Public engagement for the City of Northfield: Councilors want to know what should be changed

City leaders should keep in mind that it is difficult for some people to attend meetings in person. Evening meetings, for example, can be difficult for parents to attend due to child care duties.

Online comments and other forms of input other than meetings are therefore important.

I often worry that the needs of parents with small children, or the needs of other groups, receive less attention than the needs of those who have the wherewithal to attend meetings.

We need to have our civic engagement do a better job of following the rules of a representative democracy.

OK…. here’s a non-techy (which i believe many of your readers are) POV.
IMHO, this is definitely not an improvement, as a matter of fact it seems to be looking backwards in design principles, and design is , in general, something I know something about.
This is so much less “clean” than the old design, and the right sidebar is not as quick and easy to scan, much less read clearly. Colors, lack of contrast and size of type are all problematic, as far as I’m concerned.
Sorry for the critique, but here’s the good part…. I’m so glad you care so much that you are constantly evolving………
OH, Ads above the comment line? Maybe you need to explain the economics of this site in order for that to be understood more fully.

I like it. This design is cool. Perhaps only the young will like it, though.

And I was so happy to drift… I even broke my “if Kiffi is commenting here I shouldn’t comment here” rule to show my support!

Great comments so far; I am hearing that you would like more opportunities to comment online, involving more of the community partners in the process and increased transparency. Keep the comments coming!

Erica,

I think that civic engagement has 2 sides. One is being involved in the community by working without the expectation of political return, like many of the service organizations, and city committees.

The “civic engagement” most talked about here is the opportunity to affect public policy by lobbying the government for your own personal agenda.

To quote my grandfather, “If you want to complain, you better be working.” That’s the kind of civic engagement that most benefits the City, not the talking.

Wow….what a revamp!
I love the colors and the lovely snowy picture of downtown Northield. It is gonna take some getting use to , and I truly think you have added alot of interesting points and features here.
All that work, surely (takes time and money) so a banner ad is understandable.
Here’s a few question I have…Will the participants change?
I can vision an increase in traffic if you continue to focus on issues and concerns with facts.
All & All I think it’s great. Good job!

Erica: One way to get people to engage is to not allow so much opportunity for “civic engagement” without corresponding civic responsibility.

For example, my wife, Nancy, was an active volunteer in our children’s school for many years. I have been a chess coach for 17 or 18 years. Rather than petitioning the school board for what “we” wanted, we just got involved and did it.

So, the short answer is – if people are telling you that they want this or that from the government, ask them how they are going to help. The Way Park issue is a good example. Both the police and fire departments are opposed to closing the street. The Comp Plan also discourages cul-de-sacs. Are the neighbors offering to help, or are they just complaining?

I like the way Obama has phrased his message. He isn’t talking about civic “engagement”; he is talking about civic responsibility.

David L.,

I object strongly to your latest comment concerning civic engagement, civic responsibility, and “the Way Park issue.” Your condescending tone is not appreciated by me, nor, I’m sure, by the members of the Friends of Way Park board of directors (my wife included). The Friends of Way Park, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, formed to “honor the Way family gift of 1933 by preserving this community parkland for present and future generations.” It’s stated purpose is to 

• Support, advise, and cooperate with the City of Northfield in the planning, development, programming, beautification, and maintenance of Way Park
• Encourage the use of Way Park by the entire Northfield community
• Memorialize the 1939 Northfield hospital that previously occupied the south park of the park
• Encourage and receive gifts and bequests in support of the purposes previously noted

You may disagree, David, with the point of view of Friends of Way Park; you may disagree with the opinions expressed here and elsewhere by members of their board (such as David Sudermann) and their supporters (such as me), but it hardly seems fair to ask whether “the neighbors,” as you disparagingly and dismissively refer to us, are offering to help or just complaining. I have never intentionally insulted you and the Chamber of Commerce in such a manner, for example, when you have advocated positions on behalf of the Chamber. All I ask is similar civility in return.

You and Nancy are to be commended for your civic volunteerism. Everyone I know, myself included, who has commented on “the Way Park issue” has also been extensively involved as a community volunteer for many years in ways that we feel are valuable to the community. In my case, that has included volunteering in the schools, on school district task forces, and on city task forces among other activities. I’d appreciate it if you were less condescending in future. Even people with whom you may not share very many values may be people of character and responsibility.

David,
You know nothing about the history of the organization. There have been many offers of contributions of both time and money.

Griff: couldn’t you ask Bruce and David L to move their comments to each other to the Way Park thread?

I think their are some serious differences there that need to be resolved, or at least aired.

Erica: My concern is that the current public input processes is already dominated by the over-represented. Creating additional public input opportunities is going to exacerbate the political situation.

It is not more public engagement that should be the goal; it should be better public engagement.

Is there a problem with phone calls and e-mail that prevents public comment? New technology is fun, but is it really needed in a town this small?
At some point, I’d love to see a video/webcam conference set-up at the library or city hall that lets local folks interact with county employees and speak at county board meetings. Having consultants and city officials appear by video conferencing could save money and time as well. But city residents don’t have that geographic disadvantage in reaching city officials.
I’m a little concerned about the overarching assumption that the public needs to be more involved in city government. People are involved in the community through their churches, schools, volunteer work, neighborhood associations, the senior center. They talk about their concerns, get involved in what matters to them.
The city government basically makes sure the streets get plowed, the grass is mowed, the police and fire departments work. Yes, I’m oversimplifying, but these are not issues in which untrained citizens need to be involved on a regular basis. I think an informative website, quarterly ward meetings, responsive councilors and alert city employees can get a pretty accurate read on public opinion. Folks in this town show no reticence in sharing their opinions over coffee or at the grocery store, so I’m sure councilors, board and commission members and employees have a lot of interaction. Perhaps it would help to use this personal network to get the word out on issues that would benefit from broader public discussion and then monitor the response they get.
I guess I’d like to know exactly what kind of public involvement is missing right now. Is there any evidence that Northfield has less than average attendance at meetings, less than average interest in appointments, less than average phone and personal contact with officials? In short, do we have a problem, and if so, what is it?

Tracy, I think we agree in part. The city can add a comments section to the website and let people post, and can summarize or cut and paste e-mails, calls and letters.
I guess my point is that there is no definition of what needs to be done or what it can or should produce.
How does anyone judge whether the plans are successful or worth the effort if there’s no defined public demand or defined goal?

David L, I see that your position has been modified now to include “…not enough engagement on the output”. That is a helpful modification and makes your point more clear.

You and I don’t agree on the need for less input. However, we do agree on more need for engagement on the output.

Let’s take a minute and look at the other side of the issue. We have been focusing on how citizens can contact councilors, I would like to also talk about how councilors can best inform citizens. Ward meetings, councilor blogs, articles in the Northfield News, the city webpage, league of women voters webpage, logro and council meetings; where do you go to get information?

David L.,

Regarding your comment above that

An example of this type of engagement on Way Park would be for the City Council to state that they won’t approve any design that the fire and police oppose. The citizens could then work directly with the fire and police on a mutually agreeable solution.

They already have. Friends of Way Park board members met with both the fire and police chiefs, individually, prior to the January 5 public hearing, heard their concerns about emergency vehicle access, and crafted a mutually agreeable compromise that a gated, driveable pedestrian/bike pathway across the current 1st Street corridor, accessible to emergency vehicles, be incorporated into the park design. My wife, Anne Larson, spoke directly of this compromise solution during the public hearing.

I agree with you that civic engagement on solutions is crucial. I believe that The Friends of Way Park have modeled this approach admirably. They are NOT just whining and seeking special dispensations. From the get-go, they have been “working with the government to come up with solutions,” as you suggest. As has been discussed on this and the Way Park discussion thread, they are committed to working to assist the City in funding future implementation of the park master plan.

Along with David K., I disagree with you on the need for more engagement on public input. How else are our elected officials to make informed decisions about the views of the citizens they represent? I’m particularly puzzled as to why you seem so eager to assume the worst of The Friends of Way Park, when there is abundant objective information that they have worked very hard to play by the rules and help, rather than hinder, the City on this project. I think that this is a positive example of civic engagement, both on the input and output sides of the equation.

We may have to agree to disagree, David. I feel Friends of Way Park haven given, and will continue to give, much. They have given of their time toward a public good: development of a high-quality neighborhood park that benefits the neighborhood and broader community. In addition, they have committed to raising funds for this public good once there is a firm plan to move forward.

