The Deliberative Democracy Consortium

Mar 23rd
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home DDC Blog General Making Public Participation Legal -- Brookings recap

Making Public Participation Legal -- Brookings recap

E-mail Print PDF

By Charlie WisoffBrookings presenters

On October 23, 2013, the Brookings Institution held a panel presentation on a model municipal ordinance and a model state act for public participation. The presentation, titled “Making Participation Legal,” was the culmination of a year’s work of the Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation, consisting of public participation practitioners and researchers, local public officials, and lawyers. Notable groups represented include the National League of Cities, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the National Civic League, America Speaks, and the American Bar Association. Moderator Matt Leighninger and panelists Lisa Amsler and Mike Huggins represented the Working Group. During the Brookings event, the panelists explained the background and main features of the model ordinance and act. A defining theme of the conversation was the extent to which the proposed laws promote, as opposed to simply make a space for, public officials to practice quality public engagement.  Although the laws call for some substantial structural support for public engagement, the presenters emphasized that the laws are mainly designed to do the latter, create a space and a legal infrastructure for those public officials who are already experimenting with innovative public participation practices.

The Model Municipal Ordinance and Model State Act are designed to fill a void that was left by the legacy of past legislation pertaining to public participation. In particular, panelist Lisa Amsler pointed to the Freedom of Information Act and the Sunshine Laws of various states and municipalities. Although rooted in admirable motives, these laws have resulted in a number of deficient public participation practices. For example, it has become common practice for public meetings to consist largely of citizens getting three minutes at a microphone and having no interaction among people in the room. In addition, these public meetings include no discussion outside the scope of the agenda, and public officials can be legally removed from office if they allow meeting conversation to do so. Modeled after the 1996 federal dispute resolution act, the Model Municipal Ordinance and State Act seek to give public officials legal protection when doing innovative public participation and to move beyond what has become the status quo of public participation.

As mentioned above, the Model Municipal Ordinance and Model State Act do not mandate public engagement but provide a space for doing so. According to Matt Leighninger, “we’ve ended up with a model that does not require participation or a specific model but enables and supports what needs to emerge for public participation by focusing on the principles of public participation.” Key here is that the laws focus on principles of public engagement, not specific models or techniques. In the words of panelist Mike Huggins, the laws establish public participation as a recognized public good. The principles may guide public officials in how they do public participation, but the officials are left with significant discretion. That being said, the laws do require municipalities to be intentional and thoughtful in how public participation is implemented.  First, the laws require the mayor or city manager to designate a public participation specialist (who can be hired or chosen from existing staff). According to the panelists, the purpose of this position is to gain and disseminate public participation expertise in a “pyramid” fashion. Second, the laws require municipalities to develop their own policy about public participation and to establish a public participation advisory board. The purpose of this board is, “to advise the city council on the design, implementation, and evaluation of public participation processes for determining community goals and policies and delivering services.”

It is difficult, at this early stage, to analyze how the theory behind the Model Municipal Ordinance and Model State Act will play out in practice, but a couple of preliminary comments can be made. It is clear that by themselves laws cannot engender genuine and legitimate public participation. For example, Matt Leighninger acknowledged one weakness of the ordinance is,  “that it treats participation as a government responsibility.” He added that participation needs to be a community value and that they are hoping the ordinance results in a conversation that involves a number of stakeholders about what they want their participation to look like. In other words, legal infrastructure is only one factor that is necessary for public participation. As such, a main question in analyzing the Municipal Ordinance and State Act should be how they either facilitate or inhibit other necessary ingredients of public participation. During the Q&A session, Carolyn Lukensmeyer, of the National Institute for Civic Discourse, suggested picking a few pilot municipalities to study as a next step forward. She noted, for example, that the Municipal Ordinance has already been adopted in Oakland, CA. Further analysis is needed, but the Model Municipal Ordinance and Model State Act provide a promising step forward in local and state public participation.

Charlie Wisoff is a Research Assistant at the Kettering Foundation and can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . The views expressed in this blog are his own analysis and do not reflect the views of the Kettering Foundation or any other organization.

Comments (0) (sent to twitter)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.



The Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC) is a network of practitioners and researchers representing more than 50 organizations and universities, collaborating to strengthen the field of deliberative democracy. The Consortium seeks to support research activities and to advance practice at all levels of government, in North America and around the world.

[Image: AmericaSpeaks' 21st Century Town Meeting]


JPD logoThe Journal of Public Deliberation is a collaboration between the DDC, the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), and the Center for Civic Discourse and Democracy at Kansas State University. An online, refereed journal, JPD is the flagship publication in its field, and an important catalyst for the rapid growth of interest in democracy, citizenship, and participation. Find it at


DDC eBulletin

  • Want training in public participation? Choose the courses you want to see at the IAP2 Skills Symposium in late May – Trainers include Matt Leighninger, Tina Nabatchi, Steve Clift, Anne Carroll, Kyle Bozentko, and Marty Rozelle.
  • If we gave citizens more ways to measure democracy, they would have more ways to improve it – @TechPresident
  • Nonprofits that take advantage of new thick and thin forms of engagement can thrive – @GatesSunlight
  • “If forms of government can be likened to operating systems, current variants of democracy are like early, primitive versions of Windows.” “They are neither optimally functional nor user-friendly – they are buggy, susceptible to malware, and lack desired features.”
  • The “People’s Lobby,” which allows people to generate legislation for City Council consideration, and includes a deliberative phase, starts up in Provo, Utah –
  • “Morris Engaged,” which combines education, deliberation, and citizen-led action on climate change in rural Minnesota, has been named a finalist in the Environmental Initiative awards – @JeffersonCtr
  • The National Civic League has announced the finalists for the 2015 All-America City Award – @allamericacity
  • Can we fix voting, a part of democracy, without strengthening the other aspects of democracy? Probably not. And why would we, when the more participatory aspects of democracy offer so many other benefits? Unfortunately, none of those are mentioned in this piece, which is another example of why conflating “democracy” with voting doesn’t help.
  • “Rather than blame our leaders for the dysfunction, we need to change the game.” This article includes some examples of how engaging citizens in participatory ways – and treating democracy as more than just voting – can tackle problems like climate change that seem politically impossible to address.

DDC on social media

For news, resources, and updates on deliberation, participation, and democratic governance around the world, like DDC on Facebook, follow @mattleighninger on Twitter, or connect with mattleighninger on LinkedIn.

The Next Form of Democracy

Beneath the national radar, the relationship between citizens and government is undergoing a dramatic shift. The stories of civic experiments in "The Next Form of Democracy: How Expert Rule Is Giving Way to Shared Governance -- and Why Politics Will Never Be the Same" by DDC Executive Director Matt Leighninger show us the realpolitik of deliberative democracy, and illustrate how the evolution of democracy is already reshaping politics. Learn more...

Deliberative Democracy Handbook

The Deliberative Democracy Handbook is the first book to bring together the best practices and thinkin on deliberative citizen participation processes. Deliberative democracy is the nationwide movement to make citizen participation meaningful and effective. Learn more...

Deliberative Democracy Handbook Cover

Journal of Public Deliberation
Visit the JPD >>