Author: Juraj Sklenar
Company: NISPAcee

NISPAcee Annual Conference, Sofia, 25-27 March, 1999

Strengthening relations between Local Government and the Public: Three Case Studies in Lithuania

Jolanta Vaiciuniene
Municipal Training Center
Kaunas University of Technology

I  Introduction

Since 1995, Kaunas Municipal Training Center (MTC) has been working to improve the public information between elected officials, administrative staff and its citizens. In partnership with the National Endowment for Democracy, National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), World Bank, Development Associates Inc. and Phare, the Center has worked with more than 30 local governments in Lithuania. 
In this paper, I would like to share the specific experiences of the Municipal Training Center in strengthening relations between local government and the public. Based on our experience, I will describe three case studies in strategic planning, which we believe to be the one of the most effective efforts in local democracy and community building. In presenting the case studies, I will summarize the projects and then identify some key elements to consider when planning to undertake strategic planning projects with citizen input. But prior to discussing the specific projects, I would like to set a framework (or concept) for these projects: briefly discuss the importance of citizen participation and strategic planning for the development of democracy.
Framework
Public participation in the local decision making and governing process is an essential part of democracy. Governments are often categorized as democratic based upon free and fair elections. But democracy is much more than people’s ability to elect their leaders. Democracy requires that citizens should have regular opportunities between elections to communicate their needs to their government, either as individuals or through civic organizations.
An election, while it determines who should lead, usually does not provide a clear indication of where the community should to go. For the people who live and work in the community, it is very important to know the future development plans that have direct impact on their quality of life and their economic well being. For elected officials and administrative staff it is important to know the community needs in setting priorities. In this paper, I will determine how those plans can be developed with citizen input.
Information Exchange
The flow of information to the people is fairly well developed in most local governments. It can occur through press conferences, information boards, local newspapers, television announcements, and alike. The most important features about delivering information is that it be honest and truthful. Misleading information only fosters distrust among the community members and the local governments.
For re-emerging democracies, obtaining information from the community members is a more challenging undertaking. Local governments can use suggestion boxes, conduct surveys, and hold general town hall meetings to hear concerns and ideas, or hold public meetings on a specific topic. But perhaps the most effective technique in obtaining information and also strengthening democracy is the strategic planning process.
Strategic Planning and Citizen Participation
Strategic planning is more than a political or public relations tool. It is a comprehensive approach that makes local governments and the public work together regularly to solve community and neighborhood problems, set priorities, make plans and decisions, design and implement programs and policies, and deliver public services. This partnership works only if local governments and the public officials who provide them create an environment that invites and enables citizens to participate. 
When citizens and local government officials work together to prepare strategic plans, then:
▪.	community needs and priorities can be identified;
▪.	local governments are enabled to design programs and services that meet the needs of their constituents;
▪.	local governments are given access to community resources;
▪.	governments can  manage conflict in the community better;
▪.	public support for local government can be built;
▪.	long term community building can be developed;
▪.	a trusting atmosphere between the local governments and the community could be established;
▪.	a ground for future elected officials could emerge.

II Case Studies
I will present three strategic planning projects of Lithuania, conducted as a part of a joint project Strengthening Local Democracy in Lithuania conducted in Jonava, Ukmerge and Alytus cities. The project was conducted by Municipal Training Center together with National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. The aim of this project was to support democratic society development in Lithuania, through the improvement of certain methods of public participation in the governing processes and making them sustainable and continuous.
Similarities. There were very many similarities in all three projects. All of them were conducted at the local level. In all three cases, we worked with citizen groups. Citizens committees were formed and each project possessed elements of strategic planning. The process was organized using brain storming and nominal group techniques and methods.
Differences. However, each of these projects had many differences. Each had different objectives - the structure of the processes was unique, the time period varied and the composition of the committees varied.

