Examples of Consensus Processes in State Government
The Sensible Transportation Policy Act (23 M.R.S.A. 73),
passed in 1991 by state referendum and now known as the STPA,
required early public involvement in transportation planning.
MDOT established seven regionally based volunteer groups called
Regional Transportation Advisory Committees (RTAC’s).
These groups were charged with the task of giving MDOT advice
on transportation plans using the consensus process.
Stakeholder Groups:
The Transportation Policy Advisory Committee identified five
basic types of stakeholder groups, which can be broadly categorized
as follows:
- Business/Commercial
- Municipal Offices/Planners
- Environmental/Land Use
- Alternative modes
- General Public
Processes:
The Maine Department of Transportation decided to use a consensus-building
process to develop the rule for the STPA because the referendum
had generated a large amount of controversy, and because the
STPA law encouraged “ongoing public involvement.”
To advance with a “majority rules” approach to
developing the rule would have been even more divisive to
the many stakeholder groups with overlapping policy goals.
MDOT chartered a steering committee called the Transportation
Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC). This committee consisted
of key participants in the STPA referendum who would devise
a rule to implement the STPA. This included the basic groundwork
for the development of the RTACs. The MDOT hired an outside
facilitator for this purpose.
The TPAC group was composed of the key stakeholders, many
of whom had vigorously participated in the referendum from
opposing points of view. For example, the TPAC had members
from the Natural Resources Council of Maine (favoring the
referendum) as well as the Associated Constructors of Maine
(opposing the referendum). About sixty stakeholder groups,
as well as individual members of the public representing different
views, were invited to work with the MDOT. From there, MDOT
worked at determining how to best incorporate public input
into the transportation plan.
Once the stakeholder groups were determined by TPAC, the
MDOT created eight RTACs, consisting of 15-21 members chosen
from the five basic groups. After membership positions were
filled, MDOT conducted a training sessions for all 180 RTAC
volunteers. This seminar exposed the members to use of the
consensus process and group dynamics/processes. After training
was complete, the members set up these committees in their
own regions. Relying on the group processes training and guidelines
established by the TPAC, each RTAC elected a chairman and
set up their own ground rules. Their objective is to provide
MDOT with advice on regional priorities and transportation
goals for their respective regions. Consensus was given as
a requirement.
The facilitator role in the RTACs is shared between the Regional
Planning Commission staff, MDOT staff, and the RTAC chair,
depending on the topic. For technical topics, generally, the
regional staff and/or the MDOT staff facilitates. After the
technical presentation was made, the chair would facilitate
the group discussion process, seeking consensus on the matter
at hand. The following decisions were made by consensus:
- Election of Chair (by acclamation)
- Role of the facilitators (reviewed by topic)
- Ground rules (revisited yearly)
The RTACs address not only significant highway project issues,
but also those pertaining to land use goals and needs, environmental
concerns, alternative transportation options, demand management,
social and economic implications, improvement priorities,
and long-term planning. The goal is to tap into public interest
to find creative and inventive solutions for transportation
issues.
Timing:
- 1985: The Maine Turnpike Authority proposes a $100 million
project to widen a 30-mile section of the Maine Turnpike.
- November 1990: Campaign for Sensible Transportation collects
nearly 80,000 signatures for a ballot referendum to halt
the widening and establish a better transportation decision
making policy.
- November 1991: The question, “Do you favor the
changes in Maine law concerning the de-authorizing of the
Maine Turnpike and establishing transportation policy proposed
by citizen petition?” is on the ballot. It passes
by a 59%-41% margin, despite very heavy publicity against
it by the Vote No on #1 Coalition.
- January 1992: MDOT begins to write the regulations for
the STPA.
- April 1992: MDOT initiates a consensus-building process
to negotiate the rule. This becomes the Transportation Policy
Advisory Committee.
- September 1992: TPAC members agree to a draft rule to
administer the STPA.
- December 1992: MDOT adopts the rule proposed by the TPAC,
establishing the RTACs.
- Present: RTACs continue to meet on a monthly basis and
advise MDOT policy.
Results:
The rule developed by the TPAC remains in place, with only
one amendment since 1991.
The RTACs meet on a monthly basis and advise the MDOT on
transportation policy issues. The RTAC system continues to
be widely hailed as an example of government-citizen cooperation.
Lessons:
The RTAC dynamics varied greatly between regions. A key challenge
was maintaining an ongoing program as new people came on board
when experienced members departed. Since the initial group
dynamics and consensus, ongoing training was spotty. Consensus,
however, continues to be held as the model to be used by RTAC’s.
Those involved recognized that complex decision-making requires
a considerable amount of time in order to do the process justice.
In administering the rule, there was perhaps too much of a
hurry in setting up the group, and the process was very much
rushed by the stakeholders involved. In all, the consensus
group was not very ad-hoc in nature. The result of this was
that the RTACs had a very rough time starting out, and interaction
between the committees and the MDOT was not very thought out.
Another challenge is the role of the regional committees
in the existing infrastructure of the MDOT. Before the Sensible
Transportation Act, planning required strong partnerships
between the MDOT and municipal governments. Regional committees
endeavor to bring the planning process closer to Maine citizens.
But where do the committees fit in this picture? Should they
take a proactive, or a reactive position in transportation
planning? That is, should they be involved in the development
of policy, or should they serve to simply approve policies
and projects that the MDOT proposes? This role is somewhat
ambiguous between regions.
Sources:
Thomas Reeves, Director of Legal Services (retired), Maine
Department of Transportation
Kathy Fuller, Deputy Director of Planning, Maine Department
of Transportation
Snyder, Mary Catherine. “Maine’s New Rules:
Open Rulemaking Process Results in Common-Sense Policy.”
Surface Transportation Policy Project Resource Guide.
Washington, D.C.: Surface Transportation Policy Project, 1993.
|
