Combined European Bureau for Social Development

TLCD: Training and Learning for Community Development:

EAC/61/2006 Key Activity 4: Dissemination and Exploitation of Results

Relay visit – Banska Bystrica

April 21st – 23rd 2008

Theme: Active citizenship – Community organizing and other approaches

Participants:

Hans-Georg Rennert – Kommunales Forum Wedding – Germany

Sarah Beal – CESIE - Italy

Sue Webb – Community Development Foundation – Great Britain

Chuck Hirt – Center for Community Organizing - host from Slovakia

Program:

Monday 21 April

Relay visit report

Report from the relay visit in England held March 12 through 14^th. Sue reported on the visit that had taken place the previous month.

Report presentation delivered at the Relay meeting in Slovakia

Introduction – context in Slovakia

This session began with Chuck providing some context for the introduction of community organizing in Slovakia. This was a virtually brand new concept when introduced in 1996. There was not even language for some terms used and even when there were actual words, they sometimes had to be modified and clarified as they represented a different context. The profession of social work and community development remains very limited through the present. The vast majority of the training and work available is focused n service, not community process or change.

Over the next few years however, there was a growing understanding and appreciation of community work. A country-wide network of NGOs had been operating and had divided itself into thematic groups. By 1998, they decided to add one more thematic group around the issue of community. This was the only new thematic group to be added and reflected an emerging new set of community-based activities going on in the country.

When the work began, the country was still under the grip of the Authoritarian Prime Minister, Vladimir Mecar. A great deal of reforms, both democratic as well as economic were undertaken following this important election. Devolution of power to local levels took place along with other important reforms such as Freedom of Information and new laws regarding NGOs. What has taken place since then has been a strengthening of the economic reforms as the country clearly is pleased with the results of capitalism. But a number of the democratic oriented changes are less valued and a number of these laws are currently being re-considered with less democratic provisions are being proposed.

On the local level, considerable changes took place. Especially in urban areas, this has been a time of unprecedented growth and opportunity for development. It also has been a chance for a few to get wealthy as city assets continue to be sold and investors are working deals with government officials. There is generally little interest for citizens to be involved. Even the basic issue of information is usually not provided. There are a few hopeful signs in this area but they are a distinct minority at the moment.

On the citizens’ side of this, participation is also quite a new thing. Under Socialism, participation was not tolerated so residents are in need of re-learning this behavior. Citizens don’t even know each other as they continue behavior from the previous era when one in six people were informants and people didn’t risk talking about important items with those they did not trust. There is a very low opinion of politicians. They are generally seen as there for their own self-interest. They remain apathetic and quite hopeless about change. This is also reflected in voter turnout where approximately 35 per cent participate in local elections (versus sixty in national elections). In large housing areas, voter participation is often even ten per cent lower still. Citizens also lack organizations and structures which allow them to participate in any meaningful manner. They are also affected by what one author termed “post-Communist legacy”. In a book entitled: The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe, the author, Marc Morje Howard describes many of the challenges facing citizens across all this part of Europe. His research indicates that there is a common behavior of citizens in all post-Communist countries which negatively affects their ability to influence activities. Despite this issue, he is quick to hasten that that does not mean that they do not get engaged or have interest. Quite the contrary exists. However, there are a number of limiting factors for them.

An additional factor in the region has been the significant influence of the United States of America. Significant US dollars were invested in the region following the fall of Communism. There were also a number of American organizations, structures and approaches introduced into the region. A number of NGO are now having to adjust to European structures and funding as the US support has generally left the region.

The work in communities has another outstanding feature in that neighborhoods are still generally heterogeneous in population. Unlike cities in most of Western European and the US, the makeup of population is much more mixed which brings a considerable resource to work that is undertaken. The economic segregation of people which usually results from Capitalism has not taken effect as yet. Doctors, lawyers, architects and the Vice Mayor may live along with those who pick up trash and manual labor. This is definitely one of the positive legacies of Communism as there is a rich base of skills and talents in neighborhoods.

