ILNews

IU prof turns to ADR to encourage public participation in government

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The laws designed to allow members of the public to have a voice in their government are actually stifling the conversation, according to an Indiana University Bloomington expert.

Lisa Blomgren Amsler, professor in the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs, is the lead author of, “Making Public Participation Legal,” a report by the National Civic League with support from the Deliberative Democracy Consortium. The study warns that in local and state proceedings across the country, “democracy is dwindling, three minutes at a time.”

Amsler and her colleagues note that the decades-old public meeting format where officials make a presentation followed by citizens having three minutes to ask questions or make comments provides little opportunity for interaction or deliberation.

“When combined with other kinds of engagement opportunities, traditional public hearings can work, mainly by providing a sense of closure and validation to public debate on an issue,” the report stated. “But since our legal framework supports only the bare minimum of deliberation, the pressure of dealing with contentious policy issues falls squarely on a format that isn’t up to the task.”

In turn, the relationship between citizens and their public institutions can fray, which can undermine the legitimacy and financial stability of government.

A working group that included representatives from the International Municipal Lawyers Association, the American Bar Association and the National League of Cities developed new legal tools for public participation in local and state governments. Amsler said the tools drew inspiration from the alternative dispute resolution laws.

“Simply by authorizing public agencies to use mediation, facilitation and other ADR processes, those laws resulted in a dramatic proliferation of these practices at every level of the legal system,” Amsler stated in the report.

Key recommendations from the study for improving public participation include:
• Giving residents, decision-makers and other stakeholders regular opportunities – in a variety of places such as online forums, public meetings, and gatherings in neighborhoods, schools and workplaces – to build relationships, discuss issues and celebrate community
• Inviting people of all backgrounds and viewpoints to participate so the same citizens don’t dominate meetings
• Ensuring participation has a tangible and readily apparent impact on policy decision, public plans and public budgets
• Appointing a “public participation coordinator” within City Hall and setting annual participation goals
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT