How Should Public Agencies Funded by Users, Weigh Non-User Input For Decision Making?

How Should Public Agencies Funded by Users, Weigh Non-User Input For Decision Making?

by

How Should Public Agencies Funded by Users, Weigh Non-User Input For Decision Making?

An organization that participated in one of our recent monthly Clinics asked an interesting question:

“Agencies were created by the public, but many agencies are funded largely by users (i.e. hunting and fishing licenses). When there is disagreement, does the will of citizens trump the will of license holders?”

A fair question, as “fairness” is what’s really at the heart of it…

 

Game Hunter

 

This goes back to something we brought up in the follow-up exercises to Clinic #89 (received by those who attended the live webinar, or are annual subscription holders)… And that is the history of the agency.

When you understand the actual origins of your organization, how it formed, it’s original mission and how that mission has evolved — you stand a better chance of getting your larger public to understand this, and why who funds the mission doesn’t impact decision-making.

Like many agencies, the mission of an organization that originated with self-taxing users (hunters, fishermen, boaters, etc.) has likely morphed over time.

 

Take for example, the Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)…

Originally, created to bring water out to arid areas during the settling of the western states, USBR’s mission then changed during the Great Depression to help support jobs and industry through the creation of public power.

A couple of generations later, with the Endangered Species Act of the 1970s, the USBR’s mission nearly took a 180-degree change as the very dams created by the agency were found to jeopardize salmon.

The same agency that had built the dams to assist farmers during the Homestead Act, were now dismantling those same dams and sending the water down river to protect species of fish.

Hoover Dam

 

At the time of the USBR’s creation, a problem had been identified: arid land being settled in the western part of the U.S. couldn’t be farmed without help to irrigate it through the creation of dams.

Later, another problem was identified: industry and jobs needed electricity. The agency that had built the dams, was identified as the right entity to address that problem — and so their mission broadened.

When the public concluded it was a problem that species were becoming endangered as a result of dams, the same agency (USBR), that built the dams was found to be the appropriate one to deconstruct them to protect those endangered species (and not the farmers they were originally mandated to protect!).

 

Back to the question at hand — whose input has more weight…?

A user who funds the agency, or the general public…?

The thing is, an agency that manages and protects natural resources likely has had such an evolution of its mission.

The percentage of people who hunt and fish, is on the decline. Yet, the public that benefits and appreciates wildlife continues to expand. What hasn’t happened for many such organizations, is an informed public discussion about the mission’s expansion.

When the public identifies either a problem, or an opportunity — such as the need for wildlife that is not for hunting, or is non-game — it will find or create an agency to address that problem/opportunity.

How we fund it, is somewhat immaterial!

It’s a separate conversation, but if it’s seen as a legitimate problem/opportunity — the public WILL find a way to fund it, with or without license fees.

Look at funding of public schools — it comes from property taxes, regardless of whether or not the taxpayer has children attending public schools. And parents of public-school students — who aren’t property owners — have just as much say as the taxpayers that fund those schools.

Society uses the same approach towards roads… Truckers pay more via gas taxes, but don’t have any more say about transportation projects than people with electric cars — who don’t pay any gas tax.

In fact, we can’t think of a single instance where what you pay, relative to a public agency, gives you more say than anyone else. Even if you have more at stake!  (We wouldn’t rule it out, it’s just we can’t think of any at the moment.)

And sure, you can join the PTA, or a truckers’ lobbying group — and make your voice louder — but again, that doesn’t have to do with who much you pay through fees or taxes.

What’s happened isn’t that we’ve shirked a public discussion about “what’s fair?”… It’s that we, as a society, have concluded that we all benefit from children who attend good schools, whether or not the children are our own.

Similarly, don’t we all benefit from organizations that protect wildlife, even if we don’t hunt or fish that wildlife?

 

Butterfly

 

Departments of Fish & Game (or “Game & Fish” if you’re in landlocked states) have to bring their public and the policymakers along that the organization’s mission has changed over time. (This “public” includes the license-bearing hunters and fishermen.)

So if you’re agency is in a similar fix, where a minority of the population funds the agency through licenses and fees, it might be time to put your leadership skills to work and get the larger public, which benefits from the agency’s evolved mission, to start paying more of it’s share of the cost of that mission…

Missouri has done just that through a state wide tax that support their wildlife agencies, because they created such a public dialogue and the public concluded, everyone benefited from the mission of those agencies.

But you can’t jump into that conversation without first bringing the public up to speed on the history of the organization’s mission, its evolution, and who it now serves (i.e. that by creating a rich flora and fauna, you serve far more than hunters and fishermen).

Then, as a separate issue, the public and policymakers can worry about how to fund that broader mission.

Otherwise, the public will identify a need that (it perceives) isn’t being met and will create a parallel agency to replace you!

(Just look up the Soil Conservation Service — it easily could have served the same role as today’s EPA, but didn’t see a natural broadening of their mission and so the agency was ultimately decommissioned.)

