Desmond M. Connor

Constructive Citizen Participation:
An Evolutionary Tale

Desmond M. Connor

Until an email from an editor flitted across my screen, I'd never thought of myself as a "utopian" - an impractical idealist or visionary reformer who ignores the defects in human nature. However, he did get me thinking about the evolution of my approach to public participation. I'm sharing it with you in this last issue of my newsletter.

After working for about 10 years in the field of community development, (CD) I began to doubt its effectiveness. What really made a difference in the development of a community, it seemed to me, were not the earnest efforts of CD staff and their ill-funded projects, but the decisions of often distant bureaucrats or corporate leaders. They decided on the location of a new highway or industrial plant, usually with little consideration for its community effects which were often needlessly destructive. Despite organized protests in many cases, these decisions were often imposed through a sequence of Decide-Announce-Defend - the DAD process, traditional and patriarchal.

What if decision-makers fully understood the communities they were impacting, listened to their residents' concerns thoughtfully and involved them in modifying the initial plans? Could citizens participate constructively in the practice of democracy, rather then settle for a symbolic voting ritual every four years?

Situation

In the late sixties in Canada, our dashing Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau had inspired many with his talk of a "just society" and participatory democracy; the public was becoming conscious of the environment and the "bigger is better" philosophy was being challenged. In response, protest groups arose to stop proposed new highways, airports, dams and other proposals.

Government administrators defined this situation as anarchy - their mandate to deliver goods and services needed by society on time and on budget was threatened. Corporate leaders and entrepreneurs saw their freedom to expand and innovate challenged. Politicians were bewildered as their constituents put aside party affiliations and joined militant groups to pursue specific issues.

How dare one person, an immigrant at that, wade into this situation and hope to survive, let alone succeed?

Analysis

During my graduate work in rural sociology and applied anthropology at Cornell University in the early sixties, I learned about the process by which people adopt new ideas and practices, the "diffusion of innovations." (1) The first step is that people have to become aware of a need and believe that change is possible. Only then will they be interested in learning about alternative solutions, review some criteria to evaluate them and then make a decision to adopt and implement one or more of them. This seemed like a useful model to deal with the burgeoning demand for public involvement in planning and decision-making.

The beleaguered decision-makers, governmental and corporate, were under a lot of stress in the late sixties. They resisted change in their accustomed ways of working, even though their DAD process wasn't working as well as it used to. I would need to gain their trust by first developing some mutual understanding with them, then gaining their acceptance, next discovering some shared goals and finally agreeing on a satisfactory way of working together. (2)

I discovered that there were a number of practical issues:

1. Typically the proponent, the government agency or corporation with a proposal, didn't know or understand the community or the people living in the area affected.
   
   
2. The community or residents of the area didn't understand the proponent either.
   
   
3. Often the proponent's first step was to call a public meeting to explain the proposal; this meeting was invariably a disaster, generating negative headlines in the local media.
   
   
4. The proponent's publications were usually written by its supportive staff and failed to speak meaningfully to the uninformed skeptics, who were often the majority of potential community readers.
   
   
5. There was no forum for opposing and supportive interest groups e.g. environmental and business organizations, to meet together to work on potential solutions for community issues about the proposal.
   
   
6. Some large government organizations had poor internal communications and ineffective management; improving communications with the public would require better internal performance by these bureaucracies. e.g. some former trainees, then in northern communities, were asked how long it took to hear back from Ottawa about a request, and how often did that occur; they replied: "About three months, and we hear back about one-third of the time."
   
   
7. On a larger scale, there were national and province-wide organizations whose members would need to be brought on board with this emerging community-level approach to problem-solving and community development.

Effective and efficient tools would need to be developed to address each of these issues.

At the time, the terms "public participation" and "citizen involvement" were being used to describe everything from public relations to organized confrontation; a new name would be needed for my approach. Since other sociologists were often involved with protest groups, I would need to differentiate myself from them in order to win the confidence of stressed decision-makers. Some of the projects I would seek to contribute to would require me to accept joint liability for any subsequent problems; some way to limit liability would be necessary or the roof over my head might disappear.

Action

In 1967, I moved to Ottawa, where most federal government departments are located, from eastern Canada. Since there were many consulting engineers around, I called myself a Consulting Sociologist and incorporated Connor Development Services Ltd. in 1968, with a subsidiary Development Press to facilitate quick publications, to manage any project liabilities which might arise. There were many examples of negative participation e.g. stopping proposals, so I coined the term "Constructive Citizen Participation" to describe my nascent social technology.

In 1969, I assisted a landscape architect to involve sports groups and neighbours of a proposed active recreational park to resolve local concerns about traffic and noise. In this same year, I began working on the first of three major federal river basin planning projects in which public participation was mandatory under the forthcoming Canada Water Act (1970).

