By Kate Callen
The OB Rag staff is delighted to learn that the City of San Diego cares so much about listening to constituents that it is publishing an Inclusive Public Engagement Guide to train city employees on how to elicit feedback.
But we’re not sure why city employees would need such training. Weren’t they hired as public servants for their ability to serve the public? Is it really so difficult to hear what constituents have to say, take notes, and use that information to create more community-friendly policies and programs?
Apparently, it is. As the Rag frequently reports, the Gloria Administration has a stunning record for spurning community input and evading public inquiries. Its culture of mendacity earned our Mayor the Society of Professional Journalists’ 2024 “Wall Award” as “the person or public agency that made it difficult for journalists to do their jobs by ignoring information requests or otherwise compromising the public’s right to know.”
But maybe the Mayor has seen the light. As he says in his letter on the Engagement Guide’s website, “We at the City deliver the best results for our communities when we listen to and learn from the diverse perspectives of the people we serve … We are committed to breaking down barriers so more residents can participate in shaping the decisions that affect their lives.”
Hope springs eternal; we’ll take Mr. Gloria at his word. And we’ll do our part by offering these recommendations for more “inclusive public engagement”:
Allow the public adequate time to be included in this Inclusive Public Engagement process. The Union-Tribune’s October 8 story about the guide reported that it was released in September. In-person workshops for community feedback took place September 30 and October 10. A Zoom workshop took place October 2. So the public only had weeks to learn about and participate in the program. That unseemly rush might lead people to believe that City Hall is only going through the motions.
Restore San Diego’s 70-year tradition of community planning group (CPG) review of land use projects and policies. The war on CPGs led by Gloria and his developer allies was nothing less than an assault on local democracy. Planning group members live in the communities that elect them to serve. Disenfranchising them has effectively silenced community voices. It’s time to re-empower them.
Change the atmosphere of hostility toward community speakers that permeates Planning Commission hearings. We understand that Commissioners are Gloria appointees who are loyal to the Mayor. But they could show greater courtesy to speakers who oppose Gloria’s housing proposals. Vice Chair Matthew Boomhower always glowers and seethes during public comments. And a city planner at a recent meeting exchanged texts with a colleague in which they both ridiculed a community speaker (we saw her laptop screen; we took pictures of it).
Give the public more time to speak at public meetings and give officials and staff less time. Speakers during public comment get two minutes or less of speaking time. Staff presentations can drag on for 20 minutes or longer. Councilmembers and Commissioners never adhere to time limits. And they spend a profuse amount of time praising city staff for doing jobs that earn six-figure salaries. These events are supposed to be platforms for engaging the public. They are not performance venues for self-important representatives and appointees.
“Community Engagement” doesn’t mean elected officials and their aides tell us what a great job they’re doing. I once attended a North Park Community Planning Group meeting where Assemblymember Chris Ward was on the agenda. We were eager to discuss housing issues with him. He was allotted 15 minutes. He spent over 10 minutes speed-talking through a list of his achievements – he barely drew a breath – until someone asked him: Don’t you want to leave time for questions from your constituents? (The truthful answer was probably, “Hell no!”)
At least once a year, elected officials should appear in person before every community planning group in their districts. Ever notice how incumbents are everywhere you look in the run-up to an election? Then – poof! They disappear from sight. Politicians may dread hearing direct criticism. Journalists understand that; just look at the harsh comments posted on our Rag stories. But criticism is a part of life in the public arena. It should not be feared, because it can help you hone your skills.
Okay, Rag readers, here’s your opportunity to help our Mayor, City Council, and city staff. Please post comments with suggestions about they can improve constituent engagement. We’re sure they will appreciate it.
Perhaps Boomhower simply has a permanent glower on his face.
Kate – Thanks for sharing this nonsense being pushed by the mayor and Council.
To think most of our local elected officials fashion themselves as “progressive” and yet want to minimize the voices of those who know and care about their community better than they do. The labeling of people who disagree with them as “complainers”, “selfish” and “NIMBYs” is intellectually lazy and it needs to stop.
Long time residents speak from experience and know what needs fixing sometimes on a block by block level. Most are more than happy to share their community with others but want it done in a way that adds to its character, and doesn’t degrade it. Our political system and elected representatives are not serving the people well on a national and local level.
Thanks Kate for these great suggestions, especially this “Restore San Diego’s 70-year tradition of community planning group (CPG) review of land use projects and policies. The war on CPGs led by Gloria and his developer allies was nothing less than an assault on local democracy.”
Excellent points, Kate! Thanks, you have provided an invaluable feedback guide that I will use. What I especially appreciate is that you back up every suggestion with facts about why it is needed.
Thanks for some great suggestions, Kate.
At a recent Planning Commission hearing on a community plan update, a newly appointed commissioner actually said public comments were “disingenuous.” I would think such negative judgments from the dais would not be conducive to encouraging public engagement. The audience was understandably admonished for chuckling at one of the building drawings, but the Commissioner’s outspoken criticism of public speakers was apparently totally acceptable.
At that same meeting, I noted that the Planning Commission neglected to publish the Planning Department’s presentation as part of the Agenda materials, which I believe violates the Brown Act. The exact same thing appears to be happening at another Community Plan Update hearing tomorrow, October 16. Even if not publishing these Planning Department presentations is not a violation of the Brown Act, failure to do so is certainly not conducive to positive or inclusive public engagement, when the public’s first exposure to the information is at the meeting, which makes it difficult to respond to the contents of the presentation. I hope the Planning Commission will be included in the training program for the Inclusive Public Engagement Guide based on these recent interactions with the public.