Civic Engagement
Transition Policy Committee Summary of Findings
Committee Name
Civic Engagement Committee
Committee Members
Elaine Almquist, Kenzie Ballard, Louisa Bissett, Chris Devers, Corey Donahue, Chris Dwan, Michèle Hansen, Ron Newman, Blair Read, Matthias Rudolf
Key themes and trends:
Current Situation
Somerville staff make efforts to foster active and sustained civic and community engagement with the aim to “include voices, ideas, and capacity of residents in the work of democratic governance” (CLGCE 6). Such meaningful civic engagement crucially depends on clarity about the goals and purpose of community processes that residents engage in, and on communication channels that are easy to find, navigate, and understand.
Somerville is doing a lot of things well, so we’re starting from a strong foundation that we should build upon. However, there is always room for improvement. In particular, residents complain about lack of information, transparency, and feedback, while City staff complain about “engagement fatigue” and that they are viewed as the ‘bad guy.’
We believe that the reasons for this have mainly to do with (1) the difficulty of locating and understanding relevant information, and (2) that the City’s engagement efforts rarely rise above the “consult” level on the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation Scale (cf. appendix). The engagement thus appears to be ceremonial rather than meaningful, and residents too often see a disconnect between their input and the ultimate decisions and products developed by the City.
Successes
The City is starting from a strong foundation for civic engagement. Residents have mentioned that they appreciate things like:
The City email newsletter.
Opportunities for direct input such as participatory budgeting.
There’s a tremendous amount of information on the City’s web sites, including a public calendar, information for new residents, and much more.
Neighborhood council negotiations with major developers, etc.
Equity efforts in particular are recognized and appreciated, including translating materials into multiple languages and outreach to different communities in various forms – hosting individual meetings, tabling at schools and public events, reaching out with leafleting, and striving to meet people where they are.
Frustrations
Overall, community outreach and civic engagement feel disorganized. Sometimes there’s a disconnect between the front-line work of City staff in their outreach to the public and confusion about what actually happens before and after meetings, as well as in decision making processes.
The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) describes five thresholds for public engagement: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower. There is a concern that too much outreach in Somerville is at the “consult” level, where the public does not feel that their feedback leads to the outcomes they want to see. An effectively-run government should make use of all five of these according to the principle that the higher the impact on the community the higher the degree of public participation (US-Ignite Civic Trust Guide 74). Thus, “inform” is an appropriate level of community engagement for projects such as tree-work or side-walk repair, while major initiatives – e.g. zoning overlays and neighborhood plans – should aspire to “collaborate” and “empower” levels.
Residents report a trust deficit in engagement processes and development process dysfunction.
Both residents and City staff have expressed frustration with the status quo approaches to community engagement. For example, processes are applied inconsistently; translations into other languages are not always available; and there are not always websites that people can refer to to get timely information about the status of particular projects. Additionally, there are unclear expectations and goals about community engagement for feedback, with too many “dog and pony shows” where information is presented to and feedback from the public is solicited, but there is no clear understanding about how resident feedback is taken into account. At times, City staff come across defensively in these community meetings.
For major projects, the City does things like hold community meetings, and post physical signage once the project has started. The Somervoice website is a step in the right direction, but should be available for all outreach projects, and maintained so that residents can readily access the information. Additionally, the signage posted at work sites is not adequate for explaining the full scope of these projects, and should link to a web page where people can get more real-time information.
311 is the City’s official mechanism for resident feedback, but people have reported mixed results with getting feedback about such reports. It might be worth considering making such reports public, since many of us have the same questions, and doing more with the aggregate information on the City’s open data portal. Also, there is confusion about how to route submitted reports, such as illegally parked cars, rats, etc, and whether these should go to 311 or the police non-emergency number; there are also cases where the “correct” page in the 311 app doesn’t actually exist, such as referring broken flex posts to Mobility, which doesn’t have a 311 page.