Ukmerge project “The Development of Strategic Plan for Ukmerge District Development”

MTC and NDI facilitated a year long process to develop a strategic plan for Ukmerge. The Ukmerge district municipality had a wish to prepare a detailed strategic plan for Ukmerge and involve experts from community into this process. A year time period was set for this project. Five expert subcommittees were formed. Each committee represented specific issues: social, education and culture, economy, personal-safety and communal services (public utilities). Each subcommittee included specialists from the municipality administration, businesses, schools, non-governmental organizations and elected officials. The size of each group varied from 6 to12 people. The process was structured into two stages. In the first stage all the subcommittees worked separately on their specific issues – gathered information, analyzed it, identified problems and prioritized them, and prepared the potential solutions. This first stage took almost six months. In the second stage, each subcommittee chose two representatives that represented the group’s interests in a broader committee. Thus, one committee of ten representatives was formed. The aim of this group was to bring all the material together, evaluate priorities across all spheres and prepare one Ukmerge district strategic development plan. Identifying across all spheres was a very challenging task. Each of the representatives was concerned that its sphere did not lose weight. Eventually, we determined that the priorities should remain by sphere. To complete this phase, the committee representatives presented their findings and recommendations to local elected officials and administrative staff. These priorities were recommended for consideration as a part of upcoming budget deliberations.