An article written by Jana Mikova (attached) had been distributed prior to the session for everyone to read. Jana is someone from Banska Bystrica who had worked at the British Council until it closed in 2006. She became increasingly active in public life, particularly in a fight in the spring of 2006 to preserve a park area of the city. Later that year she decided to move to Scotland and eventually enrolled at a university there. The paper was written for one of her classes but in this paper, she describes some of her experience with activism in Slovakia. It provides an interesting insight into her introductory experience compared with some of her new experience in Scotland. It also provides an interesting introduction to the work of the Center for Community Organizing.

The work of the Center for Community Organizing

Chuck briefly introduced the work of the Center for Community Organizing. The work was begun in 1996 with funding from the U.S. government. The project was interested in establishing a community organizing project in Slovakia. It was managed by the National Democratic Institute. Funding was provided for three years to help introduce this work. Slovaks were hired and trained to be community organizers during this period. The first two groups of organizers were taken to the U.S. for additional training and to have a chance to them to see this work first hand.

Following training, organizers began doing interviews with citizens living in large housing areas using a door knocking approach. There was considerable resistance to this type of work but eventually they all began to realize that people were quite open and interested to talk with someone who actually wanted to listen to them. Initial campaigns were eventually launched and nearly all were successful. Citizens began to realize that they could be active in public life and that democracy began to mean much more to them. The approach focused primarily on taking action followed by reflection. Eventually more formal training was introduced for activists as well.

Chuck gave several examples of campaigns that were taken on including citizens fighting to increase the number of police patrolling the Sasova neighborhood in Banska Bystrica. Citizens eventually met with the Chief of Police and negotiated an increase. Citizens from the Zapad neighborhood in Zvolen initiated a campaign to get a new sidewalk around the center of their neighborhood. They prepared a February meeting with the Mayor and he promised to have it ready the following September for the start of the school year. He not only kept his promise but spent six times more than citizens requested with a significantly improved center area. CKO is best known for a two and a half year campaign when residents from the Radvan neighborhood in Banska Bystrica fought plans to have a gas station built in the pedestrian center of their neighborhood.

Examples of active citizenship in other countries connected with how training and learning took place

brief description by Hans – Georg Rennert, Kommunales Forum Wedding e.V.

1. Planning for Real in the Sprengelkiez – neighbourhood 1994 (!)

Kommunales Forum Wedding e.V. (KFW)

The Wedding Community Forum an organisation (net-)working mainly in Berlin – Wedding, now part of the central district Berlin – Mitte. Since its foundation in 1988 it has been initiating and promoting the co-operation of actors of the public, private and third sector, mobilising communities, community (economic) development and local employment initiatives under the heading "Working for the quality of life in the neighbourhood". Since 1997 the focus has been on the development of area-targeted, integrated co-operation in projects often within the framework of the Wedding Local Partnership (until 2001). KFW has been acting as a "promoter" of co-operation", as "nursery" for new ideas, but also as the formal body / entity for projects. The exchange of experiences and co-operation with partners outside the area has often been a stimulation and enrichment for the work at local level.

• KFW is a mix between ‘professional (service delivery) organisation’ and self – help group
• Part of a movement promoting and practicing ‘economic self – help and local development’ and social economy (European Network for Economic Self – Help and Local Development - EuroNet)
• The emphasis of its work was (in 1993 / 1994) on public debates on local development (Kommunale Foren at destrict level and Kiezgespräche in the neighbourhood) and on
• Doing – making contacts and get rooted in the Sprengelkiez
• NOT on (formal) training

But we (the core group of staff / persons who wanted to do the work as paid work) were willing to listen to others – learning from their experience and adapt ‘models’ and ‘tools’ to our own circumstances (EuroNet)

Heard about Planning for Real and got in contact with Tony Gibson via EuroNet

Approached him to prepare the work with Planning for Real (coaching and mentoring by him)

Action and training / reflection!

