6 Chapter 6: Holding Policymakers Accountable through Active Citizen Participation

You have informed policymakers of an issue, explained its significance, and provided them with recommendations to address the identified issue. Now what? For most, political engagement begins and ends with voting. That may be great for determining who will make policy decisions on our behalf, but how do we ensure that they do so? Holding governmental policymakers accountable for policy actions requires an informed and engaged citizenry. Citizen participation can amplify citizens’ voices and ensure accountability. Accountability is the principle that government officials are answerable to the people for the decisions they make and actions they take (Nabatchi et al., 2015).

Citizen participation in the policy process is important to ensure a functioning democracy. Participation in the policy process ensures that citizens, individually and collectively, have a voice in matters that affect their lives. The public often plays a small, indirect role in the policy process, but this does not mean that this role is insignificant (Wu et al., 2018). Without citizen participation, we risk getting policies we do not agree with or that do not benefit us because others may have stronger influence on policymakers (Rinfret et al., 2018).

Citizen participation can serve democracy in several ways. First, participation can promote legitimacy of policy decisions by helping build trust between citizens and governments. Second, citizen participation can encourage transparency in the policy process. Transparency also aids trust in policy making. Third, citizen participation in the policy process encourages the consideration of diverse perspectives and ideas. The process provides an opportunity for policymakers to hear constituents who have different backgrounds and lived experiences. Participation promotes diversity and greater representation (Nabatchi et al., 2015). Finally, citizen participation is a means for holding policymakers accountable. Participation is a feedback mechanism allowing policymakers to understand citizen needs and thus make decisions reflective of citizen interests. Citizens can hold policymakers accountable by voting and by engaging and interacting with them directly by attending public meetings.

Voting

Voting is the cornerstone of a representative democracy. Citizens must decide the best ways to use the vote because voting itself is not enough (Carmichael & Hamilton, 1967). It is a fundamental right and the primary way in which most people participate in political and policy processes. Voting allows citizens to have a voice in decisions that affect them personally as well as their communities and the country. Voting can also be a tool used to hold policymakers accountable for their actions. For instance, citizens can vote elected officials out of office if the official’s performance is not satisfactory. Policymakers are accountable to the people they represent whether those people voted for them or not. Because policymakers are often concerned about losing office, they will likely work to serve the interests of their constituents if constituents use voting as an evaluation of their actions.

Engaging Policymakers in Legislative Hearings

Citizens can hold policymakers accountable by engaging with them directly to express views and make demands. Engagement sometimes requires participants to be educated on the issues. One way to engage policymakers is by attending hearings or other public meetings. Hearings and other meetings allow citizens to ask questions and voice concerns. Citizens can play active roles in matters of interest, especially when they are unhappy with decisions legislative bodies make. By being vocal on certain matters, citizens demand that policymakers be responsive to their needs. Active participation in the policy process allows citizens to stay informed about issues and decisions affecting them. Participation in hearings and meetings gives opportunities to meet and begin forging relationships with policymakers and other policy actors. Personal relations with different policy actors presents opportunities to meet with them and discuss issues directly. The relationships may also be helpful in influencing policy decision-making. To have effective, active participation, citizens must not only learn the policy process but also become educated on the issues, rules, procedures, and decorum related to hearings and meetings.

Citizens who have been actively participating in the policy process by making policy recommendations should consider the following to hold policymakers accountable:

• Maintain and expand your network;
• Share your policy recommendations and supporting data and evidence with multiple members individually and collectively;
• Follow up on the status of recommendations;
• Show up. Be an active voice on related issues;
• Keep a finger on the pulse of issues of interest and related solutions in other jurisdictions; and
• Once a policy recommendation is adopted, seek analytical and evaluative input to ensure effectiveness.

Concepts in Action

The West Lake Landfill is a 200-acre site located in Bridgeton, Missouri. The site was used as a limestone quarry between 1939 and 1985. At some point in the early 1950s, the local government began using parts of the site to landfill solid waste and construction debris. In 1973, some areas within the landfill were contaminated with radiological materials when soil containing uranium ore processing residues was used to cover the landfill (United States Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). The nuclear waste was remnant of the 1940s Manhattan Project (Salter, 2018). The Bridgeton Sanitary Landfill is also located on the site.

The now-closed Bridgeton Landfill is owned and managed by Bridgeton Landfill, LLC, which is a subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc. In late December 2010, Republic Services reported elevated temperatures on gas extraction wells. The landfill subsequently experienced a subsurface smoldering (fire) event evidenced by increased odors and leachate production (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, n.d.). Bridgeton residents met with St. Louis County officials on October 15, 2015, to discuss the situation. Residents expressed concerns that the smoldering could produce a high-temperature chemical reaction that could reach buried waste from the 1940s atomic bomb production. If this were to occur, toxic fumes and particulate matter could spread throughout the region. It was thought that the smoldering poisoned surrounding groundwater and vegetation. Some residents reported that their eyes burned and the smell induced vomiting (Rivas, 2015). Residents were concerned that local government officials were not doing enough to address the situation.

