Citizen Engagement - RMA AUMA AAMDC CET... · citizen engagement. It will open with a brief history...

AUMA/AAMDC

Citizen EngagementTOOLKIT

2015

INTRODUCTION

Welcome to the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association and the AlbertaAssociation of Municipal District and Counties Citizen Engagement Toolkit.

The purpose of this toolkit is to provide you, whether an elected official or member ofmunicipal administration, some helpful and practical advice and tools to support effectivecitizen engagement. It has been developed to have application for Alberta municipalitiesof all sizes and in regard for differences in geographic locations and demographics. As youmake your way through the toolkit, consider the content and resources to be a guide toyour citizen engagement opportunities; customize the application of the toolkit to fit theneeds of your municipality.

Citizen engagement provides municipalities a means to incorporate citizen values,interests, needs and desires into their decision-making processes and decisions. Itimproves municipal decision-making by bringing all perspectives to the table.

While there are risks associated with citizen engagement, it can be extremely beneficialwith some thoughtful and careful planning. This toolkit includes helpful best practices togive you good food for thought as you consider how best to engage with your citizens; italso provides all the relevant templates to design and plan engagement activities, moveyou to action and then evaluate your progress. No two elected officials or municipalitiesneeds are the same, which makes it critical to invest in your own approach – one that isdesigned for your unique context.

This toolkit is laid out in four sections, each designed with a specific purpose.

Section 1 will deliver the benefits and opportunities associated withcitizen engagement.

It will open with a brief history of citizen engagement and explain its importance tomunicipal governance as well as its connection to community development. It will describethe relationship between citizen engagement and democracy as well as the influence oftechnology on the practice.

Section 2 will emphasize the necessary elements to mitigate risk andprepare for successful citizen engagement activities.

It will outline municipal engagement requirements as they relate to the MunicipalGovernment Act as well as the role of a citizen engagement framework and policy insupporting municipal-led citizen engagement projects. It will introduce risks and concernsrelated to the implementation of citizen engagement, as well as how to connectappropriate citizen engagement techniques with municipal decision-making. It will shine aspotlight on the importance of internal decision-makers supporting engagement projects.

http://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.qp.alberta.ca

Section 3 emphasizes your municipality's readiness.

It will provide a step-by-step look at the components that make-up meaningful citizenengagement projects, including the roles of elected officials and administration as well ascorresponding techniques and tools for communication and engagement.

It will support municipalities to set desired outcomes for citizen engagement projects andfeel confident selecting opportunities to engage citizens. It will guide municipalities in theirwork to identify target participants, assess public perception of the engagement issue ordecision at hand, select in-person and digital techniques and tools, as well as providestrategies that focus on citizen recruitment. It will go further to provide recommendationson how to effectively communicate about your engagement project.

Section 4 will emphasize the importance of evaluating the process and the impact of citizen engagement on achieving municipal outcomes.

It will provide guidance on setting performance measures, tracking progress, analyzingcitizen input and reporting back to participants and the public on engagement results.

Section 1: SETTIng ThE STAgE

1.1 Municipal governance, citizen engagement and communitydevelopment

1.1.1 A brief history of citizen engagement

1.1.2 Citizen engagement in practice

1.1.3 The engagement spectrum today

1.1.4 Traditional v.s. digital engagement

1.1.5 Contributing to community development

1.2 Benefits and opportunities

Section 2: OrgAnIzATIOnAL rEADInESS

2.1 Risk management

2.1.1 Common risk factors and misconceptions

2.1.2 Municipality v.s. citizen perception of risk

2.1.3 Risk assessment

2.2 Foundations of municipal citizen engagement

2.2.1 Alberta’s Municipal Government Act

2.2.2 Privacy legislation

2.2.3 Organizational commitment

2.2.4 Citizen engagement framework

2.2.5 Policy development

2.2.6 Elected officials and citizen engagement policy

2.3 Municipal decision-making and citizen engagement

2.3.1 Decision-making and the spectrum of engagement

SECTIOn 3: PLAnnIng fOr CITIzEn EngAgEMEnT

3.1 Defining the issue at hand and decision to be made

3.2 Assessing expectations

3.3 Setting desired outcomes

3.4 Target participants

3.4.1 Target participant perception audit

3.4.2 Aligning the engagement issue and decision with target participants

3.5 Selecting your level of engagement

3.6 Refining your outcomes

3.7 Techniques and tools to engage citizens

3.7.1 In-person v.s. digital engagement

3.7.2 Selecting your techniques and tools

3.7.3 Important considerations for the use of digital engagement tools

A U M A / A A M D C C I T I Z E N E N G A G E M E N T T O O L K I T

3.8 Recruiting and retaining participants

3.8.1 Overcoming barriers to citizen engagement participation

3.9 Communicating your citizen engagement project

3.9.1 Communicating the decision-making process

3.9.2 Key communication considerations

3.9.3 Communication skills that contribute to effective citizen engagement

3.10 Timelines and resources

3.10.1 Developing a project schedule

3.10.2 Roles and responsibilities

3.10.3 Finance and human resource requirements

3.11 Citizen engagement readiness checklist

SECTIOn 4: EvALUATIng yOUr CITIzEn EngAgEMEnT EffOrTS

4.1 Setting performance measures

4.2 Data collection techniques

4.3 Analyzing your data

4.4 Reporting and sharing results

APPEnDICES: Appendix A: Resource Guide

Appendix B: Glossary


1Setting the stage

1

S E C T I O N 1 : S E T T I N G T H E S T A G E

Citizen engagement is a broad term that encompasses action by elected officials andgovernment organizations to account for the knowledge, experiences, views and values ofthe public in their decisions.

For municipalities to implement decisions, and particularly difficult decisions in response tocomplex challenges, they require citizens' consent and support. Unless citizens understandand are engaged in the decisions themselves then trust is easily lost (OECD, 2009).

As it stands, there is ongoing evidence from right within our communities to around theworld that citizens are not content simply to engage with government through periodicelections. They want to influence decision-making, and there are a number of factorsdriving this:

• Perception of a growing disconnect between citizens and governments, echoed by lowvoter turnouts, declining confidence in public officials and increasing demands foraccountability and transparency;

• A more educated public who believe their voices matter on issues that affect them;

• Advances in technology that are raising expectations for immediate access to reliableinformation and networking across groups, geographical boundaries and traditionalgovernment processes; and

• Government representation that does not reflect the gender and ethnic make-up of thepopulation (Watling, 2007).

SECTION 1Setting the stage

2


CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT THAT BUILDS COMMUNITY CONFIDENCE

In December 2013, the Village of Longview signed a precedent-setting water testing agreement with Legacy Oil & Gas Ltd. It wasa decision driven by citizen engagement, and a critical step toensure residents' confidence in their water supply.

"Longview has seen more than its fair share of oil and gasdevelopment," explains Mayor Cliff Ayrey, who sat in the role ofDeputy Mayor in 2013. "However, hydraulic fracturing operationsare a new challenge and our community needs to be 100 per centconfident that the chemicals injected into the ground do notimpact our water supply."

Longview's village Council wanted to ensure that all residentswere first and foremost informed about Longview's situation.

"Water is the last thing you want people to worry about," saysMayor Ayrey. "It was critical that people had the best informationand all the information so we could be really clear about anyresidual concerns and how to address them."

The Village of Longview organized an open house event thatattracted approximately 70 of its 311 residents. The open houseprovided a forum for Legacy Oil & Gas Ltd. to explain theiroperations, Alberta Environment to speak to water qualitystandards, and the Village of Longview to share its role inprotecting residents' quality of life. It focused on providinginformation, including a number of presentations, and offered aquestion and answer session to ensure that participants receivedthe information that they came seeking.

The open house was equally an opportunity to generate feedbackfrom residents and get a clearer sense of what they needed to feelsecure in the quality of their water. A combination ofcommuniques directed to the Village and the open house pointedto the need for transparency and consistency in water testingarrangement. The Village elected to gain a clearer view of thisinput.

"As a Council, we needed to make a decision about how to quellwater quality fears so we went back to our residents," describesMayor Ayrey. "We consulted them by distributing a survey, whichallowed for two responses per household, and sought inputregarding people's level of satisfaction with current water testingprocedures."

The Council sent out a concise and pointed two-question survey toget direct and explicit feedback. It found that approximately 85 per cent of its residents were satisfied with current watertesting procedures. It knew that, with a resource as critical aswater, the concerns among the remaining 15 per cent of residentswere important to address.

