise.  Without other official, unfiltered, transparent channels of input, it’s hard not to assume that the public hearing is a proxy for the community. However, that assumption can weaken the decision making process and frustrate the public. Why is that assumption risky? Because public hearings have attributes that have become incompatible with the lifestyle and mindset of many Americans – as shown in Figure 1 and 2.

From a lifestyle perspective, public hearings are typically held in the evening and have agendas that don’t have time allocations and are subject to reordering. Consequently many meetings run late into the night; and even if they don’t run late, if a person wants to participate in a particular agenda item, then they have to be prepared to stay for the entire meeting. Perhaps these attributes weren’t a problem decades ago, when life was slower, young children were living with extended families, work schedules were less hectic, and most families had two spouses with only one working fulltime. But these days, attending public hearings is challenging for adults that are responsible for young kids or consumed by fulltime work responsibilities.

From a mindset perspective, constituents with an opinion on an issue but who are not passionate about the issue are unlikely to make the commitment to participate in the issue’s public hearing. Likewise, constituents with moderate views and inclinations to compromise are also unlikely to incur the inconvenience to attend the public hearing. This results in public hearings that are frequently dominated by people with extreme views – and that further discourages moderates from attending because the mob of extremists can intimidate the moderates from speaking.

Some might argue that the people who don’t prioritize attending a public hearing are indifferent or apathetic about the hearing’s topic. But that’s an insensitive outlook because it’s tantamount to believing that voting should be more challenging so that only those citizens that feel passionately about a particular candidate should vote in that candidate’s election.

The Solution:
The solution to this community feedback and decision-making problem is straightforward: establish other forums for community feedback that are official, unfiltered, transparent and have attributes that augment and diversify participation beyond public hearings. For example, establish online public comment forums (OPCFs) that emulate the order and decorum of public hearings.

As shown in Figure 3, OPCFs enable time-constrained residents to participate at the time and place of their convenience. By emulating the order and decorum of public hearings, OPCFs are fair and enable everyone to understand and learn from other perspectives. Also, integrating OPCFs with online analysis tools enables decision makers to efficiently synthesize voluminous feedback – and thereby enhance their preparation for public hearings.

OPCFs aren’t a replacement for public hearings.  Instead, OPCFs complement public hearings by augmenting and diversifying civic engagement – as shown in Figure 4.  This will enhance the perspectives of government decision makers, lead to more informed deliberations, and ultimately increase public trust in government.

Postscript:  Providing communities with OPCFs for feedback to government leaders isn’t a radical idea – as a high percentage of Americans (and residents of other democracies) already provide huge amounts of feedback to communities, organizations and companies via popular online services such as Facebook, Twitter, Yelp, and TripAdvisor. However, in contrast to businesses, the challenge for government leaders is to offer OPCFs that they are legal, civil, fair, insightful and cost-effective. To learn more about addressing those challenges, contact Peak Democracy Inc (www.PeakDemocracy.com).

Michael Alvarez Cohen is a co-founder and board member of Peak Democracy Inc (PeakDemocracy.com), a member of the Berkeley Zoning Adjustments Board, a board member of the Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association in Berkeley, and a representative on the East Bay Green Corridor initiative. He can be reached at mike@PeakDemocracy.com.