Harbison: Consensus is Not Agreement

Jim Harbison

All you need to do is look at how City Councils conduct business and enact policies to understand that the consent of the governed is no longer an operative characteristic of local governments. No longer are the voices of the majority heard to create policies that impact all of the residents. A few recent examples around the State of New Mexico include ordinances on red-light cameras, cellphones, recycling, and in Las Cruces, the Sustainability Plan. There was never a referendum from the “people” to demand any these policies be enacted. In fact, there was much opposition.

Did the public demand referendums to impose these new constraints on our liberties? No, they were developed by consensus of small advocacy groups and bureaucratic agencies like Metropolitan Planning Organizations, public/private partnerships, planning & zoning groups, and local special interest groups. There is no government accountability when policy is developed by group “consensus” and our private property rights are eroded and individual freedoms encroached. American tradition and founding principles established that the process for deciding public policy involved private citizens requesting their elected official to adopt a particular policy, followed by vigorous public debate by both those who favored and opposed the proposal.

This is the referendum process by which the governed give their consent to be governed and the only way to insure government accountability to the people. Referendums constrain the liberal elites and stifle their activities to socially redesign America and our communities. In order to implement social re-engineering changes government bodies at all levels have switched to using a new collaborative decision process called “consensus.” Unlike traditional decision making processes consensus is not agreement; it is the absence of expressed disagreement. Usually consensus involves projects that are sponsored or funded by Government grants. Government funding is frequently provided to pay organizations like the American Planning Association, Sustainable Resource Center, and other government or quasi-governmental bureaucracies to develop policies, procedures, and implementation strategies, including facilitation, at the local level.

Focus or stakeholder groups, rather than elected officials, are convened to discuss the issue “du jour” to achieve consensus. Discussions are usually led by a professional or well trained facilitator. Facilitators are trained to frame questions or statements in such bland and general ways that no reasonable person could object. Questions like; do you want to preserve the environment, do you want clean safe drinking water, do you want affordable energy?

The facilitator declares when consensus has been reached in response to one or more questions. Consensus is sometimes declared despite expressed objection or opposition, especially if the objector can be discredited or marginalized. Sound familiar? Discussions are orchestrated to preclude controversial issues and disagreement and any opposition is marginalized by using general non-specific statements. Consensus does not allow for alternative solutions discussion. The results of these facilitated sessions are reported to the governing body who then votes on the proposed ordinance based on this consensus. This by-passes the traditional discussion process and elected officials are able to avoid a public debate on the issue and more importantly avoid a public vote which would become part of the public record.

This process is effective in protecting the locally elected officials from the referendum process and insuring the government sanctioned or sponsored policy is implemented. It enables locally elected officials to adopt policies that would otherwise be rejected by the public to deny or impose severe restriction on private property rights. Advocacy group consensus does not mean general public agreement. We are not being governed by referendums of the public but by consensus of the unelected and this is a dangerous threat to our liberties.

Harbison: Consensus is Not Agreement