Citizen Participation
Public Policy Group
April 20, 2007
Contents
1
Introduction
2
Midland case
3
T. N. T
4
Exercises
5
Conclusion
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
regional 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)
8
Citizen Control
7
Delegated Power
6
Partnership
5
Placation
4
Consultation
3
Informing
2
Therapy
Citizen Power
Tokenism
Nonparticipation
1
Manipulation
The Key: Understanding the
Levels of Public Participation
1
2
Inform
Consult
4
3
Involve
5
Collaborate Empower
Increasing Level of Participation in Decision Making
How could we sort out various practical
citizen participation methods?
Democracy Cube (Archon Fung)
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 Ratification by
package of
constituencies
gains
Issue
assessment &
Identify
stakeholders
Set agenda and
ground rules
Use expert,
professional
neutral
Adhere to
decisionmaking
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 effective
public participation (Widditsch)

Start early & Plan carefully

Know what you want, Be flexible

Know who is doing what

Provide useful information

Make meetings convenient

Get 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.
Timeline of Events

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
Syracuse University Public Interest Law Firm
Timeline (cont’d)




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.
Onondaga County Dept of Water Environment Protection
Timeline (cont’d)

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 compensation
to acquire a City-owned property. City files appeal. County
proceeded to purchase needed private properties and
assisted property owners in finding new homes and provided
compensation for moving.
Lane and Heath
Timeline (cont’d)




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.
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, nonpolluting 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 alternatives 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 communities 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 departments 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