So How DO We Get More People Involved???
This is a question I have often heard heard over the years both here and elsewhere with regard to community involvement. Here are my suggestions:
1) Ensure those who work on and run community projects are valued and get some 'payment' for their efforts. This is why I have been evangelical about Timebanking. Expecting people to work totally for free is unsustainable and is why many projects can fail in the medium to long term.
2) Demonstrate that people's ideas are valued. This is why we need a city-wide 'knowledge bank' which could function as a suggestions scheme for people in Peterborough. Ideas can be ignored or stolen by those in the bureaucracy and is another reason why people don't take part- a lack of trust of officialdom.
A Knowledge Bank could be independent of the city council and other major local partners, acting a a clearing house for ideas- not only on the Environment Capital aspiration but other policy areas (eg health, education etc- but these all have an environmental element!). All major local partners (PCC, GPP, OP, PECT etc) should sign up and support it. When a person suggests an idea, it should be analysed by the Knowledge Bank team before being passed onto the relevant council department or other organisation (eg PCT) for full feedback. Answers should be provided within a certain timeframe and reasons should be given for not using the idea as well as what the next stage will be if it is used.
Those who have their ideas used could be provided with a 'certificate of thanks' at the very least, recognising their efforts and allowing them to show their community involvement to potential employers etc. Too many ideas can become lost in the bureaucracy and this is a way to demonstrate citizens' ideas are valued.
Any thoughts?
Views: 24
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jamie on -
Hi Wayne - these are really valuable thoughts, thanks for sharing them!
Together with my colleague Emma at the RSA, I'm leading on the Sustainable Citizenship project within the Citizen Power programme. One of the ideas we are working towards is to create an "innovation network" in Peterborough, which will include a way of sharing suggestions for (specifically) environmental innovation. I think this overlaps with your point in #2. As well as swapping ideas, we see this as a way for people to share their personal experience of what works and what doesn't in the area. I also totally agree with the need to provide some incentive or remuneration in exchange for sustainable ideas.
In your experience, are there any barriers specific to Peterborough that make it difficult to get community projects off the ground? -
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne Laconic on -
Hi Jamie! Thanks for replying.
I don't think there are issues which are Peterborough specific. I first noticed the tendency to request ideas and not reply to them by Officialdom when I was in Middlesbrough. I've since noticed the same tendency in Peterborough. The same question of greater participation is also raised without those raising it understanding they may be part of the problem!
We should also address the 'Raj' mentality of many officials- this was also something I noticed in Middlesbrough. Many officials working on the Environment Capital aspiration and other issues don't actually live in Peterborough. Therefore, many (not all, though!) are little better than the Brits who ran India, patronising the natives by telling them how to run their country but having no real 'feel' for the the place. If more officials actually lived here they would have a greater stake in ensuring Peterborough works better AND we will reduce the city's carbon footprint, too!
Anyway, something else for you to think about! Hope to chat again soon!
Jamie said:Hi Wayne - these are really valuable thoughts, thanks for sharing them!
Together with my colleague Emma at the RSA, I'm leading on the Sustainable Citizenship project within the Citizen Power programme. One of the ideas we are working towards is to create an "innovation network" in Peterborough, which will include a way of sharing suggestions for (specifically) environmental innovation. I think this overlaps with your point in #2. As well as swapping ideas, we see this as a way for people to share their personal experience of what works and what doesn't in the area. I also totally agree with the need to provide some incentive or remuneration in exchange for sustainable ideas.
In your experience, are there any barriers specific to Peterborough that make it difficult to get community projects off the ground? -
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne Laconic on
-
Jamie, other issues have occured to me, but I'm busy now so I will reply to you later!
Jamie said:Hi Wayne - these are really valuable thoughts, thanks for sharing them!
Together with my colleague Emma at the RSA, I'm leading on the Sustainable Citizenship project within the Citizen Power programme. One of the ideas we are working towards is to create an "innovation network" in Peterborough, which will include a way of sharing suggestions for (specifically) environmental innovation. I think this overlaps with your point in #2. As well as swapping ideas, we see this as a way for people to share their personal experience of what works and what doesn't in the area. I also totally agree with the need to provide some incentive or remuneration in exchange for sustainable ideas.