Structural constraints on soliciting and using feedback:
The Somerville Zoning Ordinance (SZO) prescribes planning processes that disincentivize and minimize community engagement. Particularly for larger developments, Somerville requires that zoning be approved before the development of a master plan (where community input is most easily and profitably realized) and Master Plans are contingent only on compliance with zoning and on Planning Board approval. The public meetings held in these contexts serve as window dressing in a process where decisions are made behind closed doors and without any form or civic accountability. Cambridge and other cities require a master plan be developed before zoning. This makes it much easier to realize community engagement at the “involve,” “collaborate,” and “empower” levels, depending on the size and scope of the project. (Cf. the Binney Street, Cambridge Crossing, and Trolley Square processes in Cambridge.)
The City has had a series of projects with major impacts in recent years: Union Square, Assembly Square, Arts at the Armory, the Public Safety Building proposal for 90 Washington Street, the Winter Hill School, and so on. From a civic engagement perspective, all of these have been problematic. The community process for the Somernova vote in June 2025, although flawed and not universally popular with residents, feels like the most successful of these efforts, and should therefore be a case study for how future major projects might be conducted. With USQ (formerly US2) in particular, an effort was made to set up the Union Square Neighborhood Council, and to get public feedback about how the community wanted the square to evolve, but the result has not lived up to expectations.
Residents, as well as City staff, have pointed to the inequitable tendencies of civic engagement, in particular to how much community outreach favors residents who have the time and means to get involved, and how historically underrepresented groups are often left out or not reached. The City should continually strive to ensure that communication, outreach, and engagement efforts reach all residents. There is no single way to accomplish this, and while we acknowledge the ongoing efforts by City staff to determine appropriate target groups by project and “meet people where they are,” we believe the City should look to lower barriers for participation.
Recommendations for action:
Priority Key
In this section, we have used a star system for ranking our recommendations:
★★★ High priority recommendations
★★ Medium priority recommendations
★ Low priority recommendations
We would like to see:
★★★ Consider the IAP2 engagement spectrum when seeking resident feedback. In some cases, such as snow emergencies, “consult” is fine, but after soliciting input from the public, the City should provide rationales with “yes/no/why” levels of feedback so that residents feel a shared sense of ownership over outcomes, and there is more transparency in how decisions are reached.
★★★ Lower barriers for participation, including giving people physical spaces and/or access to technology to meet virtually.
Physical community spaces: See “Long Term Recommendations,” item 1.
When considering lowering barriers, we also need to be mindful of the varying needs of different community members, including things like languages and accessibility.
★★★ A centralized, up-to-date communication strategy.
The City’s web presence is a critical measure that requires adequate funding. Somerville should secure funding to fully staff the Communications Department. See “Short-Term Recommendations,” item 4.
The City already has a comprehensive event calendar that includes state agency meetings (MassDOT et al) and allows community submissions with reasonable restrictions (no commercial, political, or illegal postings), but many residents are unaware this resource exists. It should be easily discoverable, and its community submission capability enhanced. These are comparatively easy fixes and should be implemented ASAP. See “Short-Term Recommendations,” item 1.
We believe that project signage should have a QR code that links to a webpage for that specific project where residents can get more information about that project, including timelines. Additionally, the pages linked to should include a mechanism for residents to submit feedback about these projects.
★★ Consider changing the format of community meetings (“Resistat”). Instead of having a series of department heads make a series of presentations, followed by a brief Q&A session, consider recording these department presentations in advance and making them available online, so that the in-person meeting can be a more dynamic interaction.
For public meetings, consider the needs of parents in particular. Can childcare be made available?
Community meetings should not be held in webinar mode since this does not allow residents to see who else is present or each other’s questions, making the meeting into a presentation instead of a community discussion.
★★ Consider offline ways to share information with the public.
Community bulletin boards are a great way to share flyers. Some already exist, in places like schools, libraries, public squares, coffee shops, and so on. We should consider expanding them to more places, such as installing them atop City-owned traffic control boxes, so that both the City and residents can share information.
The electronic e-ink boards that were formerly in areas including Union Square were an interesting experiment that should be revived, as this would provide a way to push out a message to many boards simultaneously — including in multiple languages.
The scrolling display board at the bank in Davis Square could be useful, too, but the information on this board is often outdated. If the City were to make use of electronic display boards, keeping them up to date is important.
