Doing it in public - There are sound reasons why consultation is often best done in public

We all know that consultation comes in many forms, and that there are as many dialogue methods as there are consultancy firms with the creativity to invent a new one. But how transparent are these? And do they need to be undertaken in public if we are to satisfy the requirements of transparency.

With modern broadcast technology, we can now make much of our democratic processes readily available to anyone interested to watch. Audiences for Parliamentary Select Committee sessions may be tiny, but they are a thousand times bigger than in the days when the written Hansard transcript was the only substitute for attending in person. More and more Councils are now webcasting their proceedings and a range of public bodies are now required to hold their statutory meetings in public. Such meetings in public are not the same as a public meeting, but they are at least visible to those who have an interest.

Ah, the much-reviled public meeting! Experience of training hundreds – no, thousands of civil servants and local government officers suggests that 80% of those we’ve met absolutely hate the public meeting - and with good reason. They attract those who were described to us this week by one experienced ‘consultor’ as the hard-to-avoid ! But they also suffer from many other disadvantages, especially if badly organised or poorly facilitated.

Not everyone has a problem with such events. In fact, we suspect the 80-20 rule is reversed for elected members, who feel that their democratic legitimacy is compromised if they are not prepared to stand up in front of their constituents and account for their actions. No doubt also that they can find public meetings are useful ways to promote their views or to campaign on controversial issues.

There are, in fact two countervailing pressures here. One is the need for maximum openness to counteract fears that decision-makers are influenced by secret lobbying behind closed doors. But the other is the requirement for meaningful contributions – data that can genuinely contribute and have real influence. In the case of a public meeting, the method scores well on openness, but less well on the data provided.

So, are there other options that work better? In fact, there are many alternatives:-

• Deliberative events produce great data, but are usually by invitation only, so may not be as transparent as we might like.
• Public Exhibitions are reasonably visible and effective ways of engaging people about certain kinds of proposals, and can produce good data – but they need to be organised well and avoid being used as a ‘sales tool’ (PR consultants, please note!).
• Open Roadshows can spread the engagement more widely by taking an event to more locations but, again, the data depends upon the way it is gathered. In principle it allows more precise demographic analysis
• Drop-in Centres are a more individualised way to engage people in small numbers. Not as visible, and the data depends a lot on the skill with which they are handled.

· A variety of other, potentially public methods, have their own characteristics. They include Streetmeetings, Open Forums, Open Space, World Cafe and the like.

But just because an event is open to the public does not, of itself, ensure transparency. Data gathering is only part of the process. Equally important is the framing of the issues, the choice of options, the identification of stakeholders and, of course, the consideration of views expressed. There is no doubt that part of the reason why members of the public become angry at public events is that they feel frustrated and impotent in influencing those parts of the process that fall outside the scope of the meeting itself, which often remain opaque or worse.

Many of the alternatives to public meetings appear to solve some of the more obvious weaknesses of the traditional public meeting. But without being surrounded by demonstrable transparency in the rest of the process, they are possibly no better, for they lack the symbolic status of public meetings as one of those democratic safeguards cherished by communities, and wheeled out on those occasions when they feel threatened.

Therein lies the key. In reality, many of these techniques actually perform slightly different functions. They may indeed be alternatives, but they are not interchangeable, and it is important to know which best suits each situation Trigger Points

• Issues covered in this Topic have been taken from the Institute’s new training course Public Meetings and the alternatives. For more details and dates click here
• What aspects of your consultations are done in public?
• Is there a tradition of public meetings in your area? Or your profession? Or your industry? Are they well organised?
• How do you structure the data collection from public events?
• Have you trained staff, Board members, elected members and others in how to become involved in public events in ways that enhance the credibility and effectiveness of your consultation ?

This is the 231st Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement