Please find a pdf of this blog post.

We started this blog thinking about our work, the practice, the field and comments we’ve heard from participants.  We’ve been thinking about what makes public engagement really meaningful, and what builds stronger communities, organizations and individual lives.  
We believe in IAP2’s 7 Core Values, and think they are important measures for good practice and process….but we think they are missing a magic number eight. We propose that magic eight be focused on capacity building, and we want to hear your thoughtsJust as an aside, we’ve also had a few suggestions that there be a Core Value Number 8 focused on free beer and door prizes.  While we think that this is also a worthy suggestion, its time may not have yet come.

Why capacity as a Core Value?

Currently IAP2, the International Association of Public Participation embraces 7 Core Values to set the standard for meaningful process and to guide the work of public engagement practitioners.

1.  The Rolling Stones had it right.

So besides being one of the most successful bands in the world, and continuing to perform into their elder years, we’ve learned that these guys got a few things right along the way.  Remember these lyrics?

You can’t always get what you want

You can’t always get what you want

You can’t always get what you want

But if you try sometimes well you just might find

You get what you need

Oh baby, yeah, yeah!

We have learned that sometimes it is just as simple as asking people what they need, and honestly talking about what might happen if they don’t get what they want. That doesn’t mean that you discount or don’t consider or try to understand what they want, but sometimes hard decisions have to be made, and sometimes not everyone is going to like the final outcome.  That is just the way it is – better to put it on the table and talk about it than pretending that if they tell you what they want, then they will get it.  Just for the record, we don’t usually add the “Oh baby, yeah, yeah” when we facilitate the conversation.

2.  Responsibility is a 2-way street.

There is a difference between embracing emotion in your public engagement process and supporting people in the moment and creating a situation where people become the emotion they are feeling.  We often ask people:

• What happened to you?  What will happen to you?
• How were you hurt or will you be hurt by this?
• How do you feel about this?

There is a place and time for these important questions, but once you’ve had these discussions, it is OK for you to ask other ones, that support people to engage in constructive conversation.  We could also ask:

• What challenge are we facing?
• How will you choose to respond to this situation?
• What values will guide your actions / should guide our collective actions?
• What do you need to see happen in order to participate?
• What do your friends/neighbours/colleagues value or need?

These second questions empower people to have a role in the decision, to retain power over the choices to be made, and to engage constructively on issues that matter to them.

3.  It’s not that hard to reach the “hard to reach”.

First, let us say that we dislike the term “hard to reach” and we don’t know what it is really supposed to mean.  We’re talking about people who are NOT middle class, middle age, or already engaged.  Maybe we should say instead - It’s not that hard to reach “everybody else”. People who live on low-income or in poverty, new immigrants or refugees, youth, the elderly or infirm, those who are experiencing homelessness or mental health issues….they are all just people whose lives might be different than yours or mine, but who still care about things and have a right to a voice.  It takes creativity and a commitment to reach them where they are right now, where they live, access services, or participate in their community. Sometimes it means sitting in homeless shelters or food banks, taking a video camera to the street, walking through impoverished neighbourhoods and talking to people on their front porches, or having people take pictures of what matters to them.  The ways and opportunities are countless but expecting them to come to your meeting won’t work, or having to write down their thoughts on a comment form, or  needing to speak up at a public meeting. They have a voice and you need to hear it or you are missing more than half the world.

4.  Saying sorry has to mean something.

Apologies are powerful.  Apologies are meant to make someone who has been harmed or hurt feel better.  Apologies mean taking responsibility for the whole situation and what happened.  Apologies need to identify what you will do differently in the future.  Apologies need to demonstrate empathy and regret for what you have done. Unfortunately, apologies are the newly popular tool for reducing outrage.  The thing about apologies is that they don’t work to reduce outrage unless they are real, sincere, heartfelt and fulsome. So next time your public engagement process or resulting decision hasn’t gone that well, and you feel your self (or someone from your organization) tempted to say “I’m sorry you feel that way” or “I’m sorry you are upset or hurt” – reconsider.  It isn’t going to make anyone feel better, and it definitely isn’t going to reduce the associated emotion.  If you really feel bad, if you are really prepared to take responsibility, if you have learned, if you really care, then go ahead and apologize.  It will mean something.