(more info on Planning for Real: www.nic.co.uk/plannningforreal (English) and www.planning-for-real.de (German)

PFR in the Sprengelkiez

(without ‘legitimation’ / ‘voluntary – there was no political will or funding programme to ‘support’ these activities by KFW)

KFW’s intentions:

• from isolated contacts with some key persons to direct contacts with residents (esp. those who usually don’t take part in formal meetings)
• from narrow view onto some institutions towards a broad perspective onto the whole neighbourhood
• direct communication with residents at places where everyday life takes place

action and training / reflection

• for the group of people who wanted ‘to do it’: KFW staff – a group of students of town planning interested in ‘participation’ – some neighbours – this mixed group soon become the “AKTIV IM KIEZ” initiative – we met once a week – at peek times around 20 people – to plan and act
• coaching and support by Tony Gibson: he took part in the kick – off meeting and explained PFR (different kind of communication – prepare action – sort out responsibilities – “Experts on tap, not on top!”)
• still in contact / exchange with Tony on developments in the SprengelKiez today

2. „Aktivierende Befragung“ im Soldiner Kiez (und im SprengelKiez) 1999

„aktivierende Befragung“ – somewhat like „mobilising survey“ – further information „Handbuch Aktivierende Befragung“ published by: Stiftung Mitarbeit, Bonn 2003; www.mitarbeit.de

background:

• KFW did facilitate the „Lokale Partnerschaft Wedding“ (Wedding Local Partnership“) at that time (1996 – 2000)
• Within the partnership we had working groups on order to develop ‘area – targeted’ (sorry for the term) approaches for some disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the district: the Soldiner Kiez and the Sprengelkiez
• A member of the Soldiner Kiez working group was the neighbourhood centre Prinzenallee PA 58
• PA 58’s intention was to sharpen the profile of the neighbourhood centre for the people living around it – to find out what they wish or expect to happen in the PA 58 and to mobilize them to act (more) for themselves with the support of PA 58
• PA 58 intended to use the technique of the “Aktivierende Befragung” with a mixed team: some staff and members of the PA 58 association + local residents
• In order to be able to do this they needed a training on “Aktivierende Befragungen”
• KFW did find a source of funding to bring in an experienced trainer and facilitator (Maria Lüttringhaus from ESSEN) for a 2 days – training in Berlin

Training and learning

• 2 days training
• shortly before the action took place – with practical exercises
• mixed group of ‘professionals’ (staff from neighbourhood centre) and non-professionals (residents)
• “aktivierende Befragung” shortly after the training within a couple of weeks by tandems on the streets and ‘knocking on doors’ also
• presentation of results at a public meeting in the neighbourhood centre soon after finishing survey
• Was there a reflection of the experiences with those who took part in it? I don’t remember!
• What was the role of the residents after the survey? I don’t remember? (the Quartiersmanagement - “Neighbourhood management – took over probably …

More info also: Verband für sozial – kulturelle Arbeit Rundbrief 2/99 – to be downloaded from www.vska.de

(KFW used the „aktivierende Befragung“ including the model of the Sprengelkiez that had been built during Planning for Real“ for a survey on “How is life in the Sprengelkiez?” in the view of residents and also to introduce the then new role / task of Quartiersmanagement in the area)

information on quartiersmangement: www.sozialestadt.de (also in English)

Experience in Italy: Contact sarah.beal@cesie.it for report

Experience from Italy

Local Context – CE.S.I.E:

CE.S.I.E works at both local and international levels and so the local context was firstly described.In Palermo, where CE.S.I.E’s operational office is located, there are no structures in place which promote the concept of Community Development, although several interventions have taken place under the term “local development” or through projects coordinated by local NGOS. There is a loose and informal network of NGOs who each work towards common aims and objectives which can be defined under the notion empowerment and also the promotion of the acquisition of knowledge and skills in order for groups or individuals to grow and develop.