Who is to set themself up as the arbiter of the ‘value’ of each individual’s public engagement?
I find that position to be somewhat offensive, David L.

You have said you have coached chess club for several years; I think that’s a great thing to do. Besides the value to the kids’ skill development, you are building an intergenerational relationship that should be productive.
But as to that ‘public engagement’ versus David Suderman, for instance, spending untold hours researching the history of the west side in his quest for knowledge on the Way Park issue, I would hate to say that one is more valuable than the other. Coaching chess versus contributing a huge volume of research to the Historic Society; I don’t think those are values that can be weighed against each other, except by each person’s interest.

The idea that the Friends of Way Park had a selfish interest in regaining the parkland really shows a lack of understanding of the entire process from the beginning. Chris Ennis walked the whole town, in the winter months, obtaining signatures (6 or 700) from north, south , east, and west… all over this community… from people who wanted the hospital land to revert to the park use that the Way family had specified, if the hospital should move. That was not a selfish act.

Both the founding group, and the now established board, have multiple people on them who have served the community in many ways,on boards and commissions, as elected officials, as teachers in our schools, etc.

You can argue the issue of the street closing; you can argue against the principle of taking the opportunity to double a park in a 100 year old neighborhood, but in my opinion, it is wrong to demean the motives of the people who have now worked for years to return this gift to the community.

Griff, you’re not going to bring David L over with an Obama quote! 🙂

However, Obama is spot-on. Government is the collective of its citizens. It is we governing ourselves.

The subset of individuals in ‘authority’ at any one point in time will be comprised of talents and experiences that are a subset of those in the community, not a superset.

So, the subset will benefit from input received by members of the superset, provided they have good judgment as one of their skills.

Gentlemen: Obama is quickly winning me over with his words. It remains to be seen if both political parties will follow his lead.

On the engagement issue, Obama talked about government officials engaging ordinary people. But, he also talked about a code of ethics which would limit access by those who already have substantial access. Perhaps most importantly, he talked about the individuals serving the common good with or without government involvement as being the best service to the nation.

I also liked his invocation of God at the appropriate moments. Generally, Republicans assume that God will do too much; Democrats assume that God can do too little. Good government must assume neither.

Anne is correct in her evaluation of the many ways a citizen can comment to their representative.

I think you were just working through the possibilities in your mind , Griff, but your podcast suggestion of a real time online comment to councilors during a council meeting is, IMO, a lack of recognition of the amount of areas they are trying to manage during the meeting.

It is obvious, in meetings, of the difficulty of keeping all your thoughts in order, keeping all your papers in order, having all eyes focussed on you on that dais, knowing all the focus directed on you by the cable TV watchers of the meeting, and trying to do ALL within the sometimes rather obscure, and often not followed, Robert’s Rules of Order.
The Mayor has an additional heavy burden of managing/chairing the meeting process.

To add to that not inconsequential burden, the awareness, reading, thought process involved with monitoring online comments would make the task less than productive, as well as certainly slow the meeting down, and ‘everyone’ seems to be so concerned about the meeting length.

Sorry… bad idea.

Griff; Here’s a great test case for you…….. you could clarify a moderation /ethics/inquiry-as -to-process-from- Felicity, all in one fell swoop here, with reference to Anne’s comment immediately above… which is an ‘agreement’ , a double personal slam, and a reiteration of a point already made; all slickly packaged together in a supposedly acceptable manner, at least one which differs from the style on the NFNews website.

Griff: Excusez-moi , if I heard you incorrectly, but I thought you suggested the realtime online comment process in your podcast with Tracy and Erica?
Open Mic cannot be eliminated without changing the Charter, as it is provided for in that document. And although the council minutes are very skimpy, they do list the name , address, and gist of each person’s open mic comment.

Griff: The strength of the open mic process is also its weakness. People are often bypassing their reps or using the open mic process as a political tool to get their way.

Who wants to run an ad in the News or on KYMN when they can get the Council’s ear directly with very little effort? The process is so open that you don’t even have to be a citizen to speak.

Griff: 30 people in a town of 45,000 is hardly a public engagement success.