New research show that inviting citizens to participate early in crafting their governments' budgets doesn't just live up to our democratic ideals; it saves lives:

Hai Guo, a professor of public budgeting and finance at Florida International University, set out to study the relationship between citizen participation in budgeting and measurable performance outcomes. His analysis relied on 2005 survey data on state transportation agencies and their civic engagement strategies (focus groups, for example) across four stages in the budget process.

Because Guo’s research focused solely on transportation agencies, he looked at transportation-related outcomes that governments value: fewer road-related fatalities and fewer poor-quality roads. He took into account external factors, such as level of funding, that might account for differences in fatality rates or road conditions. He found that not only is there an inverse relationship (more attempts at civic engagement mean fewer fatalities and low-quality roads), but that the relationship is statistically significant. In other words, the result isn’t due to chance.

More importantly, the association was strongest at the earliest stage in the process. “You need to engage them early. I think that’s the point we’re trying to make,” Guo said. Since the analysis was specific to state transportation departments, Guo says he'd like to see if the same pattern would emerge at other levels of government [J.B. Wogan, "Study: Citizen Budgeting Related to Better Outcomes," Governing, 2013.04.15].

Participatory budgeting was one of my favorite topics while I was studying information systems at DSU. Guo's research reinforces the idea that gathering citizen input in the basic business of spending tax dollars on public goods makes sense morally and practically. Governor Daugaard, it's time to fire up some budget survey widgets for 2014!

Given that the EPA finds 58.4% of rivers and streams on the Plains in poor condition, you should be at least a little concerned about water quality. For the last few years, East Dakota Water Development District has responded to that concern over the last few years with the Dakota Water Watch program. Program coordinator Jeremy Hinke says in a press release that in 2012, 50 active volunteers sampled 80 sites in 27 lakes and streams around eastern South Dakota for sediment and bacteria.

Now West Dakota Water Development District would like to join up and make this water quality monitoring program a statewide project. WDWDD is hosting an informational meeting on water monitoring on Wednesday, April 24th. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in Room 112 of the University Center Rapid City campus, 4300 Cheyenne Boulevard, south from I-90 Exit 61, in Rapid City. Dakota Water Watch specialist will tell folks about the relatively simple water monitoring methods used and look for volunteers to join the program and gather data on West River bodies of water.

I volunteered for this program for a few years on Lake Herman and enjoyed my monthly excursions into the lake. The work is relatively simple: you put on your waders or hop in your boat, measure water depth, check water clarity with a Secchi disk, look around the shore for wildlife and signs of possible pollution, and grab a couple water samples in a plastic bag to take to a local lab. It's not too tough, and it provides you, your neighbors, and policymakers with practical data about local water quality.

If you're interested in seeing just how good your West River water is, come to the West Dakota meeting April 24, 7:00 p.m., at the Rapid City University Center.

Black Hills residents are waging war against Powertech's water-contaminating uranium mine aspirations on at least three fronts.

Black Hills uranium mining booster Mark Hollenbeck got free shots before the House Ag and Natural Resources last week. Now he gets to make his Canadian employer's pitch in front of Senate Ag and Natural Resources tomorrow (Thursday, January 17) at 10:00 a.m. Naturally, the "Powertech update" agenda item appears to be another entirely one-sided sales pitch for the private foreign corporation that wants to contaminate billions of gallons of our water to dig up and export uranium in Custer and Fall River counties. If you want committee chair Shantel Krebs and her fellow committee members to benefit from the opinion of South Dakotans more interested in protecting natural resources than boosting Canadian profits, I encourage you to e-mail them your comments.

Hollenbeck's free shots before the Legislature are interesting, given that Powertech's boosters haven't floated any legislation yet this year. Powertech seems to be engaging in a full-court PR press to beat back any legislation that might hamper its destructive urges.

Enter the Clean Water Alliance, which is trying to resurrect legislation that would restore the regulatory authority Department of Environment and Natural Resources that our Powertech-friendly Legislature struck in 2011. The CWA is lobbying Senator Stanford Adelstein (R-32/Rapid City) to sponsor the legislation. Senator Adelstein has shown signs of striking a reasonable balance between mining and environmental interests in the Black Hills; he'd be a good person to bring this legislation to the Senate floor. Send Senator Adelstein an e-mail, and tell him to sign the sponsor line on the CWA's proposed uranium legislation.

