Putting the "Civil" in Civil Service
A local government whose tone and conduct are civil contributes to a healthy democracy. Participants who are civil are polite, courteous, respectful, honest, and reasonable. This behavior — both in public forums and behind closed doors — is important because it creates an environment that is open, fair, and considerate to everyone, especially those with whom public officials may disagree.
Pros and cons of requiring civility from the public
Which is a higher priority during a public forum: residents’ right to free expression or the courtesy of respectful speech? Both of these values represent positive aspects of democracy — but they can sometimes be in competition with each other.
If a meeting is disrupted by high emotions and harsh words from a resident who is in attendance, some government officials may believe that such a lack of civility needs to be curbed. Perhaps they prize self-control over self-expression since compromise and progress cannot be achieved without measured and respectful communication. If you work in a public arena, you have likely seen a meeting agenda derailed by raised voices or sharp words. Therefore, some public leaders may believe that creating guidelines for how attendees should conduct themselves is necessary to help meetings remain calm, respectful, and productive.
However, we must remember that requirements around civility have been used throughout history to silence residents whose rights were being denied or oppressed. If a resident's rights are on the line, it is reasonable for them to express anger, sadness, or other emotions that may fall beyond the boundaries of “civility.” At their worst, rules enforcing civility in community hearings have been used to silence detractors, remove critics, and otherwise undermine the democratic process. Therefore, it’s reasonable to approach any discussion of civility with some caution.
What’s important to remember is that disagreement does not necessarily mean dysfunction. Any group with diverse opinions and experiences is likely to disagree with one another, and this is a hopeful sign of a free society and an engaged community. As people articulate their different perspectives, public officials have an opportunity to gain a better understanding of their community’s needs and of the problems they are trying to solve. Listening to dissenting viewpoints can even uncover biases in our thinking and encourage more creative solutions to problems that affect multiple populations.
Use good judgment as you consider your specific community. If you’re thinking of regulating people’s speech or conduct at public meetings — perhaps because you’ve had an ongoing issue with interruption, insults, or even threats, and you want to create a culture where people can disagree more productively — take a moment to notice which people are creating a stir and around which issues. Do they feel the need to escalate their behavior because their concerns are being ignored or sidelined? Have there been adequate attempts to meet those people’s needs? Have their comments been dismissed because they are “uncivil”?
While democracy cannot function if there is a total lack of civility, requiring and enforcing civility can also reinforce existing power dynamics. It’s better to start with rules designed to ensure that everyone’s views are heard and considered, rather than rules restricting people’s expression.
Achieving civility through a code of conduct
One way public managers can support civility among the governing body and their community is by establishing ground rules for public assemblies. This could look like a collection of shared values or guiding principles that the presiding official reviews before each meeting. For example, the city of Pleasanton, California, developed a “Community of Character” program, centering on integrity, honesty, responsibility, respect, compassion, and self-discipline. At the beginning of each council meeting, the mayor points to a plaque listing these qualities and says, “This forum is not a place to attack neighbors or each other. With self-discipline and respect, keep to your five minutes of time to speak.”
Another option is to create a formal list of rules or guidelines for meetings. This allows your governing body to set the expectation that attendees should not applaud, boo, or make remarks about other people’s testimonies, for example. Such a list could also include parameters for city officials’ behavior, ensuring that they listen respectfully to each testimony and model civility in their treatment of one another.
Encouraging civility by setting a good example
In many cases, public managers can ensure civil conduct at public meetings by making sure that public officials model the kinds of behavior they want their wider community to embrace. Here are some topics you might consider discussing with your colleagues as you work toward creating a culture of civility:
- Ways the presiding official can set the tone for public meetings.
- How to embrace dissension as a civic right and value diverse viewpoints.
- How to ensure that community members have adequate time to make comments.
- Kinds of body language public officials can adopt to help members of the public feel heard and respected.
- How public officials can model civility for the public by:
- Being respectful to one another.
- Actively listening to others.
- Paraphrasing what has been shared.
- Giving full attention to those who are speaking.
- Refraining from interrupting others.
Sources: