The recent U-turn on the future of Wellington’s Town Belt by city councillors makes a mockery of the Local Government Act. On 1 December last year a number of changes were made to this Act. One of those changes was a requirement for councils to adopt a Significance and Engagement Policy.

The purpose of a Significance and Engagement Policy is to enable councils and their communities to identify the degree of significance attached to particular issues, proposals, assets, decisions and activities; provide clarity about how and when communities can expect to be engaged in decisions about different issues, assets, or other matters; and inform those local authorities from the beginning of a decision-making process about the extent of any public engagement that is expected and the form or type of engagement involved.

Most councils met the legislative requirement to have their new policy in place by the 1 December 2014 deadline set out in the revised Act. Very few took on board the intention of this new consultation requirement when introducing this change and did little more than minimum engagement with their communities. Some councils chose to bury consultation over their proposed significance and engagement policies in their Long Term Plan consultation, a process that generates little interest from communities other than regular council contributors.

So the brave new world of council community engagement began with more of a whimper than a bang.

Since 1 December there have been several instances of councils making decisions that are clearly in breach of their published Significance and Engagement Policies. Wellington City Council’s recent about-face on protecting its Town Belt is a good example where councillors, with no community engagement whatsoever, have made a decision that affects the future of a significant community asset. Whether a central government agency put the hard word on councillors to make this change, as some critics allege, is immaterial. In making this decision, council has breached its Significance and Engagement Policy with little explanation as to why.

Yes, councillors are elected to be “representative” of their communities and to make decisions on their behalf. Councils also have requirements to consult, as outlined in the Local Government Act, Resource Management Act and other legislation. These are the minimum levels of engagement that councils should do. Communities often expect more and councils themselves should engage because they want to, not because they have to.

The intention of the requirement to have a Significance and Engagement Policy was that councils should engage willingly and openly with their communities about significant matters – including deciding what issues were “significant”. Yes, there will be occasions, such as civil emergencies, where decisions need to be made quickly and there is no time for engagement. Communities will generally accept the need for urgency in such situations. At other times there should be no excuse for “significant” decisions being made to the exclusion of community interests.

Disturbingly there is no formal mechanism in place for councils to be held accountable for decisions not made in accordance with their Significance and Engagement Policy. Financial management decisions and decisions around other matters such as health and safety practices are scrutinised in some detail. This scrutiny, often by reputable independent authorities, means Councils go to considerable lengths to ensure that they comply with those policies.

So why isn’t Significance and Engagement subject to the same rigor? Probably because councils know that the Office of the Auditor General’s annual inspection will go no further than checking that they have a policy in place. The Audit Office does not have the capability to look deeper than that.

This means that it falls on communities to stand up for their own rights to be engaged with on significant decisions, rights that are enshrined in legislation. And that’s really sad, because isn’t that what they have elected councillors to do for them?

You can’t manage what you can’t measure. Community engagement and communication are no exception to this generally accepted management belief. But just because it’s possible to measure something, is the information gathered going to be of any real use? Will it be able to contribute to organisational success? Are we becoming too focused on capturing information just because it’s readily available, rather than because it allows us to learn if we’re getting closer to our goals?

Why is community engagement important? The answer to that question will be different for any organisation. For example a monopoly service provider, such as a council or a government agency, will see engagement quite differently to a business that depends on selling goods or services. Councils are not required to have a measurement for customer loyalty and their consequential reputation, whereas customer loyalty and reputation is mission critical for most businesses reliant on selling goods or services.

Public sector organisations can learn much from their counterparts in the private sector when it comes to understanding and managing their reputation and influence. In the private sector, reputation has everything to do with profitability and business success. In today’s online world an organisation’s reputation can be destroyed in the blink of an eye, which makes monitoring it and managing it carefully absolutely critical.

In the public sector, where organisations have a mandate to operate that is enshrined in law, the attitude towards reputation is somewhat different. They can still operate, irrespective of the views of their customers. This often leads to a very blinkered approach to any consideration of how customers feel about decisions made by public sector organisations and their ongoing impacts on people affected.