The Clean Water Alliance and other concerned citizens are also battling Powertech's pollution potential at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The next big deadline is this Friday, January 18, by which date citizens wishing to speak at the hearing on Powertech's Groundwater Discharge Plan must submit formal letters requesting intervenor status. Some fellow Black Hills water-drinkers offer the following text you can send to DENR if you'd like to speak up against the idea of spraying toxic wastewater over a thousand acres of fire-prone Black Hills land and setting the Cheyenne River watershed aglow:

January 16, 2013

Matt Hicks
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ground Water Quality Program
Joe Foss Building
523 E. Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501

RE: Application for a Ground Water Discharge Plan filed by Powertech Uranium

Dear Mr. Hicks:

I am requesting that a contested case be initiated in the above matter and that I be admitted as an intervenor in the above application. I am concerned about this application because I am interested in water quality, land use, and wildlife in western South Dakota. I oppose this application.

I request that the deadline for filing petitions to initiate a contested case in this matter, currently scheduled for January 18, 2013, be extended until February 1, 2013, to allow full public participation, as the Notice was published during the holidays.

Please keep me informed of all proceedings and documents related to this application.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Signature
Print Name
Address (street, city, state)
Phone

cc: Powertech (USA) Inc.
c/o Richard Blubaugh
5575 DTC Parkway, Suite 140
Greenwood Village, CO. 80111

Note that if you want to obtain intervenor status before the DENR, you need to send copies of this letter to DENR and Powertech.

Letting Powertech deplete our water supply and squirt uranium out of the Black Hills is a big deal and deserves more public conversation than slick corporate slideshows. If you like the Black Hills and drinking water, you should help our legislators and regulators hear all sides of the issue.

And now in the local Tea Party irrelevance department, the Minnehaha County Republican Party shows its need for a coup by declaring the Chamber of Commerce a den of liberal iniquity. Rep. Manny Steele (R-12/Sioux Falls) and Minnehaha County GOP chair Lora Hubbel dismissed both the Chamber and the League of Women Voters as partisan, liberal organizations who favor liberal questioners and exclude conservative questioners at their legislative crackerbarrels. Steele vowed to host his own crackerbarrels where conservatives would be able to get a word in edgewise.

Steele and Hubbel have met with near universal ridicule. The state GOP has signaled its displeasure with Steele and Hubbel. Issued these speaking orders, the GOP blogissariat piles on. Meanwhile, the saner heads among local legislators all signal they'll be attending the traditional Chamber/LWV crackerbarrels, as they ought.

The Steele/Hubbel brand of conservatism leads to declaring everyone who allows disagreement with orthodoxy a traitor. By decrying forums where they face hard policy questions instead of the lollapalooza of John Birch chanting, Steele and Hubbel exhibit the craving for epistemic closure with which they will consign themselves and their party to irrelevance. Minnehaha GOP, for your own sake, check your by-laws, look into impeaching your chair... and in 2014, find some practical policy-makers to primary Manny Steele.

A commenter last week got me thinking about South Dakotans' political maturity and capability. We put three measures on our 2012 ballot by petition, then voted all three down. We killed two really bad ideas from the Governor and one kinda bad idea from a citizens' group. Our two referenda and one initiative promoted some worthwhile policy conversation among the electorate, more than we get from our discussion of candidates for office.

But initiative and referendum are costly, clunky, and untimely processes. Hundreds of people have to walk around neighborhoods, interrupt folks in their daily routines, and gather thousands of signatures to put questions on the ballot. We can't amend and improve those measures in a given election cycle; we can only vote Yes or No.

So maybe the time has come to update our initiative and referendum statutes to reflect the democratic and technological capabilities of the 21st century. Maybe the time has come to integrate direct democracy in our annual legislative process. Maybe the time has come to  express the constitutionally designated legislative power of the people in the Online People's Assembly. Here's my plan:

1. Abolish the South Dakota House of Representatives. (My blogospheric colleague Douglas Wiken will love that!)
2. Replace its authority with an Online People's Assembly, consisting of all South Dakota registered voters.
3. Continue to run bills normally through the South Dakota Senate.
4. All bills passing Senate committee and floor votes are posted to a special wiki on the Legislature's website for a 31-day period.
5. South Dakota citizens have two weeks to comment on Senate-approved bills.
6. Any Senate-approved bill receiving fewer than 16,000 unique views go to the Governor for signature or veto.
7. Any Senate-approved bill receiving more than 16,000 unique views is open for public amendment and debate.
8. Citizens may submit and vote on amendments to such pending legislation via the wiki.
9. Approved amendments are locked in at the end of Day 24 of the posting period.
10. Citizens vote online for the final form of the bill from Day 25 to Day 31.
11. Bills receiving a majority vote from wiki participants are considered approved by the Online People's Assembly.
12. Amended bills go to back to the Senate for a straight up-or-down reconciliation vote.
13. The President Pro-Tem of the Senate must introduce all citizen-approved bills by shouting, "OPA!"
14. The Governor may veto bills approved by the Online People's Assembly.