5.  Empathy isn’t a strategy.

If apologies are popular, then empathy is the new cool.  Here is the thing though: like apologies, empathy isn’t a strategy.  Empathy is about really caring deeply about the people you engage, even if you don’t care about the issue, or agree with them.  It is about asking yourself – what if that was me? What if it was my child whose school was being closed?  What if it was my community under siege by crime and drugs?  What if I might lose my job as a result of this decision?  Put yourself just for one minute in someone else’s shoes and just feel what you might experience if that was your life.  Bring tears to your eyes?  Good.  Empathy isn’t a strategy – you have to really feel it for people in the room to want to engage with you.  Just a word of caution – just because you can feel it doesn’t mean it should be about you.  You don’t get to cry or tell your sad story until later after the meeting with a glass of wine.  But if you feel your heart beating in that moment, then you will be better equipped to honour those in the room, to care for their issues and concerns as if they were yours, just for that moment.

6.  The politics of division is here to stay.

What do you picture when you read that?  My first thought is the Tea Party, but when I reflect on it, the scope expands to include protests, protesters, petitions, politicians making grandiose statements about right and wrong, media headlines, social media campaigns…the list goes on.  We live in a culture of fear, where people so often take a stand against something rather than for something, where politicians speak in sound bites and where there are winners and losers.  It just is the environment we live and work in.  That doesn’t make it right, but it also doesn’t make any of these groups or individuals wrong either.  They are expressing passion, interest, emotion – they care deeply and that is a wonderful thing.  The media will feed on this emotion, and use it in their headlines. These groups don’t want to compromise, and that doesn’t make them bad, it just makes your job harder and requires you to openly embrace them without judgment or censure, and invite them to the table.  They might choose not to come, but keep inviting them – and invite the media too.

7.  Representative process just doesn’t cut it.

We live in a democracy, and that means that every person has a voice and a right to that voice.  That means that my neighbor George would be a great participant on a committee about what should happen in our community.  But it doesn’t mean that George speaks for me – George speaks for himself and his experience in the community.  He brings his world view, his values, and his experience to the conversation, but he doesn’t bring mine.  It is disingenuous to think or suggest George could speak for me or that the input George would provide should be considered as the voice of our community.  Now I’m not suggesting George would say this, but I am saying that there are so many processes that suggest if George is present, my community is taken care of and we’ve had our say.  Now, if George sits on the committee, and I am also given an opportunity to attend a meeting, someone knocks on my door and/or I can go online to talk about the development application at the end of my street – then we’ve got good process that is BOTH representative and inclusive.  Take this to a larger scale:  I recently attended a talk where someone talked about the 108 people involved in a citizen’s assembly and how that process increased awareness and understanding, built capacity for democratic process and was representative.  Here is my response – it definitely built capacity and understanding for those 108 people, although not so much for the other 10 million provincial residents.  It improved democratic capacity for those 108, yes, but not for the other 10 million.  Was it representative? Yes.  Did those 108 people speak for me?  Definitely not.  You need both representation and inclusion to resolve conflict, make good decisions, build community and understanding.

8. Your process needs to speak for itself.

We all want to do a great job, to have people tell us we are good at our jobs, to have our accomplishments recognized.  The same is true in public engagement.  The challenge here is that if you say “I ran a really great process” no one will believe you, or worse, people will say you said that because you are biased.  And really, you might think you did a great job, but does that really matter?  I know your ego says yes, but it isn’t actually right.  Your participants need to say the process was good, and meaningful, and inclusive, and their voice was heard, and they understand more now than they did before, and they understand the views of others as well.  Your participants need to be able to say they understand how the decision was made, and what input was used, and what was not.  They should even be able to say that if they don’t like the final decision, they still think they were heard, and that it was a good process.  Your process has to speak for itself; it has to stand alone as a measure of success.  If you are the one to say it, you’ve lost the credibility, and really you aren’t unbiased any more, are you?

