Citizen Participation

Public Policy GroupApril 20, 2007

Contents

ExercisesExercises

IntroductionIntroduction

Midland caseMidland case

11

44

33

22

T. N. TT. N. T

ConclusionConclusion55

Why does Citizen Participation matter?

Represent the public better Reduce the possibility of corruption by increasing

transparency Know the interests of the people better Empower and educate people Enhance legitimacy, thus, compliance, and

implementation (effectiveness) Resolve public dispute better Correct injustice situations Hold public institutions more accountable Use local, indigenous knowledge from citizens

Definition of Citizen Participation

Sherry R. Arnstein The redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens

to be deliberately included in the future. - "A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the

American Institute of Planners

James V. Cunningham The process of exercising power on decision making in the re

gional community by non-experts/citizens - "Citizen Participation in Public Affairs" Public

Administration Review

Concepts related (Amsler)

Civic engagement: All the many roles and activities through which people take an active part in community life

Public participation: Subset of civic engagement that informs the public and involves residents in shaping the policies that affect them

Collaborative governance: Subset of public participation that involves the general public and others in informed and reasoned discussions that seek to influence public sector decision-making

The Ladder of Citizen Participation (Arnstein)

Citizen Control

Delegated Power

Partnership

Consultation

Informing

Therapy

Manipulation1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Placation

8

Nonparticipation

Tokenism

Citizen Power

The Key: Understanding the Levels of Public Participation

Inform Involve CollaborateConsult Empower

Increasing Level of Participation in Decision Making

3 4 521

Democracy Cube (Archon Fung)

How could we sort out various practical citizen participation methods?

Participant Selection Methods

Modes of Communication and Decision

Extent of Influence and Authority

Why Engage The Publics?(Peter Sandman)

You need the help of the publics

You need the advice of the publics

You need the buy-in of the publics

☞ Consensus Building to prevent & address conflicts

Consensus Process

A process in which stakeholders engage in discussions and negotiations

The purpose of consensus process is reaching a decision that everyone can live with

* Source: Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution, “What is Negotiated Rulemaking? “, The University of Texas School of Law

Consensus Building Process (Susskind)

Convening responsibility Clarification

Deliberation Decision Making Agreement

Initiate discussion

Specify roles of each stakeholder

Strive for

Transparency

Unanimity on package of gains

Ratification by constituencies

Issue assessment & Identify stakeholders

Set agenda and ground rules

Use expert, professional neutral

Adhere to decision-making process

Present approved proposal

Decide to commit to a process

Assess options Seek to maximizing joint gains

Keep a record of commit

Monitoring of implementation

Recommendations for effectivepublic participation (Widditsch)

Start early & Plan carefullyKnow what you want, Be flexibleKnow who is doing whatProvide useful informationMake meetings convenientGet lots of publicity

Sewage Treatment Conflict: Conflict Overview (Wagen & Pfeffer)

Onondaga County recommended the construction of a Regional Treatment Facility (RTF) to be located in the Midland Avenue Southside community. When discharges occur from this facility they will flow into Onondaga Creek and eventually into Onondaga Lake. A small group of citizens in the neighborhood have resisted the County’s attempts to construct the RTF. Local citizens object to many proposed features of the facility.

1991 County Swirler (sewage technology) plans originated

1998 Amended Consent Judgment sets milestone dates for the County to meet

1998 Public Participation begins after firms had been contracted for the project and key plans developed and submitted to the county

Residents request details of location- Community already burdened and disrupted by multiple industrial facilities in addition to public and private

projects

1999 Oxford and Blaine residents organized themselves as Citizens for Fair Treatment

Timeline of Events

Syracuse University Public Interest Law Firm

2000 Southside advocacy organization Syracuse United Neighbors helped form the Partnership for Onondaga Creek (POC).

2001 County supports planning storage system in Schiller Park as alternative.

City of Syracuse Common Council voted to refuse to sell necessary City-owned and controlled land to the County.

2002  U.S. District Court rules that Onondaga County may condemn property owned by the City that is needed for the Midland project.

Timeline (cont’d)

Onondaga County Dept of Water Environment Protection

Engineers begin preliminary design for the County’s preferred option.

