Public engagement for COVID-19

It's ironic, in a way, that one of the COVID-19 viruses making the most headlines is the cancellation of, wait for it, the Ivy League postseason basketball tournament. I'm certainly happy to see my alma mater get to return to March Madness (the men's side), but that's not what got me interested in this.

It goes without saying that we are living in highly interesting times, and part of what interests me is the interaction government and other large institutions (schools, athletic conferences, festival organizers) are having with the public, perhaps more frequently than ever before, with extraordinary impact on daily life. Those interactions--praised in some quarters, criticized in others--have generally rested on what people in my field might call the "Inform" end of the Spectrum of Public Participation from the International Association for Public Participation. Some have suggested that "Inform" is not a form of participation on the public's part, compared to being "consulted," "involved," "collaborated" with, or "empowered" (the other levels of the spectrum). I would argue that governments and other institutions invariably make numerous decisions without consulting the public, sometimes for good reason (an emergency could be one), and the public does often participate by either asking questions or acquiescing to directions and taking whatever actions are recommended.

Of course, the challenge is to determine the best role for the public or level of participation and engagement for any given decision. A decision to raise taxes beyond a certain point, for example, often requires the approval of voters, while the design of a neighborhood park would benefit from public suggestions or a review of a few alternative designs.

In training sessions over the years, I have argued that the more of an impact a decision may have, the more the public should participate in or influence the decision. Again, a substantial tax increase for all has far-reaching and potentially long-lasting effects; a comprehensive plan governing the use of land across a city would be harder to articulate on a ballot but would still benefit from significant involvement from the population at large, with guidance from professional planners who help ensure the plan complies with legal requirements and the blessing of elected representatives given ample time to review the draft plan.

That brings us to COVID-19 and the numerous decisions from governing bodies and private entities alike, not least of which led to the cancellation of South by Southwest, with far-reaching impacts on many (including job loss) done in the justifiable name of health and safety. And it brings me back to the Ivy League Tournament, evidently the first such postseason college basketball tournament to be canceled (rather than playing in front of near-empty arenas).

Given the rapid negative reaction from multiple quarters to the Ivy League's decision, including a Change.org petition gaining steam, it makes me wonder whether "Inform" is really the best place on the spectrum for the public to be in COVID-19 related decisions. The millions of people telecommuting suggest that it is feasible to reach affected populations and gauge their opinions, positions, and interests fairly quickly prior to making a decision, and to be sure, there is evidence to suggest that major decisions like the one canceling SXSW included some of that input.

But I wonder if the next organization (a city, state, school, university, event promoter) could simply ask those planning to participate in or attend a given event what they think. "Given what you know now about COVID-19 and its impact on you and your loved ones, how likely are you still to attend our event?" "How likely would you be to participate in a sporting event with no fans?" "How likely are you to send your children to school or attend class yourself or report to work?"

To the protest that decisions about the health and well-being of the public should be left to experts, I answer with a qualified "yes." This isn't about putting all of these COVID-19 related decisions to a public vote or letting mob rule prevail. 21st century America is not ancient Greece, though there remain several American towns that use town meetings to give each resident a vote on the municipal budget. We should empower both our elected representatives and the employees they have entrusted to manage our communities and our country to make important decisions. That said, it is conceivable that the solicitation of input from those most impacted by these virus-related decisions could yield creative solutions not yet considered, ones that would produce fewer cries foul than the Ivy League's cancellation. Or it could, in fact, enable those leaders to obtain the political "cover" needed to make a tough decision to cancel a beloved event--confident that they consulted the most impacted stakeholders, listened to their concerns, and acted in what they believed was all of their best interest.

There is a telling line in the language of the Ivy League protest position: "We (the teams and players) feel the decision to cancel the tournament was made without enough serious consideration for the student-athletes and the investments that have been made up to this point in our season." An athletic conference is not a democracy, and the Ivy League is under no obligation to ask its athletes, or coaches, or fans, or sponsors what they think. Neither are schools, businesses, or families--but spouses and children like to be asked what they think before major decisions get made. At the root of so much of the world's conflict is the sense that a person or a group has that they are not being heard--and, by extension, that they are not being given the respect associated with having their feelings and thoughts matter.

I do not envy the numerous government officials and other decision-makers charged with navigating this unfathomable crisis. But I do encourage them to consider ways to consult those most impacted by their decisions, before making those decisions.