If Public Officials Shouldn’t Rally Support for informed consent, is Same True for Private-Sector?

by

We received a question from a listener following Consent-Building Clinic #81.

To paraphrase John’s question:

If rallying support in the public-sector is likely to backfire (and create more distrust) does the same go for the private-sector?”

(To hear John’s actual question and a summarized response, watch the video below.)

 

John is right, our answer and cautions ARE different for those working in the private-sector.

  • The short answer is — “Yes… BUT”

 

Here’s the “Yes” part . . .

Yes they can.  Private-sector entities have every right to lobby FOR their proposal and to hustle up other supporters.

After all, they ARE a stakeholder — i.e. a self-serving special interest.

While they CAN do that, don’t assume that the public is naive about this!

As we mentioned in Clinic #81, the public takes the self-serving nature of a stakeholder’s actions and arguments into account.

 

Here’s the “BUT” part . . .

Professional consultants — a role we’ve often filled, both for private clients (e.g. developers), as well as public-sector clients — however, need to careful just how far they go in advising a private client that she/he should drum up the support of OTHER stakeholders who — in their self-interest — may help give the impression there’s a lot of “public” support for the client’s proposal.

 

Keyword here is “professional” consultant.

Generally, a “profession” is a discipline — or an area of expertise — that PROFESSES to be motivated in the manner society has defined appropriate for that “profession.”

Think about how American society has defined…

    • the medical profession as serving first, and foremost, the health and well-being of the patient.  Period.  (Hence why the medical profession has trouble dealing with the “right-to-die” issue.)
    • the legal profession’s mission to advocate UTTERLY in the client’s interest.  Period.  Even if that client is a mass-murderer.
    • the civil engineering profession’s mission to serve — ultimately — the safety of the public.  Regardless of who the actual (paying) client is.  Period!

 

Back to John’s question —

Unlike public-sector clients, private clients CAN do virtually anything (within limits of the law) — that serves their self-interest . . .

      • The professional consultant’s advice to such a client MUST be tempered by the his/her code of ETHICS.  Even if it is NOT in the client’s interest.
      • Each profession defines what behavior would be considered “unethical” or “unprofessional”.

 

Whenever we, the Bleikers, agree to work for private clients, we generally warn them (in writing) that we DO subscribe to the Code of Ethics of the American Institute of Certified Planners.

For that reason, we can help private-sector clients only insofar as they don’t do anything, we’d feel, would harm the public’s interest.

 

To drill down more into John’s question —

What do you do when a private-sector client proposes to drum up supporters in order to. . .

    • mislead policymakers into thinking there’s more support than there really is?
    • bully decision-makers into an unwise decision?
    • interfere in any other way with the elected officials making an informed decision?

 

If it was our client suggesting such reasons to rally support, we’d strongly advise against it.

If the client insisted, we would have to end our role as we couldn’t be party to such manipulation.

And so too, we advise you to stick to the moral high ground, and encourage your private-sector clients to do the same.

Taking the high road won’t backfire, whereas other tactics eventually will, even in the private-sector.

Anti-Government Groups & Conflict Resolution: Are You Making Matters Worse by How You Define Your “Public”?

by

Things in Burns, Oregon might get have officially turned ugly.

And while the folks at the wildlife refuge in Oregon aren’t your average opponents, their stance isn’t legitimate, there is an element of their stance that no public official should ignore…

Unfortunately, NO ONE is immune from anti-government attitudes.

(Ironically, especially in a democracy… But we’ll cover that topic on March 8th in Clinic #78.)

  • Because this attitude is something you either ARE dealing with or likely WILL be confronted with, we’ve adopted “Anti-Government” as our theme for all of our monthly Consent-Building Clinics in 2016.

In a self-governing society, it’s THE PUBLIC who decides — via our rules based decision-making process — what government institutions it wants to create and maintain.

If you encounter stakeholders who perceive an “Us vs. Them” relationship between the (them) public and (you) the government . . . something’s gone wrong.

Chances are it’s simply a misunderstanding . . . a misperception.

Because even “simple” misperceptions can be challenging to correct, don’t expect that lecturing these folks is going to change their view of the world.

 

Your stakeholders need to discover . . . they need to see — with their own eyes — and conclude on their own terms that it’s ultimately THEY, the people (i.e. all of us) who make all the decisions.

It’s WE, the people, who created your agency and it’s mission.

  • It’s critical that your stakeholders realize this paradigm-changing insight.

But how do you stimulate you stakeholders to have such a critical insight? 

 

While there’s no quick-fix, there IS much you can do.

The first of which begins by answering 6 Questions

  • In addition to the recording of this webinar, we’ve created a follow-up video with 6 questions to help you make real headway in preventing such attitudes from being aimed at you and your organization.

Starting with the basics in this recorded webinar, we delve into every angle of WHY Anti-Government sentiments are ratcheting up all across the country, and WHAT you can do to diffuse them, and even better yet — PREVENT them in the first place — from impeding your ability to accomplish your mission.