Community Development is a term not well known or employed in Italy. Often, as mentioned before, it is defined as “local development”. The concept of community development is also broken up into different fields- social, educational, architectural and planning etc. A holistic approach is not present in the majority of interventions.

CE.S.I.E has been working since 2001 in the field of community development, however its work is primarily concerned with the empowerment of individuals and, moreover Youth, which gives them the skills to intervene and work towards improving their community.

N.B: The concept of community has not been precisely identified as for autochtones in Palermo, the term community intends the geographical space in which they live, their “quartiere”. For the immigrant groups resident in Palermo, community means their immigrant community.

Inventing The Future-

Project description Inventing the future is an international project that involve youths from seven different countries in Europe, East Europe and Middle East: Italy, Spain, France, Bulgaria, Moldova, Palestine and Israel.The main aim of the project is to work locally with youth on non-violent conflict transformation through the reciprocal maieutic approach (RMA) so as to give them the skills and competences to intervene in their own local communities.
The conflicts chosen by the partners are context related but the programme of activities is common to all partners. So, during two years, from December 2006 until November 2008, all partners will be working simultaneously to achieve common aims and objectives.
The programme of activities was thought of and designed in the framework of reciprocal RMA, non-formal education and international mobility.

Objectives of the project
The specific objectives are:

· to reflect on the root causes and effects of multicultural, multiethnic and multi-faith conflicts;

· to learn how to analyse conflicts and to develop strategies (mainly RMA but also other practices) to deal with them;

· to help young people to develop the skills and competences to deal in non-violent ways with conflict situations in their multicultural, multiethnic and multi-faith contexts and in general;

· to explore and activate the knowledge and resources present in youth participants; to reflect on human rights and fight for their realisation and respect;

· to stimulate mutual exchange of experience and good practice in nonviolent conflict transformation and the promotion of a culture of respect and diversity between partners;

· to develop new projects with the Youth in Action Programme.

Activities: local and international
The activities present in the project during the two years are divided into local and international levels.

International:

11th until the 19th February 2007- Launch Meeting.

During this encounter the partners had the opportunity to meet personally, to create a relationship, to discuss the project and to participate in maieutic workshops. This last activity permitted youth workers to discover RMA so they could organise similar workshops with the youth group as part of the local activities.

February 2008- Youth Exchange, Palermo in which all youth groups meet to share their experiences and learning outcomes;

June 2008- Seminar, Moldova, an international seminar about human rights and conflict transformation that will give the possibility to the participants to learn with international experts and to broaden their acquired knowledge.

August 2007- November 2008: one youth from each group to be a volunteer in another partner country. The voluntary project will last for 4 months and aims the following: to permit the youth to develop intercultural skills; to promote an intercultural exchange between sending and hosting countries; to give the youth the opportunity to live and understand other youth conflicts; to permit the youth to participate in the hosting country group activities. In total the voluntary service will give the opportunity to seven youths to participate in a mobility activity and to all the others the possibility to participate directly in the project through contact with the volunteer.

November 2008: A final evaluation and closing meeting at international level will be held in Bulgaria.

Local:

· February 2007: recruitment of participants for youth group;

· March 2007- September 2007: development of local activities- These activities consist of local meetings with the youth group (each half coming from different parts of the conflict) aiming to help them develop an awareness of the conflict, to analyse the causes and consequences of the conflict on youth and on the community in general, to breakdown stereotypes and prejudices that are maintaining the conflict, to build channels of communication inside the community, to involve the community in the youth activities, to develop in youth active citizenship. The specific methods used to reach these objectives are up to each partner, with the condition that all activities enter in the framework of non-formal education.

