Skip to main content

Why public hearings are terrible

It's a typical public hearing, and over a dozen speakers have arrived to speak for or against the proposed development. When called, each speaker heads up to the microphone and passionately relays their personal perspective on why the new development should, or should not, be permitted.

At the end of the hearing none of the speakers has changed their mind, and very few have learned anything new. Council makes their decision. Those who are aligned with the vote rejoice, while those opposed to the decision lament and decry the process as well as the decision.

A democratic exercise? Certainly doesn't feel like one. Public hearings are notorious for leaving council members exhausted, members of the public frustrated, and decisions that seldom seem connected to the proceedings themselves. This format and mechanism are partially products of our focus on democracy as accountability and equality of voice. At a public hearing, any resident can register to speak, and views are expressed directly to council members, unfiltered.

The reason this format feels so awful is out of neglect for other components of democracy that are often overlooked, ignored, or are poorly understood altogether. The democratic potential of our communities requires that we make space for things like consensus and deliberation. Consensus can be thought of as general agreement, or opinions that are in alignment. However, in practice, it does not always mean 100%, unequivocal, agreement. The process to reveal areas where there may be consensus across a diverse group of people requires some degree of deliberation - which is very different than what happens at a public hearing. Deliberation is more like conversation: I share my opinion, you share your opinion; I listen to your thoughts, reflect, and adjust my opinion based on what I've heard. You do likewise based on my renewed opinion, until we've both arrived at a new or different perspective that neither of us had at the outset. This is what is meant by the term building consensus.

This process is time consuming, and requires that participants actively listen to one another, have trust, and are wiling to learn. These are atypical features in our current forms of government and decision-making. However, there are examples where these approaches have been tried. Check out this process to involve BC residents in the creation of health policy. This handbook outlines several other instances across Canada when citizens are invited to deliberate together with one another, and engage in deep learning on a particular subject where they don't necessarily have specialized expertise.

The thing is, this approach is difficult to scale. It requires that people meet together, face to face, multiple times. Through these processes people build relationships, and come to know and understand one another. Even more critically, everyone in the process learns something.

And in today's world, a little bit of learning could go a long way.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Democracy doesn't mean you get your way - Part 1

Open Houses and Public Hearings:  Public Deliberation, not Delegated Decision-Making Unfortunately, and contrary to popular belief, showing up at an open house or public hearing does not mean you get to veto issues that are going forward to council. Quite often, participants in municipal consultation events are frustrated and disheartened that their feedback does not lead to obvious and explicit policy change. "But I live in the neighbourhood! I should be able to say what gets built, and what doesn't!" These sentiments are common, especially at the municipal level when rezoning applications are put forward, or communities are reviewing their Official Community Plans (OCP's) to accommodate new and different developments. Which begs the question - why bother holding open houses or public hearings at all? Making decisions democratically is not always straight forward. Once we get beyond foundational elements of a democratic society (rule of law, freedom

Why democracy doesn't mean you get your way - Part 2

If you do an online search of the word "democracy", you'll come across references to things like 'majority decision-making' or 'control by a majority'. Majority decision-making, and voting, are often assumed to be key features of a democracy. However: neither voting, nor control by a majority, are necessary for democratic decision-making. This may come as a shock, but there are ways for groups of people to make decisions that do not involve voting. Voting leaves very little room for nuance, for the exploration of alternatives, or for compromise between disparate perspectives. Majority decision-making, for its part, can lead to a tyranny of the majority, the oppression of minority perspectives, the polarization of opinions, and, by definition, a portion of participants whose preferences are ignored. So what's the alternative? If you're part of a group that is empowered to make a decision on some issue (a board, community group, committ

Including rational thought in decision-making: novel idea?

The post last week brought up the idea that we need to think about what concepts and ideas are put forward in the public realm. From pop music to sports to local community events, our approach to decision-making is influenced by commonly understood cultural practices. Meaningful democratic decision-making requires that we think about the practices, ideas, and values that percolate throughout society. More specifically, when it comes to engaging a group of people to get together and go through a democratic decision-making process, practitioners need to think about how participants are being, or have been, educated. By definition, democratic decision-making is not limited to specialists. "Rule by the people" means everyone gets to participate in decision-making, even about issues where we are not experts. This does not mean, however, that democratic decision-making should be approached from a place of ignorance.  Robert Dahl  emphasized the importance of  enlight