"It’s amazing how little we understand each other.
We both made some big assumptions about each other that we needed to clear up if we were going to work together.”
-- Mel Bevan, Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations (Spritlink, 2006)
Municipalities, regional districts, government agencies and community groups need to hear the voices of all the members of their communities. This is true not only to avoid conflicts that end in legal battles, but to ensure that community planning responds to everyone's needs. In this short document I will outline the background and current research on the topic of including marginalized citizens in civic decision-making. I will explain a simple model for assessing your community's readiness and will offer the outline of a step-by-step planning process that is specifically designed to involve community members that often go unheard.
Background
With the principles of a democratic society in mind, all citizens need to be involved in making decisions for the public good. Apathy cannot always be blamed when citizens do not speak out. Culture and histories of negative interactions can be a barrier that holds people back. Speaking out at public meetings is the way people are expected to participate in North American society but not all cultural groups see this as being the right way to make important decisions. The way that people feel comfortable communicating, coupled with perceptions of whether or not anyone is paying attention, is something that governments, agencies and community groups need to investigate and change.
While differences in values, expectations, and language can make public participation difficult, power inequalities and negative historical relationships are even harder to overcome. Participation of First Nation/Native American communities in municipal and regional planning is only one example of where marginalized community members have not been listened to, or their concerns acted upon. The British Columbia treaty process has pointed out the importance of building long term relationships between cultural communities. For this to happen a specialized way of using knowledge about human communication is required.
Research that investigated communication structures, communication attitudes, and communication behaviors in the BC treaty process is outlined in this report to show how the same best practices can work to increase the involvement of many community members across the barrier of culture. Discussions between treaty participants, documents produced by parties involved in the process, and observations of Main Table negotiation sessions were analyzed to produce a list of practices that either inhibit or enhance relationship building (Appendix A). The result of this analysis is a set of guidelines for assessing existing relationships in a community.
Assessing Community Relationships
The result of this research is a set of eight propositions for analyzing and increasing the effectiveness of efforts to increase inclusion of marginalized cultural groups in community decision-making. All propositions are made on the premise that increased inclusion will not happen unless the focus is on building long-term relationships between individuals and groups.
I. Multiple relationships must be considered within any single setting;
Public dialogue and decision-making communication process must address many types and combinations of relationships. For example, there are person-to-person, person-to-group, group-to-group, and group-to-community.
Each type of relationship can be placed within a model (Appendix B). The 'Core' relationship component are those that exist inside of a cultural group (i.e. a particular First Nation). Assessments at the core level must come from within the community, not from outside groups or individuals. 'Lifeline' relationships are those that directly connect the group to immediate networks and decision-making bodies (i.e. municipal government). Third are the 'Attenuating' relationships which are those where day-to-day activities take place (i.e. businesses, schools, community groups). Each of these relationships must be identified and assessed.
- What is/are the marginalized cultural group(s) in your community?
- With the cultural group at the core, what various relationships exist?
II. Overall context effects each relationship separately;
The overall context for communication must be considered. Understanding the full implications of a negative historical past and the ongoing nature of the power imbalance, provides a more accurate way to gauge what communication is inhibiting or enhancing for the public process.
- Who has power in the community?
- Who has been unable to have their voice heard in past decisions?
- How does power inequality impact on each relationship?
- What is the positive or negative history of each of these relationships?
III. Racism and the nature of negative historical relationships must be openly and publicly dealt with at the beginning of the process;
Racism must be publicly dealt with at the beginning of the process through the inclusion of a specific communication structure designed for that purpose. Racism and negative history does not disappear when it is ignored. Creating a communication structure that is sensitive to both the issues and the people, will assist the process to continue beyond any particular decision that is made in a community. If citizens are sincere in wishing to get rid of racism they will be able to deal with it openly and honestly when a safe environment is created.
- Is there an existing process for discussing racism?
- What individuals in the community are capable of creating a process for discussing racism?
- What outside resources can be drawn on to help the community discuss racism?