In response, the Village of Longview approached Legacy Oil & GasLtd. The result was the precedent-setting agreement. It is a legaland binding protocol that guarantees frequent and consistentwater quality testing by a third party, where the billing and results,in the name of transparency, are sent directly to the Village ofLongview. The role of Legacy Oil & Gas Ltd. is to fund the testing,thereby offering its guarantee to the community to act in the bestinterest of its residents.

CITIzEn EngAgEMEnT vIgnETTE vILLAgE Of LOngvIEW

Many citizens feel discouraged by bothreal and perceived barriers to influencingpublic decisions and decision-makers.Among these barriers are highly-entrenched decision-making processes,expectations of the public and of electedofficials themselves to demonstrateauthority, and sceptical subject-matterexperts who are unsure of the ability ofcitizens to grapple with complex issues.More systematic barriers include the costof engagement as well as legalities, fromthe onus on municipalities under theMunicipal Government Act, to multi-jurisdictional approaches to andresponsibilities surrounding many largeand complex policy issues.

Citizen engagement can be a powerfulresponse to the public's interest ininfluencing decisions and engaging withgovernment outside of election periods.However, it must be well designed,properly supported and resourced, andborn from a genuine desire to engagecitizens in a way that makes sense for theissue or decision at hand. Done right,citizen engagement can support qualitydemocracy, the legitimacy ofgovernment, successful implementationof policy and a higher quality of lifethrough the pursuit of desired socialoutcomes. On the other hand, poorlyexecuted citizen engagement can lead tomistrust, poor decisions and discontentwith government.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca

3


gOvErnMEnT v.S. gOvErnAnCE

In the traditional sense government rules and controls rely on compliance. However,a state of governance means management and coordination that calls upon allcitizens to play a part in moving their community forward.

1.1

Municipal governance,citizen engagement andcommunity development

Citizen engagement is rooted indemocracy and parliamentary process.The complexity of our mass societies,those formed in the 20th century, havemade direct citizen rule unrealistic. InCanada, the solution has beenrepresentative democracy - wherecitizens vote in elected representatives tomake decisions in the public interest.

The challenge with representativedemocracy is that its most essentialfeature is the competition for leadership.This means that the quintessential role ofcitizens is to choose leaders to produce agovernment (Schumpeter, 1976: 269).The reality is that the decisions thatgovernments make often require trade-offs of public resources. More than this,the legitimacy and sustainability of publicpolicy, programs and services depend ontheir fit with public values (Ank, 2011).While elections serve to identify populistparty programs that contain opinions onall types of issues, they rarely serve toreveal the preferences of voters onspecific issues.

Citizen engagement can then, dependingon the complexity of the issue at hand,act as a means for the government toshare information, gather input from thepublic or work collectively to define andimplement solutions. It offers electedrepresentatives and the governmentsthey form more frequent and meaningfulways to help shape public policy -particularly between elections.

1.1.1 A brief history of citizenengagement

In its earliest iteration, democracy wascitizen engagement. Citizens assembledin Greek city states to affect community-oriented processes and decisions.Democracy emerged as a process of self-government that allowed citizens toaffect and operate upon theirenvironment directly and indirectly. In adirect fashion, citizens make decisions forthemselves and in an indirect fashionthey influence the decisions forcommunities.

Out of citizen engagement emerged asystem of government and centralizeddecision-making. Both democracy andcitizen engagement went through atransitional state in the 19th century.Mass societies evolved and with themcomplex economic, social andenvironmental questions. In reaction tothe sheer size of communities and theircomplexity, representative democracyemerged.

Government:

• linear model

• hierarchy

• formal institutions and procedures

• representation of citizens throughelection

• domination through rules orcompliance activities may be requiredto ensure universal acceptance of adecision

Governance:

• network model

• multi-layer

• evolving and ongoing processes

• power is dispersed

• acceptance of and support fordecisions by all players arises out ofwide participation in earlier debate

4


Representative democracy became awell-established institution in Westerncountries. It was designed to securedemocracy as government of the peopleand for the people. It was established to,and in many ways still does, createdemocratic institutions around popularlyelected government officials.

Over the last forty to fifty years, therehave been new societal values emergingand new questions surroundingrepresentational democracy. It has beenasserted participatory and deliberativedemocracy – both proponents of greatercitizen engagement – can enrich andrenew Canada's long-standing tradition ofrepresentational democracy. More thanthis, it is becoming clear that we are in themidst of a second transitional state - onefrom government to governance - that isbeing driven by changes in expectationsthat surround citizen engagement.

Today's citizens benefit from higher levelsof education and greater access to modesof participation. While the scope of citizenengagement is highly variable - fromgaining information to consultation to fulldelegation of decision powers - it is clearthat citizens’ expectations regarding theirlevel of participation in communitydecisions is changing. These changesshow no indication of threateningCanada's commitment torepresentational democracy, but doesmean that our political institutions arebeing challenged to be effective and, insome cases, innovative in theirengagement activities.

1.1.2 Citizen engagement in practice

As representational democracy hasbecome institutionalized in Canada,citizen engagement has declined. Themost overt evidence of this decline isvoter turnout. Some staunchinterpretations of representative

democracy state that the role of thepublic is to form the government.Criticism of this view is that voting is aninfrequent, non-deliberative activity that,while having a high-impact and highlyvisible result, creates significant distancebetween governments and citizens.

Along with representational democracyhas emerged a spectrum of methods toengage the public. While each of themethods have merits, some have longer-standing history in Canadian democracyand have matured at a faster rate thanothers.

In Canadian democracy, publiccommunication and public consultationhave a high level of maturity.

Public communication is a passive, one-way flow of information to citizens. It isachieved through tools like websites,advertising, reports, and brochures. It isconsidered part of citizen engagementbecause it is necessary for citizens to beinformed in order to be involved in action.

If public communication is a call from agovernment to its people then publicconsultation is the response. In the call-response dynamic, public consultation isa one-way flow of information from thepublic to its government. Governmentsuse methods such as public hearings,opinion polls, referenda, and open housesto invite input. Citizens, as individuals, arepresented the opportunity to expresstheir opinions, provide input, share ideasand represent their personal or theirorganization's interests toward the issueor decision at hand.

As part of Canada's transition fromgovernment to governance, or the viewthat representative democracy can beenriched by investing in effective citizenengagement, new and more participatoryforms of engagement are emerging.These activities can be described aspublic deliberation, and they allow for

5

CLArIfyIng CITIzEn EngAgEMEnT

Citizen Engagement*

• Involves citizens (individuals, not representatives) in policy or programdevelopment, from agenda setting and planning to decision-making,implementation and review

• Requires two-way communication regarding policy or program change(interactive and iterative) between government and citizens, among citizens,and among citizens and community groups

• Aims to share decision-making power and responsibility for those decisions

• Includes processes through which citizens come to an opinion which is informed and responsible

• Generates innovative ideas and active participation

• Contributes to collective problem solving and prioritization (deliberation)

• Requires that information and process be transparent

• Depends on mutual respect between all participants

* Note: citizen engagement initiatives may embody some but not all of these characteristics.

NOT Citizen Engagement

• Engages exclusively the leaders of stakeholdergroups or representatives

• Constitutes participation in a program where nodecision-making power is granted regarding theshape or course of the policy or program

• Involves participants only in last phase of policyor program development

• Seeks approval for a pre-determined choice ofalternatives

• Intends to fulfill “public consultation obligations”without a genuine interest in infusing thedecision with the opinions sought

• Includes public opinion polls and many focus group exercises

Source: Sheedy, 2008


interaction among the citizens andbetween citizens and government. Public deliberation, regardless of method,moves the interactions of a governmentand its people beyond conversation intoan interaction where the emphasis is onvalues, imagining and seeking to discovercommon ground for solutions. Publicdeliberation methods can includecitizens' panels, consensus conferences,and deliberative polls. These methodscan lead to varying levels of commitmenton how to move forward as well as theimplementation of decisions withinmunicipalities.

In Alberta the purpose of municipalgovernment is to:

• provide good government;

• provide services, facilities or otherthings that are necessary or desirable;and

• develop and maintain safe and viablecommunities (Alberta MunicipalAffairs, 2015).

The Municipal Government Act describesthe role of elected officials, who are inplace to look after the interests of theentire municipality. This means thatelected officials, as tough as it is, mustbase any decision on what is best for theentire municipality.