Reputation and influence are things that elected members rarely focus on at a governance level. Some sort of crisis requiring a reactive response is often they only time such governance groups focus on reputation. Once that matter has been “sorted” it drops off their radar, sometimes with little thought given as to why it occurred in the first place and what can be done to stop it happening again.

Sadly a lot of organisational focus for public sector engagement and communication is on what it costs. This is generally a good signal that reputation enhancement is not a priority and the value or benefits to that organisation from having a good reputation that’s worth investing in have not been thought of in those terms. In other words the organisational mind-set is in a wrong place.

Things like trust, respect and credibility should be part of a reputation KPI for any organisation, whether public or private. There are other high level outcomes that could be added to that list. Other measures, like sales made or return on investment will be shaped by those high level outcomes being achieved and should not be thought of as KPIs in themselves. While they may be easier to measure than things like trust, respect and credibility, just because something is hard to measure doesn’t mean that it can’t be. If that were true, then those things wouldn’t be able to be managed. And if that were true, then organisations that have great reputations and who are highly trusted and respected must have achieved that position by good luck?

Organisational performance is never straightforward and measuring success requires more than one source of reliable data. For example: Working out the fuel efficiency of a motorcar requires data from two sources – the car’s odometer and a fuel retailer’s pumping device. Working out the running cost of that vehicle requires the per litre cost of fuel to be known. This combination of reliable information can then shape decisions about whether driver training is a worthwhile investment to help reduce vehicle running costs.

Enhancing reputation and influence and the benefits that great engagement and communication practices can add can only be appreciated if there are clear outcomes set which can be supported by reliable information. That sounds easy but it’s really hard to do, even when an organisation’s mind-set is in the right place for that to happen. It’s impossible to do if it isn’t.

A recent front-page article in the Kapiti News (Wednesday, August 12, 2015) highlights the problems created when a local council limits its engagement with its community to the minimal requirements of local government law and its associated plans and policies.

In this case the Kapiti Coast District Council has riled the Waikanae community over a proposed medical centre in Te Moana Road, a major arterial street in Waikanae. The council decided that only a limited notification resource consent would be required, rather than a fully notified resource consent. This limited the need for public input to a few immediate neighbours of the subject property and eliminated the need for wider public consultation. The reason given for this approach was that this was in compliance with the Resource Management Act.

This has angered the Olde Waikanae Beach Preservation Society which has concerns about the wider future implications of the proposal.

Relevant to this decision, in addition to the Resource Management Act requirements, is the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, adopted under recent changes to the Local Government Act.

Under its Significance and Engagement Policy the Council commits to engaging with communities on issues of concern to them, and especially when they are directly affected by an issue, matter or proposal. But the policy also expressly excludes any engagement process that may be required under the Resource Management Act. This creates a potential conflict.

One the one hand the council can argue that as the medical centre proposal is subject to the Resource Management Act, then the commitment made in the Significance and Engagement Policy does not apply. End of story.

But hang on a minute, the community, beyond the limits set in the Resource Management Act, has expressed a concern. So how is that going to be taken into consideration?

In most cases, consultation requirements in statutes are minimum compliance standards which an organisation can exceed. In other words the Council could both comply with its Resource Management Act obligations and engage with the wider Waikanae community at the same time.

Many significant decisions will, by their very nature, involve the Resource Management Act. Having this exclusion clause in its Significance and Engagement Policy seems to run completely contrary to any reasoned desire to involve the community in public decisions. Tragically, both the council and the community lose out because all of the statements and commitments made by the council about community participation in decision-making are seen to be false by the community which misses out on an opportunity to contribute to a decision that affects them.

The Kapiti Coast District Council is not alone on using minimal legal obligations as the maximum amount of consultation it is willing to undertake. Other councils have also adopted this practice. The irony in this is that councils loudly proclaim the importance of engaging with communities but seldom follow through and walk the talk. The wider issue is that relationship building between councils and communities is undermined and mistrust of councils by communities continues to prevail. A radical change of mind-set by councils is needed to really make a difference.

