CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

There are many means by which citizen participation can be built into the administrative process of government. These range from opinion sampling and surveys to the use of independent boards with defined membership and responsibilities. A review of pertinent legislation and regulations shows that four basic mechanisms are required more often than others: advisory boards, planning boards with clearly defined authority, the use of published materials to secure public comment, and public meetings and hearings. Frequently combinations of two or more of these mechanisms are required or emphasized.

Advisory committees and planning boards are usually composed of citizens representing a defined group or groups of citizens. In the regulations summarized in this booklet, requirements range from "broadly representative" to rather detailed identification of the interests to be represented. When requirements for the composition of the advisory committee or planning boards have been determined, a procedure for selecting members is needed. While some program requirements provide clear, specific direction, often the requirements are general. The procedure for securing names of nominees and making appointments is vital for public officials with appointment authority. Frequently names are proposed by individual citizens and various civic and special interest organizations. It is important in this process to assure that a variety of points of view, especially those of the groups impacted by the programs or policies being developed, are represented. Often, to assure good representation, special consideration must be given to the needs of particular representatives--such as transportation for elderly and handicapped, child care for parents, and time factors related to travel problems, student schedules, etc.

The actual work of either an advisory committee or a planning board begins with a briefing on the back

ground of the program to date, an explanation of constraints, such as time (application deadlines), fiscal considerations, and other factors. A discussion of the perceived alternatives and the establishment of operational procedures are also necessary. The board or committee itself, in its discussions and deliberations, may generate new ideas and alternatives to be considered. To be of greatest value, they should be encouraged to do so.

While there are numerous similarities between advisory committees and planning boards, the differences are significant. The scope of advisory committee responsibility can be broad, as suggested in the list of key points for consideration which appears later in this chapter. Generally, every advisory group has several options, including proposing a course of action, or commenting on proposals submitted to it. Final decisions, however, are not theirs to make. An advisory committee may influence policy decisions, but does not make them. It may review resumes and recommend applicants for a staff job, but it does not control final selection. An advisory group can express its priorities, but does not determine the final ordering of tasks. It behooves decision makers to give careful consideration and thoughtful attention to the advice of such groups. The weight of their advice is often a reflection of the care and thoroughness of their work. Unlike a planning board, they have the option of proposing alternative courses of action, or majority and minority reports. These options should be a last recourse, and generally an advisory committee should seek resolution of differences so that a single course of action or policy can be recommended which best meets the needs of the population to be served, as well as those of the larger community. An effective advisory committee will usually need assistance in securing the information needed to generate informed and valid recommendations. The extent and type of this assistance depends largely on the nature and complexity of the issues and programs. This assistance can be secured from such sources as paid or volunteer consultants (including members of the community who have awareness and expertise), staff assigned to the project, and staff assigned specifically to support the committee's work.

In contrast to advisory committees, planning boards generally exercise greater authority. Such authority ranges from requiring several agencies to reconcile differences before a proposal is approved, to inclusion or exclusion of particular activities in a plan. Indeed, under existing laws and regulations, certain planning agencies have clear authority to approve or disapprove proposals within their assigned area. This authority is usually defined in detail in legislation, and frequently, there are clearly defined provisions regarding size, composition and procedure for their establishment. In some cases, planning is established as one of several functions of these agencies, while in other cases they may be limited to deal only with planning issues.

The extent of responsibility of planning boards in planning and program implementation is illustrated in three planning groups currently operating or being formed: Area Agencies on Aging, Health Systems Agencies, and Community Action Agencies. Membership requirements for the governing bodies of each