For municipalities, there is a deliberatevagueness to their roles, as outlinedwithin the Municipal Government Act. It is up to the municipalities toconceptualize what "good" governmentmeans to their residents, which services,facilities and other things are deemed"necessary or desirable" and whatconstitutes a "safe and viable"community.

The reality is that the work ofmunicipalities can be fraught withtension between values. Citizenengagement is key to managing throughthese tensions.


1.1.3 The engagement spectrum today

According to the InternationalAssociation of Public Participation (IAP2)(2006), engagement activities areclassified and understood relative to thelevel of impact on citizens. In IAP2'sSpectrum of Public Participation, theassociation takes the perspective of thehost organization (e.g. the municipality)that is seeking to engage an audience ona decision.

The spectrum is driven by the view thatthe host organization has accountabilityto implement a decision and citizens canhave varying stakes in the outcome.

The lowest level of engagement informscitizens, ensuring they have balanced andobjective information to help themunderstand the problem, alternatives,opportunities and solutions. Regardlessof how far the host organization movesalong the spectrum, informing citizens isalways a fundamental aspect of affectiveengagement.

The second tier of engagement isconsulting, giving the host organizationan opportunity to obtain citizen feedbackon analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

It is necessary for citizens to feel informedin order to effectively participate inconsultation activities.

The third, fourth and fifth tiers ofengagement move into a range ofactivities that relate to publicdeliberation. These tiers vary according tohow much decision-making authority isgranted to the citizens engaged in theprocess. In the third tier, involvingcitizens, the host organization works withparticipants to ensure their concerns andaspirations are heard, understood andconsidered as part of a decision. Thefourth tier, collaborating with citizensextends the relationship between thehost organization and the citizen into apartnership. It acknowledges that boththe organization and citizens have a stakein the final outcomes and strives fordeliberation to identify alternatives andparticipatory decision-making to setpriorities and identify a preferredsolution. The final tier, empowering,acknowledges that citizens have a highstake in the final outcome and it puts thedeliberation and decision-making in theirhands.

6


IAP2 SPECTrUM OfPUBLIC PArTICIPATIOn

PublicParticipation

goal

Inform

To provide thepublic withbalanced andobjectiveinformation toassist them inunderstandingthe problem,alternatives,opportunitiesand/orsolutions.

Consult

To obtainpublicfeedback onanalysis,alternativesand/ordecisions.

Empower

To place finaldecision-making in thehands of thepublic.

Increasing Level of Public Impact

Collaborate

To partner withthe public ineach aspect ofthe decisionincluding thedevelopmentof alternativesand theidentificationof thepreferredsolution.

Involve

To workdirectly withthe publicthroughoutthe process toensure thatpublicconcerns andaspirations areconsistentlyunderstoodandconsidered.

Source: International Association of Public Participation

7

1.1.4 Traditional v.s. digital engagement

Part of changing citizen expectations surrounding opportunities to engage with theirgovernment representatives can be understood through advances in communicationtechnology. One of the most important advances in communication technology is publicdeliberation, where citizens of all backgrounds and experiences can wade intoconversations and deliberation on nearly any topic.

Over the past 15 years, online communication has helped transition our society from theexclusive use of broadcast (i.e. television, radio, newspaper and other mediums that allowone person to reach a mass audience) and one-on-one communication mediums (i.e. email,instant messaging) to many-to-many communication mediums (i.e. online forums andsocial media platforms that allow people to both observe the contributions of others andshare their contributions within a mass community of users and participants).


WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN vIrTUALLYEvErY CITIZEN IS A TArGETpArTICIpANT?

Toward the end of 2013, Calgary City Councilidentified stakeholder input as key todeveloping its new four-year business planand budget. Members of Council felt citizen input wouldgreatly enhance Council priorities,departmental business plans, budgets and,ultimately, the services delivered toCalgarians.In response to Council's request, the Citychose to consult citizens for input on thefollowing decision:Focusing on the next four years, how do weestablish future direction and find the rightbalance between investing in quality publicservice and keeping tax rates affordable?One of the big challenges - with apopulation of more than one million people– is that almost everyone, regardless of theirprofile, was a stakeholder with the potentialto offer valuable and valid input. It was clearthat no single engagement tactic could offerthe opportunities for citizen input needed tosupport Council's decision-making.The City made the strategic decision toimplement a multi-stream approach thatincluded Reflection and Synthesis,Representative Engagement, InclusiveEngagement, and Internal Engagement.“The combination of the four streams ofengagement provided opportunities for

feedback from a broad range of citizens andstakeholders”, said Noreen Rude, Manager ofEngagement & Communication PartnerServices, “It was the most comprehensiveapproach we have had for a project of thiskind.”Reflection and Synthesis involved a review ofcitizen engagement and research activitiesconducted across the corporation between2010 and 2013.Representative Engagement employedqualitative research methods. Participants inthis stream were recruited to ensurerepresentation of harder-to-reachpopulations and the broad diversity ofperspectives of Calgarians.Inclusive engagement was the core effort ofthe engagement strategy, which sought toreach, educate, and solicit feedback from asmany Calgarians as possible on spendingpriorities and the City’s long-term priorityareas. The process included one communityevent in each of Calgary's 14 wards.Internal Engagement leveraged City staffand civic partners’ specialized knowledge togenerate ideas of ways to collaborate forefficiency and improved community success.More than this, the City made the decision tooffer multiple channels for input within theinclusive engagement stream. Online engagement included a discussionforum, a priority setting tool, and a budgetsimulation tool which worked hand-in-handwith community opportunities. The face-toface events included attendance atcommunity events and gathering places toreach a wide diversity of citizens in their own

neighbourhoods, at libraries, shoppingcentres, parks, ethno-culture events andother community hubs – going to where thepeople were versus asking them to attend aCity-led event.The results were worth it. The City of Calgaryfound that offering complementary digitaland online engagement opportunitieshelped mitigate the weakness of any onetool. The online simulation tools allowedcitizens to participate without requiring anyspecialized knowledge about the topic athand.The City also felt that stepping outside themore traditional route of online surveyscreated some highly positive interactions.The tools chosen were able to integrate theneeds for background and contextualinformation, let citizens explore and learnabout the City, and then provide input forCouncil to consider. Comments back fromcitizens indicated that the tools greatlysimplified the engagement experience whilemaking it efficient and enjoyable as well.Members of City Council were excited aboutthe unique and comprehensive process andtools and took every opportunity to promotethe engagement offerings through theircommunity-based networks. The results ofthe engagement activities were reported byeach ward then aggregated for the City as awhole.“You would be hard pressed to find agovernment with a population larger thanours that would put in the time to achieveengagement numbers that big,” said Mayor Naheed Nenshi.

CITIzEn EngAgEMEnT vIgnETTE CITy Of CALgAry

8

Outside of the technology itself therehave been advances in onlineconventions, such as the use of classifiers(also known as tags or hashtags) thatcongregate citizens around topics ofmutual interest.

The importance of these advancements incommunication technology is that theyhave changed citizens' expectationsaround how and even how quickly theyare informed by their governments andare able to share information withdecision-makers. In addition to this,public deliberation is, in many instances,occurring with or without governmentparticipation. Concerned citizens nowhave platforms to come together aroundshared issues, concerns andopportunities, as well as to form criticalmass to bring their concerns to decision-makers. The advances in the platformsthemselves also mean that governmentsand citizens alike can move deliberationinto an online environment. Thesespaces, while still emergent in bothtechnology and practices, are becomingrobust enough to support even the mostinteractive, complex and large-scalecitizen engagement projects.

1.1.5 Contributing to communitydevelopment

Citizen engagement is at the heart ofcommunity spirit and, accordingly,community development. Communitydevelopment is a process wherecommunity members come together totake collective action and generatesolutions to common problems. It isfocused on finding effective economic,social, environmental and culturalsolutions to enhance citizen wellbeing.

Effective citizen engagement is thefoundation for community development,and particularly collective action that istaken and/or implemented at a grassrootslevel. For municipalities, community

development work is most effective whenit aligns with their strategic outlook andvision for the future. Accordingly, it isimportant for municipalities to eitherlead, act as a catalyst for, or supportcommunity development and, atminimum, recognize how to effectivelyengage with citizens invested inimproving quality of life.

Regardless of the scope of communitydevelopment activities, it is most effectivewhen it is:

• a long-term endeavour;

• well-planned;

• inclusive and equitable;

• holistic and integrated into the biggervision for the community;

• initiated and supported by communitymembers;

• of benefit to the community; and

• grounded in experience that leads tobest practices.

