Local Officials Discuss Embedding Public Involvement in Local Governance

Local leaders in California’s cities are increasingly looking for opportunities to involve a broad spectrum of residents in public planning and decision making. Whether the goal is to increase transparency and public confidence in local government, to develop new local leaders, to better assess and meet the needs of residents, or to build coalitions to develop and carry out neighborhood improvement efforts, California’s cities are pushing the envelope of the developing field of civic engagement. In various ways, a handful of cities have begun to institutionalize civic engagement; making it the new standard operating procedure for city business.

The Institute for Local Government spoke with local officials about their experiences employing various public engagement strategies.

Why has your agency decided to make a commitment to more extensive resident civic involvement?

Menlo Park: The commitment to community engagement by the present City Council came following an election where the lack of community engagement on previous major decisions was a campaign issue. The candidates running on this “platform” unseated incumbents viewed as limiting community participation and making decisions more unilaterally. The new Council subsequently set the following community engagement goal: Create meaningful opportunities for community members to have a voice in City decision-making and engage in dialog with each other in order to help City Council and staff understand community values, needs and concerns and develop policies, programs and services that are responsive to them.

National City: In order to make local government more transparent, the city has adopted a new philosophy which pledges to provide what we call the Five C’s: Communication, Collaboration, Customer Service, Commitment, and Courtesy. Along with that new philosophy we developed a strategic plan to improve the quality of life for residents by using community resources to engage, inform, and empower residents. Better communication has allowed us to develop programs which leverage existing efforts and reach out to a much wider segment of the population.

Ventura: While the concept of `civic engagement' is fairly new in government, the spirit of the term was alive in Ventura as far back as 2005, when residents came together to update the General Plan. During this important community dialogue, they called for an "Involved Community" as one of 10 long-range visionary goals for their city. The City of Ventura has committed to fulfilling this obligation in three ways: working collaboratively with residents to encourage participation in public affairs; raising awareness of city processes and being clear about city objectives; and working at the neighborhood level to promote civic engagement.

Brea: Brea has a long history of seeking a wide range of resident involvement. These efforts have included our Downtown Charrette, the General Plan Advisory Committee, and the Sports Park Advisory Committee as well as traditional commissions and standing committees. Various agency staff traditionally provided support for these efforts. However, in 2004 several “hot” projects developed in one neighborhood that was facing the transition to higher density and mixed uses activities. City staff members were already stretched thin in meeting their primary responsibilities. Therefore, the city decided to hire a part time neighborhood coordinator.

Salinas: The City of Salinas has prioritized more extensive civic participation because of the Council, staff, and citizen’s desire to strengthen the social fabric of our community and to enhance the connections between residents and the City government. The Salinas City Council has a goal of "Consistent Community Outreach and Engagement," and our Office of Neighborhood Services was developed to support neighborhood empowerment activities, coordinate implementation of solutions to neighborhood issues, and work with violence prevention collaboratives to strengthen neighborhoods.

Please tell us a little about your professional role in promoting local civic engagement.

Brea (George Briton, Neighborhood Coordinator): I serve as a conduit to facilitate the exchange of views and other information between neighborhood residents and the City. Most of my efforts have involved one neighborhood that is both one of the oldest in the City and also the site of significant public and private sector investment that is occurring at a faster pace than in the past. The structure is quite informal. Over time I have become more widely known to residents and as a result I receive inquiries, suggestions, and complaints on a wide range of topics. I then relay information to the appropriate City office and help seek solutions. When city agencies are not able to accommodate suggestions, I assist in explaining constraints and the City’s position to the involved residents.

Menlo Park (Cherise Brandell, Civic Engagement Manager): My role includes ensuring that city council, staff, and commissions have the skills and resources they need to effectively engage the community. I developing and implementing a community engagement plan and will regularly evaluate the results. The goal is actively engaged residents who feel a strong sense of community, have high trust in government and who are satisfied with city services and their quality of life.

National City (Rudy Lopez, Neighborhood Services Coordinator): Lauren and I coordinate meetings and activities for the seven Neighborhood Councils in our city. These councils convene monthly to learn about city departments, programs, and collaborating agencies and to have dialogue with city staff. We also serve as liaisons between the community and other city departments, which can reduce the frustration of residents seeking information, city services, or action related to city code enforcement. Our activities include coordinating neighborhood clean-ups, community projects such as facelifts to neighborhood recreation centers, quarterly breakfasts which bring all councils together at once, and other special events.

Ventura (Anne Hallock, Civic Engagement Manager): I work with a team of two specialists to manage the communications function for the City, as well as the integration of public participation into City programs and projects.

Salinas (Colin Gallagher, Neighborhood Services Coordinator): My work plan is approved annually by the city council, and currently includes implementation of a neighborhood engagement strategy, utilizing and updating a "Neighborhood Problem Solver" manual which describes how to access resources and develop successful neighborhood meetings, supporting community safety efforts, and implementing a volunteer services program. Previously, my work included organizing twelve community meetings, a Mayoral Town Hall, six community cleanups, and two city-wide resource fairs. Each of these events included residents, city staff, and one or more members of the City Council. A new teaming of Neighborhood Services with Recreation and Parks staff will enhance the City's capacity to involve the public in planning recreation areas and opportunities, a hot topic in the field of civic engagement.

Please share a success story relating to something accomplished in your community through enhanced public involvement.