In your experience, are there any barriers specific to Peterborough that make it difficult to get community projects off the ground? -
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne Laconic on
-
Jamie, it is difficult to think of 'Peterborough specific' issues. Many problems (eg those raised on immigration) can be seen in the context of a lack of 'localism'. All local authorities in England are little more than agencies of Whitehall/Westminster and the EU, rather than institutions in their own right. Our city should have greater control over our own affairs and the ability to develop solutions to our own problems.
We should start with the mechanics of running Peterborough and reform our city's constitution. Some argue we should have an elected Mayor, of which I am in favour depending on how it is done. We need a true US-style separation of powers between councillors (the council's legislative/scrutiny arm) and the officers. Therefore, the Mayor-and his/her team- should be elected to run the city in a cabinet separate from councillors. Councillors should be elected to scrutinise the work of the Mayor and team and all officials working for the city on behalf of the citizens of Peterborough. Therefore, councillors would not serve as cabinet members and should only concentrate on representing their constituents' interests, in part by scrutinising the work of the executive.
We should also reform ward boundaries, ensuring we have only one councillor per ward. Councillors would still be elected for four year terms, but citizens would have the 'right of recall' if they feel their councillor is not doing their job to a sufficient standard. Reforming ward boundaries would hopefully allow us to reduce the number of councillors. However, I think there is an argument to pay councillors a small salary for their efforts. Some will see this as controversial, especially in the light of the recent Parliamentary expenses scandal, but we should also show councillors are valued in order to attract the best and brightest to stand. We should see serving as a councillor as a well-paid part-time job, possibly paying £15,000 pa with (very) limited expenses for admin etc. This should not stop councillors from working elsewhere, allowing them to keep a foot in the 'real world', but it would allow them to have an adequate quality of life even if they don't have a job before being elected.
At present in Peterborough, elections occur three out of every four years in the electoral cycle. If all councillors were elected once every four years it would save money in election costs and hopefully encourage greater election turnouts. The Mayor/executive team should also be elected every four years, possibly at the same time, but a separate election could be organised two years after the election of councillors, in the same way US senators and congressional representatives are not elected at the same time as the President. It would also act as a 'check-and balance' upon the power of the executive team. However, doing it all at the same time would obviously be cheaper and we all have to be conscious of costs in these more difficult economic times.
Just a few thoughts. I look foward to your reply! -
-
Permalink Reply by Jamie on
-
Wow - thanks for the thoughtful response! I think that a lot of the issues of leadership and localism that you mention might overlap with one of the other projects that will be running as part of the Citizen Power programme. At the risk of mis-representing it(!), I'll see if I can get one of my colleagues that is more involved in that project to leave a reply.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne Laconic on
-
Whilst we are the subject of reforms, as a city we should also have more control over our local benefits system. If we could spend the money differently then those decisions could help enhance citizenship and the Environmental Capital aspiration. If Government is willing to listen to new ideas because of the need to save money then we should again argue for our own agenda. We just have to decide what our agenda is first- and I've got plenty of ideas!
So when do I get to meet Ian Duncan smith and/or Frank Field?? lol!! -
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne Laconic on
-
We should also reform our local bureaucracy. PCC, like many local authorities, has a very poor customer service culture and this must change. If local people have to deal with a culture within the local authority that is patronising and ignores genuine issues then they will feel alienated and will not participate in their local communities.
One of the problems with Citizen Power is that it appears to rest on the idea that local people are at fault in some way. This is true to an extent- we have allowed our local 'suitocracy' to take power away from us. But CP fails to take into account the alienating culture within the often Orwellian local council and partner agencies. We need to raise the quality of local officaldom and make it more citizen-friendly, thus encouraging a greater culture of community.
-
© 2012 Created by Benedict Dellot.
Powered by
