centre (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
On Saturday 5th April 2014 I attended an event hosted by Electoral Reform Society Scotland at the Playfair Library, Old College, Edinburgh University. The event was call “From Centre to Community – Reclaiming Local Democracy in Scotland.
There were 10 tables, you were allowed to select any table (except for number 5 – more later) but try and ensure you didn’t sit with anyone you knew, I managed to avoid the 4 people I knew. The day was split into 3 sessions to consider 3 main topic areas. However, at the final afternoon session you had to switch tables by selecting a table number from an envelope (not sure if table 5 was included). This had the drawback of a change in dynamics as you had new facilitators and new people making that session more awkward. But after spending over 3 hours getting used to being with one group I felt this change was detrimental. Perhaps it would have been better to rotate all groups after each session – there was a coffee/tea break after the first.
The first session was to address the issue of “why do we want to strengthen local democracy? This was lead by 3 short “evidence” talks which although interesting in their own right, didn’t really help possibly becasue the slides weren’t referred to very much in the ensuaing discussion. Also we didn’t have hard copies available to refer to. The first question here was actually what is meant by local democracy, what is the definition of local democracy. The first people to speak at my table referred to local authorities and community councils. I disagreed with this as I was more concerned with how I, as an individual, can get involved in various organisations. I referred to health boards, the police and fires service, the arms length organisations set up by local authorities such has leisure services and others. Basically any body that is spending “our” money. For example you are able to attend meetings of you health board or CHP but, you are not allowed to ask questions or participate in the meeting. Yes the same applies to local authority “public” meetings but many people forget these other bodies. There was no agreement on what the definition of local democracy should be.
The next session was on “How might we strengthen local democracy?” Again there were 3 short “evidence” talks. I found the end of this session confusing, probably because we didn’t get a clear definition of what local democracy is. These was discussion of representative and direct democracy, the use of open data, petitions at all levels of current structures, possible new structures such as mini publics, regular referenda, use of organisations like change.org, Avaaz etc., community ownership and participation and constitutional guarantees.
After lunch, with a new group, the discussion was on “how might we implement these ideas?” Started with 3 “evidence” talks but I didn’t agree with the one on participatory budgeting. Perhaps that is different from a “People’s Budget” which I have read up about and wanted to get going with my local CHP. This was a tricky session to get into as we were asked to look at things other groups had written and try to organise and look at in detail based on a specific topic I don’t think any of us had really discussed before. We had to look at “mini publics” and most of the group struggled to get their heads round this. Perhaps because they could only refer to existing structures and couldn’t think of new. It was only when I referred to something that had happened in North Berwick with young people wanting a skate park and how they had to get involved in the whole funding and planning process and how that could be viewed as a “mini public” did it start to make sense.
The final plenary session we had to pick 3 out of 10 (I think) items on how to “build the campaign” which would then be counted to ascertain the priorities for the ERS to take forward. Our table ended up with 4 not 3. I did suggest that as the items had to be something that was realistic and practical for the ERS we drop the option on “Developing and changing values”. I proposed this option but was willing to drop it, however, the group took a “value choice” not a “democratic” one and kept it in. Values are too widespread and involved for an organisation like ERS to campaign on. After all whose values are you promoting: man vs women, black vs white, christian vs islam and other faits and none; rural vs urban vs island. It s perhaps too complicated and would require several events with lots of different groups involved in the discussion to try and reach agreement. Hence why I was willing to drop it after some thought. And considering table 5, as I understand it, was specifically set up for certain women invitees only, any “values” discussion at that table would be sexist and undemocratic.
Final thoughts: on the whole it was an interesting day. I attended to “start what I finished” as I was involved in the very first of the ERS Democracy Max event, this one being the final. There was lots to think about. I’m very interested to see what the excellent facilitators (who had a hard day) and the organisers make of it. Because I’m struggling.
C2C Reclaiming Local Democracy
centre (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
On Saturday 5th April 2014 I attended an event hosted by Electoral Reform Society Scotland at the Playfair Library, Old College, Edinburgh University. The event was call “From Centre to Community – Reclaiming Local Democracy in Scotland.
There were 10 tables, you were allowed to select any table (except for number 5 – more later) but try and ensure you didn’t sit with anyone you knew, I managed to avoid the 4 people I knew. The day was split into 3 sessions to consider 3 main topic areas. However, at the final afternoon session you had to switch tables by selecting a table number from an envelope (not sure if table 5 was included). This had the drawback of a change in dynamics as you had new facilitators and new people making that session more awkward. But after spending over 3 hours getting used to being with one group I felt this change was detrimental. Perhaps it would have been better to rotate all groups after each session – there was a coffee/tea break after the first.
The first session was to address the issue of “why do we want to strengthen local democracy? This was lead by 3 short “evidence” talks which although interesting in their own right, didn’t really help possibly becasue the slides weren’t referred to very much in the ensuaing discussion. Also we didn’t have hard copies available to refer to. The first question here was actually what is meant by local democracy, what is the definition of local democracy. The first people to speak at my table referred to local authorities and community councils. I disagreed with this as I was more concerned with how I, as an individual, can get involved in various organisations. I referred to health boards, the police and fires service, the arms length organisations set up by local authorities such has leisure services and others. Basically any body that is spending “our” money. For example you are able to attend meetings of you health board or CHP but, you are not allowed to ask questions or participate in the meeting. Yes the same applies to local authority “public” meetings but many people forget these other bodies. There was no agreement on what the definition of local democracy should be.
The next session was on “How might we strengthen local democracy?” Again there were 3 short “evidence” talks. I found the end of this session confusing, probably because we didn’t get a clear definition of what local democracy is. These was discussion of representative and direct democracy, the use of open data, petitions at all levels of current structures, possible new structures such as mini publics, regular referenda, use of organisations like change.org, Avaaz etc., community ownership and participation and constitutional guarantees.
After lunch, with a new group, the discussion was on “how might we implement these ideas?” Started with 3 “evidence” talks but I didn’t agree with the one on participatory budgeting. Perhaps that is different from a “People’s Budget” which I have read up about and wanted to get going with my local CHP. This was a tricky session to get into as we were asked to look at things other groups had written and try to organise and look at in detail based on a specific topic I don’t think any of us had really discussed before. We had to look at “mini publics” and most of the group struggled to get their heads round this. Perhaps because they could only refer to existing structures and couldn’t think of new. It was only when I referred to something that had happened in North Berwick with young people wanting a skate park and how they had to get involved in the whole funding and planning process and how that could be viewed as a “mini public” did it start to make sense.
The final plenary session we had to pick 3 out of 10 (I think) items on how to “build the campaign” which would then be counted to ascertain the priorities for the ERS to take forward. Our table ended up with 4 not 3. I did suggest that as the items had to be something that was realistic and practical for the ERS we drop the option on “Developing and changing values”. I proposed this option but was willing to drop it, however, the group took a “value choice” not a “democratic” one and kept it in. Values are too widespread and involved for an organisation like ERS to campaign on. After all whose values are you promoting: man vs women, black vs white, christian vs islam and other faits and none; rural vs urban vs island. It s perhaps too complicated and would require several events with lots of different groups involved in the discussion to try and reach agreement. Hence why I was willing to drop it after some thought. And considering table 5, as I understand it, was specifically set up for certain women invitees only, any “values” discussion at that table would be sexist and undemocratic.
Final thoughts: on the whole it was an interesting day. I attended to “start what I finished” as I was involved in the very first of the ERS Democracy Max event, this one being the final. There was lots to think about. I’m very interested to see what the excellent facilitators (who had a hard day) and the organisers make of it. Because I’m struggling.