Of particular importance to municipalitiesas they consider citizen engagement isthat community development is generallyinitiated and supported by communitymembers. This means that municipalitiesthat choose to show leadership, act as acatalyst for, or support communitydevelopment should acknowledge that,on the Spectrum of Public Participation(See 1.1.3 The engagement spectrum today)they understand and are in support ofpublic deliberation. This is becausecommunity development work assumesthat the impact of decisions on citizens ishigh and that they want to eithercontribute to or demonstrate ownershipof decision-making and, often,implementation of the work. In thissense, municipalities become acontributor to or partner in enhancingthe well-being of a community.


9

PrInCIPLES Of CITIzEn EngAgEMEnT

The Institute for Local Government’s PublicEngagement (2014) program has developed thefollowing principles to serve as helpful indicatorsof effective and ethical citizen engagementpractices by local government. These principlesmay also help guide municipalities in the design,planning, implementation and evaluation ofcitizen engagement projects.

Inclusive Planning

The design and planning of a citizenengagement plan includes input fromappropriate municipal officials as well astargeted citizen participants.

Transparency

There is clarity and transparency about citizenengagement project sponsorship, purpose,design, and how decision-makers will use theresults.

Authentic Intent

A primary purpose of citizen engagement is togenerate public views and ideas to help shapemunicipal government action or policy, ratherthan persuade citizens to accept a decision thathas already been made.

Breadth of Participation

The citizen engagement project includes peopleand viewpoints that are broadly reflective of themunicipality’s population of affected citizens.

Informed Participation

Participants in the citizen engagement projecthave information and/or access to expertiseconsistent with the issue or decision at hand.

Accessible Participation

Citizen engagement processes are broadlyaccessible in terms of location, time, andlanguage, and support the engagement ofcitizens with disabilities.

Appropriate Process

The citizen engagement project utilizes one ormore techniques and/or tools that are responsiveto the needs of targeted participants, andencourages full, authentic, effective andequitable participation consistent with thepurpose of engagement. This may includerelationships with existing community partners,techniques and tools (i.e. communitycommittees, community association meetings).

Authentic Use of Information Received

The ideas, preferences, and/or recommendationscontributed by citizens are documented andseriously considered by decision-makers.

Feedback to Participants

Municipal officials communicate ultimatedecisions back to target participants and thebroader public, with a description of how theinput was considered and used.

Evaluation

The municipality and participants evaluate eachcitizen engagement project with the collectedfeedback and learnings shared broadly andapplied to future engagement efforts.

Adapted from Institute for Local Government’s

Public engagement Program (2014)


IAP2 COrE vALUES fOr ThE PrACTICE Of PUBLICPArTICIPATIOn©

1. Public participation isbased on the belief thatthose who are affected bya decision have a right tobe involved in thedecision-making process.

2. Public participationincludes the promise thatthe public's contributionwill influence the decision.

3. Public participationpromotes sustainabledecisions by recognizingand communicating theneeds and interests of allparticipants, includingdecision-makers.

4. Public participation seeksout and facilitates theinvolvement of thosepotentially affected by orinterested in a decision.

5. Public participation seeksinput from participants indesigning how theyparticipate.

6. Public participationprovides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.

7. Public participationcommunicates toparticipants how theirinput affected thedecision.

10

1.2

Benefits and opportunities

When it comes to navigating citizenengagement, there are a lot of choices tobe made. In the end, the most effectiveengagement will depend greatly on theissue or decision at hand and thepotential impact on citizens. However,even before this, it is important tounderstand the benefits that citizenengagement can provide.

Information, Perspective and IdeasAll aspects of citizen engagement,regardless of where it sits along theSpectrum of Public Participation (See 1.1.3The engagement spectrum today) cancontribute to communication that sharesinformation, perspective and ideas. Onthe front end of the spectrum, publiccommunication allows a municipality toshare accurate and timely knowledge andinsight on conditions (i.e. road closures,changes to recreation schedules, changesin personnel, updates to bylaws),concerns (i.e. changes to funding models,ending homelessness, annexation), values(i.e. economic, social and environmentaltrade-offs), and priorities (i.e. capitalinvestments, recreation and culture,community development, growthinitiatives, accessible housing). Publicconsultation allows citizens to contributetheir feelings, experience and evidence-based information back to municipalitiesin advance of a decision being made.

Further along the spectrum, citizens andmunicipalities work more closely togetherto not only share information,perspectives and ideas but deliberatetheir merits for the most desirablesolution. The changes along thespectrum relate to where the decision-making authority lies.

Working Relationships Effective citizen engagement is,regardless of the nature of the activity, aninvestment in social capital. Done right,citizen engagement can build knowledgebases, trust and, ultimately, acommitment to support current andfuture decisions.

Balanced and Legitimate DecisionsBy engaging citizens, municipalities areable to generate a diverse cross-section ofviews and options for addressing issues orcapitalizing on opportunities. They canget insight into points of contention aswell as those that generate hope andexcitement. They identify potential risksand barriers to success before they'veinvested in an initiative. They can achieveresults that respect the values,experiences, rights and needs of thecitizens they serve.

Well-supported DecisionsCitizen engagement can also contributeto broad support for and vested interestin decisions made and work undertakenby municipalities. It can identify andconfirm community priorities. It canensure that work is undertaken in a waythat addresses citizen concerns, meetsexpectations and delivers on priorities. Itcan encourage citizens to stand with theirmunicipalities on difficult decisions andback community investments.


11

S E C T I O N 2 : O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L R E A D I N E S S

While proponents of participatory and deliberative democracy stand firmly behind thebenefits of citizen engagement in municipal decision-making, the practice doesn't comewithout risks and challenges. Before you set out to undertake citizen engagement, it'simportant to understand the risks and challenges associated with the practice and whatyou can do to mitigate these risks. This includes gaining a clear understanding of yourmunicipality's commitment to effective and meaningful engagement as well as itssupporting framework and policy tools.

2Organizational readiness

12

2.1

risk management

Risk management refers to the effects ofuncertainty that could hinder outcomesof a citizen engagement project. TheMunicipal Government Act and Freedom ofInformation and Privacy Protection Act arelegislation standards designed to guidemunicipal risk related to citizenengagement. Framework and policydevelopment are other tools available tohelp municipalities manage risk.

2.1.1 Common risk factors andmisconceptions

Municipalities that undertake citizenengagement face, and can be deterredby, some common risk factors.

Consider the following and think abouttheir relevance to your municipality:

• lack of internal commitment toengagement;

• ad hoc processes;

• lack of clarity on the decision to bemade, issue to be solved oropportunity to be met;

• lack of communication about theengagement;

• low rate of participation or lack ofadequate citizen representation;

• lack of clarity on how input will beused; and

• limited opportunities to participation(e.g. only digital or only during the daytime hours).

Having a high level of awareness of whatyour municipality associates as risks toeffective citizen engagement is the firststep to managing them.

In addition to legitimate risks associatedwith citizen engagement, there are anumber of commonly perceived risks thatmay be considered misconceptions.

These include:

engaging citizens in decision-making isan example of decision-makersabdicating responsibility.By employing citizen engagementactivities, a municipality does notabdicate responsibility. Rather, afterthoughtful consideration, a plan forproductive engagement is developedthat:

• retains appropriate responsibilities;

• supports the municipality’s vision andmission and the engagement project’spurpose;

• demonstrates the municipality’scommitment to serving itsconstituents; and

• provides avenues for productiveengagement by citizens.

Complex, challenging, technical and/orspecialized decisions must be made bysubject-matter experts and trainedprofessionals.Citizen engagement recognizes thatsubject matter experts contributeessential knowledge and information todecision-making. However, it alsorecognizes that complex, challenging,technical and/or specialized decisionsoften involve trade-offs in what can beconsidered public values.

The reality is that effective, sustainabledecisions tend to ensure that localknowledge and perspectives andsensitivity to the social context of thecommunity are also part of the decision-making equation.

Citizens elect members of the public toact on their behalf. It's the mandate ofelected officials to speak and act for thepublic.

SECTION 2Organization readiness


http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/F25.pdfhttp://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/F25.pdfhttp://www.qp.alberta.ca

13


Quality citizen engagement helps electedofficials understand and respond to theirconstituents’ hopes, dreams, issues andconcerns. Solely relying upon electedofficials (who have limited terms ofservice) may fail to result in sustainabledecisions for the municipality.