★★ Encourage the formation of Neighborhood Councils and partner with existing ones to facilitate outreach and engagement. Neighborhood Councils are a great and not fully developed resource, and the city should offer support for establishing new Neighborhood Councils. While these make apparent sense in neighborhoods targeted for major development, they can be invaluable resources and partners in and for the Citycity’s outreach efforts. The Citycity should partner with neighborhood councils – to share ideas, help facilitate conversations, publicize meetings, make sure that residents are being reached – part of their standard operating procedure.
★ Consider partnering with PTAs at schools to distribute information in electronic newsletters & printed flyers that go out to students weekly.
Short term recommendations:
Foundation building - easy implementation, low cost
Improve Event Calendar Discoverability
Make existing comprehensive calendar prominent on homepage
Consider the relationship of the general event calendarand City’s meeting calendar.
Promote community submission process
Fix search function to make calendar (and everything else) easier to find
Consider email notifications for calendar subscriptions, and ensure calendar works well on mobile devices
Resource: Minimal; search replacement already priority
Formalize Neighborhood Council Liaison System
Replicate Union Square success: assign dedicated OSPCD staff to each neighborhood council
Establish regular meeting schedules
Document liaison responsibilities
Resource: Staff time; no new positions needed
Establish Proactive Notification System
Alert residents about water main breaks, road closures, construction detours
Don't wait for 311 calls—push information out
Use email, text alerts, targeted door hangers
Resource: Integration with existing 311 system
Consolidate Web Presence
Inconsistent appearance of websites; consider using matching page headers to designate official City websites. Compare with how the state of Massachusetts puts a banner on all of their sites, saying “An official website of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Here's how you know…”
Merge or clearly sunset SomervilleByDesign and SomerVoice into main city website
Make newsletter signup prominent with neighborhood/topic filtering
Maintain multilingual access throughout redesign; ensure mobile-responsive design from the start
Create specific project webpages that Add QR codes on project signage linking to specific project pages
Resource: Communications Department coordination
Reform Ward Meeting Format
Pre-meeting video briefings (translated) so in-person time focuses on dialogue
Include positive metrics alongside problem reports
Pilot poster session format
Resource: Staff time for video production; facilitation training
Medium term recommendations:
Structural improvements - require planning and coordination
Secure Website Funding and Full Communications Staffing
Budget for 10-year-overdue website overhaul
Full staffing for Communications Department (currently 2-2.5 of 3.5 positions)
Foundation for all other digital engagement improvements
Resource: CRITICAL - Budget allocation required
Publish Development Process Framework (SZO Reform)
Create Standard Operating Procedures showing how community input is used
Define engagement levels for different decision types (IAP2 Spectrum)
Address zoning-before-planning issue: research Cambridge's planning-first approach and adapt so Somerville does planning before zoning.
Build in clear timelines so residents know when input is most influential
Resource: Staff time for procedure development; potential consultant
Empower City Commissions
Clear policy influence pathways: require City Council to seek commission input before votes
Staff support for meeting logistics and research
Communication tools (email addresses, Zoom accounts, meeting rooms)
Annual commission reporting to Council and public
Resource: Staff time for liaison support; modest budget for supplies
Launch "Somerville 101" Civic Education Program
Citizen academy explaining government structure, how decisions are made, how to participate
Multiple formats: in-person sessions, online modules, video series in multiple languages
Partner with libraries, community organizations, schools
Include in welcome kits for new residents
Resource: Curriculum development; staff time for presentations
Cross-Jurisdictional Coordination
Liaise with state agency PIOs (MassDOT, MBTA, DCR)
Proactively share information about state projects through city channels
Create resident guide explaining which agency has jurisdiction over what
This is a long-term goal, but most of the onus is on the state, not the city, so we do need to work to establish these points of contact at the state, but it may take time for this to come to fruition.
Resource: Staff time for coordination; existing communication channels
Long term recommendations:
Strategic infrastructure - require significant investment
Physical Community Spaces
Davis Square meeting center: grant to third-party facility for ADA-compliant space
Reopen former SCAT building in Union Square
Sponsor a series of citywide “third space” community centers that can be used for various purposes, including programming that encourages people to engage with these places.
The libraries are great, but there are only three of them.
Dojo at Somernova, and Triangle Coffee Bar at Brickbottom, are good examples of privately owned spaces that are available to the public.
Expand public use of Somerville High School facilities, particularly the gymnasium. Similarly, SHS could be used for things like adult continuing education classes, job training classes, etc.
