Re-thinking public engagement: a Calgary experiment
It’s funny how different aspects of your life serendipitously cross from time to time. Following my presentation at Leadership Calgary earlier this month about the current state and possible future of western democratic government (in LC speak it was titled “how do we build a systemically and systematically adaptive democratic government?”) we find a British Labour Party getting trounced from office primarily because of an expenses scandal, the Canadian parliment mired in public confusion as to why they would not want to let the Auditor General review MP expenses, and closer to home, the City of Calgary’s auditor says the procurement process is so murky and devoid of rules that fraud has almost certainly taken place.
What do all of these have in common? A lack of respect for the role the public plays in democratic government.
I won’t bore you with the details – I’ll save those for another post or for the Cities and Towns in Transition conference on June 4 and 5, which I have been asked to speak about this topic at – but at the end of the day public wisdom and government adaptability must grow together. Each relies on the other to succeed. This is done through transparency (government giving to public) and accountability (public giving to government).
I believe open data plays a big role in the transparency side of the equation, and a useful role in the accountability side, but I’ve recently been struck by the lack of systemic adaptability in our governance systems. In short, why are 15 people making all the decisions for the City of Calgary when we know public wisdom itself contains much more useful decision making information. One multiple choice question every four years hardly seems like the kind of thing our bravest citizens should be asked to give their lives to protect. Shouldn’t there be more? What of the really good ideas that lay outside the institutional input model? The good ideas that model is not designed to – and therefore unable to – reach? Do we just give up on those? Do we just call our current system ‘good enough’?
I’ve recently re-discovered Clay Shirky. I’ve been familiar with his work for several years but I’ve always classified them within the box of mind as applying to ‘technology’. Which is fair given that most of his examples lay in this field (Wikipedia, Flickr, Linux, Meetup, etc). But recently I was afforded the opportunity to apply his theories and teachings to the world of governance systems and I was surprised that what he was talking about almost seamlessly fit this world.
But so what.
I’m just a regular guy. I have no power; no input. And I certainly cannot change the 150-year-old institution of Canadian democracy. So I relished the opportunity to do what I and many others witnessing a travesty that I am unable to change would do: I whined about it.
Fortunately, I recently read the book “Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts” and was reminded of the quote by Ken Low, “despair is not an option”. I could blame others and wallow, or I could look within myself and see what I could change.
I am not the mayor, premier or prime minister, so tackling one of those institutions is ludicrous. But I am the president of another governance system: my community association. Upon quick inspection of that organization I found we – despite having an active membership, being well respected by the community, and being in excellent financial shape – exhibited the same things I wanted to rail against. We had a board of 14 elected officials who were charged with doing all the work of the association. But who cares what we thought most needs doing? We’re just 14 people who happened to have some time or caring to sit on a board. That doesn’t make us any smarter or more capable than any other group of 14 people from the community. It just means we were willing to make the commitment. But how did we make our decisions? Where did our information come from? How did we ensure the really good ideas that lay outside our institutional model were invited in?
The answer is: we didn’t. We did what almost every government does; we made decisions based on the best information available. We went with our gut and our experience; we talked to our neighbours, did the odd bit of research, and made decisions at a boardroom table. All of this put the onus on the 14 people and never once invited the public to be part of the decision making process (aside from that one annual vote or having the ability to complain). We also never invited them to be part of the implementation process either.
I was lucky enough at this point to make a connection to something that happened several months earlier. Following the second CivicCamp I had a discussion with someone had the general tone of which was: ‘Having these kind of un-conference meetings where we talk about things that matter most to the participants is great. I wish there was more of this in other places.’ The ‘open spaces technology’ format discussions used by CivicCamp I found immensely useful because the agenda for the day was never based on someone’s unintentional bias, it was the group bias that set the agenda. And being the sum of our parts almost always proves to be better than that of one person, or a smaller group of people. (Hence my trouble with 14 people at a boardroom table making all the decisions.)
So how could we engage our community to get the best ideas out of them? And do so in a format that is not just a ‘town hall’ style event featuring general discussions, Q & A sessions, and the same 14 people responsible for implementing things at the end of the day anyway?
