In modern democracies, citizens are less and less satisfied with having a say only at election time. They expect to influence decisions that affect them, and rebel when they are not given meaningful opportunities to be heard. In many instances, organized citizen groups have succeeded in undermining legally made decisions of a publicly elected Board or Council. Given this reality, community consultation is no longer a luxury. It is now a necessity.

But how do you engage citizens in decision-making processes without undermining your mandate to govern? How do you prevent community consultation from deteriorating into full-fledged anarchy? How do you increase the likelihood that citizens’ input will be based on broad community interests and not solely on self-interest and turf protection? How do you shift from consultation for the sake of “political appeasement” to consultation with a substantial return on investment (ROI) in mind?

There are far too many bad examples of public consultation gone awry and delivering little or no value, or even worsening an already adversarial climate. To achieve positive outcomes, you must define what you are looking for in a community consultation process, in affirmative terms. Here are a few adjectives with which to describe the ideal community consultation process:

• Purposeful: The expected ROI on community consultation should be dual: First, to help the governing body make better decisions, by ensuring that useful data and legitimate community needs and concerns are taken into account before decisions are finalized. If run well, community consultation will help the Board or Council increase opportunities and minimize risks or negative impacts on the community. The second benefit of community consultation is that more individuals “arrive at the same destination together, of their own free will”. Having been engaged in the decision making process, citizens will be more likely to understand and respect the outcomes and less likely to complain or undermine the decisions.



• Proactive and regular: The governing body should consult the community regularly, not because it is required to do so (reactively) nor for political appeasement, but because it truly wants to learn from the community. The governing body should go above and beyond legislated requirements to consult (such as mandatory public hearings) and should look proactively for ways to benefit from insights available within the community. Citizens should be engaged not only about controversial issues, but also about long-term priorities and the strategic direction of the community.



• Principled: Community consultation should be guided by principles and not by politics. Decision-making should not be driven by a desire to avoid public backlash (which is sometimes driven by vocal and well organized minorities), but by a commitment to make the right decision for the community as a whole. Principles may include: Maximizing positive impacts, minimizing negative impacts, affordability, enforceability, sustainability (short and long term), compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, consistency with a long range strategic direction, etc. It should be understood that the above principles may override community input.



• Clear: A governing body may not shirk its legislated mandate to govern. At the outset of any community consultation program, decision-making parameters must be clarified. For example: “The purpose of this community consultation program is to enable Council to benefit from your knowledge and insights, so it can make better decisions. Having said that, there is one thing we must clarify: Your feedback – though valued and appreciated – is only advisory. Council has the legal mandate to govern and is ultimately accountable for the decisions. We must therefore take your input only as non-binding advice. Keep in mind, that in addition to community input, we must consider other factors, such as: environmental, financial, legal, and technical constraints.”. A statement like the above, made at the outset of the process, will reduce the likelihood that unreasonable expectations will develop.



• Truly representative: Community input must represent an accurate pulse of the community as a whole. In reality, this is often not the case, e.g.: when well-organized and well-funded community groups (sometimes representing small minorities) dominate public meetings and consultation events. The governing body must use diverse means to measure the true pulse of the broader community. It must consider the fact that public speaking is one of humanity’s greatest fears. Coordinators of consultation events should make efforts “to even the playing field” and structure meetings so that “the silent majority” can indeed be heard.



• Meaningful: Community engagement (especially on significant issues) should start well before decisions are finalized. Consulting after all minds were made up would be justly seen as tokenism and increase resentment, cynicism or apathy. The community should be given early warnings of potential decisions, as well as meaningful and genuine opportunities to be heard. It would be smart to engage the community not only in discussing solutions, but also in identifying the exact nature of problems. Decision makers should listen to the input with open minds (Consider that an “open mind” does not mean an “empty mind”. Decision makers are entitled to have their own biases, as long as they genuinely consider other opinions before finalizing their votes).



• Logical: Governing bodies should not attempt to consult the community on anything and everything. Doing so would amount to anarchy and may be equivalent to “governance by referendum”. Only issues with substantial impacts should be opened for community input. As several organizations have found out, there is a risk in over-consulting the community: You may end up running costly community events with more organizers than citizens in attendance.



• Informed: Community input is not very useful when it is based only on ignorance and self interest (“Not In My Back Yard”, or the NIMBY effect). Before engaging the community, there is a need to elevate participants’ knowledge and thereby shift the focus of discussions to “the bigger picture”. The motto should be: “Educate before you engage”.



• Diverse and creative: Different people participate differently. Some speak up at meetings, some will speak only in small group discussions, some will be happy to write their comments down, and some would appreciate personal interviews. Diverse consultation methods should be used to obtain the most comprehensive and truly representative input.



• Efficient: Too many governing bodies hesitate to take unpopular steps and – instead – go into further consultations. There are times to consult, but – once all relevant input has been received – it is time to move on, bring closure to issues, and allow the community to move on. Community events should be run efficiently and time limits should be used to prevent boring events that most people would stay away from.