Citizen engagement takes a substantialinvestment of time and money.The cost and time required for citizenengagement varies widely based uponmultiple factors, including the:

• degree of existing and potentialcontroversy;

• risk potential for the municipality;

• history of participation within themunicipality and community;

• complexity of the issues;

• resources available;

• participation techniques and toolsrecommended; and

• experience and skill of the citizenengagement project manager.

It won't make everyone happy.Citizen engagement isn't designed tomake everyone happy. It is designed toaccount for the level of citizen involvementthat will lead to the best and mostsupported decision for the community. Inhighly complex or contentious scenarios,citizen engagement that includesdeliberation can point to new possibilitiesor opportunities not previouslyconsidered. The opportunities on thetable can be explored in full andmunicipalities or citizens, depending onwho is responsible for the decision, canprovide a clear statement as to whatdecision is made and why it is theappropriate decision. Explaining why a decision is made is a critical step to helping everyone, both people who support and do not support a decision, come to terms with it.

2.1.2 Municipality v.s. citizen perception of risk

Citizens also perceive risks when theyinteract with your municipality. In alogical sense, risk is the chance orprobability of a negative event occurring.Risk also has two friends - hazard, thecause of a negative event, and outrage, acitizen's emotional response to thehazard. Citizens are not always in tunewith risk itself, or even hazards, but rather,outrage. When citizens experienceoutrage, it is important to know that theiremotional response may come from anumber of places and not necessarilyfrom a need for more facts or assurancesfrom a technical or subject matter expert.In fact, it is safe to say that facts are rarelycapable of changing the way thatoutraged citizens perceive risk.

In these circumstances, it becomesimportant to understand outrage andapply effective communication in itspresence.

Outrage is most often apparent whencitizens feel:

• fear;

• disagreement over values or priorities;

• anger about approach and attitude; and

• actual impacts.

14

As a municipality, it is important tounderstand that there are indicators thatcontribute to outrage. Some of theseinclude:

• using the "decide, announce anddefend method", which demonstrateslittle to no awareness of the interests,values, and concerns of citizens;

• failing to recognize that for manypeople and groups health, safety, andenvironmental risks may reflectdeeper social, political, or economicconcerns;

• failing to provide adequate training forsubject matter experts andspokespersons in risk-communicationskills;

• using overly complex or technicallanguage in communicatinginformation about risks to citizens;

• communicating verbally andnonverbally in ways that elicit mistrustand ill will; and

• insisting on making risk-managementdecisions solely on the basis of riskcalculations.

It is also important to understand thatthere are risk communication practices tohelp overcome the potential for outrage.Some of these include:

• minimize risks to health, safety, andthe environment and communicateabout what is accomplished;

• develop linkages and partnershipswith credible organizations;

• endorse risk messages by trustworthythird parties;

• adopt and live up to engagementvalues and principles;

• commit to active listening and two-way communication;

• consult with citizens about theassessment, management, andcommunication of risks;

• respect differing values and world-views;

• apply techniques and tools that buildconsensus among citizens; and

• commit to excellence in riskcommunication.

If you are concerned about developingrelationships with citizens, then considerthat it can be good practice to:

• admit to and apologize for mistakes,including past mistakes;

• work with interested groups before,during and after engagement projects;

• look for opportunities to have one-on-one dialogue;

• focus on the situation, issue orbehaviour, and not on the individual;

• support the self-confidence and self-esteem of others;

• build and maintain constructiverelationships;

• lead by example;

• show an interest in citizens and theirconcerns;

• seek to meet citizen needs in timing,place and format of engagementactivities;

• avoid defensive mindsets, language,and behaviours;

• be human;

• be sensitive to emotions; and

• prepare ahead of time, know citizenperceptions and expectations, andhave information ready.

Adapted from Covello, McCallum & Pavlova, 1989


15


2.1.3 Risk assessment

Perceived risk to a municipality increasesas citizens are granted greater influencein the decision-making process. This isalso the reason that publiccommunication (informing) and publicconsultation (consulting) are consideredto be more mature methods of citizenengagement than public deliberation(involving, collaborating andempowering).

It is, however, unfair to assume that publiccommunication and public consultationautomatically offer a municipality greatercontrol, a sure outcome and, accordingly,less risk. Depending on the type of issueor decision at hand, it may in fact behigher risk for a municipality to minimizecitizen involvement in an issue. This isparticularly true given the ongoingevidence provided within ourcommunities and around the world thatcitizens' expectations of municipalgovernment are changing and they wantmore frequent and meaningfulopportunities to influence decision-making (See Section One).

Therefore the appropriate questions for amunicipality to assess the degree of riskassociated with citizen engagement are:

• What do we need from citizens andwhy?

• What are our strengths andweaknesses as a municipality?

• What are the opportunities andthreats that citizen engagement posesaround our need?

• What is the likelihood that we willdeliver insufficient or poor qualitycitizen engagement and why?

Use the Understanding Risk Worksheet inthe Resource Section to guide yourmunicipal risk assessment.

One effective approach for municipalitiesto not only assess the cause of risk but toalso identify effective mitigationtechniques is a Bow Tie Risk Assessment.

16


A Bow Tie risk Assessment (a visual is shown in Figure 1 below; International Standard,2009) is a simple visual way to describe and analyze pathways of risk, extending fromcauses to consequences. However, the focus of a Bowtie Risk Assessment is neither thecauses or the consequences but the barriers between the causes and the risks and theconsequences and the risk.

To conduct a Bow Tie Risk Assessment, a top event (the risk) is written down in the centre ofa whiteboard or sheet of paper. The causes associated with the risk (the hazards) aredescribed on the left side of the top event and the consequences (the impact of loss ofcontrol) are described on the right side of the top event.

With these in place, it is now time to focus on preventing or mitigating the cause of orconsequence to the top event. Consider the type of actions, influences or activities thatcould mitigate or eliminate the potential of your list of hazards with the potential to impactyour engagement project. On the other side, consider the type of actions, influences oractivities that could potentially mitigate or eliminate the possibility that the engagementproject would have the consequences that you listed out.

Figure 1: Bow Tie Risk Assessment

RISKCONTENT

CONTENT

CONTENT

CONTENT

CONTENT

CONTENTCAU

SE/H

AZAR

D CONSEQUENCE

2.2

foundations of municipalcitizen engagement

2.2.1 Alberta's Municipal Government Act

In Alberta, the Municipal Government Actdefines the Purposes, Powers and Capacityof Municipalities. It also outlines theDuties, Titles and Oaths of Councillors. Thisgoes to say that, in some instances,municipalities are legally obligated toundertake citizen engagement. Theseobligations extend from the most formalaspects of engaging the public to formgovernment (e.g. elections) tocommunicating decisions to allowingcitizens to petition their electedrepresentatives to take specific actions.

Of course, the law is in place to protectpublic interests and not, as the case oftenis with municipal work, to advanceopportunities and enhance quality of lifewithin communities. For this reason,citizen engagement activities oftenextend beyond the requirements outlinedin the Municipal Government Act. It isoutside the requirements of the Act thatcitizen engagement can seemoverwhelmingly complex as theopportunities are boundless. (SectionThree addresses planning for effectivecitizen engagement.)

The Municipal Government Act establishesa legal requirement for Council andCouncil Committees to conduct businessin public and to ensure citizens arenotified of certain kinds of decisions(Alberta Municipal Affairs, 2011).

The Act establishes a framework for localgovernment that provides municipalcouncils with the powers necessary toprovide for the needs of their community,balanced by Councils’ accountability tothe citizens who elect them.

With respect to Council's commitmentsunder the Act, there are specificrequirements in place to inform residentsof decisions affecting them andopportunities available to them.Examples of this include the requirementto advertise new, updated or revisedbylaws, Council meetings with the public,and public auctions or sales.Municipalities are expected, under law, toadhere to the specific advertisingrequirements outlined in the Act. Inaddition, inspections ordered by theMinister of Municipal Affairs must be,when completed, presented to citizens ofthe specific municipality at a publicmeeting.

With respect to citizen opportunities, theAct requires municipalities to ensurecitizens can attend council meetings,petition council to take actions, andpetition the Minister of Municipal Affairsto take action.

Council MeetingsAlberta's Municipal Government Actprescribes that everyone has a right to bepresent at Council meetings or CouncilCommittee meetings conducted inpublic. In certain circumstances protectedby the Freedom of Information andProtection of Privacy Act, Council mayexclude the public for all or part ofCouncil or Council Committee meetings.These are often referred to as in-cameradiscussions.

