Local Boards and Citizens: A Mixed Relationship

By Bob Mihalek

If our interviews for the "Readers' Forums" are any indication, the relationship between citizens and local boards is certainly mixed. Certainly we heard some success stories, such as Marjorie Loyacano's report on how citizens helped shape her local school board's public engagement efforts, "What Citizens Can Do . . . And Can't" which is retold elsewhere in the "Forum."

But for every positive story, the people we interviewed told several more negative accounts. While by no means a representative sample, our interviews, nonetheless, show that not all public engagement efforts are sincere. Citizens perceive that some are orchestrated to manipulate the public or to get citizens to rubber-stamp officials' wishes.

Consider what Mike Robinette, a former director of the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission in Dayton, Ohio, had to say during one interview. Robinette's agency, which is made up of numerous county and municipal governments and other entities in the region, was required to seek public input on issues with which it was dealing. Elected officials and the "elites," as Robinette called them, would support the agency's engagement effort "as long as they could control it." But when they lost control of an issue-and its outcome-they would "push back."

The agency's efforts to engage citizens had other problems. Sometimes, after the agency would reach out to citizens, Robinette said, the organization's members would ignore what citizens told them and move ahead with their own approach.

John Gordon, a former school superintendent who now works for the Arizona School Boards Association, told similar stories of insincere public engagement efforts. For instance, elected members of local boards-knowing how they wanted to respond to an issue-have instituted a public process solely to get the community to support their original plan. Perhaps worse is when a board forms a committee to lead the public through a deliberative process, but then ignores what the public has to say.

According to Migwe Kimemia, a staff member with the American Friends Service Committee in Ohio, the school board that oversees his children's schools often ignores input from citizens and instead imposes its own policies on the community. The board "only comes to the community when they have a [tax] levy" on the ballot, he said.

Earning Credibility

One of the few positive reports from our "Readers' Forum" interviews came from Yvonne Sims, a longtime National Issues Forums organizer in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Government officials in Grand Rapids say that NIF forums are valuable because they are the only place officials can hear from citizens who are not lobbying for or complaining about something, Sims explained. Hearing what citizens have to say has also helped shape officials' decisions. For instance, when city and county commissioners asked the Grand Rapids NIF steering committee to assist with a forum on violence in their community, they expected the normal turnout of 50 or 60 people. Instead, 300 community members showed up. While the crowd size was impressive, more significant were the results of the forum. As participants deliberated about the problem of violence, they raised a related concern about unemployment in their community. More acutely aware of this connection, the commissioners partnered with local employers to organize job fairs.

Linda Hoke, the director of the Council on the Southern Community at the Southern Growth Policies Board, a think tank concerned with economic development issues in the South, noted that the organization regularly engages citizens about issues that concern them. These public practices give the agency credibility with both policymakers and the public. Policymakers, Hoke said, have come to believe Southern Growth's work is "more rooted in reality." Instead of convening blue-ribbon panels, the organization gathers citizens to talk about economic-related issues in their communities.

Main Street's Special Interests

Why did we hear so few success stories? Gordon pointed to the boards themselves, emphasizing that local governing boards need to have "sustained leadership" to develop and maintain an interest in engaging the public. This approach has to be "institutionalized" so it can continue after the boards experience changes in leadership, he said. Establishing a policy of public engagement also helps create conditions in which new board members acknowledge that a system is in place. Boards that do not engage the public and actively listen to their concerns, Gordon said, are usually busy "putting out fires" or dealing with the "tyranny of the urgent" all the time.

Kim Sebaly, an associate professor in the Department of Education Foundations and Special Services at Kent State University in Ohio, said boards shouldn't wait until a crisis arises to engage citizens on policy issues. In fact, he said, engaging citizens could help boards avoid some crises. "It doesn't do any good to jump from crisis to crisis," Sebaly said.

Many local boards "don't have the wherewithal to function and deliberate in a good manner," Gordon said. He cited several reasons for his analysis: boards fail to listen to the public, they are too influenced by special interests, and they are obligated to follow mandates by federal and state governments. Furthermore, he said, some boards are pulled by "so many different factions." The divisions on some boards run so deep, Gordon said, they can't even elect a board president.

Divisions on local boards are often based on political disagreements. Sebaly contended that school boards, in particular, are highly politicized. For instance, he said, many school board members serve on boards to protect or advance a particular agenda. Some citizens then respond to this by running to advance their own interests or backing a candidate who supports their own agenda. This circular gamesmanship keeps groups from talking to one another about how to solve their community's problems.

Indeed, our "Readers' Forum" interviews underscore the point that special interests are not just a K Street phenomenon-they are also a problem in local politics. As Gordon noted, many people run for office because they want to promote a particular interest, get someone out of office, or use their service on a local board as a stepping stone to higher office.

Leadership by Example

Cronyism is another problem that can plague local boards. Kimemia described the neighborhood association system in Dayton, where he lives, which is supposed to serve as a way for citizens to get involved in their local government. But when he first got interested in the system, which includes seven neighborhood boards, it was club-like and filled with insiders who knew one another. Citizens would call meetings, and leaders on the neighborhood boards would not show up.

"We had a leadership crisis," he said. You could not find "authentic leadership," which, he said, all boards need to be effective. He defined "authentic leadership" as leadership that has "vision and passion for the community, which is deeply rooted in trying to show leadership by example" and is removed from special interests.

Valerie Lemmie, a former city manager who now serves as chair of the Board of Directors of the National Academy of Public Administration, said boards that want to engage the public need to identify issues that directly affect people. Instead of asking citizens to comment on budgets or how City Hall is managed, she said, officials should bring citizens in to discuss things that affect their lives, issues that bother or concern them.

Join the Discussion »

Download or print this article

• Local Boards and Citizens: A Mixed Relationship