In this session, we’ll cover something so SIMPLE and yet POWERFUL . . .

6 Points We Cover

1. How you DEFINE “public” and “stakeholder” plays a central role in anti-government attitudes towards you and your agency.

2. Whom should you INCLUDE and EXCLUDE in your definition?

3. Should your definition of your “public” and related “stakeholders” SHIFT from project to project?

4. How should you handle people who THINK they are affected?

5. What’s the appropriate ROLE of number of constituents, majority vs. minority opinions, and representativeness?

6. How to identify WHICH of the 4 Fundamental Points your team is failing to address.

 

Don’t be caught off guard by anti-government attitudes that are sweeping the country!

 

Managing Stakeholders: You Can’t Take Sides, but You Aren’t “Neutral” Either

by

Consent-Building Clinic #73: Recorded October 2015

“Our CP Process can turn into a free-for-all of various stakeholders, each fighting as a special interest, . . . while we try to remain neutral.”

“It’s a jungle out there!” is what comes to mind here. Because, of course, it IS a jungle out there! Let’s face it; there is not fuzzy, warm “public.” Your public – on any given Problem-Solving/Decision/Making case – consist of:

  • Individuals, Groups, Corporations, Institutions, Other agencies and Other officials.

Each and every one of them pursuing THEIR agendas – and ONLY their agendas. All of them have their own priorities, values, concerns, worries, fears, hopes, . . . i.e. agendas that they pursue.

You ARE different . . . though “neutral” is probably not the right word to describe that difference. Here’s the real difference:

  • You’re motivated by a RESPONSIBILITY, the responsibility to accomplish your Mission . . . which – strictly speaking – came from the ‘public’, that cacophony of individuals, groups, corporations, etc.

The question, thus, comes down to: “How can you – in the midst of this free-for-all — make sure you are EFFECTIVE?

Get the Recording

 

Don’t Jump to Decision Making Solutions! Protecting Your Public from Fatal Conflict Resolution Pitfalls

by

Consent-Building Clinic #72: Recorded September 2015

Help! When we involve stakeholders early in our planning process – which is something we strive to do – many of them jump prematurely to a solution.”

This can happen even with the more sophisticated stakeholders, such as other government agencies. They immediately want to know: “What are going to DO?” . . . This, at a time when you’re still in the head-scratching phase of trying to understand what the problem is. The trouble is: Early in the process you normally DON’T yet know what the solution is that you’re going to wind up proposing.

 

And yet, if you begin to reach out to these stakeholders only AFTER you’ve decided what solution you’re going to propose, they’re likely to say: “NOW you come to us, AFTER you’ve decided what to do?!”

What we have here, is a head-on collision of several Public Involvement truths:

  • The most constructive public involvement results from EARLY – and continuing – involvement.
  • The first nine steps in any Problem-Solving/Decision-Making process have to do with understanding the Problem and its causes. For example, in our 16-step planning process “Generating Solutions” is Step 10 . . . i.e. It is NOT an early step.
  • But, the human brain – even the brain of subject-matter experts – tends to race almost IMMEDIATELY to the Solution Generation step . . . side-stepping, short-changing, pole-vaulting-over . . . the several Problem Analysis steps . . . It appears that THIS mistake is in our DNA! So, of course your stakeholders are going to make it. Just be sure YOU don’t make it!

 

As is true of so many of the frustrations on which our Brownbag sessions focus, there is a lot more to this particular one than meets the eye. The three enumerated statements, above, ARE true.

The trouble is, every time you think you’re going to involve your stakeholders early in your process, . . . WHAMMO! . . . these three truths collide head-on, creating a public involvement car-wreck!

 

Always remember: It’s for stuff like this, i.e. for figuring out how to minimize damage to your effectiveness in Public Involvement car-wrecks, that you are paid the huge salaries that you are paid (ha!).

Tune in; we’ll do all we can to help you pull the fat out of the fire for your team and demonstrate to your team and your supervisors that you’re worth every dollar of that “humongous” salary.

Get the Recording

 

2 Key Ingredients to Establish Public Legitimacy for Agency Regulators

by

If you work for a regulatory agency, or even if you don’t — but you administer regulation — you must have these two key ingredients to establish Legitimacy among your public.

In the short video below, we’ll follow-up the discussion from Consent-Building Clinic (Brownbag session) #69: “Regulating a Public Not OK Being Dictated To.”

Listen closely, and you’ll hear how identifying yourself, your team, your agency as “regulators,” is only making matters worse.

Then you’ll hear precisely what you need to communicate to your public instead.

Time to Hear from You

In the comments, share with us:

  • Lessons you’ve learned on establishing your work’s Legitimacy,
  • How you maintain Legitimacy with your public (particularly your fiercest opponents — always where we put our Consent-Building focus), and
  • Other obstacles you face when it comes to issues of legitimacy.

 

*Help out your friends and colleagues by sharing this blog with them.  Like you, they have important missions to accomplish, and need all the help they can get to establish their work’s legitimacy.