This is the last of the 3 part joint post with Peter McKinlay of McKinlay Douglas and the Local Government Think Tank. Peter is a big-picture thinker with his eyes on the horizon looking at where we might be heading with local governance in New Zealand.

Dive deep into all things community engagement in the previous posts - Part 1: Is your council taking full advantage of the opportunities for community engagement? and Part 2: How is Consultation different to Engagement?

Late last year, we worked with a council that was planning how to work with their communities on their Long Term Plan and Environment Plan.

We facilitated a lively cross-council workshop. The participants agreed the community would get frustrated and confused unless the different engagement projects were integrated; not just across the Council, but with other community partners who were also asking similar questions of the same communities.

We thought it was a no-brainer. Cheaper for the council. Easier for the community. More potential to increase the collective impact with key partners.

But what do you think happened when the lead manager spoke to their general manager about the proposed way forward?

…there was a sharp intake of breath.

And the proposed community engagement went no further. The Council instead went back to the drawing board to create a communications plan.

A culture of consultation

Can you empathise with the lead manager? Do you share their nervousness about the prospect of enabling public participation in your organisation’s work?

In this post we want to bust these three common myths that may be holding you back from going beyond consultation: 

1. Community engagement is more costly than consultation

2. Engagement undermines the role of elected members

3. Engagement slows up decision-making.

We believe these myths are harming our democracy, by leading councils and government agencies down the path of consultation, even when this may not be the most impactful approach. 

Myth #1: Community engagement is more costly than consultation

This myth says that community engagement is more expensive than consultation and more costly to the public.

But there are some big assumptions underlying this myth. Let’s look at them.

First, there’s an assumption that engagement, like consultation, is a one-off activity and once the decision is made that’s an end of the matter. On this basis, expenditure on consultation or engagement is a project-related cost with no benefit apart from the ability to implement the decision or policy.

This doesn’t reflect reality. 

Community engagement is focused not just on the particular topic in hand. It’s also focused on building an ongoing capability of the community which your organisation can work with again in the future. Consultation doesn’t leave the public in a better state than it was previously; but good engagement does.

Reality #1: Engagement is an investment, not a project-related cost

We encourage you to stop thinking of engagement as a project-related cost. Instead, try to think of it as an investment that builds an ongoing asset that should generate benefits long after your initial investment. 

As you can see from case studies like Marlborough Smart+Connected, it’s an investment that should have a relatively high rate of return.

To put it bluntly, in the long-run, engagement reduces rather than increases costs.

Myth #2: Engagement undermines the role of elected members

Community participation will often involve co-decision-making. This is where a community is an equal partner in a decision. 

Because of this, elected members sometimes see engagement as limiting their authority. I was elected to make decisions, not to share decision-making with the community. I am paid to make decisions, so why would I give that responsibility over to the community?

Reality #2: Elected members must ensure a decision is made but they don’t have to make every decision themselves

This view confuses the actual decision with the leadership role of making sure a decision is made. But experience shows that playing a more facilitative role typically enhances a community’s respect for and recognition of elected members as community leaders. It also will normally strengthen a council or agency’s ‘licence to operate’ as the community’s trust in elected members increases.

There is something of a reciprocal effect. As elected members demonstrate respect by enabling community engagement, so does the community better trust and respect that the elected members are effectively serving their interests.

To put it bluntly, engagement strengthens the positions of elected members, rather than undermining their power.

Myth #3: Engagement slows up decision-making

Often a community engagement approach to working with communities will take longer than a consultation process that might run for only a month. So, at first glance, this makes it look as though community engagement will slow up decision-making.

And if you’re like most councils and agencies we talk with, you can probably point to a story where your council tried to engage the community - and it backfired! This usually happens because the engagement process is under-resourced, poorly mandated or inadequately planned.

Consider the story in this article about community members complaining to their council about a cycleway that the very same community had appeared to advocate for in the community engagement process!

Reality #3: Engagement can speed things up in the long run

Skeptical about this one? Let’s look at this reality in more detail.

Community engagement speeds up decision-making by ensuring the decision-maker has a genuine mandate for the decision. By the time they get to their decision, they have all the authority they need to proceed. 

Community engagement adds legitimacy to the decision because the community has been part of the decision-making process, not just responding to a proposal that appears to be already set in stone.

Engagement is a cost-effective way of avoiding post-decision objections. Resource consent or court processes can suck up years of time and millions of dollars. But of course we don’t usually factor those potential costs into decisions about whether to consult or engage.

Research from the Next Generation Engagement Project puts a number to this cost in Australia.

In the past decade, an estimated $20 billion of investment has been mothballed or significantly delayed due, in part, to a lack of community and stakeholder engagement. 

That’s the equivalent of 40 state of the art hospitals.

Engagement can also have further advantages after a decision is made. A community that has been included in a decision-making process is much more likely to take an ongoing interest in implementation. They might alert your organisation to issues that you might not otherwise have learned about.

One of our clients, Marlborough District Council, has experienced this benefit as a result of its Marlborough Smart+Connected programme. By investing in productive relationships with industries and communities, the Council has access to a wealth of knowledge and expertise that allows them to be more responsive to needs.

This article is Part 3 of 3 articles written in partnership with Peter McKinlay of the Local Government Think Tank and McKinlay Douglas. Peter is a big-picture thinker with his eyes on the horizon looking at where we might be heading with local governance in New Zealand.

You can read Part 1 here, which explores the opportunities for councils to take full advantage of the opportunities for community engagement

You can read Part 2 here, which unpacks the differences between “consultation” and “engagement” to leave you understanding limitations and strengths of these different levels of participation.