Introduction

Civility is a quality that combines being well mannered, that is, using appropriate courtesy with being considerate, that is, staying open to the views and feelings of others. This issue’s governance matters theme is civility at the local level of governing bodies, commissions, and boards. This is an important theme as U.S. politics has become increasingly polarized and partisan not only in ideology but also in person. The civility that has characterized U.S. politics in the past with its welcome toleration of the ideas of others has become a causality of this polarization. The pieces in this governance matters’ section discuss and explain possible causes and effects of this decrease of civility at the local level.

Vera Vogelsang-Combs looks at civility in city councils using the lens of coalition formation and the leadership roles that can be played by city councilors in discharging their legislative duties. Her focus is on the institutional framework and activities of local officials and how these can support or limit civility. She examines some recent local examples and explains how successfully addressing similar problems in local government over the long haul necessitates not only short-term civility but also the institutionalization of civility and civility creating and preserving endeavors, projects, and policies. Vogelsang-Combs relies on March and Olsen’s notions about key functional relationships in institutions, like city councils, and the practical roles open to legislators in general at the local level. She closes with some ideas about how councilors can help foster these behaviors in citizens and inculcate them in their own behavior.

Focusing on interpersonal relations, Scott Paine looks at the substance of individual interaction in the manners that govern acts like gift giving or public presentations for members of local boards and commissions. Paine presents how the area left open to people who become public officials for private interaction with the public and with each other is circumscribed by legitimate concerns about the governance and separation of public and private activity. This is the dilemma of public and private governance personified. Paine’s examples go beyond the civility of public institutions to the economy of interpersonal interaction labeled manners that, though private, is still accessible to public officials and may frustrate both transparency aims and individual inclinations. Imposing total transparency on the local representation process may elevate the transaction costs of local boards and commissions but reduce the likelihood of the misuse of public power. This trade-off is painful because of efficiency concerns and personal custom, but clearly it is necessary in order to preserve public values.

Considering the behavior of others is a key to effective and ongoing public and political discourse at all levels. Most of local government’s law making activity takes place in open public meetings of councils, boards, and commissions. Members of these bodies walk the tightrope of discussing their business only when appropriate, yet interacting with each other with great frequency and in many venues. Also, these officials are pulled both ways by the tension between winning politics and effective institutional governance and leadership. In steering the enterprise of local government, they must observe two strictures if they are to be even minimally successful in the panoply of hearings, committees, panels, working groups, personal relations, and myriad other public meetings and encounters that constitute much of the business of being a public official. The first is that the underpinnings of civil conversation are found in the general interest of civil society in transparent governance and the particular requirement for open meetings in which the public’s business is conducted. The second is that these forums are most effective when discussion of options, programs, actions, and policies are conducted in a civil manner. Without civility trumping ideology at the local level, most of the public’s pressing business cannot get done well, if at all.