There has been a lot of discussion lately about “engagement.” I previously wrote about this subject in the context of comments from a recent Focus Burlington Town Hall meeting about people’s experiences delegating at City Hall.
Some have asked what Focus Burlington would do differently. This post answers that question.
An Outdated Model
Delegations were originally designed to give residents a direct voice in municipal decision-making. Council meetings were held in the evenings because councillors typically had daytime jobs, and most residents lived and worked locally.
That reality no longer exists.
In Burlington, councillors are now full-time, salaried officials whose work is conducted during the day. At the same time, many residents are commuters. Even with the emergence of hybrid work since the COVID pandemic, a large portion of the public is simply unable to attend City Hall in person during working hours.
Given this shift, the traditional delegation model is increasingly unrealistic. The question is not whether engagement matters, but rather whether current methods actually work.
More Tools, Same Problem
To its credit, the City of Burlington has experimented with alternative engagement methods: surveys, teleconferences, virtual meetings, coffee chats, and even incentive-based programs like “Food for Feedback.”
Whether these efforts are effective remains unclear.
The core problem is this: engagement is not just about collecting feedback. It’s about how that feedback is used. For instance, if survey results do not influence decisions, shape policy, or prompt serious reconsideration, then engagement becomes performative rather than meaningful.
Controlling the Narrative
Let’s be honest. Public institutions are uncomfortable with forums they cannot control.
City officials generally want to control both the process and the outcome. Tools like surveys, virtual meetings, and one-on-one coffee chats with councillors allow them to do just that. Results can be ignored. Participants can be muted. Concerns can be acknowledged politely and then set aside.
Delegations and town halls are different. They have audiences. Officials can manage the procedure, but they cannot fully control either the outcome or public reaction.
The same dynamic applies to Agencies, Boards, and Commissions (ABCs). While presented as citizen-led bodies, they are often tightly structured, overseen by staff, and composed of participants who already support the city’s preferred policy direction. Unsurprisingly, their recommendations tend to align neatly with existing policy goals.
The city values consensus. It avoids public disagreement. And too often, it resists voices that challenge the status quo.
Doing Engagement Differently
If engagement is to be meaningful, it needs structural change. Here are some concrete proposals:
- Create an Office of Citizen Engagement:
This office would help residents prepare delegations, summarize public input, ensure concerns reach the appropriate staff, and track follow-up so residents are not left wondering what happened to their ideas. - Expand submission options beyond written form:
Allow residents to submit audio or video messages. This would support those who are uncomfortable writing or for whom English is not a first language. This would also allow delegations from people who cannot take time off work. - Restore Quarterly Ward Town Halls:
Hold them regularly and consider evening and weekend scheduling to accommodate commuters and working residents. Allow delegations on any subject. - Establish rotating Ward Advisory Panels:
Councillors should meet quarterly with small, rotating panels of ward residents to discuss local and city-wide issues. Rotating membership ensures broader participation over time. - Consult early, not halfway through the process:
Engagement should begin at the start of projects, not after key decisions are already made. Budget “pre-consultations” held in September or October, when the budget is nearly complete, are neither genuine nor impactful. - Make information accessible:
Engagement starts with understanding. A 568-page budget may be manageable for staff, but it is not realistic for most residents. Clear, concise summaries are essential. Citizens aren’t paid to read policy tomes. - Close the loop:
The fastest way to lose citizen trust is to ask for opinions and then never tell people how the opinions were used.
Within weeks of an engagement event, provide a summary of the feedback, the good, the bad, and even the ugly.
State how the public input is being used. If public input is not being used, state why. We are all part of this city. Honesty builds trust and cooperation.
- Empower:
Place final decision-making in the hands of the public.
Closing Thoughts
Engagement should not be about managing public input, but instead, about respecting it. If the city wants trust, it must show that public participation genuinely matters, not just that it was collected.
Discover more from Focus Burlington
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You forgot to add that things like the surveys used are highly manipulated. They ask questions in a way people are forced to give answers they wouldn’t give if they had all the information
This was demonstrated very succinctly a few years ago. Large numbers of people who answered online feedback on the budget were provided with the actual % they intended to raise the taxes by. It changed the answers substantially and as well the % who supported increased taxes for purported increases in services. To circumvent this, the city engaged in a telephone survey. Those people were not told the intended tax increase and so gave different answers having no idea the increase was intended to be over 7%.
The city when confronted about the opposition then claimed those results weren’t accurate and pointed to the telephone survey. That was the very definition of manipulation. I’d go so far as to say outright deceit. Unfortunately lying to the public is still permissible in this purported democracy we live in