· November 2007 - March 2008: all the youth groups from all countries will work together in the creation of a “bozza di manifesto”. This will be a document where the opinions of several youth about an issue related with the project (still to be decided) will be written and then concluded in some main important phrases. This document will be a dissemination and awareness tool in all partner countries

· April 2008- June 2008: Peer Education Training Course so that the participants are able to share their acquired knowledge with others;

· July 2008 – October 20008: Implementation of skills- after the course the group will develop peer education activities with other youth, in schools, in social centres, in the local communities, about the themes they have discussed in the first moments of the project (the first local activities). These activities will last for three months, from July till October 2008. This activity is very important in the course of the overall project, as it ensures the creation of a multiplier effect and, moreover, permits the youth participants to develop practical skills for their future lives and contributes to the development of self-esteem. The RMA will continue to be the primary working method and the tool to transform the conflict.

September and October 2008, will be dedicated to the evaluation and closure of the project. Each youth group will develop evaluation activities in order to analyse the impact of the project and of their own work in the community.

Also the coordinators will have to evaluate the project and its impact in youth.

A local closure event will be organised in each partner country involving also other local partners and entities.

What we expect
Through all these activities we expect to have an impact in the youth group, in the local communities and at international level. As well, as part of the follow-up activities, we will keep the youth participants active in the fields of mobility and non-formal education, and motivate them to write their own projects and ideas using the European Commission Programmes and give them the needed support.

“Inventing the future” is a two year project co-financed by the European Commission Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). It is a Youth Action 5, Support Measures, Innovative Co-operation, Training and Information Projects, Call for proposals DG EAC 62/05.

The applicant and general coordinator of the project is the Italian organisation Centro Studi ed Iniziative Europeo Onlus (CE.S.I.E) located in Palermo, Sicily. This international project has seven partners from six different countries: Centro Sviluppo Creativo “Danilo Dolci”, Italy; Federación COLEGAS, Spain; Pistes Solidaires, France; Recreation and Development Union (RDU), Bulgaria; Regional Development Center “STABILITY”, Moldova; Wi’am center for conflict resolution, Palestine; Youth Forum Ashdod (YOFI), Israel.

LAUTC- Learn About Us Through Culture:

LLP - Multilateral Project

Research-Action

2 years : December 2007 - November 2009

Why LAUTC ? Rationale and background

Current situation:

•Growing problem of social inclusion in marginalised European urban areas knowing high levels of immigration

•Absence of feeling of “community”, lack of positive images of their cultural identities, ICD difficult to achieve

•The intercultural learning needs of second generation migrants and autochthones are not met, their understanding of each other is poor and civic spirit within the communities is low.

Difficulties faced by the organisations promoting ICD through cultural events:

•The disjuncture between the cultural events promoting ICD and the target’s intercultural learning needs,

•The elitist and inaccessible conception of cultural events

•The fact that their utility as an educative and intercultural tool is not clear or fully grasped.

LAUTC objectives

There is a need for an EU strategy and methodology for ICD to enable people from these communities

•to enter or re-enter the educational sphere,

•to value their cultural heritage,

•to innovate LLL opportunities (through strategy and methodology effectively tested in different contexts, thus becoming good practices) adapted to their intercultural learning needs,

•to encourage social cohesion by improving their interpersonal, intercultural and social competences.

Moreover, the project will show how the development of ICD within European local communities is needed to create an inclusive European identity promoting the common cultural heritage and the importance of cultural diversity. “Understanding the multi-cultural and socio-economic dimensions of European societies and how national cultural identity interacts with the European identity is essential” ⁽Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Key competences for lifelong learning)

This is what this research-action proposes to do.

3 phases & 1 transversal process

1st phase: Analysis of intercultural learning needs and development of an EU level strategy and methodology for cultural events- in this phase we have worked on community mapping and an analysis of the learning needs of the community;

2nd phase: Realising the EU “parcours” of cultural events employing the strategy and methodology developed;

3rd phase: Evaluation and dissemination of the strategy and methodology developed into good practices through creation of materials and realisation of an EU level seminar;

Transversal process: Evaluations during all phases.

Target
First level target group

•20 adult migrants (4/country): 2^nd generation migrants living in marginalised European urban areas. Need: to be better integrated into the local community

•20 adult autochthons (4/country): from the same marginalised urban areas. Common Needs: to break stereotypes and create positive ICD. to be valorised by people learning from them, by expressing their own ideas and culture. to establish and promote a positive image of their area through cultural events. To break down barriers which hinder understanding and respect of cultures. To demonstrate that culture is a living concept.

•10 adult staff of private/public structures promoting ICD (2/country): working in target communities.

Needs: to develop new abilities in ICD through research-action so as to answer the intercultural needs of the local population, to develop communication with and between people from the local community by learning and practice, to learn and exchange practices and knowledge with staff from other EU countries and to sustain the good practices identified by acting with local communities at EU level.

These 3 targets will acquire competences in ICD, in developing research-action and increasing the value of non-formal learning through cultural events.

Target & beneficiaries
Second level target group + long term beneficiaries

Second level target group

•20 to 60 artists adult migrants&autochtons (4 to 12/country): Their needs are to be more integrated into their local communities, to learn how to use and increase the value of their art as a non-formal intercultural learning tool and to share knowledge about their cultures.

•40 participants in the dissemination seminar: representatives of institutions and organisations, and ICD leaders, cultural mediators etc. Need to acquire good practices in the field of ICD, LLL and cultural event development at local and EU levels and benefit from EU level cooperation to respond to the learning needs of their local communities.

Long term beneficiaries

•Local community in each partner country who are not directly participating in the project phases, primarily spectators;

•People coming from the surrounding communities and localities;

•Private or public organisations and institutions that work in ICD visiting the cultural event

Methodology : 4 Pillars of Education

•learning to know- the working groups (migrants, autochthones, and staff working on ICD), supported by pedagogical and cultural facilitators, will analyse intercultural learning needs and gain through the ICD process interpersonal and intercultural competences whilst promoting each individual’s personal pedagogical methodology;

•learning to do- the groups will participate in research-action by applying the strategies (built from the needs analysis) to cultural events and developing pedagogical materials thus gaining personal and professional skills;

•learning to live together- the EU ICD strategy developed and spread through the cultural events promotes the role of non-formal learning in creating social cohesion;

•learning to be- ICD promotes reflection on one’s own identity, and of a collective European identity and heritage within and between cultures.

Tuesday 22 April

Discussion with organizers

Kajo Zboril and Anna Karialieva joined the group for a discussion about their experience of being trained in community organizing. They described how they began their work and how the ideas that were introduced were considerably different than they had ever considered before. One of the most vivid examples was the task to knock on doors to conduct interviews. They all believed that this was not possible in Slovakia. They found to their considerable surprise that people actually were happy to have someone listen to them. At times they had the opposite problem of limiting the time they were in someone’s place. Starting to raise funds in the community was similar as they learned that people were willing and interested to give money for something which was of benefit to their neighborhood. They had assumed that this was not possible.

Both Kajo and Anna were convinced that there has been a significant impact of their work in Slovakia. CKO had pioneered this work. It was now a more visible form of activity and they were convinced that CKO had helped to show that this was possible.

They described how they had learned things like how to relate to the group. One of the most difficult aspects of their work has been to not take on the leadership in groups. There have been constant struggles with how to encourage, train and motivate others to take on leadership roles. There has been considerable resistance for citizens to take on leadership as well as membership in citizen initiatives. Organizers have struggled with their instincts to fill in this role for groups but as a result build dependence on themselves and thus reduce the group’s capacity to be effective. There seem to be specific difficulties in doing this work in post-Communist countries regarding issues of membership and leadership.

Another significant problem commonly faced was to work with the group following their first victory. The method of selecting the next issue to work has been part of the problem. Also there have been a number of people for whom solving the original problem was what was important to them. They then moved away from the group.

Most of the issues that have emerged have been related with physical space and plans for development. Very few issues to date have included social issues like drugs or homeless. There are issues that have been addressed related to safety however. Thus far these issues have not lead to longer term relations with groups like the police.

