As we kick off the school year (and the election cycle), I thought these two blog posts (1-5 and 6-10) were quite interesting. Here are the top 10 things that public officials do that erode the public trust in them courtesy of the Blog for Building Dialogue. And do note the lovely shout out to the Marquette Law Poll as an example (in number 7) that the public really does want to be informed in a meaningful way. (Tip of the hat to my colleague Natalie Fleury)
- Failure to adequately engage
- ”Window dressing” engagement
- Ineffective outreach: Even when the effort to engage is sincere, failure to effectively invite the public into dialogue erodes trust. These failures include such things as scheduling public input on school issues at times when most parents can’t attend, using small signs and posted notices not placed where the public is likely to see them, and choosing meeting places not accessible by public transit. This problem is addressed humorously and well in this Ted Talk by Dave Meslin.
- Failure to report back
- “Punting”, particularly to a committee.
- Presenting false choices: Presenting limited “either/or” choices– particularly when the “options” are overstated or when neither is of much interest to the public — while ignoring or limiting discussion of other options that are available, inevitably leads to an erosion of trust.
- Misleading statistics: I recently heard a local elected official quote an inflammatory statistic without any context and then declare “Now that’s reality!” Actually numbers devoid of context and without any explanation of how they were calculated (starting point, end points, methodology, exclusions, etc.) are pretty much meaningless. And most of the public knows that. The public continues to be interested though in information that is fairly presented as shown by the success of the Marquette Law Poll.
- Saying one thing and doing another
- Dismissing portions of the public
- Grandstanding
I believe the disconnection between public officials and the community is growing. The officials may feel the public is not engaged or knowledgeable of the issues and I believe the public feel the officials are not representing them or doing the job they are supposed to do. The public may feel they have little or no control of what the public officials do. They may also feel no matter what they do to engage makes no difference in influencing the public officials. This is a circle that will not end until both sides decide to create the trust through meaningful dialog and communication with each other. It is the duty of the public officials to properly represent their community and it the public’s duty to talk with their officials to create trust.