Petition CouncilAlberta's Municipal Government Actprescribes that electors of a municipalitymay petition Council to hold a publicmeeting, conduct a vote on an advertisedbylaw or resolution, or petition for localimprovements.

17


http://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.servicealberta.ca/foip/legislation/foip-act.cfmhttp://www.servicealberta.ca/foip/legislation/foip-act.cfmhttp://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.qp.alberta.ca

18

A petition by electors to Council is a formal process authorized under the Act (See section219 on page 120 of the Municipal Government Act).

Petition the Minister of Municipal Affairs Alberta's Municipal Government Act prescribes that electors of a municipality may petitionthe Minister of Municipal Affairs to form a municipality, undertake a viability study, order aninquiry into the affairs of a municipality, etc.

A petition by electors to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is a formal process authorizedunder the Act (See section 219 on page 120 of the Municipal Government Act).


NOTE: Upcoming changes to theMunicipal Government Act that havenot yet come into effect alter somerequirements for municipalities toconduct citizen engagement activities.Soon the Act will require allmunicipalities to adopt a publicparticipation policy and there will bechanges to advertisement andnotification requirements. For furtherinformation visit the MunicipalGovernment Act Review website.

MgA rEqUIrEMEnTS AT A gLAnCE

Section 197 Councils and Council committees must conduct meetings in public,unless section 2 or 2.1 applies.

Section 227 If Council calls a meeting with the public, notice of it must beadvertised and everyone is entitled to attend.

Section 230 Describes when Council is required to hold a public hearing beforesecond reading of the bylaw, or before Council votes on theresolution.

Section 251 (3) A borrowing bylaw must be advertised.

Section 606 Describes the requirements for public advertising. Notice must beadvertised at least once a week for two consecutive weeks ordelivered to every residence in the area affected. Describes what anotice must contain.

Section 636 Describes notification and public input requirements related topreparation of a statutory plan.

Section 640 (2) (d) Land use bylaw must provide for how and to whom notice of theissuance of a development permit is given.

Section 692 Council must hold a public hearing (section 230) and give notice(section 606) before giving second reading to adopt or amend a land use bylaw or statutory plan, i.e.

• intermunicipal development plan,

• municipal development plan,

• area structure plan, or

• area redevelopment plan.

Source: Alberta Municipal Government Act

This list is not exhaustive. It considers the engagement responsibilities of municipalities,without making reference to all of the obligations pertaining to communication andhosting public hearings.

http://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://mgareview.alberta.ca/http://mgareview.alberta.ca/http://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.qp.alberta.ca

While the MunicipalGovernment Act is highlyprescriptive of itscommunication, and specificallyadvertising and notification,requirements, there is benefit tosupplementing these activities.Consider how your targetparticipants access informationand make use of these tools,including email distributions,web pages, social mediaplatforms, posters and placardsin public spaces, public serviceannouncements, andpresentations from municipalrepresentatives.

19


other opportunities for CitizensIn addition to the activities prescribedunder the Municipal Government Act,Municipal Affairs encourages citizens toget involved with municipal governmentby:

• Sitting on a municipal agency, board,committee or commission;

• Making a presentation to Council;

• Participating in town halls, openhouses, etc;

• Writing a letter, email or making aphone call to administration and/orCouncil; and

• Being a community volunteer.

Source: Alberta Municipal Affairs, n.d.

2.2.2 Privacy legislation

In Alberta, municipalities that choose toundertake citizen engagement are alsorequired to protect citizen's personalinformation under the Freedom ofInformation and Protection of Privacy Act.Citizen engagement activities ofteninvolve collecting personal informationfrom participants and, as a municipality,there is a duty to protect your citizens by,as a bottom line, adhering to privacylegislation.

Source: https://patriciastec.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/crazy-dude-cartoon.jpg

Depending on the engagementtechnique or tool you wish to use, aPrivacy Impact Assessment (PIA) may berequired. A PIA is the foundationtool/process designed to ensurecompliance with government’s privacyprotection responsibilities. PIAs aresubmitted to the Office of Informationand Privacy Commissioner of Alberta forreview and approval.

Working within privacy legislation is amatter of clearly stating a municipality’ssecurity and data retention policies. Beclear about actions taken to protectconfidential information and differentiatebetween soliciting input (a record to bemaintained) and responding to publicinquiries (no record required). When indoubt, consult your municipality’s privacyspecialist or the Office of Information andPrivacy Commissioner of Alberta. It canalso be helpful to become thoroughlyacquainted with the Freedom ofInformation and Privacy Protection Act.

http://www.servicealberta.ca/foip/legislation/foip-act.cfmhttp://www.servicealberta.ca/foip/legislation/foip-act.cfmhttp://www.oipc.ab.ca/pages/pias/default.aspxhttp://www.servicealberta.ca/foip/legislation/foip-act.cfmhttp://www.servicealberta.ca/foip/legislation/foip-act.cfmhttp://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.qp.alberta.ca

20


2.2.3 Organizational commitment

Internal harmony and accord, at least interms of the officials within a municipalityagreeing to the need for citizenengagement, are critical to the success ofyour engagement project. Citizenengagement projects cannot beundertaken without a team effort andthat means everyone not only knowinghow they fit into the work but wanting todo their part and more.

When it comes to organizations, there isan age-old adage that says:

If people only did what was required ofthem in their job descriptions then thework of the organization would grind toa full stop. The same can be said for municipalities intheir work to deliver citizen engagementopportunities. The more committed thatpeople throughout the municipality areto the work, the more likely it is that theywill work together to fill in the gaps andstrive for success.

There are a number of considerations thatcan help a municipality take steps toachieve internal commitment fromeveryone with a role in influencing,supporting or leading citizenengagement work:

• Are there different decision-makers atdifferent points in the engagementproject?

• What are decision-makers'expectations for the project?

• What have been the decision-makers'previous experiences with citizenengagement projects?

• How effective is the decision-makerwith citizens?

• Are there different viewpointsregarding citizen engagement ingeneral and engagement on this issueor decision?

• What are the root causes of thesedifferences?

• How does the municipality define thedecision to be made?

• Who needs to be involved in theengagement?

• What is the municipality's previousexperience with this group of targetparticipants?

Adapted from International Association

for Public Participation, ©2006

2.2.4 Citizen engagement framework

One of the most substantial barriers toeffective citizen engagement is buildingsupport for it at all levels. In consideringthe Spectrum of Public Participation (See 1.1.3 The engagement spectrumtoday), it is often suggested that risk tothe municipality increases as citizens aregranted greater influence in the decision-making process. Taking this viewpoint, itis low risk to inform the public of amunicipality's decisions but high-risk toempower citizens to make decisions,particularly when implementation of adecision falls to the municipality.

With this mindset, it can often feel safe toinform citizens or even consult withcitizens and less safe to engage in moredeliberative activities. The reality is thatwhile it might feel safe, avoidingdeliberative spaces out of fear can hinderthe potential of a municipality and itsproject. The appropriate level of citizenengagement is dependent on thepotential impact of the decisions onthe public.

21


With a citizen engagement framework,both elected officials and administrationcan feel confident that they are clear onthe role of citizen engagement within themunicipality and how to approach it sothat it aligns with the values, practicesand procedures, and strategic outlook ofthe municipality.

Some of the reasons to invest in amunicipal citizen engagement frameworkinclude:

• It guides and strengthensunderstanding of the role of citizenengagement within your municipality;

• It encourages consistent good practicein the design, implementation,planning, monitoring, evaluation, andreporting of citizen engagementefforts undertaken by yourmunicipality;

• It accounts for the key elements ofyour engagement planning,implementation and evaluation;

• It can mitigate risk related to citizenengagement efforts;

• It provides your Council, Boards,employees, interns, volunteers,independent consultants, members,partners, and funders with aframework for action that supportsthem with the job they need to do;

• It fosters efficiency by providing anoutline that can be applied to manyengagement projects;

• It enforces good citizen engagementpractices; and

• It can be a tool for citizen engagementquality improvements.

Adapted from Bullen, 2004

The establishment of a citizenengagement framework for themunicipality’s citizen engagement workprovides clarity of when, how and whythe municipality will engage with itscitizens. The framework shouldacknowledge citizen engagementactivities mandated by the Governmentof Alberta in the Municipal GovernmentAct while also describing activitiesbeyond the legislative requirements. Theframework should demonstrate the waysin which municipal engagementprinciples and values will bedemonstrated. Clarifying the delivery ofcitizen engagement in a frameworkensures that any plan developed andimplemented by administration and,where relevant, external consultants areconsistent and meet the municipality'sneeds.