In 1971, there was a major controversy about where to locate a new highway (#417) entering Ottawa from Montreal; the project engineer knew of my previous park project. He was directed to resolve this issue quickly since a provincial election was in the offing. My offer to assist was accepted promptly and well-funded. In the final phase, after a one-hour local TV special program, a display advertisement in the newspapers the next day outlined five alternative routes and invited readers to complete a tear-off coupon. Some 8,600 did so; in several wards, one-third of the households replied. The route receiving the highest priority was selected and later built; its neighbours accepted the judgment made by other citizens and recognized that the process followed was valid, open and fair. (A spin-off benefit was that it educated many senior civil servants living in the city about this process.) Subsequently, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications developed a Feasibility Studies Section which incorporated participative planning in all future studies of major highways. In 1973, Ontario Hydro, a client then, officially adopted participative planning for its major transmission corridors and generating station sites. In 1975, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment made public involvement a mandatory part of locating resource recovery plants; later, the federal Ministry of Transport (Airports), the Canadian Penitentiary Service, the federal Ministry of Health and many more agencies adopted public participation as part of their normal operations.

With regard to the tools needed, identified in the previous analysis, the following steps have been developed and implemented:

1. Understanding the community - initially, I used a simple approach (Social Compass) which I had developed in the early sixties for use in a 10-day community development program for training Peace Corps volunteers, mostly in Vermont, who were going to work in communities from Afghanistan to Zanzibar. In the mid-seventies, I developed a strategic version, the Social Profile, which has been used in over 150 communities across Canada and elsewhere.(3)
   
   
2. Understanding the proponent - based on the above, I developed an Organizational Profile, which provides a systematic understanding of the agency or corporation - its structure, processes and culture. (4)
3. Since public meetings often seemed to generate more heat than light - I called them "the last of the blood sports" - I developed the Open House in the mid-seventies, based on its use by real estate agents. The visitor determines what time they will come, how long they will stay, what questions they will ask etc.- a much more attractive experience than being locked in to a noisy 3-hour or more public meeting with no control of the agenda.(3)
   
   
4. The Responsive Publication is designed to attract the ignorant skeptic - a question-and-answer format in clear, direct language; personalized with a picture of the proponent and a brief, signed introductory letter; a provocative caption; e.g." A New (whatever): What do YOU think?"; a tear-off coupon for a quick response; a notice of a nearby, forthcoming Open House, usually 2.00 - 9.00 pm.(3)
   
   
5. The Planning Workshop involves perhaps a dozen community leaders, one from each of a range of local organizations; often on a Saturday at their request, the participants review the proposal and public response to it after the recent Responsive Publication and Open House(s). Before lunch, they identify and put priorities on their remaining concerns about it; then they develop a problem-solving plan for each one. The proponent undertakes to carry out this work and return to the community with workable responses.(3) (In 1970, I took an internship in group behaviour at the National Training Lab, in Bethel, ME, to improve my skills in this field.)
   
   
6. In 1972, I took several workshops in Organization Development, a field closely related to community development, in order to be able to advise proponents on how to improve their internal communications and management. Often, large organizations would have staff in their human resources departments with the relevant skills, but no mandate to use them.
   
   
7. To reach out to the larger society, I joined the Roads and Transportation of Canada in the early seventies, which enabled me to present papers at their annual conferences and publish case studies e.g. #417, in their professional magazines. This led to further transportation opportunities. Later, other papers were placed in publications of the American Society of Civil Engineering, the Community Planning Association of Canada, the North American Society of Corporate Planners, the American Right of Way Association, the American Public Works Association, the National Association of Environmental Planners, etc.

In 1973, I started a quarterly newsletter, Constructive Citizen Participation which began as four pages typewritten and grew in a few years to eight pages typeset; it is now in its 30th year. In the same year, I began giving a 2.5 day workshop with the same title; initially every six months in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal or Calgary; it was also provided in-house for larger organizations. Later this workshop was shortened to one-day and presented less frequently as printing, postage and travel costs increased. Now it is available as an Internet Tutorial, along with a website Library of papers, cases, publication reviews and current events. (5) In 1974, I published Citizens Participate, a handbook for use equally by citizen leaders and agency staff; it has sold 6,000 copies. In 1981, a collection of useful papers and case studies from my newsletter was published as the first edition of Constructive Citizen Participation: A Resource Book; this is now in its eighth edition of 300 pages with 38 cases and a section on Global Applications. In 1990, my partner and I developed a 25-minute instructional video: "How to Prevent and Resolve Public Controversy" with its own supportive printed materials; over 160 copies are now in use, including a Spanish version. Also in 1990, I encouraged the formation of the International Association for Public Participation (6). I established my website in 1996. In 1968, I began an email correspondence with a young Chilean engineer and environmental planner; he has adapted and demonstrated my approach in Chile as shown below. In August, 2000, we provided four training events in Chile.

