Public hearings and the erosion of confidence

A couple of weeks ago, our City Council annexed and rezoned land for industrial use, and not all parties were pleased with the outcomes. As much as I cheer for most economic development projects, I am also saddened when I see people who feel cheated or displaced. It’s easy for us to point out that rezoning, annexation, development, and progress in general usually result in both winners and losers. It’s always harder when we see their faces and hear their stories.

I’m not going to take a position on that particular matter in this column. I haven’t followed it closely, and I am no more a stakeholder in its outcome than any other McCook resident. What concerns me is that in the public discussions after the fact, I am hearing echoes of a city council that I followed very closely a couple of decades ago. I’m seeing people attempt to redress grievances and prevent negative outcomes, only to find that important decisions have already been made.

Our City Council, Zoning Board, County Commissioners, and most governmental bodies are subject to open meeting laws, often called “sunshine laws.” It’s a term that very broadly describes several of the arcane rules determining what degree of public involvement is required in any given public decision, and they vary from one governmental body to the next. Some actions, particularly those affecting individual property or those involving the public purse, require multiple readings. For others, a hearing is required.

Sunshine laws also describe public notices ranging from the publication of dates and times of public meetings to those signs planted in front of any property being considered for rezoning. Our city and county clerks do a fantastic job of keeping our governmental bodies within the bounds of those laws, and much of the information they provide is often found here in the McCook Gazette.

Most people would agree that public hearings are good things to have, particularly on major, impactful decisions. It’s often said that “Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” and I agree wholeheartedly with those words, yet it is our public hearings that concern me.

Yes, the hearings are structured thoughtfully, announced well in advance, and are sometimes moved to larger venues to accommodate crowds on popular (or unpopular) issues. What troubles me about our public hearings is not the “what,” but the “when.” Our public hearings typically take place at the end of the decision-making process and public input sometimes appears to be inconsequential.

Think about it. By the time a plan is presented at a public hearing, studies have been conducted, costs have been estimated, engineers have drawn up plans and attorneys have drafted language. Beyond that, we can only guess that a few compromises have been made, favors have been called in and votes have been counted–and then we solicit public opinion. Does that make sense to you?

Too many times, I have seen people lined up at a microphone in the auditorium, and one by one, people share ideas, most of which are well-considered, only to hear “We looked into that and it wasn’t our best option.” In fairness to the people making the decisions, they probably have investigated the alternatives and eliminated them for one reason or another. They will listen politely to responsibly articulated concerns, but they have been working for months to arrive at what they truly believe is the best solution. I don’t doubt the sincerity of the public servants involved for a minute, but how do we expect the people standing at the microphone to feel when their point of view is so readily dismissed? Do those citizens feel like the system is working for them?

I’ve been brooding about this process for nearly 25 years, and you’d think that after all that time, I would have an answer. I don’t, or at least I don’t have a silver bullet. We can’t hold those particular hearings earlier because we’re locked in by statutory requirements, and governmental bodies should have a well-formed plan to present to the public at that point in the process.

I don’t see that changing anytime soon, but we’re still left with the problem of how and when to attract and consider the opinions of citizens. Personally, I would like to see proactive leadership that calls for public input at the outset of the process and more importantly, before time, resources, and reputations are committed to a specific outcome.

A couple of options come to mind, and neither is particularly easy. A great example of a public initiative that actively and repeatedly solicited input from the public was the pool reconstruction proposal. As many of you are aware, that’s not my pet project, but the group that put that together was well-organized, transparent, and deliberately inclusive. If an ad hoc group of citizens can do that, why can’t our elected officials do the same?

That brings me to thought number two, which lays the responsibility on you and me. It’s in our interest to be alert; to be vigilant. We need to read both the headlines and the legal notices, and when we get a chance, drop in on a city council, county board, or zoning meeting. Some days it’s as exciting as watching paint dry, but we learn about both the issues and the procedures necessary to make things happen–or not. It’s also vitally important that we understand why waiting until the end of the process to express our opinions is a recipe for disappointment.

In our representative form of government, we don’t ask to be consulted every time a pothole gets filled, but when a public body invites us to a hearing, we expect to be heard. If our governing bodies are locked into a paradigm that asks a question, but can’t fully consider the answer, the erosion of public confidence becomes inevitable.