According to “Making Public Participation Legal” to the people public meetings “seem like a waste of time; there is little for them to learn, and little they can contribute” (4). Also, in “The Failure and the Promise of Public Participation” Mark Funkhouser states that it “seems clear that the game is rigged, the decisions already have been made, and they'll probably have to sit through hours of blather before they get their three minutes at the microphone” (para. 2). Why would anyone want to show up to a meeting that offers little participation and the decisions seem to have been made? It makes sense that in “Making Public Participation Legal” “the Knight Foundation’s “Soul of the Community” study, researchers found that attending a public meeting was more likely to reduce a person’s sense of efficacy and attachment to community than to increase it” (4). On top of public meetings that people feel are useless there are also outdated laws for public participation. According to “Making Public Participation Legal” “Most of the laws governing public participation are at least thirty years old; one of the most notorious, California’s Brown Act, just turned sixty. They predate the Internet as well as many innovations in face-to-face engagement” (4). A lot has changed in thirty years, so why haven’t the laws surrounding public participation changed as well? In “Making Public Participation Legal” it's unclear as to how public officials can communicate with citizens in regards to twitter, online forums, and the use of online tools to announce public meetings (4). With times changing so should the laws that way the efforts of local governments will actually be
According to “Making Public Participation Legal” to the people public meetings “seem like a waste of time; there is little for them to learn, and little they can contribute” (4). Also, in “The Failure and the Promise of Public Participation” Mark Funkhouser states that it “seems clear that the game is rigged, the decisions already have been made, and they'll probably have to sit through hours of blather before they get their three minutes at the microphone” (para. 2). Why would anyone want to show up to a meeting that offers little participation and the decisions seem to have been made? It makes sense that in “Making Public Participation Legal” “the Knight Foundation’s “Soul of the Community” study, researchers found that attending a public meeting was more likely to reduce a person’s sense of efficacy and attachment to community than to increase it” (4). On top of public meetings that people feel are useless there are also outdated laws for public participation. According to “Making Public Participation Legal” “Most of the laws governing public participation are at least thirty years old; one of the most notorious, California’s Brown Act, just turned sixty. They predate the Internet as well as many innovations in face-to-face engagement” (4). A lot has changed in thirty years, so why haven’t the laws surrounding public participation changed as well? In “Making Public Participation Legal” it's unclear as to how public officials can communicate with citizens in regards to twitter, online forums, and the use of online tools to announce public meetings (4). With times changing so should the laws that way the efforts of local governments will actually be