IV. The internal communication needs of the marginalized group must be considered first;
When the internal communication processes of the marginalized community are considered as the primary relationship, participation across cultures is ultimately enhanced. Given the pervasive nature of power imbalances between the dominant culture and any other marginalized groups that utilizes a different set of communications tools and skills, that group needs to have some internal strength in order to have their voice heard.
- Is there an organized communication structure within the marginalized cultural group?
- What individuals have positive connections across cultural boundaries?
- Who are seen as cultural group leaders?
V. Communication structures must focus on overcoming power inequalities;
Communication structures must focus on overcoming power inequalities by ensuring that adequate resources are available to support the marginalized community in implementing ongoing internal dialogue as well as for the overall process. If planners or policy makers are truly concerned with having full community participation in decision-making, adequate resources must be made available to community members who are disadvantaged in their ability to participate in the process. Whether these resources are by way of adequate time for engagement or through monetary resources to bring people together, they must be considered and included.
- What power and decision-making structures do not include members of the marginalized cultural group?
- What connections already exist to hear from community members about their concerns?
- What resources are missing that would help people to have input into community decisions?
VI. Communication attitudes must be supportive of collaborative approaches, nonhierarchical participation, and long-term commitments to relationship building;
Attitudes, because they are a predisposition to view particular communication situations in a positive, neutral, or negative way, are generally treated as being difficult to change. An effort can be made to find facilitators and staff who already have attitudes that are supportive of the kind of communication that enhances relationship building. On the other hand, for community members, government staff, or any variety of other participants, an effort may need to be made to influence, build or strengthen attitudes that are favorable for enhancing relationship building.
- Are your current facilitators and staff knowledgeable in using collaborative styles of decision-making?
- What are some processes that can be adopted from other cultural groups in the community?
- Are there policies in place that call for consensus-driven models of conflict resolution?
- How can current decision-making structures be changed to be non-hierarchical?
- Are all the key players committed to developing a positive attitude towards communication for the long-term rather than with an eye to the next election?
VII. Communication behaviors must provide evidence of sincerity.
It is essential that dominant culture members provide tangible, public acts of sincerity when asking for marginalized community input into planning processes. It is the true showing of openness, recognition, reciprocity and sincerity that will provide the basis for a long-term relationship that will survive through possible setbacks.
- What have you done that already demonstrates that your community will follow through on dealing with concerns of marginalized community members?
- What kind of positive or negative feedback has been expressed about actions that have been taken?
- What do community members say would show sincerity?
VIII. Planners and community development organizers need to use new planning methods for increasing the participation of diverse community members;
Current processes for engaging culturally diverse groups in public planning are inadequate. The complexities of the BC treaty process support this assessment while at the same time offering insights into new ways of participating in decision making for planning across cultures.
- Do you have a town/community planner that is willing to utilize a new model for the planning process?
- Can your meeting facilitator understand and adapt to issues around cultural communication practices?
9P Planning Model
Once your government, agency, or community group has completed a basic readiness assessment, based on the above considerations, and made an attempt to correct those areas where your community has deficiencies, you are ready to look at the planning process itself. The model proposed here (Appendix C) has been developed specifically to increase marginalized community participation based on attention to long-term relationship building.
How to use the model:
The '9P Planning' model outlined in Appendix C of this document is a holistic model that is meant to be used in a step-by-step sequence of actions. Beginning with 'Mutual Need' continue in a clockwise direction, fully exploring each step before moving on to the next planning stage. No time limit should be set on the full cycle. This is not a quick-fix model. It is meant to be a guide for ongoing community development.
Step 1: Mutual Need
Have the planning group define what exactly is the event or reason why increased inclusion of marginalized cultural groups is desired. Specifically, the group needs to define all the reasons why inclusion is important (i.e. increased support from all community members). This step is important because it guides the group to continue with their efforts even when things seem impossible and frustration sets in.
Step 2: P1 Purpose/Vision
The planning group conducts an internal values and vision survey. Independently, at the urging of the planning group, members of previously marginalized groups get together and conduct the same kind of survey. This must be completed before any actual community meetings are held.