Brea: A key vacant site in the neighborhood was the source of considerable aggravation for both city staff and residents. The initial proposal was abandoned due in large part to escalating raw material costs. A subsequent proposal was the subject of early review by neighborhood representatives and a more sensitive design was ultimately brought forward. Due in part to the lessons learned by all participants, this design was generally accepted and was superior overall to the initial proposal. Unfortunately, the developer abandoned his effort due to the housing market slump now facing Southern California and the property remains vacant.

Nevertheless, we learned how and early review process allowed neighborhood concerns to be voiced at a stage where adjustments could be more easily made by the design team. Moreover, neighborhood residents who once opposed development at this site subsequently participated in developing mixed use zoning regulations for the area which will shape future development. The participants and city staff and council were pleased with the collaboratively developed standards and all parties point to this effort with pride.

Menlo Park: “Your City / Your Decision” was a process involving over 2000 people in providing guidance on strategies for resolving a $3 million city budget shortfall in 2005 – 2006. This multifaceted community engagement process involved over 400 residents in deliberative forums where small groups debated how best to address the shortfall. Resident input guided the city council in deciding on a mix of service cutbacks and fee increases to make up the budgetary shortfall.

The process gave the city council the confidence to take the risky move of proposing a new utility users tax, despite a local climate that was generally hostile to tax hikes. This tax was approved by voters by a large margin, creating a continuing revenue source that eliminated the budgetary shortfalls the city had been facing each year.

National City: We have witnessed a continued increase in resident participation in everything from special events to policy-making. Due to the increased attendance at community events, a larger number of organizations are making their programs and services available to more residents. With more information in hand, residents are now more likely to voice their opinions at City Council and Planning Commission meetings. The number of recreation users has grown steadily. Long-time residents have a renewed sense of civic pride, while newcomers are quick to become a part of the community.

Ventura: “Give Today, Play Forever” was a grassroots campaign for a new community park in Ventura. Residents worked with city leaders on every step of the project to create a park that will serve a wide variety of interests and activity levels. The ribbon was cut in October of 2005, and today more than a quarter of the park has been built, including an aquatics complex, recreation and competition pools, three large sports fields, and more than a mile of paved trails. In 2007, more than three thousand children learned to swim through aquatic center programs at the Ventura Community Park, which stands as a testament to the power of residents who come together and support a shared goal.

Salinas: One great example of how the Neighborhood Problem Solver manual has been put to use is through a training that was requested by Dorothy's Place, an organization that provides services to homeless people in transition. Dorothy's Place volunteer clients learned how to work with city staff and with their limited resources to address problems. Another civic engagement success was the development of our Neighborhood Leadership Academy. A working group of residents collaborated to develop curriculum and ideas that will be critical to how the Academy is formed. This working group is an example of how residents can work directly with local government agencies to facilitate and define civic engagement work in a community.

What are the keys achieving high levels of community support and participation in a public engagement process?

Ventura: Families have so much on their plate these days, so the key to encouraging involvement is relevance. How will your project or your program affect them? Why should they get involved in steering these decisions? People will only take time out of their busy schedules if participation carries value. Relationship-building is a huge part of the process, as is accessing key segments of the community through groups they already belong to, such as churches and service organizations.

National City: Responsiveness to the community’s action requests with quick turnaround and follow-ups with individuals are crucial to keeping residents engaged and involved. Even if a final decision is an unpopular one, the councils have appreciated their ability to voice an opinion.
Menlo Park: First, the community must feel that the process is open, honest and fair. Second, the process must be designed to build lasting public judgment, the requirements for which include: an opportunity to share and hear diverse values and viewpoints, to receive understandable technical information about options and their implications, and opportunities for participants to deliberate about those implications and reach a judgment about the best solution.

Brea: Open communication is the most important factor. When the residents’ views are listened to, even if the end result is not what they feel is the “right” answer, they are more apt to live with the decision and not harbor post-decision ill feelings. In many instances, their views do provide ideas and are incorporated into the final decision.

Salinas: It is important to distinguish between "announcing" a civic engagement opportunity and "inviting" someone to such an event. The latter approach will always lead to better results. A large-scale radio announcement works well if you want to draw a large crowd to an entertaining event such as a resource fair. However, the results of announcements are short-lived. Personal invitations to take part in planning and development of efforts with city staff increase the likelihood of ongoing participation and collaborative network development.

How does your agency let residents know that their ideas and input matter and have been considered by decision makers?

Menlo Park: As much as possible we try to document the input, share it back out with the community and link it with process outcomes in a very direct “you said X so we did X” sort of way. We also try to set realistic expectations for engagement from the start – especially around how input will influence the final decision and who will make the final decision. We are using a spectrum developed by the International Association for Public Participation that helps us think this through and lays out the “promises” to the community implied in various levels of engagement. The key, though, is to be very clear about this from the beginning of a process.

Salinas: Constant and continuous engagement and ease of access to elected officials are keys to conveying to the public that their ideas and input are seriously considered by policy makers. Public recognition of residents who attend council meetings or hearings also demonstrates that the council values public input.

Brea: Key city staff members (and on occasion elected officials) often sit in on meetings being facilitated by the Neighborhood Coordinator, so it is evident that resident’s ideas are being considered. There is usually a follow up email or other communication after these meetings to answer any remaining questions and plan further activities.

Ventura: Including residents in the decision making process depends upon two crucially important factors: involving them early on and integrating their feedback meaningfully. City projects that include the first factor - whether through workshops, task forces or grassroots interaction - execute the second through open communication on the tail end. Public reporting to the City Council acknowledges public participation, as does direct contact with stakeholders through e-mail, follow-up meetings, our City Manager’s regularly maintained blog, and our biweekly E-Newsletter to residents.