Whether or not the current protest is successful, the CCSD must read the writing on the wall: A significant number in this community take do not approve of how CCSD has been doing business. Over and over through the last nine months, Cambrians have suggested a working group to participate in developing the budget and rates or a watchdog council to keep an eye on the CCSD and keep Cambrians informed. The Board has chosen to maintain their distance.
Announcing the First Protest Count
There were a few dozen minutes during the November 2, 2007 meeting where it looked like the Board was going to involve more Cambrians in the rates process. Director Cobin and Director Chaldecott had been discussing a citizen’s committee, as suggested by constituents, should be put together. Director Cobin said,
“We’ve heard very clearly that members of the community would like a chance to review the workings of the CSD. So we’re suggesting that those of you who are interested in forming some kind of a group and being part of that to come forth and let us know and we’ll arrange for that to happen.” (Applause)
Director Sanders made it clear he thought taking a step back would be the best way forward.
It’s too early to figure out what the process should be and that when they come back in December they could thoroughly discuss how they go forward.
Director Cobin stuck to her idea of getting the group together right away and the volley of argument was on. A few back and forth volleys, and then Director Cobin said,
“with the purpose of of keeping this Board as undivided as possible, I withdraw my suggestion.”
Does Director Cobin value the unity of the Board over what the community has asked for? Surely not.
Director Chaldecott made his pitch for the idea, saying “I’m concerned. After the December meeting we’re into the holidays and the New Year… that’s almost a three month period where nothing happens and I’m not sure if that’s productive.”
Director Sanders responded, “My sense is it will take a minimum of 6 months before we’re ready to talk about the rate increase again. Let’s take our time.” He then made a motion that the ad-hoc committee of Directors Cobin and Chaldecott come back to the board at the December meeting after having talked to the community and come up with a mission. That motion was never seconded and was withdrawn.
President Funke-Bilu then put in his five cents.
“I’ve witnessed an incredible process in my communty which I admire and respect and I want to stand back and give the folks the opportunity to do what they told us they think they can do. They’re organized, they seem united, I see successful business people, I see citizens I see residents, I see retired people with expertise. I don’t think we have to absorb them into the process…I think they have educated themselves. I think they want more time. Let them come to us with the recommendations that they feel they are in a position now to demonstrate. (Applause) “My suggestion is, instead of kind of adopting these folks I would welcome any and all suggestions as to the following, because this is what I attempted to do. I would love input from my community as to what kind of rates are necessary to ‘pay the operating expenses of the agency’ I want numbers from the protesters. I’m a 60′s kid, and I love protesters. I think it’s great. But this is what I would like: how to pay the operating expences of the agency, how to provide for repair and depreciateion of works, provide reasonable surplus for improvements, extensions and enlargements, pay the interest on the bonded debt and provide a sinking or other fund to provide for the paying of the principle of such debt that may become due.”
CCSD Math: 4 in favor, one opposed = no action.
Although four of the five members of the board seemed in favor of getting starting right away, in the end Director Sanders stymied any efforts to initiate a genuinely collaborative effort. He said the board should wait in order to “Find a way to get at the true financial condition of the district so at least everybody understands what the rules of the game are before we launch into this collaborative, cooperative arrangement with the community.”
Director Sanders then made an interesting statement…once it was clear there would be no immediate citizen’s committee formation. He said,
“The question is what is the true burden of the water and wastewater enterprises and how much overhead should be allocated to those two funds. My view at this particular point in time is that we’re overburdening the funds and that has a direct bearing on what the rates are going to be. And it’s quite possible that if we allocate costs to the general fund…we’re going to have to make some very tough decisions about what the general fund is going to carry and what its not. And a part of this process has to be the expense side of the equation…I think the community deserves the opportunity to be thoroughly engaged in the budget process that has us going through priorities and taking a hard look at our expenses in terms of what our priorities are. We haven’t done that in terms of the rate issues and I think we need to do that.”
Director Cobin, realizing she had the support of at least 3 of the directors and thinking Director Sanders now also agreed, tried one last time to get the motion passed. Director Sanders immediately launched into an explanation of how very technical and complex the issues are and that we must agree on the “rules of the game” should be.
I find this very interesting. Here’s what I take away after watching this meeting again: Director Sanders eliminated the possibility of a citizen’s committee getting started before the beginning of 2008, but made sure to position himself as a champion of community collaboration, leaving the words “deserve to be thoroughly engaged in the process” ringing in our ears.
It Takes Two to Tango
There was no substantive discussion of the citizen’s committee at the November regular meeting and the December meeting was cancelled. Meanwhile, the CFRC continued to meet at least 2 hours every week for two and a half more months with the idea that we should be bringing our suggestions about forming a group that would be recognized by the CCSD and be offering President Funke-Bilu the answers to his questions. We were under the impression we were going to be collaborative partners with CCSD.
We planned, debated, voted, prepared and requested a place on the January agenda. At the start of the January meeting, Director Cobin was installed as the board President and the mandate we’d been given seemed to be forgotten. We introduced ourselves and explained how we were organized and what we were working on and how we thought we might collaborate with the CCSD. No action was taken on the part of the Board. So we requested a spot on the agenda of the next meeting (March 6) and were prepared with a resolution for the Board to adopt.