There has been quite a lot of discussion recently about levels of engagement, or more specifically the language used to describe the various levels. There is no doubt that language is important. In the English language words are often used inter changeably to mean similar things which can be very confusing and even misleading.

Take the engagement spectrum for example. The most commonly referred to model in this part of the world is the (International Association for Public Participation) IAP2 version:

Inform – consult – involve – collaborate – empower

And there is the OECD version:

Information – consultation – active participation

And there are others:

Passive – reactive – participative – empowerment – leadership

Inform – consult – partner- empower

Announce – inform – consult – involve – collaborate – empower

What we have here is organisations creating their own spectrums using language they feel most comfortable with. However, this can all be very confusing.

The problem, in my mind, is that these references mean different things to different people. In addition the diagrammatic representations used create a common perception that the spectrum is a hierarchy, which it is not. In reality, it is, or should be, a set of clearly defined and different states.

The IAP2 spectrum is an interesting example of potentially confusing language. The inform level must be an element of all five levels. To inform is to impart information or make aware of, which is a necessary prerequisite for any of the other four levels. Consult, involve and collaborate all involve empowerment. To be consulted or to be invited to be involved or asked to collaborate on something is very empowering. Empowerment is a process that fosters power in people, for use in their own lives, their communities, and in their society, by acting on issues that they define as important. Consulting is involving someone in something in which they have an interest. So to consult is to involve or include. It means working together, which can also be described as collaborating.

While the use of these terms can be defended on grounds of it’s a question of degree, this is not particularly helpful for either the general public who have a very real interest in public decisions or engagement practitioners trying to figure out the appropriate level on the spectrum and later having to defend their choice.

So, what should the spectrum look like? How could it be described so as to be easily understood by both sides?

I tend to think about is as three different states; inform, involve and delegate.

This is what I mean –

Inform – in this state the communication is one-way only. What I think of as inside-out communicating. The organisation concerned pushes out information, probably in its own language, with no opportunity for a response from the target audience. In this state the organisation concerned remains accountable and responsible for the consequences or outcomes.

Involve – here conversations take place and real listening occurs. This could embrace, for example, all of the steps of the IAP2 spectrum. The organisation works actively with its communities of interest to achieve, as far as possible a mutually acceptable solution. The parties actively strive for consensus. This is very much a two-way approach where accountability and responsibility for the outcomes is shared. It is a state that builds trust and respect.

Delegate – in this outside-in state, the stakeholders or community develop their own preferred solutions which are then implemented by the host organisation, subject to any legal compliance obligations. Where for legal reasons the organisation needs to own the decision, it takes the necessary legal steps. In other words if, say, a council needs to make a formal decision, it simply passes the necessary resolution in compliance with relevant law. Accountability and responsibility for the outcomes rests with the community or stakeholders.

A recent LinkedIn discussion questioned whether inform is a legitimate engagement level. However, setting aside the word itself (for which there may be a better one) the key is that inform is a one-way communication from the host organisation outwards, irrespective of it being either positively or negatively motivated. Involve, on the other hand is two-way, with a free flow of information and conversation with the public able to influence the outcome. The direction of flow changes with delegate because it is the community feeding the solution into the organisation for adoption and implementation.

I began this discussion by referring to the importance of language. For each of these states the language used is likely to vary depending on the parties involved. In inform, for example there could be the language of the host organisation which could be incomprehensible to the target audience, whereas with involve plain English is more likely to prevail.

Background
On 16 July 2015 I asked LinkedIn’s Community Engagement forum the following question:

There’s a bit of discussion going on at the moment about engagement spectrums. Some organisations (such as local government councils) choose to remove the “empower” section from their spectrums, which is probably worth a conversation in itself.

For the purposes of this conversation, I’m looking for some opinions and a discussion about the “inform” end of the spectrum and whether you think that that is actually “engagement”.

The responses posted to this discussion suggest that I am not the only community engagement practitioner around the world who has been thinking about this issue.

The results
As at 30 July (New Zealand time) there had been 74 posted contributions to this discussion (LinkedIn’s count of 77 includes several repeated posts). Some contributors posted more than once, sometimes responding to comments made by others. 21 people had also “liked” this discussion by that time. Subsequent contributions made since 30 July but have not been materially different to earlier ones so have not been included in this analysis.