We can also include a mechanism for the Online People's Assembly to introduce bills during the first month of the legislative session. If you like initiative and referendum, you'll love the Online People's Assembly! (That means Dennis Daugaard will hate it... which makes me like it all the more.)

We have the technology to make a project like this work (as long as you don't put Jason Gant's people in charge of it). Legislators, I'm looking for a sponsor for this Constitutional amendment!

I've posted a new column at South Dakota Magazine on Initiated Measure 15. The extra-penny sales tax (or, as Steve Sibson would prefer I label it, the 180-million-dollar tax increase) continues to delay the completion of the ballot sitting on my desk. I'm still weighing the multi-faceted arguments for and against it.

One rather abstract argument I've heard is that taxing and budgeting by popular vote is a bad idea. Some IM15 opponents, in an apparent embrace of anti-democratic elitism, contend that the budget is strictly the purview of the Legislature and that we should not circumvent the wise decision-making of our reps in Pierre.

Practically, for 95% of voters, this argument seems like a non-starter. Most folks don't care about the process; they care about the direct costs and benefits of the tax. Show voters the last-minute, slap-dash budget process that harries our legislators after a long session of free drinks and buffets and debates over abortion, guns, astrology, and varmint hunting, and I don't think you'll convince them that the Legislature operates any more rationally than the ballot initiative.

One possible justification for the process argument arose at our dinner table last night. We were debating my sticking point on IM15, whether we can justify funding worthy programs with a regressive tax. I could vote for IM15 more easily if I could be assured that the Legislature would ease the regressive burden by repealing the sales tax on the salad I was enjoying and other groceries. In a normal legislative process, we could wheel and deal like that. We'd go through committees, we could amend the bill as good ideas come up, and we could trade votes and build coalitions to craft a total legislative package that would work well. In the initiative process, we get one bill, immutable language, and one up-or-down vote. If it isn't written right the first time, it goes down, and we don't get a chance to vote on an improved version until the next general election... assuming we can round up another 16,000 signatures to put it on the ballot.

Legislating by initiative is not easy. Initiatives leave out the opportunity for amendment and compromise. But there is such a thing as participatory budgeting, where citizens help craft public budgets. The Internet makes participatory budgeting doable, if we have faith that the people we trust to elect legislators can also be trusted to with decisions about how to spend their tax dollars.

Opponents to Initiated Measure 15 contend that the initiative process is too democratic, that budget decisions belong in the hands of the higher-ups, not the people. I contend that the initiative process is not democratic enough. The initiative empowers the people to exercise limited legislative powers to propose and enact legislation. We should use the Internet to expand those legislative powers to allow citizens to formally discuss and amend legislation before casting the final vote in November. Such a participatory process would allow those of us with concerns about IM15 to propose changes like exemptions on food or other necessities that could make the legislation more palatable to a majority of voters and more effective in serving the needs of South Dakota.

But again, that's a discussion of process, not the merits of IM15 itself.

In a sign that Madison's leaders may be coming to their senses, the Lake Area Improvement Corporation is finally putting together the Downtown Improvement Task Force:

Ashley Kenneth Allen is happy to announce that he will be representing this group's views and opinions on the new Downtown Improvement Taskforce led by the LAIC. We will be having a recruiting and kick-off meeting on Monday, October 22nd at 5 PM in the Madison Depot meeting room. Any individual interested in participating in Downtown Development and has 4-8 hours a month to volunteer is welcome to join us for our first official meeting. We will be establishing a committee of 8-10 individuals to work on initiatives to maintain and improve Downtown Madison. If you are interested, let us know [Citizens for Real Economic Development in Madison, Facebook post, October 9, 2012].

They've picked Ashley Kenneth Allen, and they are taking volunteers? It would appear the LAIC may be recognizing that Ashley and I are right about downtown development and citizen participation.

Alas, the LAIC is still lacking on the social media outreach side. There's no mention yet of the Downtown Improvement Task Force on the LAIC website. They haven't posted it to the Madison events calendar. But maybe LAIC exec Julie Gross knows she can count on Ashley on Facebook and Madison's most-read blog to get out the word.

