Whenever we have a decision making situation we need to
beware of the influence of group think, and risky shift, also known as group polarisation,
because these can result in seriously flawed outcomes. The web can provide adequate overviews of group think, and
risky shift and group polarization for anyone curious about the meaning of
these terms. Once we understand and recognise that such psychological
effects occur we need to do some deep thinking about examples in our own shire,
and how might we develop strategies to improve.
Bringing more openness to the decision making is a good
first step to better decisions. Encouraging debate, with strongly argued
positions that allow the public to follow the development of the arguments through
to the decision made would be a good second step. Recognising that a majority vote
does not, of itself, provide the community with a sound democratic decision
would be a third. Democracy is only served if all the arguments are heard and
considered thoughtfully before the vote, and if councillors are sincere in
their representation of the people.
For example, few people should be comfortable with paying
for Sustainable Development Director, Ilya Hastings, to give professional
expertise to Council only to see his advice rejected without any explanation of
the arguments used by the councillors in order to devalue his advice and vote against
his recommendation. The public are left wondering whether our Sustainable
Development Director was just incompetent. Or whether the councillors had been
influenced strongly by factional interests that weren’t openly articulated, they
certainly weren’t reported to the public. Could our Council be under the
influence of Group Think?
Ilya Hastings advice was overruled, should we, with one community voice, “Ask Why?”
Might there be an in group and out group within our council?
There should not be such a situation in local government,
because we have a highly paid official, the CEO, who can advise and discuss the
conduct of councillors. His presence should avoid factions and ensure that
decisions emanate from well argued debate within the Council Chamber, not
factional agreements on voting made elsewhere.
Another example of paid advice being ignored; the planning for
Karridale, where the Strategic Planning Manager, Will Coogan, wrote that
development both sides of the highway could not be considered because it would
result in a MR style problem in years to come, and require a bypass. Council then
ignored that advice and approved a plan to develop both sides of the highway.
The public were left wondering why we pay for the planning department, and what
do the councillors know that the shire planning staff do not? If the councillors have approved a plan that will result in the need for a bypass in future years then we must again;
Ask why?
If the recording equipment within the new shire offices was
to be switched on we would have transcripts of the meetings where these
decisions were made, everyone could hear the debate. Although this would not
stop bad decisions being made it would allow post-decision discourse analysis
that would help us to improve the process by gaining more understanding of how
the decision was made. We would all be able to form informed opinions as to
whether the decision had been brought to Council by an in group, ready to vote
in an agreed way when they arrived, or whether we had observed democracy in action within the council chamber, as the arguments were presented and considered.
There is no substitute for having discussions recorded.
Parliament does it, Hansard transcripts are available on-line for any of us to
search and read three hours after a debate is finished.
Ask why?
Why does the State Government have a full transcript of
debates available for public scrutiny by any person anywhere in the world?
Because they feel it necessary to demonstrate democracy, to show us that
parliament can be rowdy and chaotic, arguments may not always seem logical to
everyone, but that they do argue. They do not walk into the House and just vote
without discussion and debate.
Anyone can look on-line and see what has been discussed
about Augusta Margaret River Shire. We can see what was said in the House, and
by Mr House, when a previous council attempted to curb the growth of absentee
house owners. In writing a history of the shire any researcher can use Hansard,
easily mining the text for pearls of wisdom relating to the failure of a shire
council desperate for reform here. Of course State Government is clearly polarised,
we expect Group Think and polarisation as we know there are political parties represented. In
Australia we are not supposed to have these party politics in local government. Our councillors are supposed to represent the people, not the political party they may or may not belong to. It is not currently possible to mine our local shire minutes for any pearls of wisdom, or even foolish nonsense, because nothing is recorded. Just the decision, and who voted in favour or against, absolutely no explanation of what arguments were presented, and no way of looking back to see how our councillors performed, no way of understanding why a course of action was decided upon.
We have an imperative to protect our way of life and
intangible cultural heritage and to make alteration and adjustments only when we have tried our best to understand the implications. If we appear to have a Council of two factions, both claiming to represent the people we must ask why?
If it is because they listen to the arguments and debate the issues and just genuinely disagree then OK, but if some of the democratic process has been avoided by cutting short discussion, arriving with minds that are not open to the views of others, then we must ask why.
Good leaders will always tell us why they are standing for office, and if their response reassures us that their values are our values, and we share their vision, then they may well be worthy of our vote.
Bad leaders may not be prepared to tell us honestly why they wish to hold office.
Authoritarians may explain what is going to happen, and then
tell us that they have the power and authority to make us comply.
Those in power may spend huge amounts of public funds explaining
how things are going to change.
The question that everyone should ask of the candidates standing for election to Council is why?
No comments:
Post a Comment