Desmond M. Connor

Preventing and Resolving
Public Controversy

Desmond M. Connor

This paper reviews the reasons for public controversy and outlines a process for constructive citizen participation in planning and decision-making, including some core concepts, a basic strategy, some operational techniques and how to design a program for a specific project. This process has been developed and use-tested in more than 250 projects from Labrador to Whitehorse during the last 22 years.

1. The basic social, political and economic climate of our society has changed during the past decade or so. We used to have relatively small communities which changed slowly and were inhabited by much the same kinds of people. They respected authority and were generally satisfied with life.
   
   Today we typically have larger communities where social change is rapid, the population is heterogeneous, people distrust authorities and experts and many have high levels of generalized anxiety and hostility due to inflation, unemployment and the threat of both. Those who used to accept the negative side-effects of projects as the price of progress now tend to stand and fight. Naisbitt and Aburdene(1) provide a broad perspective on recent and coming societal changes.
   
   
2. People resist change when they do not understand or agree with the goals, methods, sponsor or timing of the proposed change. Keeping the public in the dark is often a recipe for disaster.
   
   
3. Organizations resist change and become out of step with their various publics who then become angry with them. The corporate culture, as Deal and Kennedy(2) illustrate, needs to be understood and then renewed along some key dimensions, e.g. Peters and Austin(3).
   
   
4. A dozen specific communication blocks may occur within organizations which prevent them from making a real time response to their publics. Fortunately there are practical steps which can be taken to remove these blocks, e.g. Woodcock and Francis(4).
   
   
5. Schizophrenic management is another factor in public controversy. On one hand, the technical side of project is designed and managed in a rational, scientific and professional manner, yet the problematic human side of the enterprise is often dealt with in a totally ad hoc reactive, unplanned form of management by crisis.

"a systematic process which provides an opportunity for citizens, planners, managers and elected representatives to share their experience, knowledge and goals and combine their energy to create a plan which is technically sound, economically attractive, generally understood and accepted by most of those affected by it and is thus politically viable." (Connor-6)

This approach applies systems thinking to the issues involved and knits a sequence of activities with the public to the typical project development flow chart. (See Figure .) Since 1971, this concept has been applied productively to dealing with the public about new highways, airports, transmission lines, mines, harbours, new plants, waste management facilities and other projects.

Figure 1 - Participative Planning Process

Our strategy is first to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the community and various publics which have or may have a stake in the project. We are particularly interested in the latent and secondary beneficiaries of the project (the five volt positive people, compared with the 220 volt negative opponents).

We then provide a variety of ways for the different kinds of people to obtain relevant information in an understandable form and then involve them in a joint problem-solving process. As people work together, informed peer group pressure usually results in workable compromise solutions - not ideal from anyone"s point of view, but acceptable to all or nearly all.

1. Community
A community consists of people in a particular place who live and work together in a variety of groups and develop loyalties to them and to the community as a whole. A community is not just thousands of individuals, but is a system of groups with specific characteristics and dynamics which can be assets or liabilities to a proponent.

2. Community Relations
Relationships between a proponent and the various communities and publics it affects may show co-operation, competition, conflict, coercion or other activities. You need to discover what the relationships are, assess whether they are appropriate or not, and take steps to improve them where needed.

3. Mutual Education
This is a process by which each party becomes aware of and understands the issues, costs and benefits of a proposal from the point of each other party. As a result, each participant is more willing and able to work towards a generally acceptable solution.

4. Publics
Your project has as many publics as there are different kinds of people who care about it, positively or negatively. When "public" is used in the singular, the statement is probably false in some important respects. Some publics are organized and may have their own means of communication. Important publics include: employees, neighbours, clients, suppliers, shareholders, environmentalists and citizens at large.

5. Informed Public Goodwill
Major organizations cannot afford today to have significant elements of their publics ignorant and angry about them. A corporation"s charter, and a government agency"s mandate, are subject to periodic public review and may then be either endorsed or rescinded by organized public opinion. Effective managers monitor what their publics know and believe about their organizations and take appropriate steps quickly.