To do this, the Winston Heights-Mountview Community Association partnered with CivicCamp to create “CivicCamp in a Box”. A sort of ‘kit’ that anyone can use, which asks members of the community to come forward and say what they believe most needs doing in the community. It does not end here however. If we are truly going to invite them into the decision making process, we also have to involve them heavily in the implementation process. After all a small army of people working only on the specific project that interests them the most, affords much more possibility for getting ‘stuff’ done than a group of 14 board members working on things they may only be casually interested in.
Take for instance what I mention in my 2009/10 presidents report on how things often work at a community association: You as an interested community member want to plan a Stampede BBQ (for example) and you come to the board and tell us you want to plan a Stampede BBQ. More often than not, because you are a warm body who is interested, the community association will promptly make you a board director. The problem is now the majority of the work you will do has nothing to do with planning a Stampede BBQ. This has been a major focus of my time on the Winston Heights-Mountview board, lowering the bar of involvement and eliminating these kinds of barriers. You want to plan a Stampede BBQ? We’ll let you do that. Do you want to join a board? It is our responsibility to provide that opportunity too. Government should be about empowering the people, not getting in there way.
And so that is the second half of “CivicCamp in a Box”. Once participants have listed the ideas they have to make the neighbourhood a better place, they will each be given the chance to select one idea that they ‘think most needs doing’ from their perspective and to work on making that idea a reality. We will provide whatever resources we can to help them – starting from lunch and coffee at the event, through to any funds the association might be able to give to their project, to our contacts with neighbours, local businesses and all three levels of government.
I’m confident the ideas coming out of this event being held tomorrow will be better and more robustly thought out than anything our dedicated and whip smart board of 14 people could have done on their own. It will even have the added benefit of creating more engaged residents who will be illustrating their commitment to a better neighbourhood, which of course comes with many unintended side benefits from Block Watches to cleaner streets to more friendly ‘over the fence’ conversations.
I’m excited about this event even though I’m not sure what any of the outcomes might be, but I’m willing to take a risk and see if it will work. Cherie McCauley and Sarah Arthurs – who I’ve been working with on the logistics of creating “CivicCamp in a Box” – and I have floated the concept to other community associations and many are interested in how this might be used in their neighbourhood.
But why stop there? If this process works, why could we not see the Province or the City apply this kind of citizen engagement to, for example, budget deliberations? When an alderman says something is what their constituents want, what process did they go through to ensure it’s not just what they think and that had received little negative criticism? A process like this can eliminate their unintentional bias created by an institutional decision making model. Heck you could go the other way with it too and use it at the local elementary school, senior’s centre or baseball team. The possibilities are endless, really. And I believe by taking our time to do public engagement in a way like this (let’s not kid ourselves, this will slow down the current institutional decision making process) we can see added benefit of increased caring and decreased expenses.
Someone just needs to be willing to try it to see if it works. So, I’m happy to volunteer to take the risk. I’ll let you know how it goes.
My comments to City Council on the future of Calgary
For those that follow my Twitter feed and my blog you know I have have had an entirely split focus for the past couple of days. My blog has dealt exclusively with the Doug Elniski issue while on Twitter I have posted dozens of tweets over the same time regarding the City of Calgary’s PlanIT public consultation process going on at City Hall.
PlanIT is an extremely important document laying out the ‘plan’ for how Calgary will grow over the next 60 years. As a result public input has been sought for quite sometime and ‘for’ and ‘against’ side are now providing their thoughts in person to Council. The ‘pros’ concluded last night after two days of presentations (about 110 people signed up to speak) and the ‘cons’ began immediately following (about 60 people signed up to speak).
Last night – at number 97 – I provided my thoughts. Below are my comments to council:
Thank you for allowing me to the opportunity to speak. My name is DJ Kelly, I am an administrator in the not-for-profit sector and president of the Winston Heights/Mountview CA.
I’m happy to answer questions from the point of view of our CA but today I’m simply talking as an engaged citizen.
I wanted to begin, if I may, by thanking Council and Administration for showing vision in creating this document. I’m confident we can all agree, that no business or organization can possibly be effectively run without a big picture strategic plan.
