As part of the Mutual Gains Network’s fall webinar series, Hans van Zijst spoke last month about the role of board members in participatory processes and about the changes the Environment Act will bring to their role. Co-speakers Martien Kuitenbrouwer and Paul Manders shared their own perspectives on the topic.
The alderman as the source of the participation assignment
Aldermen are politically responsible for the participation of residents and other stakeholders in policy development and implementation within their municipality. After all, it is the executive board (Mayor and Aldermen) that is accountable to the council, but also to residents and, in appeals, to the administrative judge. In that sense, the alderman can be seen as the source of the participation task, even if the participation leader is contracted from an external agency.
The administrative management of such a task takes place in two ways: general and specific. Many municipalities already have a general form of written participation policy. This provides a basis for the mayor and aldermen, but also for municipal councils, to assess the participation applied by the alderman in an individual case in their supervisory role. Perhaps also for the administrative judge if they have to review the diligence of the actions of the competent authority. In addition, it is important that the participation leader receives a specific mandate from the alderman, in which, among other things, the goal of the participation is made clear. So not participation because it's required, but a process that provides room for stakeholders not only to react to the official proposal but also to introduce their own ideas. By being much more explicit about this, more critical thought is given to the scope for participation upfront, and the use of participation resources can be aligned with that scope.
If there is no room for adjustments to the proposal, then you should not set up a large process, as that will only lead to disappointment and recriminations. The alderman's role is to interpret that room and to indicate to societal partners and co-governments how the participation process will be designed appropriately. It is also up to the alderman to set the preconditions, including the moment when his or her personal involvement is relevant again. This will give you the mandate needed to get started within the alderman's administrative responsibility. The mandate is the framework within which you operate. Aldermen must then dare to let go, even if they don't like surprises.
Pitfalls
Hans outlined four pitfalls for drivers:
- Direct contact between the participation leader and the alderman is not the culture in every municipality. Sometimes there are management layers in between that take themselves very seriously. Therefore, make arrangements with managers about direct contact with the executive; report them in advance and, if that is unexpectedly not possible, afterward. Be transparent about it.
- In love with their own solution! First, the problem statement should be discussed, not immediately the solution devised within the municipality. Citizens are happy to react to a proposal, but when usefulness and necessity are discussed, it turns out a step has been skipped. What is actually the problem here, and for whom? Interest groups often have a preference for analyzing the problem further before arriving at solutions.
- Leaders often have an entire entourage (referred to as ‘the collar’ in some circles) around them, comprising strategists, administrative support staff, communication advisors, and representatives of their political party. These individuals, often unhindered by direct involvement in the participation task, offer solicited and unsolicited advice to the leader. Map this out, name it, including towards the leader, and attempt to give them a transparent role in the process instead of tolerating their outboard motor drone. Invest in the collar.
- Do not predict what the alderman will find! Do not fall into the trap of predicting to a stakeholder what the alderman will think of an idea or point of view. An alderman has much more on their mind than your file and will have to make considerations, also towards the Mayor and Aldermen and the council, about what has priority and how many arenas they can handle simultaneously. Only promise what you yourself will do, namely bringing the proposal to the attention of the alderman, but do not promise what they will subsequently think of it.
The Environment and Planning Act
The Environment Act encourages project proponents to take the initiative in facilitating public participation. If you want to make changes to your home, municipalities already require you to talk to your neighbors first; if you want to install a solar panel array, talk to the nearby residents! That information is part of the application and will be reviewed by the competent authority. According to the legislature’s intent, the alderman will no longer decide on this himself, and that will take some getting used to. For example, what do you do if the project initiator indicates that 80% of the residents have no problem with the project, but 20% do? Time will tell, especially after we’ve had a few cases before the Council of State regarding how accountability for public participation is implemented. By then, it will likely be 2024, Hans estimates; it promises to be an interesting period.
Finally
In the discussion, Martien Kuitenbrouwer (Public Mediation) and Paul Manders (P2) shared their personal experiences. They paid ample attention to the role of the ‘collar,’ which is apparently very recognizable in interactions with aldermen. Expectations for the new dynamic under the Environment and Planning Act were also discussed. This webinar concluded the autumn series of the Mutual Gains Network. We look forward to a new series in 2022.