Key components of a citizen framework include:

• Vision statement that describes themunicipality's desired outcome fortheir citizen engagement work;

• Guiding principles for engagingcitizens;

• Spectrum of engagement (can becustomized to reflect yourmunicipality's needs);

• Description of engagement planningand implementation components (i.e. issue or decision identification,legislative requirements, targetparticipants, level of engagementselection, communication strategies,techniques and tools, requiredresources); and

• Evaluation process requirements (i.e. how you will monitor, evaluateand report back to citizens).



22

2.2.5 Policy development

Policies are essentially the bottom line foreffective, meaningful and ethical citizenengagement. They set the boundaries tohelp a municipality move forward itsengagement practices ‐ particularlywhen new citizen expectations andtechnology are stretching conventionalapproaches to engagement.

It is important for municipalities toapproach citizen engagementintentionally and constructively. Byadopting a citizen engagement policy,both elected officials and administrationcan feel confident that they understandtheir municipality's view on the value ofcitizen engagement and how it can ignite,enhance or supplement the core work ofthe municipality.

By investing in a citizen engagementpolicy, municipalities can:

• Ensure organizational values andbeliefs are reflected in citizenengagement projects;

• Establish the guidelines or groundrules of your municipality’sengagement work;

• Articulate the principles that guideyour actions to promotetransformational citizen engagement;and

• Clarify the roles and responsibilities forcitizen engagement work being donein your municipality.

Adapted from Rural Communities Impacting Policy, 2005

There are eight building blocks that, given due consideration as part of anadministrative citizen engagement policy,can go a long way to encouraging andempowering administration to engage inways that are helpful, build relationshipsand, in turn, advance and help to achievemunicipal goals.

Adapted from Bullen, 2004 and Schalk, 2014


23

1. MUNICIPAL COMMITMENTSTATEMENT TO CITIZENENGAGEMENT

A commitment statement to citizenengagement provides a transparentmeans of sharing the municipality’sphilosophy on citizen engagement.

The statement should include:

• The need(s) the municipality isworking to satisfy;

• The intended benefactor(s) of themunicipality’s engagement projects;and

• How the municipality’s engagementwork will support its long‐term goals.

2. REASON FOR A CITIZENENGAGEMENT POLICY

A description of what a citizenengagement policy seeks to address andthe intent of the policy.

The reasons for a policy might includedecisions informed by citizen input andimproving the quality of decisions. Itmight emphasize building relationshipswith citizens that the municipalityservices. It could focus on generatingpublic knowledge to support a long-termvision or increasing the role of citizeninput in municipal government. Thespecific reasons will be a matter of choiceby your municipality.

3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT PRINCIPLESOR VALUES

Having clear principles or values can helpguide a municipality's decision‐makingand prevent it from doing things thatwork against its long‐term goals. It is animportant exercise to think about howyour municipality’s principles or valuesmight impact the practice of citizenengagement.

What does the organization believe andwhat are they committed to?

In creating your policy, take time toconsider how your municipality’s citizenengagement projects can or do reflectaccepted principles or values of themunicipality or of local government ingeneral (See 1.1.5. Contributing tocommunity development).

4. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICYIMPLICATIONS

The citizen engagement requirementslegislated by the Government of Alberta(e.g. Municipal Government Act) and/orimplications on existing municipalpolicies (i.e. employee conduct, security,safe workplace, technology use,communication protocols, etc.) should be addressed.

5. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT STANDARDS

Municipalities are already heldaccountable to specific standards ofengagement through the MunicipalGovernment Act. In addition to thislegislative guidance there should bestandards that address how themunicipality will work with citizensbeyond the requirements outlined in the Act.

The Harwood Institute for PublicInnovation (2005), a nonpartisan,independent not-for-profit thatcontributes thinking to solving publicorganizations' pressing problems aroundthe world, has contributed four standardsthat describe public organizations whichachieve excellence in citizen engagement.

http://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.qp.alberta.cahttp://www.qp.alberta.ca


24

These public agencies:

Are in the business of collecting publicknowledge

In other words, these are municipalitiesthat invest in citizen engagement tolearn. They want to do more than collectinformation about people's preferredpolicy choices. They want to understandthe common values that citizens hold aswell as the trade-offs that they are willingto make when faced with tension orconflict between those values.

Use public knowledge to influence thework they do on behalf of citizens

This means that municipalities are doingmore than building a repository of publicknowledge but are finding ways to usepublic knowledge, including reaction toany information that they use to informthe public, to make internal decisionsabout their work. They are alsodeveloping performance measures totrack when and how public knowledgehas affected decisions or outcomes in thecommunity.

Communicate to the public how publicknowledge has influenced decisions

No matter where a municipality'sengagement falls on the Spectrum ofPublic Participation (See 1.1.3 Theengagement spectrum today) it isimportant that citizens know whydecisions have been made. The questionof why a decision is made helps citizensunderstand their role in impactingoutcomes in their communities. There aretimes that decisions have high impacts onpopulations and times that decisions arehighly impacted by populations. In bothinstances, providing the context thatsurrounds decisions is important tobuilding trust between a municipality andthe public.

Cultivate the culture, norms, reflexes andhabits that ensure citizens understandhow citizen engagement influences how amunicipality conducts its business

Culture, norms, reflexes and habits relatedirectly back to being in the business ofcollecting public knowledge. Thestandards that a municipality sets aroundcitizen engagement send a clear messageto elected officials, administrative staff,and the public about how a municipalitythinks about and acts toward the peopleit serves. To build a culture of learning,municipal officials need to be clear aboutwhat they expect of citizens, the type ofquestions that lead to public knowledge,the reflex responses that generate trust,and the types of habits that ensure citizenknowledge is used, instinctively, in themunicipality's work.


25

6. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENTMANAGEMENT

Conducting citizen engagement oftenrequires cross‐departmentalcoordination, the implementation ofmultiple techniques and tools, and mayinclude collaboration with externalpartners. A lack of clarity on themanagement of citizen engagementprojects may result in a situation wheremunicipal leadership does not have ahandle on what type of engagement isbeing designed, planned, orimplemented by employees. Therefore, animportant element to a citizenengagement policy is establishing who isresponsible for managing themunicipality’s engagement activities tosupport consistent, accurate and timelyengagement.

7. CITIZEN CONDUCT

Now more than ever citizens have theability to engage with their municipality.Technology and, more specifically, digitalcommunication facilitates two-way andmany-to-many communication betweenmunicipalities and their citizenry.Municipalities must decide how tosupport and handle their engagementwith citizens. For municipalities thatdecide to elicit citizen consultation,involvement, collaboration orempowerment in decision‐making viaengagement techniques and tools, termsfor acceptable conduct of citizens is oftendeveloped.

Both with in-person and digitalengagement projects conduct guidelinesand terms-of-use statements provide atransparent means of sharing themunicipality’s expectations of citizenconduct while interacting with theorganization through engagementactivities.

The guidelines or statements shouldindicate that the municipality reserves theright to not address participation that:

• includes foul language, vulgarities orsexually explicit content;

• is offensive to an individual or anorganization, rude in tone,discriminatory or abusive;

• solicits, advertises, and/or promotesparticular services, products, orpolitical parties, advocacy groups ororganizations;

• infringes on human rights or privacy;

• is considered inflammatory; and/or

• is off topic.

8. EVALUATION AND REPORTING

The inclusion of an evaluation process(Section Four provides information onevaluation process elements) in the citizenengagement policy ensures that relevantdecision‐making takes account ofoutcomes acquired from engagementprojects. It also ensures, whereappropriate, that the public is keptinformed of the progress of theengagement and resulting decisions to support transparency, knowledgesharing, trust and credibility.

26


rOLE Of ELECTEDOffICIALS In CITIzEnEngAgEMEnT:

• Develop the vision andprinciples upon which themunicipality will engage itscitizens;

• Clearly define the scope ofdecision-making authorityassociated with theengagement project;

• Ensure impact measures are included in theengagement project;

• Support efforts to educateand enable citizens toparticipate;

• Encourage and expanddiversity of participation;

• Communicate the progressof the engagement projectto the public;

• Use citizen input, feedback,recommendations andsolutions in decision-making; and

• Communicate the rationaleand results of engagementto the public.

2.2.6 Elected officials and citizenengagement policy

Elected officials have an opportunity toplay a very important role in theengagement of citizens with themunicipality, including its services,initiatives, and policies.