9.  You have to go through the trench to get to the other side.

We know it would be so much easier if you could get from point a to point b in an easy, simple and manageable way.  That just isn’t the case.  Like in life, in public engagement the things that are emotional, passionate, and really important are the ones we work hardest for, and the things that yield the best results.  You have to immerse yourself in the emotion, in the complexity, sit in the chaos itself in order for the future to emerge.  We know, this sounds like there might be hugging.  There might be.  It is messy and sometimes hard, and often uncomfortable but we’ve learned avoiding it only makes it worse, and smoothing it over does the same.  Sit with it.  Embrace the fact you don’t know what to do.  Feel crappy.  Feel confused.  Be uncomfortable.  You’ll be amazed at what emerges from the chaos.  Trust us, it works.

10.  Practice gratitude.

We put this item in our first top ten list but we feel it is worth repeating and remembering again, and again. We believe this is the best job in the world, and we are so lucky to have it.  We believe the people we get to meet, who care about the issues under discussion, whose communities and families matter to them – they are a gift.  We are grateful that we get to help organizations make better decisions, that communities and people get a chance to access their voice or their stories, even just for the time we are together.  We feel privileged they trust us with their words and cares. Keep giving, keep believing, keep being thankful – life is short and you get back what you put into the world. We’re grateful for the opportunity to have learned enough lessons to be able to make a list like this.

Community led Recovery
What does community led recovery mean? What does it look like? Supporting people on an emotional journey designed to rebuild their physical communities and also their lives means many different things to many different people.

I identified a list of characteristics that need to be present for community-led recovery to be effective in the long-term, and participants added depth and dimension to the list.

Here is what is on our list for effective community led recovery:
Community leads – community led recovery is led by members of the community, and supporting and responding organizations follow that lead, working in partnership with the community as a whole, not just key community leaders.

Inclusive – community led recovery makes space for any and all to be involved, have a say, and have their needs and interests met. That means outreach and engagement of ALL community members, not just those who are easiest to reach, in the immediate vicinity, loudest or most organized.

Equitable participation – community led recovery is fair and equitable rather than fair and equal – the same approach for everyone isn’t the answer and won’t meet everyone’s needs. The community in community-led recovery isn’t homogenous, and different people will have different needs at different times.

Builds capacity – community led recovery intentionally builds capacity for leadership, constructive conversation, decision-making, reflection, learning and knowledge.

Supported and facilitated – community led recovery is supported with resources and adequate funding, and is facilitated by third parties who can support all participants through conflict, high emotion and into a shared future.

Gives long-term possibility and builds connections – community led recovery builds on existing connections, relationships and networks and links with new ones that have emerged or are created at the same time, and gives participants the opportunity to envision their future and the path to that future. Focus is on immediate needs as well as long-term future.

Resolves and embraces the “hard” issues and is emotionally supportive of all involved – community led recovery ensures that all issues are on the table for discussion, and creates the space for participants to discuss and share about the community’s past, present and future. Emotional support for all involved: those impacted by the disaster and those working in response and recovery of the disaster needs to be provided, with as much emphasis on community as individual supports and a recognition that at least equal focus should be placed on how people “feel” as is placed on what they can “do”.

Flexible and responsive, connecting with the past and the future – community led recovery isn’t necessarily orderly or structured, but it is responsive to changing needs, environments and people and flexibly adapts to what emerges as time passes. Recovery processes recognize that there was a community with people, organizations and structures in it before the disaster, and connects with that community first before re-building an artificial structure. This past, combined with the present, allows for a meaningful future to be built.

In talking about the space where community led recovery emerges, and the space in which people need to work, I offered some insight into the well-known chaordic path and its application to resilience, recovery and rebuilding.

The chaordic path is the space between chaos and order, where innovation, insight and collective wisdom emerge. In situations of disaster this space is a challenging one for community and for people working in the field. Disaster response requires highly coordinated, ordered and regimented response in a time of enormous crisis: in essence disaster response requires order. Disaster itself takes place in the realm of chaos. Recovery however requires space for the emergence of emotion, divergent views and changing roles for responders and community where shared power, decision-making and values become paramount. This recovery takes place in the space between chaos and order; the chaordic path.

Holding the space between chaos and order, individually and collectively, allows community led recovery to emerge, supporting people through confusion and conflict toward clarity.  Some will feel more comfortable with chaos, others with order. The space between both is needed to facilitate community led recovery and move toward something new, post disaster.

