As a local government official, do you believe in citizen engagement?  I don't mean "lipservice believing". . .I mean really believing that it is a critical element of local govenrment decisionmaking? 

Otis White, in an article entitled "Why the Goals of Citizen Engagement May Not be What you Think" on publicceo.com raises this question for all of us. He argues that not only is the environment bad at times--either noone shows up or everyone with an issue does--but that our processes challenge our relationships with citizens when they are limited to "three minutes at the microphone" and expect answers from elected officials that they are unlikely to receive when issues are first raised. 

But, to get back to the major question behind this post, do you believe in citizen engagement?  Mr. White argues that many of us don't really think it is that much of a necessity as, after all, our council members are elected to represent the people they serve, right?  And, frankly, some of our experiences with our citizens aren't all that positive, right?

But, as many reasons as we can come up with as to why citizen engagement isn't all that big a deal, there are a couple of really good reasons why it is a good idea.  And, frankly, Mr. White "nails it when he explains his arguements to local government officials:

First, he argues that citizen engagement can work a lot better than it does today, with much better results. Whether our rules and processes limit the cultivation of a positive working relationshp with citizens, or that we don't have comprehensive strategies that engage the public at times other than  when they are angry, local governments must make better efforts to make our engagement with citizens more fulfilling and positive. 

The second is that citizen engagement is a critical part of making governments work better.  Too often, we see citizen engagement as the process by which we ask for citizen input on a topic on which a decision is about to be made.  While it is important to hear from citizens on current topics, this type of engagement can have limited value.  Mr. White makes this point by saying that "an opinion is only as good as the information, logic, perspective, and values behind it, and for reasons that are obvious, people who are most affected by a decision aren’t always its best judges. After all, there’s a reason we use impartial juries to decide guilt and don’t leave it to the victims or the accused."

The goals of citizen engagement should be much deeper than what a local government can get through a simple public hearing.  There is a better way and that is through the development of a comprehensive, multi-sector, multi-faceted approach to public participation. 

Mr. White suggests that local governments should begin the dialogue with the community "before plans are drafted and perhaps even before problems are identified."   He argues that we should work to involve "citizens as individuals and in groups to become partners in solving community problems and seizing opportunities for the future."

As local government officials, we have taken on a lot of responsibility to deliver what we believe is best for our communities.  But, in doing so, have we  excluded our citizens and stakeholders from their important responsibilities as community members?  Mr. White states eloquently that "the healthiest communities are those that share responsibility, where everyone does his part and all are held accountable. You see most clearly how shared responsibility works in downtown business improvement districts, where businesses pay for some things (streetscaping, cleanup crews, additional uniformed security) while governments pay for others. The additional resources are important, but so is the diligence. BIDs work so well because everyone is involved and, therefore, paying attention."

Do you believe in citizen engagement. . .real engagement???????