Glen,
In thinking through Local Government Laws, I tend to think about what are the characteristics of the country and its subdivisions, and how will these influence the success or stumbles of subnational divisions and, as a consequence, the laws, assignment of responsibilities and resources, and constraints that would need to formulated, implemented, monitored and limited, and what should be encouraged and rewarded, and how.
This is my first cut at setting out the factors that in my experience help or hurt the performance of communities, especially with regard to cohesiveness and conflict. The cohesiveness would be expected to predispose groups to be willing to trust and work together, and share. Conflict, of course, tends to create suspicious and tensions. In real life, the barriers and lines are not necessarily rigid, but if poorly managed, could make unnecessarily difficulties. When the processes for decision-making, establishing priorities and allocation of resources relationships, are clearly set out in a manner that is accepted as fair, over time, communities usually work better and trust grows and reinforces. So, these are my usual areas to start quietly exploring. When these are fairly well understood, the outline of the decision-making and implementation of programs, including who gets to participate, how leaders are chosen, the assurance of transparency ensues. I also tend not to express the process in quite this way because some will bristle. So language is also important. What helps is that everybody/group do not necessarily want the same thing, or at the same time, so that priority of items are also important to understand. We could start out by classifying the population groups and elements of the agenda and who and where the priorities are. Then we could look at who is benefitting from what (processes; products) at this time, and how each group would be likely to react to particular proposals. Surprisingly, I have found that when you lay out the draft results and indicate how it would be possible to improve each groups benefits, a viable negotiable proposal can result. What is important for the interlocutor is to be seen as non partisan and aiming to have everyone get closer to their objectives over a reasonable period of time.
I would also try to address the circumstances of different characteristics among different localities/regions. Generally, it is reasonable to take into account the local wellbeing in allocating center resources to regions. It is usual to allow more scope in the decision making of the amount, size and range of programs where the regions are less dependent. Relatively, these regions also should be allowed to use their own resources to take reasonable risks and establish priorities that represent genuine consensus in their regions. We can continue to refine these distinctions.
This may be a good place to pause and let you add and substract.
Fitz.
I hope this is a helpful start. As you know, this is just the start!
I forgot to address the circumstances of different characteristics among different localities/regions. Generally, it is reasonable to take into account the local wellbeing in allocating center resources to regions. It is usual to allow more scope in the decision making of the amount, size and range of programs where the regions are less dependent. Relatively, these regions also should be allowed to use their own resources to take a reasonable risks and priorities that represent genuine consensus in their regions. We can continue to refine these distinctions.
