Cities should listen to their citizens.

That idea is far from controversial — it’s how democratic governments function. What form the relationship between citizens and city officials should take is another question entirely, and Pittsburgh is currently struggling to define its answer.

Today, the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court will rule on a conflict between city officials and activist group OpenPittsburgh.org over an upcoming ballot referendum that would force public officials to directly speak with Pittsburghers.

The referendum in question — part of a larger city charter amendment intended to increase government transparency — would create a Citizens’ Advisory Panel able to call meetings with city representatives to publicly explain new legislation. The proposed CAP would provide adjustment recommendations based on concerns from its membership body.

CAP membership would be open, dues-free, to all adult city residents. Members would vote on whether to request appearances from a city official, who would answer questions, take community concerns under advisement and walk those present though legislative language. For instance, if a bill introducing new housing subsidies came through city council, the CAP could request a briefing from the bill’s author or a Housing Authority of the city of Pittsburgh representative on how it would affect real-estate prices.

Pittsburgh officials say the referendum would place an undue burden on the city government, forcing representatives to answer every small inquiry and grinding city operations to a halt. Meanwhile, supporters of the CAP claim the city is simply afraid of transparency.

Both arguments are likely hyperbolic. Despite the risk of some extra paperwork, the virtues of a CAP are worth a vote come November.

Still, effectively implementing such a plan requires acknowledgement that a city cannot function if its leaders are too busy sitting in community centers to actually do their jobs.

While the city presents a worst-case scenario that would prove incredibly detrimental to Pittsburgh, the likelihood of such an outcome has been overstated. Likewise, activist claims of government subversion ignore the city’s recent history of making information publicly available.

“We support this effort in spirit, but not execution,” city spokesperson Tim McNulty said in an phone interview Tuesday. “[City officials] aren’t afraid of speaking with the public. We do that all the time. It’s the accompanying 35 pages of implementation that create a problem.”

McNulty pointed out that Pittsburgh has already made significant moves towards putting citizens in touch with their leaders. Within the last several years, the city has created programs such as the Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center, which allows residents to search through troves of city data, and Beacon, which provides access to the city’s contracts. This is an entirely valid point that does speak to the city’s embrace of openness.

But these initiatives solved issues largely unrelated to the CAP’s goals. OpenPittsburgh.org wants citizens to have access to knowledgable, full explanations of complex legislative questions from the politicans creating laws so that people can directly express concerns. It hopes to get more people involved in promoting change. That is an equally valid goal.

As OpenPittsburgh.org Chair David Tessitor said in a Tuesday interview, “Instead of having to go through a full election, we [would] have the opportunity for people to demonstrate their commitment to something as part of their regular lives.”

Neither side of this debate seems to be at war with the other — both appear interested in creating a more effective system for the government to work with constituents, which bodes well for Pittsburgh’s future.

What we need now is the type of compromise a CAP would hopefully yield.

McNulty acknowedges that communication between the city and OpenPittsburgh.org during the formation of this referendum has been limited. That dialogue needs to open up, and, if the CAP does come to fruition, parties involved must devise a scheduling system that minimizes strain on daily operations. There must also be a system for prioritizing some inquiries over others, because a pothole in the street does not require a full city investigation.

The fact is that 12,000 people signed petitions to create this referendum in the first place. Clearly there is a demand among Pittsburghers to build relationships with those in power, and they deserve the opportunity to do so.