I’m reminded once again of one columnist’s comment from sometime in the late 90s that Calgary is “the city that planning forgot”. With the approval of PlanIT no longer will we be able to be the butt of these kinds of jokes. PlanIT finally provides Calgary with the strategic growth plan columnists and citizens alike have requested oh so frequently.
I’m hopefully the cries of “those fools down at City Hall have no idea what they’re doing” will be, if not eliminated, at least lessened because of this document.
The benefit of speaking toward the end of the “for” or “pro-PlanIT” list is I don’t need to get into the reasons why you should or should not support PlanIT. Instead I can marvel at some of the fantastic comments made by previous speakers.The main one that comes to mind is Derek the Urban Studies student from UofC. I think he brought forward a perspective that many have not thought of when discussing PlanIT and it bears repeating: our generation will not live the same kind of life our parents and grandparents did. Just as they did not live the same kind of life as those a generation before them. There are no pioneers or gunfighters in our midst any longer.
None of us in this room are psychics. We cannot predict the future and should not purport to. Even the City’s own marketing for the PlanIT response process makes light of this fact. I cannot say what the city will need in 60 years, and despite the protests of others that I’m sure are coming, they cannot either.
Look at what we planned on 60 years ago. Those are the very things we are now struggling with and that people smarter than us have shown to be unsustainable. Even the poor bulging city budget shows that at the very least we need to think differently.
This is why the “spirit” of PlanIT is far more important than anything else. So long as we can agree with the points and goals laid out in the first few pages we are heading in the right direction.
The one thing we can say for sure is that PlanIT will change and grow over time. It will have to be a living document. There will be variations as we move forward. We do not need to approve the perfect plan this week. However I think PlanIT lays an excellent the groundwork for the future and I’m proud to live in a city with this kind of vision.
Another thing I think is important to note is that every speaker who has lamented the non-inclusion of the airport tunnel has self classified themselves as “in favour” of PlanIT. I’m encouraged that despite their disappointment, they still have the foresight to see what PlanIT can do for the city.
I am interested to hear the comments of those not in favour of PlanIT. From what I have heard through the press it sounds like the majority are from one single industry, whereas those who have spoken in favour appear to represent a large swath of industries. Having PlanIT receive such wide-spread support leaves me further encouraged.
Personally I’m more concerned with the City’s track record of follow through on ambitious plans. My thoughts on that can be found in tomorrow’s post for Alberta Venture’s Think Alberta,
I won’t get into them today other than to say I encourage City Council to have the courage of our convictions, approve this big picture plan, and get on with the process of building the better city I know this council wants.
Questions followed from Ald McIver about my statements around implementation. I answered that, yes, indeed I do see this as the major concern facing council moving forward and regardless of what planning document we approve it will continue to be the major issue and Council and Administration has serious work ahead of them. More background on that is in my Alberta Venture Think! Alberta post that will be available at 1pm today. (I’ll cross post here following that.) Part II goes up on Friday.
Ald Chabot congratulated me on my timing for showing up shortly before my presentation time. I thanked the internet and the Council webcast. He followed up with another question but to be honest I don’t remember what it was. I remember it being akward and me not really understanding what he was asking. It felt adveseraly (is that even a word?) and I certainly didn’t mean for it to. Sorry if it came across that way!
What makes a good electoral district? Not gerrymandering!
What makes a good electoral district? Why group these communities together and not these other ones?
This is something that has been debated at council and elsewhere for years. It’s something that will continue to be discussed. Is it better to create wards that are made up of communities with similar issues or to have wards that are similar to each other in that they have inner city neighbourhoods, suburbs, industrial areas, commercial properties, etc in one ward?
Generally speaking, I think the former is widely believed to be the better option because each alderman can clearly and quickly identify the needs of their ward and defend them at council. (This is what we currently have.) If the latter ward format is used the alderman will regularly find they have competing interests he/she must sort out among his/her constituents before bringing a proposal to council. This creates an added layer of red tape to the process most citizens would no doubt prefer to avoid.
Plus, there are naturally some communities that go should go together. They are neighbours in every sense of the word and the linkage between them should be fostered instead of broken.