Jonava project “Strategic Directions for Jonava District Development”
The Jonava district municipality, in order to provide elected officials with some directions during the budget deliberations, asked community members to take part in a process of setting the main directions of Jonava district development. MTC/NDI facilitated this process as well. It was important to complete the process so that the directions could be used in the budget hearings. A three-month time period was set. Unlike the Ukmerge project, the composition of participants was very different. The committee was made up of nine citizens that represented a range of educational, social and age groups. Nine weekly meetings were held to discuss the problems of the region and suggest possible directions for the Jonava district. During each meeting, the citizens discussed different issues: ecology, personal-safety, social, culture, education, communal services and economy. At each meeting, local experts of each specific area, usually the heads of municipality departments, briefly presented the situation, related facts and issues. After such presentations, the members discussed the most concerning questions, laid out the problems and set the priorities. When all the issues were discussed, the committee members generalized all gathered information and pointed out the short-term and long-term directions for the Jonava district. Upon completion, the chairman of the group presented the recommendations to the municipal council to be used in budget deliberations. 
Alytus project “Disabled people integration into community”
In this case, a very narrow topic was selected on how to integrate disabled people into the community. The mayor, who was facing the issue on a regular basis, selected the topic. The mayor invited anyone interested in the issue to join in to solve problems. Twelve people became a part of a committee. They were either disabled themselves, or advocates of the disabled community. The purpose of the committee was to identify barriers that prevent disabled people from integrating into the broader community, and to recommend possible solutions to the municipality leaders. A six-month period of project duration was set. The process of the work was designed so, that at the beginning, the citizen’s committee members identified the main problems and then prioritized them. Fifteen meetings were held during which they analyzed each problem separately, gathering additional information, and seeking ways how to solve the problem. The committee presented its recommendations to the community members and to the mayor, and key city council members.
III Elements to consider
At this point, I would like to share what we believe are some key elements to consider in a strategic planning projects. We have seen how the topic, the timing and the duration of the project affect the outcome. We also have seen that the composition of the participants, and support from elected officials and administrative staff play an important role in the outcome. While each factor independently has an impact, it is also important to consider how they work together. 
•	The topic and its scope affects interest and participation
To attract participants to the process it is important to carefully choose a pertinent topic and announce this topic in a simple and understandable way. Otherwise, citizens will not be interested and will not show ownership in the project. This may cause the project to fail in the beginning period. The topic could be broad or narrow.
The objective in Jonava was to obtain broad directions from the community about the most important problems facing its citizens. Since most people faced one kind of problem or another, they were interested to participate in the process. The strategic planning process gave them an opportunity to state their concerns to their local government officials. 
The project in Alytus demonstrates how a narrow topic (integration of the disabled people into the broader community) can also attract participants. In this case, participants of like interests were involved. In Alytus the issue was also pertinent and actual. 
•	Duration of the project also affects interest and depth of the outcome
The duration of each project varied - twelve month in Ukmerge, six in Alytus and three in Jonava.
In retrospect, the twelve –month process became too long to maintain interest. The interval between meetings can become too long to sustain energy. However, in a twelve-month process, there is an opportunity to delve deeper into topics, identify more facts, and recommend solutions that can be implemented. This was especially true in the Ukmerge project, where most participants were experts in their own fields.
By contrast, the duration in Jonava was short and resulted in recommendations that were general, but across all spheres. The short time frame, combined with a desire to have recommendations in place for budget deliberations, provided an incentive for the committee to meet every week for 9 weeks. Such intensity could not be sustained over a long period.
In Alytus, the six-month time period was appropriate for the task. This time period allowed time for public hearings, meetings with elected officials as well as the committee meetings and sufficient for data gathering.
•	Timing of the project affects outcome
In all three projects, we learned the importance of timing. The budget cycle can be a significant period to consider when planning a project. It would be moot to deliver funding recommendations after the budget is approved. In such a case, the recommendations could lay dormant for months, and only if someone revives them, would they be considered again.
More importantly than actually funding recommendations of citizen’s committees, the budget deliberations allow for citizens to see the fruits of their labor. This of course, requires elected officials to take into consideration the recommendations. Politicians can incorporate recommendations in many ways.
In all three cities, the aim was to have recommendations available for the local budget process. In each, committee members had the opportunity to present their recommendations to city council members. The response varied. In Alytus, the mayor offered to establish a liaison position that will work with various disabled groups. This was a very direct result of the committee work. In each of the cities, a dialogue was started between the elected officials and the citizens. In Ukmerge and Jonava for example, a dialogue occurred between committee members and council members, as well as some administrative staff. While the initial response by elected officials was defensive, after some debate the elected officials requested another opportunity to meet.
The budget is not the only timing consideration in designing an effective process. For example, holidays and other key events need to be considered. In Jonava, we learned that scheduling meetings during certain basketball games was not productive.
The timing is key and certainly events can not be foreseen. It is important to work with local officials to understand the local timing factors.
•	The composition of the citizen’s committees also affects the outcome
In some strategic planning processes municipal officials appoint participants in to committees. However, in two of our examples a public invitation was made to solicit participants. In such circumstances, it is hard to make the prognoses what kind of people will respond to the announcements. To some extent the topic attracts certain kinds of people. For example in Alytus it was foreseeable that disabled persons, or persons directly interested in the topic would take part in the process. As such, the committee was made up of like interests. Therefore, it is reasonable that the outcome of this committee’s work was based on the input of people directly affected by the problem. The final recommendations included concrete suggestions for action.
In Jonava, a wide cross-section of persons participated in the process largely due to the problems people face everyday.  Members represented a range of social, economic, age, educational and interests. The recommendations in Jonava were broad but the depth was based only on their consumer level. The municipal officials anticipated more a representation of community opinions than specific and detailed action plans from this group.
In Ukmerge, public invitation and appointment selected the committee members. In those spheres where there was a lack of participation, experts in that field were asked by the municipality to take part. Some of these experts were employees of the municipality or its enterprises. Having these experts on the various committees added more depth to the discussions than there were in the Jonava or Alytus cases. The outcome was series of recommendations that were based on detailed analyses and the working knowledge of the experts.
•	Political support is equally important to the success
The process can only succeed when the leaders of the municipality understand the importance of  public participation and support it. It is very important that citizens have a sense of openness and trust from the mayor and council members. Two-way communications is very important. It is important that committee members also show openness and trust. This may be the most difficult achievement. If the elected officials are not willing to take the process and results honestly, then more harm than good could be done. 
In each of our three examples the mayors initiated the projects and supported them during the whole process. On a continuing basis, the support was most visible in Alytus. The mayor initiated the process, personally extended the invitation for interested people to attend, intermittently attended committee meetings and encouraged council members to consider the recommendations during the budget process.
In Jonava, the mayor was less active on a regular basis, but when there were some doubt about the usefulness of the committee, he defended the process explaining its usefulness to the council members and encouraged further public participation.
•	Administrative support lightens the work of the committee and the facilitators
Administration staff support helps to ease the process and to save time on administrative and logistic issues. Information from the administrative staff can be useful in planning and programming the project. The administration provides the link between the facilitators and the community. In each of the three cases, staff of the municipalities contacted the local media to inform about upcoming meetings, arranged for and prepared the facilities for the meetings, maintained a public record and provided information on various topics. 
IV Conclusion
In addressing strategic planning with citizens it is important to consider the objectives – does the community want a broad-based plan based on a wide cross section of perspectives, or a ready-to-implement plan designed by experts, or does it want to solve very specific issues facing the community. Much depends on the unique circumstances of the community, its needs and issues, and political agendas.
The process itself cannot be undervalued. Regardless of the objective, citizens who participate in the process learn more about their government, understand some of the problems facing governmental officials, learn to listen to each others opinions and reach consensus in setting priorities, access their elected officials and in sum become a part of the democracy process.