State and federal officials were involved in the situation. The then Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster sued Republic Services in 2015 for violations associated with the smoldering. Prior actions were taken by federal elected officials in February 2014. U.S. Senators Clair McCaskill and Roy Blunt and U.S. Representatives Ann Brooks and William Lacy Clay urged U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks to enlist the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to lead waste cleanup efforts (Rivas, 2015). The EPA did not adhere to this suggestion. Ed Smith of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment voiced his displeasure with elected officials merely making a suggestion and stated that they need to demand the removal of waste, particularly given that the following year would be a presidential election year.

In 2018, the EPA announced a cleanup plan for the Westlake Landfill. The plan called for digging up nuclear waste buried near the underground smoldering and capping and monitoring the remaining waste (Salter, 2018). The cleanup was expected to take four years and cost $205 million.^[1] The cleanup project was delayed in March 2022 after the EPA found additional radiological material (Salter, 2022). It is expected that site remediation will be completed in March 2024. Many citizens expressed displeasure with the EPA, feeling that the agency was not being completely truthful.

Concluding Thoughts

Citizen participation is an integral part of democratic life because it can increase effectiveness and provide government legitimacy (Fung, 2015). It is a critical aspect necessary for the identification of policy problems and formulation of solutions to them. Citizen participation can provide greater social change for a larger number of people, allow for a better understanding of what a policy is and the impacts it will have, be a way for policymakers to consider public reaction in decision-making, and place citizens in a position of power (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). An actively engaged citizenry can hold policymakers accountable not only for addressing policy issues but also for ensuring that the solutions have an impact. Furthermore, citizens can monitor policymakers’ decisions and actions to make sure their concerns, needs, and interests are incorporated into decision-making.

To be impactful and credible players in the policy game, citizens must learn the policy process. Understanding the process is critical for active and meaningful engagement. Citizens should have an understanding of the roles and positions of other policy actors. Citizens should also have a sound grasp on the policy issues of interests. This requires putting significant effort into defining policy problems and having an understanding of their causes and consequences. This allows the formulation of policy solutions that are intricately linked to the causes and effects of the problem. Policy process participants must be effective communicators of policy problems and solutions. Communication comes in a variety of forms, but policy memos and presentations at public meetings are thought to be effective means of influencing policymakers and other policy actors. Ultimately, direct interaction with policymakers can promote accountability, particularly when citizens are actively engaged in the policy process. In the end, citizens may not win the policy game, but their efforts in playing will not go unnoticed.

Discussion Questions

1. Determine when your local legislative body meets. Identify the process for getting on the agenda to speak.
2. When is your state legislature in session? What is the process for getting on a committee meeting agenda?
3. What groups advocate for issues or causes you are interested in? How can you get involved?
4. What are other ways besides voting and participating in meetings can citizens influence policy decision-making?

Skill Development

Attend or watch a meeting of your local council, state legislature, or U.S. Congress.

Address the following:

1. Who is responsible for managing the meeting?
2. Are there apparent formal processes for conducting the meeting? If so, describe the processes.
3. Is there a formal written agenda? What topics are on the agenda?
4. What policy actors are involved in the meeting? What issues are they concerned with?

Resources

Vote Smart: https://justfacts.votesmart.org/

Open Secrets: www.opensecrets.org

GovTrack: https://www.govtrack.us/for-advocates

Congressional Record: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record

Freedom of Information Act: https://www.foia.gov/

State Freedom of Information Laws: https://www.nfoic.org/state-freedom-ofinformation-laws/

Five Ways to Holed Elected Officials Accountable: https://ignitenational.org/blog/5-ways-to-hold-elected-officials-accountable

Works Cited

Carmichael, S., & Hamilton, C. V. (1967). Black power: The politics of liberation in America. Vintage Books.

Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 513–522.

Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.

Nabatchi, T., Becker, J. A., & Leighninger, M. (2015). Using public participation to enhance citizen voice and promote accountability. In R. K. Christensen, & J. L. Perry (Eds.), Handbook of public administration. Jossey-Bass.

Rinfret, S. R., Scherberle, D., & Pautz, M. C. (2018). Public policy: A concise introduction. CQ Press.

Rivas, R. (2015, October 21). Citizens push for federal action at Bridgeton Landfill with radioactive waste. The St. Louis American. https://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/citizens-push-for-federal-action-atbridgeton-landfill-with-radioactive-waste/article_aba6aa90-7417-11e5-900b-8bad38a032ec.html

Salter, J. (2018, September 27). EPA announces cleanup plan for troubled Missouri landfill. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/7e8cbeff5baa4ebab15ffea698ccd620

Salter, J. (2022, March 18). Landfill cleanup slowed after more nuclear waste found. KSKD. https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/landfill-cleanup-slowed-after-more-nuclear-waste-found-ap/63-7ca9ce6a-2387-4e49-817d-edced92cf400

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Westlake Landfill Bridgeton, MO cleanup activities. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index. cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=0701039

Waste Management Program. Bridgeton Sanitary Landfill. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. https://dnr.mo.gov/waste-recycling/sites-regulated-facilities/ inactive-closed-solid-waste-landfills/bridgeton-sanitary

Wu, X., Ramesh, M., Howlett, M., & Fritzen, S. A. (2018). The public policy primer (2nd ed.). Routledge.