Resolution Regarding CCSD Water and Wastewater Rates Increase.
Whereas,
the Cambrians for Fiscally Responsible CCSD agree that the current shortfalls in
operating costs need to be funded; and
Whereas,
the Cambrians for Fiscally Responsible CCSD agrees there are certain Capital
Improvements Projects needed to ensure health, public safety, and compliance with
state and federal regulations and the appropriate funding mechanism is through
bonds; and
Whereas,
the Cambrians for Fiscally Responsible CCSD believe the community will accept
increased rates to fund the operating shortfall and bond issuance if the CCSD agrees to
a reduction of 10% in the expenditures of the water and wastewater enterprise funds,
as is being proposed at both the state and county levels; and
Whereas,
the Cambrians for Fiscally Responsible CCSD have developed an interim rate proposal
to address these issues based on community input and the facts and figures as
provided by the CCSD;
Therefore,
Be it resolved that this board shall direct CCSD staff to work with CFRC in reviewing
our proposal and yours to come up with rates acceptable to the community to be
presented at an upcoming CCSD meeting.
They accepted our report and listened politely, but declined to take action. The following meeting we were notified that we wouldn’t have a place on the agenda.
Perhaps the Board will try again to support a collaborative process. I doubt the community is willing to change its mind about wanting to be more involved in the process. In fact, many who have been involved since the first protest believe in follow through: You shouldn’t oppose one way of going forward without offering an alternative. The Board’s actions seemed to say they weren’t interested in our alternative, but I can’t be sure, since we’ve not gotten feedback so have to rely on assumptions.
What is the difference between collaborative public involvement and traditional public participation?
All agencies must obey laws that prescribe certain public participation procedures. These requirements give the public the opportunity to get their comments into a written record of decision-making. However, members of the public are often not satisfied with that more formal aspect of public participation. They are not sure what the agency does with their input. They often wonder if agencies are “going through the motions” and not actually considering any ideas that differ from what they already had planned to do.
Some traditional public comment methods—like hearings—are not designed to allow for discussion or explore new ideas. Their purpose is to build a record, and they do that well. The communication they provide is generally one-way, formal, and static (agency to public, then public back to agency) rather than networked, informal, and dynamic (which can lead to creative joint problem-solving). On challenging issues, limiting communication with the public to these formal techniques can deepen misunderstanding and polarize opinion. The public often believes they are most effective when they apply advocacy tactics, such as packing public meetings with members of one interest group, or organizing mass letter writing campaigns. While these tactics may get attention, they do not translate into better decision-making.
A collaborative approach can help to avoid these problems by encouraging strong, creative, high-quality, and responsive lines of communication between agencies and the public.
What are the potential benefits of a collaborative approach to public involvement?
- Improved decision-making resulting from better knowledge of the whole system to be affected by agency actions;
- Better, more durable outcomes that enjoy more support from community members, leading to easier implementation;
- More efficient and effective use of limited public resources due to better match of agency efforts with public priorities;
- Improved relationships between agencies and members of the public;
- Early warning of potentially costly agency missteps or errors; and
- Ending or averting gridlock or litigation on controversial issues.
Often skepticism or antagonism stems from a fear that an agency will seek only to manipulate community opinions, concerns and judgment into a form of support for predetermined plans and policies. At the same time, public agencies often fear that an involvement process will be subverted by the limited agendas of narrow interest groups and will not reflect the diverse opinions of the general public the agency serves.To deal with past misunderstanding, agencies can build trust through responsiveness to community concern about how and under what conditions information is exchanged. This involvement must be done with sensitivity to the time and resource constraints of both the agency and members of the public.
“The irony of democratic participation over the past 40 years is that while both the public (government) and private (professional/specialists) capacity to assist with and attempt to solve the ills of urban and rural communities has risen, the capacity of the actual community to help itself has declined. Local democratic participation has decreased. Individuals no longer see themselves as part of a community of shared values and norms. Individuals have lost “…the conviction that they can influence the events and circumstances of their lives or the world around them” (Gardner, 1995). Sources of this ironic twist of fate are numerous and complex. Some researchers point to the rising complexity of problems facing urban and rural communities, the increase in specialized knowledge necessary to deal with complex problems, and the inability of redistributive policies to deal with inequality (Sirianni & Friedland, 1995). As Keith, citing Boyte, points out, “…the core norms of the broader American culture conspire to make us into a nation of clients seeking benefits. No longer are we a nation of citizens who see ourselves as doing politics” (Keith, 1996).” Strengthening Community Networks:The Basis for Sustainable Community Renewal Prepared by Brett Lane and Diane Dorfman June 30, 1997
Where can I find additional resources on community collaboration and civic participation ?
- Community Consensus Building Practical information for building collaboration and partnerships, locating assets and resources, identifying and engaging stakeholders, developing and completing goals and objectives and achieving success.
More resources to come. It seems like our community and its government have a lot to learn about collaboration and cooperation.
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today. 