Another aspect of the work was related to elections. There was a realization that voter turnout was low, especially in local elections. Local politicians generally took their constituency for granted. The good news was that the voting system did provide for election by districts and that votes of city council members was recorded and available to the public. CKO worked with citizens to prepare campaigns prior to the election where four major things occurred. The first was to conduct candidate forums, primarily for Mayoral candidates. The second was to prepare a “citizens agenda” based on issues that critical to the needs of residents living in Banska Bystrica. The third was to tabulate the votes of city council members from the previous four years on votes taken that were of particular relevance to citizens. These were then widely distributed around the city. Finally, a get-out-the-vote effort was also included to encourage citizens to actively participate. Considerable success was found with this campaign.

Citizens are learning that there are two options available for them when solving problems like the lack of playgrounds in their neighborhood. On one hand, they can raise some money and donate time to actually construct a new playground. On the other, they can also hold elected officials to ensure that city resources are spent on things like this when citizens really wish for this to occur.

A different model of organizing has developed in Slovakia than exists in England or Germany where the Industrial Areas Foundation have been active. In these western European examples, they generally work in larger areas where more than 100,000 people may live and build a “platform” where 30 to 40 different organizations are the core membership. The experience in Slovakia has been that these type of organizations do not exist or when they do like churches, they do not tend to get involved in community work as yet. The Slovak model ahs been based primarily on individual members. Even the issue of membership has been a problem however as a “post-Communist legacy” exists where people are very hesitant to become members. They are often willing and interested to get involved and be a part but the idea of being a “member” is something that they strongly resist.

The hardest part of the work was changing attitudes and thinking in this part of the world. Both Anna and Kajo believe though that considerable progress has been made over the previous ten plus years.

Discussion with activists turned local politicians

Vlado Pirocek and Ludmilla Priehodova joined the group later in the morning. Vlado introduced himself as a lawyer with a background in Environment and Public Interest. He had been living in Bratislava with his wife and had helped prepare several items related to important legislation on things such as Freedom of Information (FOI). After working with nearly 40 to 50 cases of citizen groups filing complaints about implementation of FOI and having lost many of these, he decided to move back to his home town of Banska Bystrica and enter local politics to attempt to bring about change from the inside. He helped to form an independent group which called itself, Banska Bystrica Alternative (BBA). The group was quite successful in their first campaign when 6 of their 11 candidates won.

However they find themselves in a distinct minority out of 31 members. The current ruling coalition does not like BBA as they often find themselves criticizing activities being carried out. The majority of issues that they are involved with are related to land planning and sale of city property. It is the experience of BBA that many of these deals are corrupt and certainly done without almost no consultation with citizens.

BBA has initiated several new things through their efforts. They have initiated a weekly session where citizens could visit them to discuss concerns they may have about the activities of city hall. They have initiated a law that provides more space for citizens who might have an interest to attend and speak on their behalf at the monthly city council meetings. They have also gotten legislation approved providing more public information on the city’s web site. They also signed an ethical code which is the first time such an activity has been undertaken.

Ludmilla also gave some of her background. She is an architect who had been active for at least eight years in her neighborhood of Radvan where citizens conducted a two and a half year campaign to prevent the Shell Oil Company from constructing a gas station in the middle of their neighborhood that Chuck had mentioned the previous day. Following this campaign, she had been asked to run for city council and won. She described her experience as feeling uncomfortable in the setting of City Hall. She continues to feel more as an activist than as a politician. She learned early on the importance to inform and involve people and continues to fight for this right. It is her experience that considerable business interests block any interest to involve citizens. She eagerly joined BBA when there was consideration of forming such a group and was re-elected.

The long-term goal of the group is to eventually expand from their current 6 to a minimum of 16 and also to nominate and elect a candidate for Mayor as well. It is their belief that there should be three different components t help make the local political situation work better. There is a need for good people to run as politicians. There is also a need to “think tanks” to exist and to provide thoughtful reflection. They also believe that there is a need for citizen activists’ structures that will push for important changes.