On the far side of chaos is chamos – despair.  On the far side of order is control.  When we move toward either of these extremes, the result is apathy or rebellion. Too much chaos creates an environment where the future isn’t imagined and where people are lost to the emotion and uncertainty they are experiencing. Too much order creates an environment where organizations or agencies lead, but where needs, interests and values of all members of the community may be lost to rules and structures, and some may disengage or react with outrage.

The chaordic path creates a “sweet spot” for emergence of innovation, creativity, reflection and thoughtful action with tangible results

With talk of bush fires, earthquakes, cyclones and floods I was moved, saddened and inspired by stories of resilience, commitment and recovery. I feel richer for having been part of it.

What do you think makes for engaged and resilient communities in long-term recovery?

Stephani Roy McCallum
Managing Director

These questions are timely as I recently participated in an interactive online discussion entitled Conversations for the 21st Century. This series of online conversations will cover topics such as Democracy, Money, Food, and Aging and is open to all interested participants. The first conversation of the series is focused on “the changing definition of community and its importance in the world today.” The hosts will encourage participants to “explore ideas about what community is and what it is evolving into”.

I’ve been reflecting on these questions prior to the discussion, I’ve determined if someone asked me the question “What community are you apart of?” I would answer that I am a part of the “Edmonton Ukrainian community” and that membership, if I were to call it that, is based on my family, friends and social activities I’ve participated in. This is different than a more traditional idea of community that would be defined by where I reside or who I pay membership fees to. This was a common theme during the on-line discussion that people’s perception and use of community is expanding and changing. As technology continues to enhance our ability to connect and communicate, our access to a variety of “community memberships” will also increase.

In addition to this being an interesting personal reflection, I am also curious to explore this topic and method of discussion for professional reasons. At Dialogue Partners we engage with communities in almost every P2 project and this reflection has reminded me that the word community has multiple definitions. Some of these definitions could include: “neighbourhood communities” based on proximity and address, or “communities of practice” where colleagues in similar industries share ideas, innovations and suggestions or “community organizations and associations” that are based on a shared goal, vision or activity. Certainly there are other variations of community that have not been captured here and I encourage you to consider your own “communities” and how you have defined them. In public engagement we work with people and they associate themselves with different communities. By expanding our understanding and perception of community we may be able to increase our participation in public discussions and engagement projects. Public engagement is only successful when you have people to actively engage in dialogue and I’m always interested to learn new and innovative ways to encourage people to join a conversation. On a technical note, as a P2 practitioner it was great to experience the “world cafe technique” used in a virtual context and how to use “conversation starters” (people who are making significant contributions to the field being discussed) to get the dialogue going.

I encourage you to see more about Conversations for the 21st Century and sign up by following this link http://www.wedialogue.com/conversations-for-the-21st-century.html

So what happened to the Sherwood Park News? After all this deep thought, I just really like it’s easy to read format, that is comes to my front door, and knowing what’s going on around town!