6. Latent & Secondary Beneficiaries
These are the people who stand to benefit in small and indirect ways as a result of a project which is seen as controversial by others. While often difficult to reach, it is vital to identify, interest, inform and involve these "five volt positive" people. Often there are thousands of them compared with a small number of opponents.

7. Conflict
In many situations, conflict is normal and useful. Where it is not, there are systematic ways to prevent and resolve conflict which arises in connection with a given project. This often includes building acceptance, understanding and trust amongst the various parties and involving them in a joint problem-solving process.

8. Equity
A proposed solution must be seen as fair to all involved. Often this means that "everyone must win something," though not all need to win equally.

9. Organization Development
This is a field of management which assesses the effectiveness of an organization and works to improve it; this is often necessary before a traditional organization "goes public."

10. Social Impact Assessment
This process seeks to predict, evaluate and manage the social effects of a policy, program or project before it is implemented. It is often required as part of the approvals process for major federal projects. (See Burdge-5)

11. Issue Management
This is a systematic method to identify, analyze and take action on public concerns before they become critical issues which might develop into major controversies.

1. Social Profile
This is a summary of the main characteristics of a community and its publics, including knowledge of and attitudes to your industry, company and project. This study is prepared quickly and unobtrusively to provide a social data base on which to plan and manage the human aspects of the projects.

2. Responsive Publication
This consists of short, simple, direct and clear information which recognizes the negative as well as the positive aspects of a project and includes an easy means of response, e.g. a reply-paid postcard, tear-off coupon, or hotline telephone number. Publications may be brochures distributed by householder mail or display advertisements placed in local newspapers.

3. Open Houses
This is a positive opportunity for people associated with the project to converse with interested residents of the area it affects, usually between 2:00 and 9:00 p.m. in a local library or church hall. Visitors review graphic panels describing the project, talk with project staff and are asked to register their views about the project before leaving. The results are usually a considerable improvement on the traditional public meeting, which in many cases, is the last of the blood sports and, like the others, should be outlawed!

4. Planning Workshop
This technique enables people with a variety of views on an issue to work together to resolve it. Typically, a mix of representatives from the project, broadly based citizen groups, special interest organizations and perhaps relevant government agencies meet together for a day to review a proposed project, its community effects, local concerns, alternative ways of resolving them, decision criteria, etc. The leadership of the workshop require credibility with all the participants, insights into personal and group dynamics and a substantial understanding of the project and the disciplines involved with it.

5. Reference Centre
People with professional training can access technical reports when these are made available to the public on the reference shelf of the local library or at a room in the project office.

6. Informal Consultation
While the foregoing formal techniques are important, keeping in touch with key people and sharing ideas with them informally during the life of the project can prevent unfortunate surprises when milestones are reached.

7. Matrix
Each of these techniques plays a particular role with different segments of the public, as shown in Figure 2. The general public is reached with about 10% of the project"s information through a responsive publication. This generates the interested public who can access half the project information through attending an Open House. The interested group leaders can share three-quarters of the data through the planning workshop. Finally, the interested professionals can review all of the project material through the use of reference centres.

Figure 2 - Public Participation Matrix

1. start-up and the commencement of the introductory phase of data gathering;

2. an alternative generating phase when several possible solutions are identified;

3. an evaluation phase when the alternatives are weighed against relevant selection criteria;

4. a final report and conclusion phase.

1. a publication, with a response element. Note - a preview of this publication is always provided for all elected representatives the day before it is distributed to the general public.

2. a week later, hold one or more Open Houses, depending on the geography and level of interest; invite politicians for a preview over lunch; the following day, provide the media with a brief outline of the results;

3. two weeks later, hold a planning workshop with group leaders to work on project issues and interpret the data received from the preceding events.

