Between my former work as a legislative services attorney and my current work as a county attorney with some other government work thrown into the mix at various times, I’ve attended a lot of public meetings over the past 20 years. Like, really a lot.
Mostly these are not attended by citizens and, for the most part, that’s more or less ok. There is a lot of routine business handled at these meetings by people who are good at what they do. For example, there’s really no call for John Q. Public to get involved with every drainage plan that gets reviewed when some business wants to add some parking spaces.
But, occasionally a concerned citizen or citizens will undertake a kind of watchdog role by trying to come to every meeting of a government body or all of those concerning a particular topic. This can be beneficial and is certainly the citizen’s right. But, I’ve noticed that some approaches are more effective than others. The overarching rule for being an effective concerned citizen is “don’t be a jerk.” Now, I’m not talking here about people whose goal is to effect far reaching social change — civil rights protesters and the like. That’s above my pay grade, and I’m not presuming to know what is effective in that context. I’m thinking more of the good government watchdog who wants to ensure that local decision makers are acting in the best interest of the public.
The most effective people I’ve seen working for that purpose are clear, direct, brief, and polite. They aren’t shy about speaking up when they don’t like things, but they don’t belabor the point, don’t wander off topic, recognize the scope and limits of the public body they’re attending, and avoid delusions of grandeur or that they’re participating in some Manichean battle of good versus evil (where their place on the side of good is never in doubt.)
These individuals attend consistently and, often, don’t have to speak at the meeting. Before and after the meeting, they are willing and able to chat with the public officials in an amiable, friendly way, even if they disagree with the official’s politics. They don’t always get their way. In fact, very often they don’t get their way. But, public policy isn’t binary — decisions are usually made on a spectrum. And, in the back of the public official’s mind — it seems to me — the official will maybe ratchet the policy a notch or two just because they know they’ll get some push back from a citizen whose position they’ve come to know, understand, and perhaps respect to some degree — even if the official will never necessarily agree with that position or frame of reference.
Contrast this with the belligerent bellyacher. This person will never be happy and often treats the public official rudely. Public life being what it is, officials usually don’t have thin skin and can usually endure some level of criticism. But, if you don’t agree with the citizen’s policy views in the first place, the citizen is never going to be happy, and he or she treats you badly besides, what is the upside to accommodating such a person? Mostly the rest of the public will find such a person off-putting in any case, so there is likely no political downside to simply enduring that citizen as best you can and then moving ahead without regard to that individual’s preferences.
Somewhere in the middle you have the people who are not up to speed on the purpose or the powers of the public body in question. A technical planning board isn’t going to be able to do much when the plans are in order but a citizen complains, not about the plans, but — for example — the social value of the business submitting the plan. Or maybe they’ll complain about federal policy to the local government officials. Or they’ll spend a great deal of time talking about extraneous information. These citizens aren’t disagreeable. In fact, they often present very sympathetic stories. But, ultimately, they are not effective because, even where the policymaker wants to help them, there is simply nothing that can be done for them in the context of whatever the public body is designed to consider.
So, be nice, be persistent, be focused, and be concise. Government generally benefits when citizens can engage with it in this fashion.
This is something that needs to be part of the school curriculum. Basically, it’s how to act as a concerned citizen and the responsibilities of citizenship, along with learning about and becoming informed about issues.
There is something else that needs to be discussed, and it’s how to vote for people and what to look for in a candidate that is good and a kiss of death. I’ve met and seen a number of school board members, who vary from incredibly informed and a great contribution to being just plain ignorant and dangerous. The Indiana School Boards Assn., has, over the years, invited new board members for a “come to Jesus meeting”, where their attorney informs them that they can do a great deal of damage speaking individually, and that they need to be careful when carrying an agenda, like “get the superintendent”. The smart ones come back chastened with a renewed sense of seriousness, and are open to superintendents who give them ten books to read on how to think about schools. I remember one school board member who, nearing his first terms, said that the job was way beyond what he expected and didn’t run for a second term. Citizens need to watch out of people who have negative agendas and go out of their way to support the positive and smart folks.
A few years ago, someone did a study, looking at the characteristics of people who serve on public boards. At one time, the tendency was to have professional folks who wanted to “give back to the community”, but we are seeing more people who simply want to use the public board as a stepping stone to “greater things’. Often these people advocate some negative agenda or a demagogic point of view, and do not serve the common good. In my opinion, we have never needed informed citizens and informed smart board members than we do now.
What you mention, along with some other things, needs to be part of the public consciousness. A democracy just doesn’t “happen” in April and November.
Stuart, interesting points about school board membership. I am not very familiar with school board representation as a researched issue, but I can imagine in large school districtsin places like the south and Texas, right wing activists would use the school board as a springboard to greater mischief. My limited knowledge of school board membership comes from my rural consolidated high school. Over the years, people with students in school ran for the school board. When their kids would graduate, they would no longer seek office. It was a great way to get your untalented child a place on a sports team.
Another anecdote I would share is a woman who is an IT analyst ran for and was elected to the school board. Her husband was the middle school school cop, euphemistically called a “Resource Officer.” He was a bully as kid and as a town cop and a sheriff’s deputy and had been nearly fired from the sheriff’s department for incompetence and performance failures. I suspect she sought the job to keep him employed.
Another very good article. Having spent many years involved in governmental groups, as well as, civic and professional groups, I have observed the same situations. Also, have been involved as a parliamentarian so have seen the people who try to use parliamentary procedure as a weapon. Those who volunteer (whether in a volunteer position or seek election) in general, deserve respect. I would join with your thoughts on people approaching a public body to seek to understand the limits of authority that body may have and to understand that some issues should be (respectively) addressed elsewhere.
Doug, I would almost have cut this out and submitted it with your application the other day as a sign or your rational clear thought. It directly encapsulates much of what I have seen as well. And I’ll go one step further in this kind of interaction with the public. Don’t assume the person in power will always be against you. Polite, to the point, helpful…you may find they prefer to help you in the future, when others are being nasty.
As far as activism for a particular cause, you know I have some experience there. There’s something to be said for having a few people protesting on the street going a bit louder than most Hoosiers would prefer, so long as you also have some folks dressed nice, well spoken, calm working behind the scenes. Most folks in power prefer to work with the latter, but someone has to turn the fire up too.
The rabble rouser fire breathers rarely get the actual work done, although they’ll claim the credit. For instance on LGBT issues, it’s the nephew of the legislator or the co-worker who they just can’t look in the face any more without acknowledging their humanity who helps to make the difference.
One other activist type I love, but know is somewhat ineffective is the one who lives in a Mr Smith Goes to Washington fantasy. I doubt very many people have ever really been swayed to vote differently in committee by a single speech, especially one cried and sobbed into a mic. Makes for good tv, but when a Senator enters a chamber, he knows how he’s supposed to vote, or someone didn’t do their job. The hard work is done prior and in back rooms.