2003 Revised and updated facilities plan submitted to NYSDEC for the Midland Avenue RTF project.

Onondaga County Legislature authorized acquisition of property for construction, operation, and maintenance of Phase II Midland Avenue RTF.

2003  Federal district court judge supported Onondaga County's right to use eminent domain with just compensationto acquire a City-owned property. City files appeal. Countyproceeded to purchase needed private properties and assisted property owners in finding new homes and provided compensation for moving.

Timeline (cont’d)

Lane and Heath

2003 NYSDEC approved updated facilities plan and engineering design report.

2004 Demolition contract awarded. Site demolition begins.

2004 County officials meet with area residents at a meeting of SUN-Tallman Action Council. Questions are asked and responded to regarding construction and the proposed schedule of construction activities.

Currently in Phase II of construction.

Timeline (cont’d)

Lane and Heath

The Partnership for Onondaga Creek (POC)

“The Partnership for Onondaga Creek is a voice for the Midland Community and the environment advocating for better, non- polluting solutions for Onondaga Creek.”

- POC website

POC (cont’d)

Helped to bring about negotiations which created 2 viable alternatives (Peace Council)– Meetings took place from December 2001 –

August 2002– City of Syracuse, Onondaga County, NYSDEC,

Atlantic States Legal Foundation, the Onondaga Nation, and POC were all “at the table”

– Consensus on alternatives was nearly reached but unilateral decisions spurred controversy

Title VI Administrative Complaint

Filed in April 2004 on behalf of POC by SU– to challenge the collective actions of Onondaga

County and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) in selecting and approving the placement of an above ground, regional treatment facility on Syracuse’s Southside.

http://rochester.indymedia.org/newswire/display/2511/index.php

Administrative Complaint (cont’d)

Also addressed claims of inadequate public participation– Offered only after a method had been selected– Comment occurred on uncertain phases of the

project– Timeframe for comment and search for alter-

natives was shortened by County– Information was presented in a confusing manner

http://rochester.indymedia.org/newswire/display/2511/index.php

“Environmental Justice for All Tour”

Took place in Syracuse Sept. 24 – Oct. 1, 2006 Led a tour of the Midland area highlighting the

environmental injustice, including lack of public participation.

“All levels of government must make it their number one priority to include members of affected com-munities in the planning and design of new projects prior to completion of the planning and design phases.” (Poindexter of POC)

www.citizenscampaign.org/media/pr_092506.htm

Tomorrow’s Neighborhoods Today (TNT)

Official citizen participation process in the City of Syracuse

Divides the City into eight neighborhood planning areas

Each area has an assigned staff person, but the meetings are completely citizen driven

City officials from various operational depart-ments attend to address questions and concerns

TNT (cont’d)

Each planning commission maintains a 5-year neighborhood plan

Commissions submit annual requests for Capital Improvements Projects (CIP)

A small amount of CDBG money is set aside for escrow projects

Spin-off - Syracuse Neighborhood Initiative

TNT Strengths

Fosters relationships Identifies community needs Increases accountability

– “We turned the lights on … and we turned the heat up for everyone else.”

- Peg Stroman, TNT founder

Provides an outlet for community dialogue Institutionalized by City Ordinance

TNT Weaknesses

Self-selecting - not representative of the public at large

Community divided by arbitrary lines Inadequate staffing/resources No guarantee that ideas will be implemented Not well designed to withstand changes in

administration– Currently underutilized

Sample: Southside TNT Agenda

Call to Order Review/Accept Minutes Questions for city officials Midland RTF

– Generate criteria to evaluate recommendations– Brainstorm ideas that the negotiation team can take to the

DEC led meetings– Evaluate ideas based on pre-determined criteria

Announcements Adjourn

Questions to Consider

What concerns you about the RTF?

What solution would you like to see implemented and why?

Determine the best solution from your group and nominate a representative report back to the class.

Conclusions

Citizen participation and conflict prevention– Raises critical concerns during the early stages of

a project or policy– Provides mutual understanding of community

needs and goals Citizen participation and conflict management

– Redirects focus to interests rather than positions– Corrects misunderstandings in policy and process– Generates creative solutions to public policy

problems

Thank you!

Public Policy Group