Step 3: Evaluation
As indicated previously, 'Relationship' is the key, and structural center, of the model. This means that at each step an evaluation needs to be done asking the three following questions:
1) How has the attention to this part of the process enhanced the building of relationships/connections between cultural groups in the community?
2) What further improvements can be made to processes that acted to enhance relationships?
3) What revisions can be made to processes that had an inhibiting effect on relationships?
Step 4: P2 Participant
During these three stages previously marginalized cultural groups and the original planning group need to continue to be able to meet separately for discussion and then come together to pool ideas. This is important at this stage because topics are often sensitive and people need to feel safe in expressing their thoughts and feelings. At this stage it is important to outline desirable communication attitudes and communication skills that are needed in key participants. Teaching new skills and ensuring that people feel ready to participate is also important. A primary concern is that when information is pooled, that precedence be given to information offered by previously marginalized cultural groups (tangible demonstrations of sincerity).
Step 5: P3 Problems
At this point problems are defined and joint planning is begun to openly discuss issues of racism in the community.
Step 6: Evaluation (see Step 3)
Step 7: P4 Personal Links
At this stage specific people throughout all groups in the community are identified as to their existing or potential links across cultural borders. These include people who can 'liaise' and who can 'bridge'. Liaisons are individuals who are rooted in one cultural group but have the desire/ability/personal qualities to connect on a personal level with individuals from other cultural communities. People who are 'bridges' are those who belong to/live in/ or feel a part of at least two cultural groups. It is important to identify all community members who potentially fall into these categories because they already have relationships that can be a basis for extending/increasing into new relationships.
Step 8: Evaluation
Step 9: P5 Place (Where)
The community should now be ready to determine process details to come together as a whole. Setting the particular structure, location, and timing of the event is where information from various cultural communities can be thought provoking and useful. There are many mays to gain information and stimulate dialogue in the community that does not need to be based on one big public meeting where people come to a microphone and have 5 minutes to say what is important to them. Kitchen tables talks, blogs, and neighborhood or family meetings are just a few of many suggestions that demonstrate a variety of possibilities. The intent is to bring out people where they feel comfortable and safe to have their voice heard and to hear others.
Step 11: Evaluation
Step 12:P6 Preparation (What, When, How)
Step 12 overlaps with Step 10 but should be considered separately.
Step 13: Evaluation
Step 14: P7 Principles
At this point there is an open discussion with all parties about the principles that will guide any dialogue and deliberation sessions. These principles must, at a minimum, be in sync with collaborative/consensus ideals, non-hierarchical structures, and tangible acts of sincerity.
Step 14: P8 Procedures
What will be the rules? Will there be a facilitator, a moderator...? When will you know that a decision has been made?
Step 14: P9 Product
The final product of the planning/dialogue process is any outcome that is agreed to be successful by all of the cultural groups involved. It is also the recognition and improvement of all community members dependence on each other and ultimately the long-term relationships that have been strengthened or created as a result of the entire process.
Step 15: Evaluation
Appendix A: List of Communication Inhibitors and Enhancers in BC Treaty Process
COMMUNICATION STRUCTURES
Inhibiting structures:
Inadequacy of monetary resources including for internal process needs
Overwhelming scope; newness; restrictions of the overall treaty process
Restriction of choice options - government not responsive to uniqueness of each First Nation.