They gave a recent example of how far the city is from promoting active participation. During the previous year, city hall needed to prepare a plan for impending school closures. Several members from BBA had requested that a plan be prepared and discussed with city council before implanting any changes. They later learned that in fact a plan had been prepared by three members of city hall staff. This plan was done without any consultation of anyone outside the three including school officials, city council members or of course citizens. When time came for school closings to be announced, their plan was released and it created considerable turmoil from many sides. It was such a problem that the Mayor asked that the plan be stopped and re-done. It doesn’t appear however that the lesson of the need for broad consultations has been learned. They indicated that Slovak law actually provides significant opportunities for participation but that the law is not followed or used to municipality’s advantage.

Additional points

Three additional items were raised related to the topic. The first was a consideration of the public arena in which there are three sectors:

Government

Business Citizen or Third sector

In Central and Eastern Europe, the citizen or third sector is considerably underdeveloped. Very few citizen structures exist. The “post-Communist legacy” continues to make efforts to change this difficult. As a result, there are significant barriers to having citizens more actively participate. Even if governments were more open to active participation, it is complicated by the fact that citizens do not have structures which more easily allow them to engage. It was also pointed out however, that there are a few advantages that these structures do not exist. It is possible to create functional ones rather than having to alter existing ones that do not work.

The second item was the “ladder of participation”:

The Central and Eastern European region is characterized by very low levels of participation. Many localities struggle with whether citizens are even INFORMED. Reaching higher levels of participation rarely happens in this region. It is not valued nor are structures available to adequately support it. This is a significant difference for most Western European areas.

The final area discussion was the beginning of a discussion about the differences between community organizing and community development. The members of the group decided to begin a chart where we listed some of the possible differences. An initial brainstorming occurred and the start of a chart emerged.

	Community Development	Community Organizing
Relation to each other
Values
Role of staff and training
Role of citizens and training
Accountability (to whom?)
Main activities / basic tasks
Desired outcome
Options for funding
Attitude towards (own) power		”

Several items were raised in the discussion that followed. It was raised that in Germany there is an issue in community development where the work can expand from the community to a bridging role/ an intermediary role to a management role. Under state programs in Germany there is a goal to have citizens become involved and to own the solutions. Under community development, things are more under control and therefore more appealing to authorities. With community organizing, things are more “out of control” and thus can be more threatening to authorities.

Evening in the neighborhood

That evening the group attended a community meeting in Zvolen where the primary agenda was discussion about a strategy for improving parking in the neighborhood. The group had made contact with the School of Architecture in Bratislava and was interested in getting students to compete in a comprehensive plan for how to improve the serious problem of parking in the neighborhood. Following this meeting, they were invited to have pizza at the neighborhood restaurant. The owner of the pizza place has become active in the neighborhood and recently joined the CKO Board.

Conclusions

1. The discussion regarding community organizing was a very useful exercise. There seem to be a number of possibilities and opportunities for using this type of approach.
2. There was a helpful mix of presenting some of the theory, hearing from practitioners and actually attending a community meeting in Zvolen.
3. The session followed a structure and the pace went well including informal time.
4. An important term was raised – citizen/citizenship. It is a very significant word in our work but also raises many new issues and questions in the new realities of Europe.
5. The contrast of elected officials and organizers was important. It helped to see work to be done.
6. The Public arena diagram is a helpful way to describe part of our work.
7. The term used in community organizing “deliver people” is a new one for most and significant.
8. The group liked the idea of the stance of “never willing to be held hostage” to funding sources which is also used in community organizing.
9. Action seems to be a critical factor, (especially in the CEE region) which also needs to include reflection as well.
10. Partnerships (meaning local government initiated relationships with communities) seem to be much more a part of Western Europe. They are not very often found in the CEE region.
11. What will be the long term aspect of these partnerships?
12. On the other side, are they helpful or do they keep things under control and thus avoid necessary conflicts?
13. We should continue to work on the chart differentiating community organizing and community development