This won’t come as a surprise to those that read the letters to the editor in local newspapers or follow the region’s more colorfully written blogs, but San Diegans really distrust their government.
These anecdotal impressions are backed up by results from the July SDI/CERC Barometer of Public Opinion. We asked City residents “How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in the City of San Diego to do what is right?” Only 5.7% said “just about always, with 60% saying “only some of the time.” This same question is asked every four years in the National Science Foundation-supported National Election Study. Comparing our results with those of the NES indicates that San Diegans are decidedly more skeptical and trust their government less than the rest of the nation.
The Sunroad episode didn’t help matters. The press has discussed in detail the discrepancies between the report authored by the Mayor’s Deputy Chief for Ethics and Integrity and other public documents. Inconsistent statements to the press about the firing or resignation of the Deputy Chief at the center of the controversy led credence to the belief that there was too much parsing of the message and too few statements of fact to a skeptical citizenry.
But this problem reaches beyond the Sunroad episode. New lobbying registration rules that exempt the volunteer officers of labor organizations do nothing to address the public’s skepticism about whether politicians who heavily rely on labor’s support during elections can subsequently act as good fiscal stewards during contract negotiations. Prior to this administration, the shoddy oversight of the Data Processing Corporation or investigations into unreported gifts and illegal campaign contributions to City Council members led many members of the public to conclude that something was rotten in San Diego.
So what can be done to rebuild the working relationship between the public and city hall?
One place to start is with reforms that would enhance transparency and increase community input in the area of land use. This is an issue area where anecdotal evidence suggests the public’s mistrust of local government is deepest. Dispassionate observers can see that the public process needs to be improved. The input of the community has to be given more respect by decision makers and assigned real deliberative value. That is not to say that community concerns should always trump those of property owners seeking to improve their homes and investments. But when citizens take the time to participate in their government, it is incumbent upon policy makers to treat them with respect and give considerable weight to the opinions being voiced.
The City of Encinitas has a model that, if adopted in San Diego, could make a positive difference. Developers in Encinitas have to write and implement a “Public Participation Plan”. (See www.ci.encinitas.ca.us/Business/ApplicationsFP/PlanningBP and click on “Citizen Participation Plan and Public Notice Package”). The plans must specifically detail how the developer will solicit public input. The concerns raised during outreach must be reported, with specific attention paid to what concerns, if any, were positively addressed by altering the plans of the proposed development and what concerns were raised that the developer believed could not be resolved. This report is subsequently presented to the City Council along with the more formal environmental impact documents.
This a process is positive because it provides the public with assurance that they will have an opportunity to be heard. Developers get the public’s input and have a better opportunity to adjust plans to address concerns raised at an earlier stage. And policy makers get the benefit of a document that lays out citizen’s issues and therefore are better able to understand which concerns could be addressed and which ones could not.
The process in Encinitas differs in fundamental ways from way from the process currently in place in the City of San Diego. While responsible developers in San Diego know that it makes good business sense to reach out to the community, there is no formal requirement to do so. The concerns of the community are often filtered through numerous groups and bureaucracies before they reach decision makers. Some citizens, who are going about their daily lives, miss out because they never know about a proposal while others, who are heavily engaged in City Hall processes, weigh in on almost every development proposed. And the process in San Diego is not particularly citizen-friendly. Consider that both the City Council and the Planning Commission meet during the day and the meetings are almost always held at City Hall. This imposes real hardship on individuals seeking to provide input who may work, have child care responsibilities, or who have limited transportation. Additionally, the impression of many members of the public is that they are up against a myriad of land use consultants, lobbyists, and lawyers. No wonder the development decision-making process leaves many feeling disengaged and disenchanted.
Another positive step the City could take to restore the public’s trust would be to strengthen the enforcement of ethics in the City. The Office of Ethics and Integrity has come up lacking in its first major test of relevancy. Rather than help improve the public’s trust in municipal government, the Sunroad report issued by that office seems to have led to even more cynicism and disenchantment. It is also clear that there needs to be another watchdog in addition to the City Attorney. As an elected official, he or she will always be perceived as having political aspirations which can taint the public’s perception of investigations of other branches of government. An alternative would be to expand the powers of the City’s Ethics Commission. Rather then just enforce the City’s lobbying and election laws, the role of the Ethics Commission could be expanded to include responding to complaints and concerns much in the same way inspector generals operate at the federal level. While checks and balances are needed so the Commission doesn’t become bogged down by too many complaints or forced to exponentially grow, a modest expansion in its powers would provide greater assurances to the public that a non-political and independent watchdog was looking out for the public good.
These are just a few of the steps that need to be taken. If citizens don’t trust government and are deeply cynical, too often they throw up their hands in frustration and walk away from the public realm. That in turn makes it almost impossible to either accomplish great things or make hard choices. Taking concrete actions to renew the faith of the public in the positive nature of government is an important task and one which all of us, as private citizen or elected officials, should make a top priority.
Reader Feedback
There are no comments yet for this article. Be the first to post!
Post a Comment
Feedback Rules:
Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
If you have not posted before, you will be required to verify your email address before your post is displayed.