Case: A Developer Listens to a Community

When Toronto-based multinational Cadillac-Fairview announced in early 1986 that it was going to build a new shopping centre in the middle of Victoria, B.C., known for its gardens and Olde English atmosphere, many residents feared the worst. One of North America's foremost urban developers was going to build an integrated retail complex of some 420,000 square feet of leasable space; most malls have blank exterior walls and their only connection to the community is through the residents' wallets. I explained in a quick call to the company's representative in Toronto that the active heritage community would generate massive opposition to this proposal unless he and his Vancouver-based architect adapted their usual plans to the concerns of residents. He agreed to try my approach to public consultation.

Following the preparation of a social profile of the community for use by the developer and architect, an initial display newspaper presentation and two open houses yielded 1,340 response coupons with citizens' views and suggestions. These were incorporated into the design and another display advertisement and two more open houses were provided, resulting in another 649 written responses - nearly 2,000 in all. The developer and architect read each one with these results:

• many of the original buildings were preserved, instead of being demolished; the character of the new construction matches the ambiance of the community;
  
  
• the mall exterior is lined with diverse shops, adding to the pedestrian traffic as the City requested;
• while the city bylaw did not required underground parking, residents urged that it be provided, so the developed excavated to create 2.5 levels of parking with 220 spaces;
  
  
• the initially straight roofline was modified to reflect the buildings around it;
  
  
• in an unprecedented concession, a street which went between two sections of the old store has been equipped with wrought iron gates so it can remain open at night, even when the mall is closed.

More information about the public consultation program and its results are available (7). Is it Utopian to hope that urban developers can listen to a community? Or that other developers elsewhere might learn to do so?

Case: A Forest Company in Chile Wins a Community Award

Major forest companies in Chile often have a rocky relationship with nearby communities. My colleague there, Sr. Hernán Blanco, recently designed and managed a program for the mutual benefit of Forestal y Agrícola Monte Aguila, part of the Shell group, and the community of Curanilahue which has a population of about 30,000. By applying my basic approach, progress was made in addressing the concerns of both the company and the community. e.g.Company: forest fires, loss of wood and damage by the residents' animals. Community: residents' recreational use of place by the river owned by the company; training for community residents; company support for local sports clubs; mutual collaboration to educate the community, especially the children; job opportunities for the disabled and for women; more effective communication between the company and the community. While this case is by no means complete, its results already led the community to award a diploma to the company to recognize its contribution to community wellbeing.

More information about this case is available (8). Again, is it Utopian to think that a process developed in Canada can work in other countries? A public consultation program for environmental issues has been developed and proposed for China (9).

Conclusion

This paper has outlined the development and dissemination of an innovative, and perhaps Utopian, process to inform and involve citizens in plans and decisions which affect them, bringing the practice of democracy to everyday life. Like many others, I am disappointed in the workings of party politics and the ritual of elections every four or so years - perhaps both are necessary, but they are certainly insufficient for meaningful involvement in our society and culture. Of course, many others have contributed to the development of the field of public participation, some activist groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have raised the consciousness of citizens across the country and the world, and many government agencies and corporations have demonstrated how they can include citizens in their plans and decisions. I look forward to the comments and suggestions of readers.

References

1. Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations, Fourth Edition, Free Press, N.Y. , 1995.
   
   
2. Bennis, W.G., K.D. Benne and R. Chin, The Planning of Change, Fourth Edition, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, N.Y., 1985.
   
   
3. Connor, Desmond M. Public Participation: A Manual, Development Press, Victoria, B.C., 1997.
   
   
4. ibid. Constructive Citizen Participation: A Resource Book, Development Press, Victoria, B.C., 1999.
   
   
5. www.connor.bc.ca/connor
   
   
6. www.iap2.org
   
   
7. www.connor.bc.ca/connor/eaton.html
   
   
8. www.connor.bc.ca/connor/chile_forest.html
   
   
9. www.connor.bc.ca/connor/pc_china.html

Acknowledgement

An abridged version of this paper appears as "Constructive Citizen Participation: Practicing Utopian Thinking" in Shostak, Art, Utopian Thinking in Sociology: Creating the Good Society. American Sociological Society, Washington, DC, 2001.

Biographical Note

Desmond M. Connor is an applied sociologist-anthropologist (Ph.D., Cornell University, 1963) with an international practice in public participation. During the last 30 years, he has completed over 300 projects, mostly in Canada, some in the U.S. and since 1996 in six other countries. See www.connor.bc.ca/connor for further information. Tel. 250-658-1323; fax 250-658-8110; email: connor@connor.bc.ca

Overview:	Homepage	Public Consultation 2000+	Desmond Connor	Library
Publications:	Manual	Resource Book	Video Program
Training:	Workshops	Customized Tutorial	Internet Tutorial
Consulting:	Consulting Services	Design Service	Teleconsulting

DESMOND M. CONNOR "Improving the Practice of Public Consultation" 407-5332 Sayward Hill Crescent, Victoria, BC, V8Y 2H8 Voice: 250-658-1323                     Fax: 250-658-8110 connor@connor.bc.ca           www.connor.bc.ca

Website by Word Crunchers, Etc.

(4214)