This is where my major problem with the “Scenario D” map Calgary City Council approved this past week. I know Highland Park has already passed a resolution against the map because they feel orphaned. This is EXACTLY the same thing that members of the Winston Heights/Mountview CA board (of which I’m the president) feel. Details on why we feel that way can be found in my previous post but it all comes down to the fact from the eastern most house in my neighbourhood to the western most house in the next community to the east is 2.2km. If the creek, valley, two golf courses, two escarpments, or the six-lane provincial highway in that span is not a natural border appropriate for a ward boundary I don’t know what is.
And this is the rub of why I’ve previously called “Scenario D” ‘terrible’. There is no respect for physical boundaries in it. It appears as though the map was drawn with only the population numbers and politics in mind. Rivers, highways, expanses of open and industrial areas MUST be taken into consideration ABOVE politics.
Which takes me to my final, and most important, point: the egregious gerrymandering that is occurring in Calgary City Council right now.
It appears a majority of aldermen need to learn that when in the middle of a non-partisan activity you have mandated, you can NOT suddenly make a proposal of your own. That makes the process political, which is EXACTLY what you were trying to avoid in the first place.
The definition of gerrymandering is a process of redistricting that can be PERCEIVED as political. This is why Ald. Chabot – the man who created the “Scenario D” map – has even decried the process council is undertaking as gerrymandering. His complaint however is that it became gerrymandering when Administration asked council’s opinion in the first place. Which in my mind is akin to a child hitting another because “he started it”. It doesn’t make you right for committing the exact same wrong yourself.
Council has passed numerous calls for this kind of process to be conducted by an independent body. This is what was happening under the guidance of the Chief Electoral Officer until council disagreed with the proposal being put forward. Instead of turning down the proposal however, and asking for a new recommendation, they began making their own plans, which is where things quickly became textbook gerrymandering.
Perhaps another example will help illustrate my argument: Every so often council needs to review their pay. This process is usually fraught with perceived political conflicts of interest. So council outsources the job of coming up with the dollar amount they will take home annually to an independent organization. Now, when that independent group comes back with a proposal would Council say, “that’s no good! We should make between $80,000 and $90,000 per year. Go back and come up with another solution that falls into that range”? When the independent body comes back with the number of $84,000 would they then say, “that’s no good! Here’s my proposal: it should be $89,000”?
Of course not! Because that is ridiculous! Citizens would scream bloody murder! The media would be killing them in print!
And ridiculous is exactly what we’re getting with this process right now.
And please consider this post me screaming bloody murder.
All aldermen – and the mayor – need to take their hands off this process, stop making gerrymandered proposals, and respect the mandate they gave the Chief Electoral Officer previously by letting her do the job they asked her to do in the first place.
We made the long list! Only you can help us make the short list.
Well it looks as though our little blog here has been nominated for three 2007 Canadian Blog Awards!
It’s been nominated for:
- Best New Blog
- Best Blog Post
- Best Local Blog
So please vote! Everyone only gets one vote so yours counts! Please help me move up those rankings and place in the top five so I can make the final ballot.
Voting is open now and closes Monday, January 21 at 11:59 PM (Pacific).
So everyone please go and vote here: http://cdnba.wordpress.com
If you like you can always join the “Vote for the “djkelly.ca Blog” at the 2007 Canadian Blog Awards!” Facebook group here.
Thanks in advance for voting!
Also, if you like I’d also recommend voting for some of the other nominated blogs I read daily (who are probably more modest than me and might not even mention they’re nominated):
In other slightly off topic news I’ve been a little busy to post the past couple days. I guess I can stop trying to figure out how to join the Beltline community association (honestly, it shouldn’t be that hard to find contact details for your community association) because we bought a house this past Sunday in Winston Heights/Mountview (16 Ave and Edmonton Trail area).
We’re really pleased with the location although the walk downtown is a little longer.
- Our new Aldermand: Joe Ceci, Ward 9
- Our new MLA: Richard Magnus, Calgary North Hill (PC) – Who is retiring apparently.
- Our new MP: Jim Prentice, Calgary Centre-North (Conservative)
So look out neighbourhood, here we come!
Subscribe
-
Like Minded
