RE: Activists and the public

[Doug Mercer <dmercer@u.washington.edu>]

Rich makes the great observation that people may feel they are impacted by a decision but chose to influence the process in ways other than showing up at public meetings, or otherwise get involved in outreach activities. 

I asked a question on a survey I conducted about the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, an 890 square mile facility managed by the DOE. The site has some badly contaminated areas it is trying to clean up. I asked stakeholders who at some time in the past had contacted INEEL why they didn't go to public meetings. Besides the expected answers - too busy, don't know enough - the next biggest reasons given were that they relied on citizens groups and elected representatives to represent their concerns. Those two reasons tied, both with 25% of the respondents answering affirmatively. 

Clearly, people are seeking efficient ways to influence agency actions. I think increasingly, people see citizens groups as more effectively representing their interests than through the traditional electoral process. We live in a specialized society, and citizens are willing to pay citizen experts watch out for their interests. The trend is not all good or bad. Its great that  citizens are figuring out ways to make agencies - not dirctly accountable through the electoral process - responsive to their needs. But it is a bit scary that this trend could amplify economic inequalities endemic in our country. 

I also asked people to rate the desireability of four different models for making decisions. They chose between a proxy for the current system, direct democracy that would include more intiative-like ballots on major policy issues, a science-technocrat driven process, and a system where non-governmental organizations, such as a citizen advisory board, would have a formal power-sharing role in a scientific decision process. The last two tied for first. Our current system and direct democracy were far behind. People around INEEL like the idea of a more formal role for citizen-experts in decision processes, but they do not trust a mass vote.