1. Embrace your enemies. Those people who are opposed to your issue or working directly against it should be welcomed into your public engagement process and events and given opportunities to share their views. They are going to be sharing their perspective with others anyway, so you should be open to hearing it first. What is the very worst that could happen? You might understand them a little better, and they might understand you. You might start to build a relationship. You might agree to disagree. Doesn’t sound that bad after all, does it?
2. There are no enemies. OK, so we know our earlier lesson was to embrace your enemies, but our next lesson is that there aren’t actually any enemies in a public engagement process. There are just people who want to be heard, who are passionate, who have a different perspective than you or your organization. If you can think about all participants in a different way, and not put on your armour for a battle with some invisible enemy, you may find that maybe those people who don’t agree with you are actually just people with something to say that is important to them.
3. Keep your promises. This one is public engagement 101, but it is also the very foundation of trust. You need trust to engage meaningfully, and you need it from your clients, organization and participants, and you get it by keeping your promises. That means you should keep your big promises, but it means your little baby promises too -like when you will call people or post reports, or answer questions. In the end, participants don’t trust your degree, your name or your organization -they trust YOU, and you have to earn that trust.
4. Political rhetoric will sink everyone’s ship. Political campaigns are focused on one primary objective: winning. There is no place for winners and losers in a meaningful  public engagement process. While not all political candidates are personally focused on winning and losing, their desire to serve the public can’t be fulfilled unless they actually beat their opponents and win their elected office. If you can, stay out of public engagement during election season. If you can’t, then be sure your  communications, events and approach all reiterate for participants the commitments and intentions you can keep, and that your process is being conducted in good faith. Failing that, make your issue and process front and centre for political candidates, so they engage in meaningful way on the real issues, with your participants.
5. Hold hands with your clients. We know, this one sound a little weird. You weren’t expecting advice on how to find a date, right? We don’t mean you have to literally hold hands -we mean you should do it emotionally. People aren’t born knowing how to talk about complex, emotional issues. Technical experts like engineers, architects and scientists are trained to solve problems – their professional training is focused on finding the right answers. Some of the things you need to do for meaningful public engagement may make some of your clients uncomfortable – and that’s OK. You would be uncomfortable being asked to build a bridge if you hadn’t been trained to do it, right? Everyone needs support to make this work, and that means your client as well as your participants.
6. Roller coasters are good for your mental health. First, we’ll be honest about the fact that we really love roller coasters, so any opportunity to encourage people to ride them is good. That said, public engagement on controversial, complex or conflictual issues is like a roller coaster ride. Any attempt to smooth the track will just cause the cars to derail. Any attempt to slow things down will mean you don’t make it up the big hill. You’ve probably figured out by now that you can substitute roller coasters with emotions in this lesson, and you’ll get our message. Embrace emotions in your process: anger, grief, frustration, cynicism… yours, your clients, and your participants. If you do that, the ride might be a little wild, but it will be joyous too, and you will reach your destination in one piece.
7. All you have is your integrity. There is a reason why most professions have codes of ethics or professional standards: they guide the practice; they measure your performance; and they set the bar for professional integrity. IAP2′s Code of Ethics references important issues like good faith, not polarizing communities, advocating for process not an outcome.  You can find the Code of Ethics at IAP2.org. Our lesson here is that these standards aren’t negotiable – they don’t say “keep these standards unless your client is paying you and they ask you to do something different.” Be true to yourself, honour your participants and respect your client – and then make the best decision that lets you look yourself in the mirror each day.
8. If your knees are shaking, that is a good thing. Like the roller coaster, things that make your knees shake are good for the soul. We have learned that the unexpected, nerve-wracking moments of life are the times when you learn the most, when the opportunity presents itself to have courage or serve the people in your process just a little better. We’ve had some unexpected scary moments over the years that made our hearts pitter-patter, but when we’ve owned those moments and focused on what the people in the room really  need, we’ve had real success. We remember  that “it is not about me” and that helps us stay standing despite the shaking.
9. Do things where there are no guarantees. There is no certainty in life, despite all of our attempts to make things perfect, sure and absolute. Our experience has taught us that a little discomfort is the source of creativity, effort and ideas. That doesn’t mean you should make your participants sit on the floor and hug each other, but it does mean you should go ahead when not everything is certain, when you, your client and your participants do not have all or many of the answers – and see what happens. The most amazing things occur.
10. Practice gratitude. We believe this is the best job in the world, and we are so lucky to have it. To do good work that makes the world a little better for people (or sometimes a little less worse in a hard situation), and to honour the voices and stories of amazing people: this is a gift. We’ve learned that being grateful for participants makes a difference to them too; they can tell when you really care, and when their views really matter. Now you can’t fake it, so don’t pretend to be grateful or we can guarantee that will backfire. We had a wonderful client who once joked that “empathy is a strategy” and that is not our lesson here. Be thankful, and show it. You get back what you put into the world, and we’re grateful for the opportunity to have learned enough lessons to be able to make a list like this.

We are pleased to provide a a two page pdf or a postcard version of our top ten list.

1) Pick one area and focus on it

Organizing a big mess can be exhausting so don’t try to tackle it all at once. Pick one area and work through it before moving on to the next. It’s usually good to start with whatever takes up the most space. For me, this is usually paper. This is a good first step because you see big results fast. Before you know it you’ll remember what the top of your desk looks like! In order to do this, you’ll need to…

2) Get a good filing system – and use it!

Now that many of us are living on our computers, this can be applied to your online files as well. Set aside some time to go through those documents. This can be a lengthy endeavor, so put it in your schedule, throw on some good music and jump in.

3) Throw out what you don’t need.

