Public Participation Ethics
Public Participation Ethics: When you learn that stakeholder consultation is window dressing
Ethical dilemmas crop up in every sector, including public participation. Knowing how to deal with them BEFORE you face these difficult situations can save you a lot of turmoil and stress. A common scenario is when your client or organization’s leadership is not upfront about their goals for public engagement. Often that means they know what outcome they want to achieve and have enlisted you, the public participation professional, to orchestrate it. In other words, the stakeholder consultation is simply window dressing. Using a real-life example from early in my career, let’s look at how this scenario unfolds and how we can respond.
We have a “strongly preferred” location
A long-time community resident willed a significant amount of money to the municipality. The resident stipulated that upon their death, half of the funds were to go to a new emergency services facility. The town was a buzz with chatter about this tremendous gift and where the new facility should go. The building of the new facilities garnered a lot of attention and opinions.
When the time came to move forward with the building project, the municipality’s building planning committee engaged Dialogue Partners to consult with community members about potential locations.
At a meeting finalizing the engagement process and format, a senior administrator who dropped into the meeting interjected with the comment, “We know where we’re putting this facility, there’s really only one viable option, Kim, can’t you write the questions in a way that brings about consensus?” I was so caught off guard by this comment that I wasn’t sure how to respond.
The administrator later left the meeting, and after a break, the planning committee reconvened. I expressed my confusion about the administrator’s comments, saying that I was under the impression that there were several viable options for the facility’s location. A city councillor who sat on the committee acknowledged that although there were several options on the table, only one was actually viable from the committee’s perspective. The other committee members agreed and expressed hope that we could work to get a consensus on the strongly preferred location.
When is public participation not public participation?
I left that meeting and endured a couple of sleepless nights mulling over what to do. Clearly, the committee had already decided how to proceed, and the public participation process was serving as window dressing to provide an illusion of community input. We were about to ask a large group of people to give up their spare time and energy to engage in a process under a false premise. It wasn’t right.
Two sections of the IAP2 Code of Ethics apply most directly to this situation:
Openness: We will encourage the disclosure of all information relevant to the public’s understanding and evaluation of a decision.
Advocacy: We will advocate for the public participation process and not an interest, party or outcome.
Further, the very premise of the public engagement process is to seek out and understand ideas, concerns, thoughts, advice, or recommendations. It is in no way about promoting foregone conclusions. Read my previous blog post, When is Public Engagement Necessary? for more on when public participation is and is not recommended.
I knew I needed to walk away from this contract.
How to deal with the ethics of a foregone conclusion as a public participation professional
When I met with the emergency services building committee again, I expressed being uncomfortable facilitating a public participation process that already had a preferred outcome. I told them there was nothing wrong with having a preference for the facility's location. From my understanding, they had solid data and reasoning backing their decision.
What they had done was hire the wrong consultant.
I explained that the committee needed a public relations practitioner who could plan and execute an education and awareness campaign for the project. Fortunately, the committee members understood the conflict and agreed to proceed with a PR campaign. They were able to use some of the groundwork we had already done planning for public engagement with their new course of action, and all was well that ended well.
Now, as difficult as this situation was to navigate, as an independent consultant, I had the freedom to walk away. In-house public participation professionals face additional pressures and power dynamics. Still, the approach isn’t much different than the one I took, in my opinion.
In-house public participation practitioners can start by referring to the IAP2 Code of Ethics and explaining why public consultation with a course of action already decided is in violation. Underscoring the potential fallout from essentially pretending to engage the public might be even more compelling. The organization risks the public’s trust, damage to its brand and reputation, and the potential to engage the public again when it’s really needed. Community members aren’t stupid and will likely figure out what’s going on.
Standing up is difficult but necessary
Honestly, I dreaded meeting with the emergency services building committee to explain why I had to walk away. It was awkward, and no one enjoys turning away work. But, it was the only ethical course of action. Aside from the right thing to do, ethical considerations are critical when you depend on the public’s trust to practice your profession. Reputation and credibility will open far more doors in the long term than “going along to get along.”
Have you faced an ethical challenge in your work as a public participation professional? I’d love to hear about it and how you handled the situation.