Resource: Significant capital investment; operational costs
Dedicated Civic Engagement Coordinator
Coordinate engagement across departments
Train staff in best practices
Track initiatives and conduct evaluations (test-and-learn model)
Regular reporting to Mayor and public on engagement metrics
Resource: New position—salary and operations budget
Expand Participatory Budgeting Program
Increase dollar amount allocated through participatory process
Expand participation through marketing and accessibility improvements
Learn from existing program to identify barriers
Consider expanding beyond capital projects
Resource: Expanded budget allocation; staff time for facilitation
Enhanced Metrics Dashboard
Public-facing dashboard with engagement metrics AND positive city service data
Library checkouts, recreation enrollment, park usage, housing units created
Residents have expressed a desire to see a dashboard for the schools and other city properties as well, including status of the facilities such as schools, public pools, and libraries
Track task force recommendation implementation status
Regular updates and annual reporting
Resource: Data collection and visualization systems; ongoing maintenance
Comprehensive Mobile App (Phase 2)
Only after website modernization complete
Location-based features: nearby projects, meetings, permits
Event notifications with calendar integration
311 integration, meeting videos on demand
Ensure doesn't create new digital divide
Resource: Significant IT investment; ongoing maintenance; 18-24 month timeline
Appendix
Conclusion
We want to make sure that this report doesn’t just die in a cabinet somewhere, but rather that the ideas summarized here get realized by the next administration. The City is starting from a strong foundation when it comes to civic engagement, but there is room to improve. Our committee has endeavoured to identify initiatives that we think would be beneficial to the community. We recognize that there are always obstacles to delivering. Implementing the ideas expressed in this document would be of benefit to the people who live, work, and play in Somerville.
Research Methodology
Research Methodology
Community Input Sources:
Community Engagement Surveys: 109 responses analyzed across all transition team policy committees
December 9, 2025 Staff Meeting: Direct engagement with OSPCD (Mobility, Planning & Zoning, Public Space & Urban Forestry), SomerViva, Communications & Community Engagement, and 311 Constituent Services
Committee Member Expertise: Frontline experience with neighborhood councils, community organizing, data analysis, and municipal operations
Committee Meetings:
November 25, 2025: Kickoff meeting, scope identification
December 2, 2025: Research review, recommendations framework development
December 8, 2025: Draft report review, city staff meeting preparation
December 9, 2025: Meeting with city staff
December 11-18, 2025: Final report review and approval
IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation
Source: International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)Website: https://www.iap2.org
The IAP2 Spectrum provides a widely-used framework for understanding different levels of engagement. City staff referenced this framework in the December 9 meeting. The spectrum includes five levels:
INFORM
Goal: Provide information to help public understand problems, alternatives, and solutions
Promise to Public: "We will keep you informed"
Techniques: Newsletters, website, social media, public notices, flyers, presentations
Appropriate When: Decision is made; gathering input won't change decision; legal notification requirements
CONSULT
Goal: Obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions
Promise to Public: "We will keep you informed, listen to your concerns, and provide feedback on how input influenced decisions"
Techniques: Surveys, public hearings, focus groups, public meetings, comment periods
Appropriate When: Want to understand community concerns; input will inform but not determine decision
INVOLVE
Goal: Work directly with public throughout process to ensure concerns are understood and considered
Promise to Public: "We will work with you to ensure your concerns are directly reflected in alternatives developed and provide feedback on how input influenced decisions"
Techniques: Workshops, deliberative polling, citizen advisory committees, multiple rounds of feedback
Appropriate When: Want to develop alternatives with community; process long enough for sustained engagement
COLLABORATE
Goal: Partner with public in each aspect of decision-making including development of alternatives and identification of preferred solution
Promise to Public: "We will look to you for advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into decisions to the maximum extent possible"
Techniques: Citizen advisory committees with real authority, consensus-building, participatory decision-making, community-driven planning
Appropriate When: Substantial time available; decision has major community impact; expertise exists in community
EMPOWER
Goal: Place final decision-making in hands of public
Promise to Public: "We will implement what you decide"
Techniques: Citizen juries, ballots, delegated decisions, participatory budgeting
Appropriate When: Community has authority to make decision; decision appropriate for direct democracy