Having a policy in place for electedofficials demonstrates leadership,integrity and accountability to membersof the public. It ensures that electedofficials model the way for municipalemployees and are transparent aroundwhat citizens can expect from them.

A citizen engagement policy for electedofficials should differ from the policy foradministration, relative to roles,responsibilities and relationship to thecommunity; however, it should also alignwith the administrative policy bydemonstrating a united commitment torespectful, effective and ethicalengagement practices.

A policy specifically for elected officialshelps to address concerns related tocomplex issues such as:

• when to engage citizens indecision‐making;

• who engages and when;

• the relationship betweenmunicipal‐led engagement andcommunity‐driven processes; and

• the connection back to other relevantelected official policies.

27


Best Practices for Developing aCitizen Engagement Framework and PolicyThe following reflect best practices whendeveloping a citizen engagementframework and policy:

1. EMPLOY CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT INTHE CREATION OF A CITIZENENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ANDPOLICY

An investment in an administrative citizenengagement framework and policyand/or elected officials citizenengagement policy signals acommitment to meaningful andoutcomes-oriented citizen engagement.To ensure this commitment representsthe needs of citizens, it is important toemploy engagement to generate publicknowledge toward the development ofthe framework and policy.

2. ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITY FORFRAMEWORK AND POLICY

Undertaking the development of a citizenengagement framework or policy is asignificant project. As such, identifying aposition responsible for the frameworkand policy ensures the project receivesgreater awareness and enhancesaccountability across the organization.Depending on how the municipalityapproaches the development of thepolicy and framework, the position isgenerally from senior administration.

3. INVOLVE STAFF FROM ACROSS THE MUNICIPALITY

To ensure maximum support for the finalframework and policy, it is highlybeneficial to actively involve andcollaborate with employee across themunicipality. Involving a cross-section ofemployees is an effective means toaddress issues with current practices andarticulate a vision and renewedcommitment to citizen engagement thatincorporates the values of employees.

5. BE REALISTIC ABOUT THEUNDERTAKING

When municipalities adhere to bestpractices, developing a citizenengagement framework and policy is asignificant undertaking. The process cantake a lot of time and require additionalresources or expertise from within themunicipality. Strategically, formalizingcitizen engagement is a significantundertaking in the sense of delivering arenewed promise and increasingopportunities to allow for meaningfulengagement and a greater role forcitizens in decision‐making processes.

Adapted from Schalk, 2014

Use the Evidence You Require a CitizenEngagement Policy Worksheet in theResource Section to guide your policydevelopment.

DIAgrAM A.

Increasing citizen engagement and influence in the decision-making process

Type of decision Directive Consultive Deliberative Participatory Citizen-led

Decreasing municipal ownership of the decision-making process and end decision

28

2.3

Municipal decision-makingand citizen engagement

Municipalities make the decision to investin citizen engagement relative to thedecisions they face. In the context ofcitizen engagement, the types ofdecisions facing municipalities can beclassified according to the perceivedvalue of citizen influence in the decision-making process. The greater the citizeninfluence in the decision-making process,the less the municipality's ownership ofthe process and end decision.

Directive decisions are made byauthorized decision-makers within themunicipality.

Directive decisions are most commonwhen a municipality has a high-level ofconfidence that its choice of action alignswith citizen values, meets an existing,pressing or urgent need, or is arequirement under municipal legislation(e.g. Municipal Government Act).

Scenarios that call for directive decisions:

• An urgent response is required toensure a safe and viable community;

• Action is mandated as part ofmunicipal legislation, including jobresponsibilities of public-facingmunicipal employees;

• Decisions are routine (e.g. part ofregular operations) and there is noindication of unrest or discontentamong citizens; and/or

• Expectations are clearly outlined in anagreement between the affectedparties (i.e. a contract; terms ofreference; memorandum ofunderstanding; a guiding document).

Directive decisions can demonstrateauthority, expedience and efficiency.


InfOrMIng, one-waydelivery of information tocitizens, is the most commonlevel of citizen engagementassociated with directivedecisions.

WhEn TO EngAgE:

Citizen engagement should beconsidered whenever it isdetermined that involvementmay be desirable in trying toresolve an issue and, if so, towhat extent. The sharing ofdecision-making authority willusually be desirable wherecitizen acceptance of a decisionappears necessary in order toachieve its implementation andthat acceptance cannot beassumed without citizens beinginvolved in the decision-making. These are the decisionswhere a successful outcome isunlikely without deliberative orparticipatory citizenengagement.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca

29

Consultive decisions are made byauthorized decision-makers within themunicipality, with input from citizens.

Consultive decisions are most commonwhen a municipality has accountabilityfor the effect of a decision on citizens andit recognizes that the decision has thepotential to have a significant impact onone or more sub-segments of its citzenry.

Scenarios that call for consultivedecisions:

• A decision has been identified ashaving high potential to impact one ormore sub-segments of citzenry and, asa result, a legal requirement to notifycitizens and garner their input isrequired;

• There is an existing level of unrest,discontent or contention around adecision (i.e. limiting parking to add anadditional wing of a public building;choosing the location of a newrecreation centre; allowing new typesof housing development in a matureneighbourhood);

• The decision requires trade-offsaround core community values (i.e. theaddition of a business park in anotherwise pristine green field;adjustments to utility fees to providenew service level for curbsiderecycling);

• The decision challenges citizens levelof comfort or sense of safety (i.e. introducing a rehabilitation centreinto a residential community;changing public transportation routesthat affect people's daily commute;road closures that affect people'saccess); and/or

• Issues where elected officials requestadditional input or information inorder to make an informed decision.

Consultive decisions can demonstratecuriosity, empathy and concern forcitizens’ while communicating leadership,authority and accountability for theoutcome of the decision.


COnSULTIng, whichdelivers input, experiences,evidence and suggestions fromcitizens to a municipality, is themost common level ofengagement associated withconsultive decisions.

Deliberative decisions are made byauthorized decision-makers within themunicipality after involving citizens toimagine and explore possible alternativesto an issue or opportunity at hand.

Deliberative decisions are most commonwhen there is a challenging or complexquestion on the table and the answerinvolves value trade-offs for citizens in themunicipality. In these scenarios, amunicipality has accountability for theeffects of a decision on citizens and itwants to ensure that it thoroughlyexplores alternatives that will result in thebest outcome for the community as awhole, while respecting that citizens withdiffering views may be affected in theprocess.

One of the primary differences betweenconsultive decisions and deliberativedecisions is that the latter assumes thatworking alongside citizens to not onlyconverse around possible solutions butthoroughly explore, analyze and imaginenew alternatives will result in a decisionthat has benefit to everyone.

Scenarios that call for deliberativedecisions:

• Complex decisions withno clear answers (i.e.ending homeless in acommunity; revitalizing adowntown; allocatingtransportationcoordinators for multi-use activities; investing ina new recreation centre);

• Decisions with the potential to involvesignificant value trade-offs and,accordingly, a high level of emotion(i.e. infill development guidelines;selecting business revitalizationzones); and/or

• Exploratory decisions with thepotential to shape communitydevelopment (i.e. development of alocal food and agriculture strategy;sub-division planning).

Deliberative decisions can demonstrate ashared commitment to communityoutcomes, confidence that there arealternatives with the potential to supportcommon values, and faith in citizen’sabilities to affect positive outcomes intheir communities.

InvOLvIng, comingtogether to consider relevantfacts and values from multiplepoints of view and to thinkcritically about the underlyingtensions and tough choices toarrive at a rationale publicjudgment, is the most commonlevel of engagement associatedwith deliberative decisions.


30


COLLABOrATIOnis the most common level ofengagement associated withparticipatory decisions.

EMPOWEr is the mostcommon level of engagementassociated with citizen-leddecisions.

31

Participatory decisions are made byauthorized decision-makers after themunicipality and citizens have workedtogether to imagine and explore possiblealternatives to an issue or decision andprioritize the preferred solution(s).

Participatory decisions are most commonwhen citizens have a high stake andvested interest in the outcome of achallenging or complex question wherethe answer involves value trade-offs. Withparticipatory decisions, a municipalityretains the authority to prescribe thedecision but citizens are vested in thedecision-making process and decisionitself. There are no surprises regardingthe outcome of the decision as

Citizen Engagement - RMA AUMA AAMDC CET... · citizen engagement. It will open with a brief history...

Documents

Transcript of Citizen Engagement - RMA AUMA AAMDC CET... · citizen engagement. It will open with a brief history...