Inadequate/ nonexistent governance/consultation structures
Overburdened First Nation negotiators
Distance and size differences between First Nations
Barriers to working collectively
Loss of knowledge of traditional systems
Political interference and changing politics
Conflicting interests between BC and Canada
Limits on BC Treaty Commission
Process scope and restrictions
No prior experience/model
Inadequate Alternative Dispute Resolution
No existing structures for government-to-government communication
Indian Act jurisdiction regarding local government relationships
No access at government-to-government level locally
No structural carryover to post treaty implementing
Ineffective structures to gain public support for outcomes; educate public as to depth of issues
Lack of access to information for planning
Separation of judicial systems from the treaty process
Enhancing structures:
Ability of First Nations to utilize the treaty process to develop governance structures
Ability to document new structures as part of process
Determine internal vision first
Leadership selection processes based on skill needs rather than personalities
Specific consultation processes to include all community members
Existing coalitions
Proactive efforts by First Nations to work together
Ability to hear of other's successes/progress
Ability of First Nation negotiators and leaders to meet directly with government officials
Designation of the Attorney General as point person
6 stage framework
Cooperative design; Openness document
All activities without prejudice
Proactive efforts by both
Having personnel with the right attitude
Face-to-face process
Balance traditional and contemporary systems
Treaty office involvement at local government level
Public education early on in the treaty process
Community-to-Community Forum program (face-to-face interactions)
Keeping day-to-day business separate from treaty negotiations
Creation of new school curriculum
Development of dispute resolution processes
COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS
Inhibiting behaviors:
Non-recognition of negative historical relationship
No interim protection of First Nation interests
Unequal access to monetary resources - controlled by the government
Not actively talking about differences in attitudes
Hiding First Nation internal issues
Catering to interest groups
Inability to convey difficult ideas
Non-participation by members
Inconsistent use of 'buzz word' definitions between First Nations
Bureaucracy that restricts and delays solutions
Double-speak; Self-interested use of words on the part of the governments
One-sided requirements
Resource extraction business-as-usual
Wasting time on minutia
Self-interested image building by governments
Mismatch of words and deeds
Statements re: the past being the past; not confronting negative historical context
Speaking through the media
Symbolic participation only
Inaction by local governments
Broad overview approach to public education
Ignoring racism; Negative press and media portrayals
Refusals to account for resource extraction during the treaty process
Use of Euro-centric data and research methodologies for justifying information
Enhancing Behaviors
Public acts of reconciliation and recognition
Active engagement in self-education by government negotiators
Tangible ability to have control and authority over own traditions and resources
Use of Native language (i.e. place names)
Demonstration of tangible benefit to community
Internal knowledge base/ archives
Gain knowledge from other First Nation experiences and actively try new things
Change in language use from aggressive
Inclusion of topics previously excluded
Being upfront with actions
Actions that publicly recognize First Nation rights and title
Tangible expressions of sincerity.
Public recognition of need for interdependence
Tangible demonstrations of openness and commitment to working together
Public recognition of First Nation jurisdiction
Proactive efforts by First Nations to undertake public education
Proactive use of media by First Nations
Written documents of accord between First Nations and other local government entities
Opening of First Nation council meetings
Tangible benefits
COMMUNICATION ATTITUDES
Inhibiting attitudes:
Differences in time orientation for completion of treaty and towards vision for the future
Differences in attitudes towards purpose of treaties and towards existence of uniqueness of each First Nation
Fear of change/ abandonment of paternalism
Non-belief in own capacity/ability
Government protection of status quo
'Blaming' or 'getting a deal' rather than relationship
Viewing First Nations as unaccountable
Treaty as about social rather than economic
Competition and confrontation
Public attitudes that are about forgetting the past rather than remembering in order to change.
An attitude of 'no responsibility to consult' on the part of businesses and corporations.
Enhancing attitudes:
Attitude of persistence on part of First Nation
Mutual regard of flexibility as important
Value having consolidated vision
See as Nation building
Broad view of who the treaty serves
Citizen driven rather than leadership driven
Positive outlook towards unknown eventual outcomes
Recognize importance of working together despite what any treaty goals or outcomes may be.
Inclusiveness towards other aboriginal persons residing within First Nation traditional territory
Focus on future, long-term time orientation
Belief in negotiation as the appropriate means of settlement process
Inclusiveness of all residents in region
Open-mindedness; courage and willingness
Inclusiveness on a regional rather than community basis
Long-term commitment to relationship building on the part of businesses and institutions
Personal attitudes of support and commitment from non-First Nation community members
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Reference:
Spiritlink Communications (2006, September 20). The New Relationship Conference: Working Effectively with Aboriginal Peoples. Retrieved December 23, 2006 from http://www.ictinc.ca