Five weeks after local boosters proposed a downtown development task force to the Madison City Commission, four weeks after a group of citizens stepped forward to volunteer their services for that task force, and three weeks after the Lake Area Improvement Corporation wrote the mayor saying, "Let's do it!" the Madison City Commission has finally taken action on the proposal. They've passed the buck.

O.K., maybe that's not entirely fair. Monday night, the Madison City Commission acknowledged the LAIC's willingness and ability to manage such a task force and said, basically, o.k., fine, you do it.

Let's look at the LAIC letter that the commission sat on for three weeks. (I'd link to the PDF in the August 13 agenda packet, but the city deletes this useful public information from its website after four weeks.)

July 25, 2012

Dear Mayor Hexom,

At our recent Lake Area Improvement Corporation planning session, the board reviewed goals of the Forward Madison 2 initiative which was comprised of two components. The second component focuses on retail development and marketing. This includes working with local and regional retailers to encourage expansion into Madison and Lake County.

As you know, there have been numerous discussions about revitalizing downtown Madison. This will require time, commitment and the ability to involve a broad base of community leaders and citizens in the process. This is not an easy task, but the LAIC board feels confident we can lead the taskforce.

An undertaking of this magnitude will require appropriate funding and staff which we have in place. We are asking you and the city commissioners to give us your support for leading the taskforce. With a positive, cooperative and progressive attitude we will strive to ensure Downtown Madison grows and prospers.

Thank you for your consideration, please contact me if you have questions or need further clarification.

Kind regards,
(signed)
Julie Gross
Executive Director
Lake Area Improvement Corporation

I want to read in Gross's letter, as I did in statements from Gross and others at the July 16 commission meeting, significant changes from past LAIC position and practice.  First, we get the clear signal that our business leaders are ready to include retail development in their economic development efforts. The LAIC and city ordinance used to explicitly exclude retail recruitment from their purview, because Madison's business leaders felt Madison's retail sector was doing just fine. City ordinance still forbids the use of community development fund money for retail businesses (see Section 2-152, paragraph 2, Community Development Fund Eligibility Requirements). Madison's leaders are finally acknowledging the retail decline that has taken place right before their eyes for over 20 years. Accepting that you have a problem is the first step to a solution.

Gross's letter speaks of involving "a broad base of community leaders and citizens." Broad, open participation has previously meant open to those who write broad checks. And as a quasi-public/private organization, the LAIC still keeps its meetings and minutes and documents under wraps, away from public accountability. I remain suspicious of the city's decision to move the downtown development task force from its necessarily, statutorially public and accountable forum to the exclusive and secretive meeting table of the LAIC. We can only hope that Gross's letter signals a willingness to open the doors and recognize that downtown revitalization is not one of the topics that the LAIC has to keep secret.

The Yankton City Commission discussed retail development as well last Monday. Yankton's commissioners really like the idea of hiring an administrative assistant to the city manager who would focus on retail development and events planning. Madison doesn't have a city manager to administratively assist. Handing retail recruitment to the LAIC may fit most easily into Madison's current bureaucracy. But Yankton's model of bringing these economic development duties in-house, as Ashley Kenneth Allen proposed at the July 16 Madison City Commission meeting, better guarantees direct public accountability.

Whether the downtown development project is run from an office in City Hall or down at the LAIC/CHamber depot, Gross's letter recognizes the need to invest significant resources in downtown revitalization. The LAIC appears willing to spend its significant Forward Madison 2 funds on this project. That's encouraging.

The only question I raise here pertains to Gross's statement that the LAIC has in place the necessary funding and staff. If the LAIC is going to follow the official Main Street program (the LAIC letter doesn't mention that program, but let's not forget it! Main Street is the obvious, road-tested template for exactly what Madison wants to do!), that program will likely need a full-time coordinator. The LAIC has two staff members, Julie Gross and Kari Blom. They're great, but unless the LAIC is about to drop some other function and make Main Street its sole focus, their plates are full. The LAIC should support investing a big portion of its Forward Madison 2 dollars in a full-time downtown development coordinator to facilitate community conversations, manage the emerging plans, and make things happen.

I want to believe that the LAIC can make downtown development work. As I said last month, a task force led by Julie Gross and the LAIC board may be the best route we can hope for in the Madison context to achieve our common downtown goals.

But now let's judge by action. Let's see whom the LAIC names to the downtown development task force. Let's see how much effort the LAIC makes to engage the public in a real information-seeking, consensus-building, problem-solving conversation, not just a hierarchical ego-stroking marketing pitch for some card-table mafia's not-so-hot idea. Let's see democracy driving our dollars, not dollars driving our democracy.