Public input increasingly scorned at ‘public’ hearings

The profound disrespect illustrated by "Hanohano-gate," where one legislator’s rude behavior made headlines, has triggered a more thoughtful discussion over what to expect of public officials.

Perhaps even more significant is the decline of respect for the public in so-called public hearings.

What is a public hearing? It is the exchange of written documents, but much more. It is the opportunity for a board, commission or legislative committee to grill agencies and hold them accountable, but much more. It is a chance for the media to observe what is said, but much more.

A public hearing is a public event, where citizens, students, residents, experts, advocates, researchers — all comers — can participate in democratic decision-making. It is the "we" in "We the people." It is an arena where, hopefully, there is dialogue, thoughtfulness, the exchange of ideas and the possibility that even the weakest or meekest among us might just influence public policy.

It is face to face. It is "please hear my voice." It is speaking truth to power. It is all of these, and more.

Recently, however, there has been a decline in these goals. One of the starkest and darkest turns away from the ideal of civic engagement is the practice among appointed boards and commissions to restrict oral testimony. You will be told you must sign up, cannot mention anything not already on the agenda, and must testify before you hear what agencies or members have to say.

You have two to three minutes to say your piece. It doesn’t matter if you have original information, research or a different way of looking at the topic or wisdom or experience. That annoying and disrespectful bell or buzzer will ring loudly in your ear, and you will be asked to move along.

There is unlimited time for members to ask questions, and hear from agencies or contractors. These interactions are to be encouraged.

But if the public wants to object to or disagree with this intra-agency discussion after the fact, forget it. You had your chance at the beginning of the meeting.

It is also rare to be able to see the documents or reports subject to discussion in advance of the meeting. There is a case for limited testimony for a controversial issue with dozens wanting their say. But for most meetings, sorry, your two minutes are up.

Our Legislature does allow testimony for each bill as it comes up. But this is not the case in the Senate when amended bills move to the Ways and Means (WAM) Committee. If a bill had been heard in a previous committee, it is OK for WAM to hold only decision-making; there is no opportunity to speak directly on amendments made earlier. You may submit written remarks, but the exchange of documents is not the same as a public hearing. Public participation, dialogue, engagement, etc., is removed. Citizens strain to hear what is said at the legislative table — more difficult when legislators forget to use microphones.

This situation is not about individual decision makers who have a genuine interest in hearing from, and working with, the public. It is about the "culture" of democracy, how we collectively accept a lower standard. Last fall’s special session devoted to marriage equality demonstrated a commitment among legislators to hear from the grassroots on a controversial issue. But this is not always the norm.

Is it time to re-evaluate public treatment and engagement in the process? Saving time for a board, commission or committee is not the highest goal. Sincere interest in citizen input is.