Feedback was multinational (note that the count reflects the number of contributions made, not the number of contributors).

• Australians: 24
  
• Canadians: 10
  
• Americans: 9
  
• British: 24
  
• New Zealanders: 1
  
• Koreans: 2
  
• Irish: 2
  
• Tanzanians: 1
  
• Belgians: 1
  

So what did people think about the proposition under discussion? Opinions were evenly split between two clear camps.

• 32 contributions said Yes – “informing” was part of engagement
  
• 27 contributions said No – “informing” was not part of engagement
  
• 10 contributions were ambivalent and not able to be interpreted as a clear “yes” or “no”.
  

What did the yeses say?

• The “spectrum” (presumably one of many engagement spectrums) doesn’t have a beginning or an end.
  
• It needs to be done properly to support other engagement processes that may be in play.
  
• Informing and engaging are different colours on the same spectrum.
  
• Informing and engaging need to happen together.
  
• People can be engaged without requiring them to respond.
  
• Yes, but informing cannot be the only component of engagement.
  
• Yes, provided it is done in good faith and allows for feedback.
  
• Yes, provided feedback received is heeded.
  
• Yes, people can’t be made to participate.
  
• Yes, depending on how the informing is done. It must be done at every stage of an engagement process.
  
• Informing rarely stands alone from other engagement components.
  
• Yes, if it is intended to elicit a response.
  
• Yes, but it has to meet a community’s needs.
  
• Yes, it has to be part of a wider engagement approach.
  
• Yes, it’s a key part of an engagement process throughout.
  
• Yes. It’s central to all levels of engagement.
  
• Yes, informing is a key part of widely accepted engagement spectrums.
  
• Yes, informing is key to generating a reaction from citizens.
  
• Yes, informing is a legitimate engagement objective and needs to be done well.
  
• Yes, it’s a necessary first step for engagement.
  
• Yes, you cannot engage unless people first receive information.
  

What did the noes say?

• Thinking of “informing” as engagement is a slippery slope.
  
• No, but it’s an important adjunct.
  
• No, but it’s important for scene setting.
  
• No, “inform” implies one-way information exchange.
  
• No, engagement requires active involvement.
  
• “Informing” can only passively seek feedback.
  
• No, but informing is a key component of an engagement process.
  
• No, as it can lead to tunnel vision.
  
• No, it’s a key component but not in itself legitimate engagement.
  
• No, informing is transactional and not interactional.
  
• No, a ladder approach to engagement is too linear. Engagement is more complex than that.
  
• No, “informing” has no associated interaction.
  
• No, informing is an engagement outcome not an objective.
  
• No, through engagement organisations should seek to engage, listen and empower.
  
• No, informing doesn’t engage people in thoughtful decision-making.
  
• With no response mechanism, there is no engagement.
  
• No, “engagement” is democratic and participatory.
  

Comments

1. Opinions about the legitimacy of “informing” as an engagement tool, based on the views expressed by contributors to this discussion, appear to be clearly and evenly split. While diverse, the sample of contributors should not be interpreted as being representative of the universe of community engagement practitioners.
   
2. Engagement spectrums, such as the ones published by the OECD and IAP2, are well used by many practitioners. Other visual tools, such as Arnstein’s Ladder, are also used and were referenced by several participants. Some people see these and use these differently to others, which was clear in several of the responses made.
   
3. Some people, particularly ladder fans, see engagement processes as linear, moving up or down, or from left to right across a range of engagement options. Others see these processes or objectives as being integrated. These perspectives clearly shape the value or legitimacy that practitioners attach to “informing”.
   
4. Words also mean different things to different people and, without clear context, can sometimes confuse, rather than clarify. “Inform” in this context appears to be such a casualty. Some participants have imbued their definition of this word with tinges of “collaboration”, others have taken a clear dictionary-based approach. That, combined with how people overlay the context of an engagement spectrum, seems to be the major contributor as to whether they then see “informing” as a legitimate part of engagement processes, or not.