City of Greater Geraldton’s Participatory Budget Journey Ken Diehm CEO

My Journey into Participatory Budgeting

Background Started in local government in1986 Financial Management/Accounting CEO of Water Board in 2001 Back into LG in 2009 Completed a MBA & finishing a second Masters

Background Nature of my work Highly political environment Dominance Political party policy Very strong Mayors “Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to”

I was comfortable on the bottom rungs of the consultation ladder

Life Changing Moment Our kids left home My first long holiday Burning desire to achieve more in my life Legacy impact from my career Wanted to be a captain/coach

City of Greater Geraldton 42,000 people > 12,000km2 2 Amalgamations Strong growth Diverse economy Progressive Council Financial challenges Opportunity to make a difference

Deliberative Democracy project 2010 – 2013 > 3,500 hours + volunteers + Curtin Uni > 3,000 community members involved Community forums, world cafés, surveys, conversation cafes, online tools 2011 Reinhard Mohn finalist 2012 United Nations Liveable Cities Award for Community Engagement

The Challenge Prioritised Capital Works List; and Review of range and level of services. Within ….. six months!!!

My staffs’ reaction

My reaction

Why Participatory Budgeting Commitment to Deliberative Democracy Community expectation Genuine belief that true wisdom comes from the combined knowledge of community and technical experts

Participatory Budgeting Key elements Allocation of resources Criteria established by participants Inclusion; and Deliberative Democracy

Governance The role of Council Governing Committee (Independent Review Committee) Project Leadership Team

Our Council’s Commitment Seriously consider all recommendations made by the Community Panel; Implement recommendations wherever possible; Where a recommendation or recommendations cannot be implemented, they will clearly communicate the reasons to the Community Panel; and Where a recommendation or recommendations cannot be implemented, Council will seek to understand the intent of the recommendation/s and work with the Community Panel to find other ways to fulfil the intent.

Governance Committee Independent Review Committee (IRC) – included respected leaders in the community who were independent from the City – their role was; 1.Ensuring that Community Panels are appropriately established, particularly with respect to eligibility, stratification, age, ethnicity, education etc. 2.Ensuring that the participatory budgeting process is accountable and transparent and free from bias.

Governance Committee 3.Reviewing material provided to the Community Panel’s for accuracy and relevance. 4.Championing the participatory budgeting process within the community. 5.Certifying the extent to which the recommendations of the Community Panel have been developed in a transparent and accountable manner and the impact of undue bias.

Governance Committee Importantly, the Governing Committee was not involved in the deliberations of the Community Panel, nor did they have any responsibility for amending the work of the Community Panel.

Putting the Puzzle Together Selection of Panels Internal data gathering Establishing the IRC Technology Keeping the broader community informed

Capital Works Panel Four weeks in November. Reviewed 116 capital works projects. Developed values based assessment criteria for evaluating and prioritising projects. Delivered a report with prioritised list of projects based on their criteria Made four recommendations about future community panel processes Executive Management Team and Council fully endorsed all recommendations of the panel

Range and Level of Services Panel Eight weeks in February and March Presentations and Q&A with every Manager in the City Developed a methodology and criteria for assessing services Engaged with the broader community and incorporate community input Determine preferential ordering of service level recommendations Develop a list of other suggestions (to incorporate the “how” suggestions) Executive Management Team and Council fully endorsed all recommendations of the panel

Challenges and lessons learned Community want and are prepared to be involved Managing staff anxiety Rogue panellists Passion and tears – managing panellists disagreements Keeping the panel focussed on “what” not “how” Time intensive

Challenges and lessons learned The community are smarter than we think Breakdown of internal silos Professional development opportunity for staff Politically Defendable outcomes 65 champions for the City

Australian Project of the Year Australian Research Award Australasian Planning Project Award

Slide 1/13 30yr Renewal Profile Modelling

Renewal Demand & Renewal Budget Slide 1/13Slide 8/13

My reaction

Community Summit Mandatory Vs Non-Mandatory activities Detailed budget breakdown and description of activities >100 participants (including previous panellists) Original information session Participants given a restricted budget to fund activities Full day session for review of outcomes Debate and soap box sessions Assisted by easy to use software

Our Software

Outcomes Prioritised list of non-mandatory activities Clear direction on what services to cut More community champions for the City Better informed Community Better informed Council

My personal learnings Don’t be afraid to ask questions you don’t know the answer to The community’s collective wisdom is a lot greater than you think Deliberative democracy is a great way to get community champions for the Council Clearly demonstrates that you are genuine about consulting with the community