Kirk on Consultation

“Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.”

That is the first of seven “Core Values of Public Participation” as stated by the International Association of Public Participation, the IAP2. And it’s pretty self-explanatory: if you’re going to build a fence, it’s only right and proper that you should go talk to the neighbours about it first.

That doesn’t mean that you’ll build the fence your neighbour wants or that you’ll build a fence with three different sides to suit three neighbours. It means you’ll ask their opinion and then, to the greatest degree possible, honour the second IAP2 Core Value: “Public Participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.”A colour; a height; a gate location: you never know what will make sense– until you ask.

The Core Values also honour your interests and priorities. The third Core Value states: “Public Participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communication the needs and interests of all participants, including the decision makers.” (It may be important to tell the neighbours, for instance, that the fence is legally mandated to protect their children from your new swimming pool.)

Of course, the fence analogy has its limits. The fourth IAP2 value states: “Public Participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision.” A more cogent example for this might be the Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Preliminary Design Consultation that Kirk & Co managed on behalf of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in 2009. We sent out 1,500 emails and almost 20,000 postcards to stakeholders and residents whose homes are located near the proposed route alignment (from Lougheed Town Centre to Douglas College in Coquitlam).

Of course, emails and postcards don’t work for everyone, which is why, “Public Participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate.” That, the fifth Core Value, also leads directly to the sixth: “Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.” On the Evergreen project – in direct response to early requests for a variety and breadth of consultative methods – we provided: a Discussion Guide and feedback form; stakeholder meetings; public open houses; a publicly accessible local project office in Coquitlam; and an extensive web-based consultation.

A seventh and final Core Value is one that can never appropriately be overlooked: “Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.” The proof of how public input is used will be borne out as the project unfolds, but the first vital element can be found here with the Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project Preliminary Design Consultation Summary Report.

Imagine launching a public consultation and then telling your stakeholders that you really don’t care what they think. It seems like a mistake that no one would make – and yet, by clumsiness or confusion, it’s a mistake that is sometimes made.

The problem (like lots of problems) usually arises from misunderstanding, from failing to make absolutely sure that you and your stakeholders both understand the purpose of your process.

Among groups like the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), there are a whole set of best practices and definitions specifically designed to avoid that kind of trouble.

There is a broad (and here abbreviated) definition of “consultation” itself: “To obtain public or stakeholder feedback and input on plans, policies or projects ….” By this definition, consultation is a process, not an outcome and a good process should be marked by transparency and accountability, including a clear definition of consultation topics, a variety of consultative methods, a summary report and, perhaps most importantly, transparent consideration of input.

But not all stakeholder engagement activities are the same. Some are designed only to inform stakeholder groups – this might be extended as a courtesy to avoid surprises or confusion. Some processes are advisory, designed to gather stakeholder input for consideration by decision makers. In other consultations, you actively seek to collaborate, to partner with the public in some or all aspects of decision-making. Finally, as you move along the consultation continuum from inform to empower: you might commit yourself to a consensus building exercise in which you seek unanimous agreement.

None of these approaches is inevitably right for every occasion, so none is necessarily better than the rest. But it is critical when planning and implementing a consultation to be sure that everyone understands which type of process you have in mind. You must state clearly and precisely what you are consulting about and how you plan to consider public feedback. If you are committing to a consensus, say so. But be just as forthright if a major element of the decision is already made and you are just looking for advice about how to mitigate concerns or refine features of the plan, policy or project.

In my experience, a good consultation inevitably leads to a better result – to a more engaged community and a higher quality policy, plan or project with fewer long-term problems. Just remember: clarity of consultation purpose is key.

- Judy Kirk

What do you think?

It’s a loaded question. Just by asking, you suggest that you are sincerely interested in listening to the answer. When you ask, “What do you think?” as part of a public or private sector consultation, you also imply that you are going to take the answer seriously – that you are willing to change your plans to accommodate good suggestions or to mitigate perceived problems. In some cases, you turn what you might have thought was a perfectly efficient planning process into an exercise in democracy.

That’s a good thing, even if it sounds messy. Democracy is (or should be) defined by more than a periodic election. Society thrives when citizens are engaged and responsible. People who have a stake in their community – who take an interest and exercise input – collaborate better and contribute more than people who feel that they have no voice.

For anyone working in the public realm, consultation can also be an incredible gift. By inviting stakeholders to feed into a planning process, you often find a source of good ideas, informed by people who live, work or play in your target neighbourhood, people who know what might work and what might not. These same people can also alert you to potential disasters that need never occur.

It’s important, before stumbling into a consultation process unprepared, to understand thoroughly what it is – and what it is not. For example, consultation is not a perfunctory exercise of letting people blow off steam before you slam home your original plan. Treat it that way and you’re in for trouble. But neither is consultation a process in which you sacrifice the authority (and responsibility) of elected officials – or even of private sector developers operating responsibly within their rights. Asking someone’s opinion does not automatically arm them with a veto. These are details that people should understand from the outset.

To that end, I am going to use this space in the coming months to explore the topic of consultation – to set out some definitions and expectations, to outline best practices and to talk about different forms of consultation.

I hope you’ll watch this space and tell me along the way, “What do you think?”

- Judy Kirk