The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here." How prophetic and timeless are the words of Abraham Lincoln as we apply them to the honored institution of public process.

As we engage in the governance of our community, there is no practice more critical to our success than first hand participation in making the decisions that will shape the legacy we leave for future generations. But the concept of "public process" has to be more than theory and must be embraced by more than the average citizenry to truly have the impact it could, and should, have.

When we elect individuals to public office to represent us, we rely on their ability to keep our best long-term interests in the forefront of their actions. We expect them to have the intelligence and integrity to take action when action is required and make decisions without taking a pole every time a law, opportunity or temptation is place in front of them.  However, we also expect, and rightfully should demand, that when we choose to speak, or are asked to speak, we will be listened to and our thoughts and opinions will be given value and weight.

I grow increasingly concerned with how the so-called "public process" is executed in our City and State governments. Although we may be asked to serve on committees and task forces and give testimony on an increasing array of issues, I am frequently disappointed in outcomes that seem to have been decided before the public was invited to participate. I am frustrated, and sometimes feel intentionally excluded, by the very circumstances under which that participation occurs.

First, I would point out that we have public access laws enacted specifically to permit us to view those documents that support and detail decisions made on our behalf. While I do believe it is appropriate for government to charge reasonable fees for copying documents, the difficulty in accessing requested information sometimes suggests that the system is deliberately constructed to frustrate and quell inquiries, or is administered incompetently. Straightforward requests should be fulfilled expediently and thoroughly. Instead, we often meet with confrontational questioning about our reasons for requesting documents, experience open ended time frames for completing the requests and receiveincomplete information.

Second, I appreciate that residents and neighborhood leaders are often invited at the City level to serve on committees and task forces. However, in many instances, the net efficacy of such invitations to neighborhood based volunteers remains highly questionable. One of my first suggestions for ensuring that neighborhood interests are truly represented is to permit organizations to choose their own representatives, rather than having them chosen for us, and to permit those organizations to choose alternates to serve in the absence of the regular representatives. Additionally, when a committee is purported to be balanced between business and neighborhood leaders, there needs to be an honest identification of a representative’s primary interest in the issue, rather than depicting that representation is balanced because "everyone lives in a neighborhood". Finally, these assemblages need to be given ALL the information surrounding a particular issue. It does not serve the true "public process" to simply spoon feed those pieces of information that will generate a predetermined response and that will later be justified by saying that there was citizen input.

Third, there are the physical details of participation in the "public process". Whether by accident or design, it often appears that public input is neither encouraged nor appreciated. Meetings and hearings are set during the day when most residents must take off work to attend.  While it may sound lofty to suggest that "if people really cared they would take time off work", the reality is that many working people do not have that luxury. It is frustrating to hear day time meetings justified because that's "when the majority of the committee can meet." Even when there is equal representation from the neighborhoods, the representatives from the business and government interests are usually there as part of their jobs. This is not said to diminish their value to the issue, but to illustrate that there are some economic hardships to true volunteer citizen participation in the current system.

There are also times when the actual room arrangements seem designed to discourage public input. Prime examples of this are the Public Assembly Room and Room 260 (where Council committee meetings are held) in the City County Building. In the Public Assembly Room, which is used for zoning hearings, a table is provided for petitioners, but no such accommodation is made for 

remonstrators. With the volume of documentation that is required for effective presentations at hearings, this puts the remonstrators (usually neighborhoods) at a distinct organizational disadvantage. The same could be said of Room 260, where proponents and/or government presenters are provided with a table complete with microphones, but those speaking from the floor are required to stand, juggle their paperwork and strain to access microphones suspended from the ceiling. Additionally, the limited seating available in this room, when scheduled for an issue drawing public comment, also sends a message that only limited public input is desired.

Fourth, there seems to be an increasing, and very disturbing pattern to ignore public input. Meetings or "hearings" that cut off and prohibit public comment on sensitive or critical issues are contrary to the democratic principles on which our government is founded. Public debate can at times be uncomfortable and emotional, but there is nothing more essential to examining and understanding all of the options and impacts of an issue.

In another anomaly of citizen friendly government decision making, there are also disturbing instances where government deliberately ignores the public testimony so "avidly" sought. Examples of this can be found in the resistance of the City County Council a few years ago to approve funding for expansion of the public library (which found overwhelming support from the residents of Marion County) or the State's insistence on constructing a new leg of I-69 (despite the objection of 94% of the public respondents). Why does government seem at times to oppose the concept that residents and voters, when given all the information, have the intelligence and desire to 
understand the issues placed before them?

In order to have true meaning, our words must be carried out through our actions. If we are going to invoke the true meaning of "public process", there are certain components upon which we must stand firm in order to ensure that the "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."