The Pros and Cons of Public Comment

For better or for worse, public meetings are the backbone of civic engagement. They give residents like the chance to share their thoughts, influence decisions, and shape the future of their community. But the reality is that they don’t always reflect the whole community.

Typically, the people who show up are the "chronically engaged." They’re civically minded, and well organized, often referred to as the usual suspects. Decision-makers tend hear from these same passionate voices over and over again, which can create a distorted picture of what the larger community actually wants. Keep in mind human psychology and the negative bias. Anger and fear are powerful motivators. These emotions speak louder than contentment, so leaders are way more likely to hear from those who oppose a project than from those who support it, or those who are simply content.

When I was a city councilor, I always wondered who wasn’t speaking up at public meetings. Truthfully, the barriers to participation are real. Historically excluded groups like women, people of color, immigrants have the right to participate, but they don’t always use their voice in these spaces. And much of it has to do with public speaking. Which feels natural for some, but for others, it’s quite intimidating.

Of course, there are always exceptions, but I am speaking in generalities, which are backed up by research and data. Take gender, for example. Linguist Deborah Tannen noted that in the west, men often engage in what she calls "report talk.” This a one-way, fact-based style used to give information and assert dominance. Conveniently, that is structurally how public comment works. Public comment is a one-way vehicle for giving information, void of any engagement or dialog.

However, women tend to use "rapport talk," a conversational style focused on building relationships and finding common ground. These different styles are learned early in life, and girls and boys are either rewarded or punished by following the rules. Public meetings are set up for report talk, and rapport talk can be ineffective and out of place.

Now, layer onto this the experiences of immigrants and refugees from high-context cultures, in places across Asia and Africa, where communication is indirect, reverential, and collaborative. Where listening is a sign of respect, and public speaking isn’t about debating, or asserting dominance.

Here in the U.S., our approach values confidence and directness, qualities that can feel impolite or even inappropriate for those from high-context cultures. Again, this is how public comment is set up, and the result is that many voices remain silent.

Public comment isn’t the only way to be effective and influence decision makers, but building an alternate level of influence takes time. In most cases, public comment is where most people have their first interaction with local leaders.

So, it’s food for thought. If we want to make public participation truly inclusive, and public meetings reflective the whole community, not just the squeaky wheels, we might want to consider these structural norms. Maybe the answer isn’t that we invite more people up to the podium; maybe we need to reimagine the whole room.