Page 115 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

Here it is relevant to make a distinction between town meetings and public hearings.

Although similar in purpose, and used to gather input from residents and constituents, public

hearings differ from town meetings, in several ways. Public hearings, used far more frequently

than town meetings, are fundamental to federal, state, and local budget and funding processes.

Often held as a requirement for funding approval, the general goal of public hearings is to gather

input from citizens and stakeholder groups yet input and participation comes with no assurance

that any of the comments will actually influence funding decisions and allocations. “Most public

meetings are not deliberative exchanges, and do not provide space for offering reasons for

contrasting positions and perspectives” (Williamson & Fung, 2004, p. 8).

Like public hearings, town meetings are usually open to all members of the community,

allow equal participation, and focus on decision-making. Public hearings have evolved over time

and in some ways are representative of the old-world colonial town meeting. The fundamental

difference between public hearings and town meetings is that town meeting participants contribute

to law making and the budget allocation of budget funds and resources (Williamson & Fung,

2004). Conversely, public hearings are typically a tool of bureaucracy used to gather input about

alternatives crafted by government officials and administrators (see my site). Because there is little

attempt to engage the public prior to scheduled public hearings, hearings frequently elicit a reactive

response, and typically provide little if any, opportunity to introduce new ideas for consideration.

As such, the public hearing represents a governmental approach that does little to advance public

involvement the way other forms of civic engagement and deliberative democracy allows.

96