Later, in the Alternatives Generating Phase, the main thrust is to present the currently known alternative solutions and proposed evaluation criteria and to solicit any additional alternatives, further criteria and weights on these.

Once this material has been dealt with, the Evaluation Phase focuses on presenting the technically sound alternatives and the technical evaluation of each according to the criteria and discovering how the various public rank them. e.g. "We are prepared to build any one of them - which of them are you prepared to live with?"

The final report contains a chapter on the public participation process including a matrix showing the rank order assigned by the various publics to the several alternatives. The elected representatives can endorse the public preference or, if they choose another of the options, can see whom they need to persuade and what their concerns are.

The approach is economical in the use of citizen leaders" time and recognizes that they have other priorities to attend to beside this project.

1. Situation
Key points about the community, the project and the proponent which affect the public program;

2. Objectives
What the participation program is designed to achieve;

3. Program of Work
A statement of tasks with the level of effort required for each in person days;

4. Schedule
Estimated completion dates for each task;

5. Estimated Budget
Professional fees and expenses for travel, publications, etc. Note - since no-one can predict how many people will become involved nor how many issues will arise, the budget is an informed estimate, but not an upset limit.

While many complain that the public process will add to the duration of a project, this usually happens only when the participation program is delayed until after most of the technical work has been done. Seasonal patterns in the community must be respected by working appropriately for the time of year.

While there is no valid rule of thumb for budgeting, the following unit costs may be helpful (1994 prices):

1. Social Profile
10 days work by an experienced applied sociologist; $6,000 plus travel costs.

2. Publications
Preparation of text and production of brochure, folded; two colour; average quality stock; and/or newspaper advertisement (camera-ready artwork) = $3,000 to $5,000 depending on space costs or press run.

3. Open House
Prepare text; print a dozen display panels; hold a one-day training session with technical staff; rent hall; provide refreshments; analyse the results and prepare the newsrelease. First Open House = $6,000; second in same series = $2,000.

4. Planning Workshop
Invite participants; lead technical review; meeting place rental and lunch; professional leadership of workshop; detailed minutes distributed. First Workshop - $4,000; subsequent - $3,000.

Note - the number people involved in a participation program tends to rise geometrically over time; a delay in the early stages is thus easily accommodated but one toward the end can escalate the budget substantially.

This approach is no panacea. It is demanding on proponents and citizens alike. However, examine it for yourself and you may find, like others, that the alternatives are worse.

1. Naisbitt, J. and Aburdene, Pat Megatrends 2000: Ten New Directions for the 1990's, New York: William Morrow, (1990).
   
2. Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Don Mills: Addison-Wesley, (1982).
   
3. Peters, T.J. and Austin, Nancy A Passion for Excellence, New York: Random House, (1985)
   
4. Woodcock, M. and Francis, D. Unblocking Your Organization, La Jolla: University Associates, (1979).
   
5. Burdge, R.J. A Community Guide to Social Impact Assessment, Longman-Cheshire Publications, London, (1993).
   
6. Connor, D.M. "From partisans to partners," Community Planning Review, 22(1), (1972).
   
7. Connor, D.M. (ed.) Constructive Citizen Participation, Victoria: Development Press, (1973-1994).
   
8. Connor, D.M. Constructive Citizen Participation: A Resource Book, Victoria: Development Press, (Revised Edition 1994).

Overview:	Homepage	Public Consultation 2000+	Desmond Connor	Library
Publications:	Manual	Resource Book	Video Program
Training:	Workshops	Customized Tutorial	Internet Tutorial
Consulting:	Consulting Services	Design Service	Teleconsulting

DESMOND M. CONNOR "Improving the Practice of Public Consultation" 407-5332 Sayward Hill Crescent, Victoria, BC, V8Y 2H8 Voice: 250-658-1323                     Fax: 250-658-8110 connor@connor.bc.ca           www.connor.bc.ca

Website by Word Crunchers, Etc.

(11638)