Keeping those files from 6 years ago? It’s time to give them up. I know the separation anxiety might be tough, but in the end, you’ll be happy you ditched them. If you MUST keep them, get a couple good boxes, label them, and throw them in your basement.

4) Invest is some good storage pieces

Desks always have a fair number of bits and pieces that you use on a daily basis that have to be within reach. Buy a few good storage pieces that will provide a home for your desk inhabitants.

5) Stick with it – An organized desk isn’t permanent

Being organized takes a daily effort. I know, I wish it could stay like that forever too. Set aside 3 minutes at the end of each day to file and put everything back where it belongs. 3 minutes. That’s it. Maybe play an “end of day” song on your ipod and let these 3 minutes be the beginning of your journey home.

Organizing. Sorting. Shifting things around so they look a bit nicer. Maybe it’s a New Years resolution or a Saturday afternoon activity, but at some point, or many points in some cases, we all have the urge to rearrange. A clean desk and office space is an essential part of successful business environment. When your desk is clearer, your head is clearer, and you are able to be more present for the people in your life and the people you work with. This is a helpful tool in any career, and speaking from a public engagement perspective, I find a clean office helps me be more engaged in what I’m doing. If a client is dealing with a stressful situation, it’s a good idea to be present and ready. Calm the chaos, don’t add to it.

Be it the toolbox, filing cabinet or the issues and concerns of your stakeholders, the time always comes to sort it all out.

- Emily Gallant
Junior Consultant, Dialogue Partners

No matter what the statement, they all contain an element of truth. IAP2 (www.IAP2.org) has a list of “statements” as well, documented in a Code of Ethics for Public Participation, which guide the actions of practitioners. It is a Code of Ethics that has me running the list of tried and true statements through my head. In the Code of Ethics there is a line that states:

“Respect for Communities. We will avoid strategies that risk polarizing community interest or that appear to divide and conquer.”

We were recently hired by an organization with a land use project fraught with outrage, distrust and conflict. That is what we do best, and what we love to work with. Elected officials had directed the organization to go back to the drawing board and take a different approach. We were retained to support that different approach. Then just like life, things happened. The client set dates for the first round of meetings, and didn’t check our availability. The client decided that the best first step would be to present the previous approach, plans and options, and offer the revised approach to public engagement for comments. We advised against this, noting that our experience, research and best practices suggested that the best approach would be instead to engage people in talking about their issues, concerns and needs. Once the emotion is embraced, some credibility and trust is built, then it would be a good time to introduce options and background. Here is another saying that applies: People don’t care what you know until they know that you care.

Consultants get paid for providing advice, but clients don’t have to take that advice. So this client decided not to take our advice. That’s OK, but here is the twist: the client asked us to go along with their plan – meetings on dates we weren’t available for, and the “present and tell” strategy as a first step.

Soul searching, risk assessment, self-assessment ensued. Where was the line in the sand? Did it matter what I did if I was paid for it? How bad could it be? In the end I decided to say no thanks. Why? Because in the end all you have is your integrity and your credibility. In the end I don’t just teach the Code of Ethics, I live by them, and saying yes would have meant knowingly agreeing to proceed in a way that would result in further polarized communities and stakeholders. I’ve seen it happen too many times. In the end, it would have felt wrong to take money to support this strategy – it would have felt like my integrity was purchased.

It was a very hard decision to make, one of the hardest of my career, but I know that it was the right one. In the end, all you have in this business is your integrity.

I voted in advance polls in Ottawa’s municipal election two weeks ago, and spent some time considering whom I was voting for – for City Councillor, for Mayor and for School Board Trustee.  That got me thinking…

• What was the driving motivation behind my selections?
• How was I selecting the candidates who got my vote?
• Was it values or principles or policy?
• Was it that they were positive instead of negative in their campaigning?
• Is it that they stand for the same things I believe in?
• Is it their gender or race or culture?
• Do I just “like” them?
• Do they make me feel comfortable in the world, or alternatively, do they challenge and stretch my thinking?

So…I voted, and I figured out why I voted for whom I voted for.  I thought the questions were worthy of a blog post in this election zone we live in. As a bonus, I also thought they would provide a great opportunity to try out a new online tool I recently stumbled across.

