"traditional expectations of a public hearing"

This morning I read an article mentioned in a local blog. An excerpt from the actual article is pasted below. It seems that the DOT, for whatever reason, used what they called an 'open house' instead of a public hearing. I am not sure I would have used the term 'open house' to describe their method for collecting public input, but apparently they chose to only collect public comments in writing or dictated to a court reporter. The two arguments made against this method was that public comments weren't made in the presence of the public, and they weren't made directly to decision-makers.

The DOT method described does have one benefit to the public, that of being able to make comments when convenient, not necessarily when someone else has scheduled a meeting. But most public hearings provide that opportunity already by allowing for written comments. So, it sounds like the DOT thought they could just replace the hearing part of a public hearing with dictations made to a court reporter.

I am surprised that the DOT would think they could use a method which is clearly worse than a public hearing (Before this, I would have had a hard time coming up with something worse than a public hearing!). Of course the public comments should be public. It would also be pretty tough to argue that public comments are being taken seriously when the comments aren't made directly to decision-makers. (I can't even begin to say anything about the DOT guy's town hall comment.)

What bothers me the most about all is that the situation is causing the public hearing to be held up as the ideal for public participation despite the fact that we have come so far in developing much more participatory methods. We should be moving forward not backward when it comes to public participation.

Article Excerpt:

Public Hearings That Actually Include the Public

But Gonyo said the biggest victory came from Adelman’s finding that the DOT’s “open house” format doesn’t match “traditional expectations” of a public hearing.

“The format that WisDOT used did not permit members of the public to publicly express their views directly to WisDOT representatives or to other members of the public,” Adelman wrote. Instead, residents could “either dictate their comments in private to a court reporter or complete written comment forms.”

DOT’s Jambois said that “open houses actually provide a more welcoming way for the public to state their views,” especially when compared to this summer’s Town Hall meetings on health care. He said open houses are used across the country because they comply with Federal Highway Administration guidelines for public hearings.

Barr, the plaintiff’s attorney, said that the court should determine the definition of an adequate public hearing. “Just because the agency publishes guidelines for itself does not mean that those guidelines are legally adequate,” Barr said.