For all you participatory democracy junkies out there: think about a past, present or upcoming election.  What makes you vote for someone?  Then click here and try out this new tool.

Let me know what you think! May the best candidate win.

All the best,

Stephani Roy McCallum

Recent events have compounded the lack of meaningful community engagement, deliberative process or transparency in decision making at City Hall, Ottawa, Canada. The last few years have demonstrated a disaster in civic engagement, which has been horrible to witness, and impossible not to watch. It has been shocking and amazing to watch City Council and administration move forward in a way that includes lobbying, statements of decision made prior to consultation, and exclusionary versus inclusionary process.

Who knew it could get worse? Redevelopment of Lansdowne Park in the City Centre has been an epic saga of how NOT to engage, or alternatively, of how TO incite outrage. You can check out some of the recent coverage and history of the issue here http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/lansdowne/index.html In fact, the issue created so much angst for me that I felt compelled to write a letter to City Council about the lack of engagement process. You can view that letter here. Of note, I heard from half of City Council in response, but not the Mayor or City administration.

After months of outrage, decide-announce-defend process, with a sprinkling of consultation thrown in, the Planning and Development Committee (a Standing Committee of City Council, made up on City Councillors) was last week faced with a decision requiring the re-zoning of some lands so that the Lansdowne redevelopment could move forward. Mayor O’Brien is an ex-officio member of the Committee, and in his term in office, has rarely attended Committee meetings to vote. However, on September, Mayor O’Brien attended the Planning & Development Committee meeting to vote on this issue, and break the tie. As reported in the Ottawa Citizen:

In what sounded like a mini-campaign speech where he listed his term’s accomplishments, O’Brien said that the list of benefits far outweighs the cons. Not everyone agreed. I’m not going to support the zoning changes and I know that I’m going to be on the losing piece of it, said Councillor Peggy Feltmate, who added that she and many residents had been disillusioned by the process surrounding the Lansdowne deal. You brought the mayor in. He never comes and votes, but here he is today “thank you very much for showing up.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Mayor+tips+vote+Lansdowne+rezoning/3524559/story.html#ixzz104xlLLVQ

So, if that isn’t enough evidence of democracy taking a coffee break, it seems it officially went on vacation this week. City staff have prepared a report to the Audit and Finance Standing Committee for consideration on September 21, 2010, that suggest the public input should be limited in public deliberations. The report itself notes:

The only significant change in the process that is being recommended this year is to no longer receive public delegations as Committee of the Whole. There are two reasons for this change. The first is that public delegations on the budget are received at the standing committee stage and again when Councillors hold their own ward consultations. In addition, there are other mechanisms for residents to share their views on the budget through electronic media such as the Budget E-mail box. The second reason is that following an election year, the time available to adopt a final budget is shortened, yet the budget must be adopted before April in order to allow time to produce the final tax bill. Sounds expedient, quick and designed to get the least amount of input in the quickest, least meaningful way.

In 2003, I authored an award winning Public Participation Policy for the City of Ottawa, approved by City Council. That policy cannot be found on the City’s website, although a 2007 report on Transparency and Accountability references the following:

The City of Ottawa is a leader in the province in open government through communication, consultation, and collaboration. The following are policies, procedures and practices that ensure the City is transparent in its operations and that residents are not only aware of how decisions are made and carried out, but that they are able to participate as well:

1. Council Procedure By-law
2. Public Distribution of Council and Committee Agenda Meeting Documentation
3. Appointment Policy (Recruitment and Selection of members of Advisory Committees, Boards and Task Forces, and External Boards, Commissions and Authorities)
4. Public Notice By-law
5. Official Languages Policy
6. White Paper Pilot for Policy Development
7. Public Participation Policy
8. Multiple Formats Policy

Interestingly, the report on Accountability and Transparency also indicated that No consultation was required for the purposes of this report. Really? Given the topic, I’m experiencing a moment of shock and awe again.

Meaningful engagement is based on solid, proven foundations of inclusion, respect, openness, access to information, 2 way communication, understanding and dialogue. As noted in the IAP2 Core Values and in the Core Principles for Public Engagement, it takes effort and time to be democratic. It takes only an instant, or a series of small decisions, to add up to a an absence of trust, increase in outrage and a lack of democracy.

I think it might be time for democracy to get back to work in Ottawa.