Independent Citizens Commission
Duration of the case: 1 year (July 2005 – June 2006).
Prepared by: Chuck Hirt
Center for Community Organizing, Slovakia
June 16, 2006
Abstract
This case study describes citizens’ efforts to address a repeated problem in the city of Banska Bystrica.
The problem is with how the city prepares development projects in neighborhoods. After repeated
experience of having projects proposed which citizens didn't like, they formed their own commission to
look at the entire system and propose some solutions. The commission met separately with city officials,
neighborhood residents and investors. They also visited England to learn more about how another European
Union country operates. They concluded their initial work by preparing a report with recommendations and
holding a press conference to promote these recommendations. While the final results are not yet known,
there is considerable discussion about the recommendations and new hope for a change.
Background
This case study presents citizens efforts to address a systemic problem in the city of Banska Bystrica in
Slovakia. For several years, residents had experienced a process of projects being prepared for their
neighborhoods without any consultation before final plans were presented. They were given little
opportunity to even learn about the proposed plans much less a chance to influence the final decision.
Banska Bystrica is a relatively large town in Slovak context of approximately 85,000 people. It is
considered the most significant city on the center of the country. Considerable changes have occurred in
Slovakia to better ensure more democratic processes. But the city of Banska Bystrica continues to operate
in a closed manner, not providing information to citizens and utilizing practices that are not transparent
regarding many operations; particularly development practices.
A pattern of closed and probably corrupt practices of preparing development projects has been the repeated
practice in virtually every neighborhood in the city. Citizens from the Radvan neighborhood approached
the Center for Community Organizing in 2001 regarding their desire to prevent the construction of a gas
station in the pedestrian center of their neighborhood. A two and a half year fight ensued when residents
continued to protest the proposed project. They were ultimately successful in stopping the proposed project
when the Shell Oil Company agreed to drop plans to construct the gas station. A similar process occurred
in the Sasova neighborhood when the city proposed building a grocery store on one of the few open green
spaces. Residents learned about it at the last minute and were able to stop it as well.
When citizens opposed projects, the city complained that they were being negative and opposing
development. Citizens were frustrated as they were never consulted about proposed developments and
were only left to complain at the end of the process.
Following two more cases of this same process in other neighborhoods, leaders from several civic
initiatives agreed to attempt a different approach to change the process of how development projects are
prepared. They proposed setting up a special commission to examine the current process and to seek
solutions on how to improve the process for all involved. The Center for Community Organizing was
successful in getting a grant from the SC Ministry Foundation in the US to support the creation of the
special commission including the opportunity to travel to another European Union country.
About the organization
The Center for Community Organizing (CCO) is an organization with a ten year history in Slovakia. Their
primary work is to assist citizens to become more active in their communities. For detailed information
about the Center for Community Organizing, Slovakia, please visit www.cko.sk.
Concept
The concept was to form a special commission of independent citizens from Banska Bystrica. The intent
was to bring together a group which would represent a cross section of interests including neighborhoods,
investors and independent concerns. The project was delayed in implementation nearly a year when the
Center for Community Organizing underwent a painful internal fight about the direction of the
organization. After resolving the internal situation, a group of eight people were recruited and agreed to
serve on the commission. They took the name Independent Citizens Commission (which in Slovak is
Nezavisla Obcianska Komisia or in short form - NOK).
This Commission was launched during Citizen Participation Week on the end of September, 2005. (For
details about CPW, visit http://www.ceecn.net/cpw ).
2
Objective
The specific objective of NOK was to look at the current process regarding how development projects are
prepared for neighborhoods in Banska Bystrica and to suggest possible changes.
Methodology
The methodology which the members of NOK agreed to follow had three parts. The first was to meet
separately with each of the main actors in the development process (City, neighborhood leaders and
investors) to explore with them how the process is working from their point of view. Each group was
asked three basic questions:
1. What is working well in the current situation?
2. What is not working well in the current situation?
3. What would they recommend be changed/improved to make things better?
The second aspect of the commission’s work was to read some information about how this process could
work or has worked in our countries and situations. Several articles and small books were translated into
Slovak for the members of the commission. The final part of the work of the commission was to arrange a
site visit to another European Union country to explore first hand, some alternative ways in which
development plans are prepared for neighborhoods. The country of England was selected based on several
contacts there with organizations active in related work including a sister city of Banska Bystrica (Durham
County). The site visit was conducted near the end of the process in order to allow the members of get
commission to gather considerable experience with the process and best utilize the time visiting.
A final draft of the results of the work of the commission and their recommendations was then prepared
and a press conference was prepared in which NOK introduced their report and final recommendations.
Implementation
In the summer of 2005, eight members from Banska Bystrica were recruited to serve on NOK. The first
meeting of the Commission was held during Citizen Participation Week. A work plan was discussed and
approved. The work plan included a commitment to meet monthly. The plan was to meet separately with
each of the three main actors starting with city officials. The Commission agreed to conduct the first
session at City Hall to make it easier for them to attend and agreed that the remaining two sessions would
be hosted at the CCO offices.
A list of possible invitees was discussed and invitations were prepared for city officials for a meeting in late
October. Approximately eight representatives from the city attended the meeting with NOK members.
The discussion was productive although there were not many problems noted from the side of city officials
about how the current process operates.
A second session was scheduled in late November with neighborhood leaders at the CCO offices. Again
approximately eight representatives attended. This session was much livelier as was anticipated.
Neighborhood leaders had considerably more suggestions for how the process could be improved.
Fundamentally neighborhood leaders wished to be included much earlier in the process and wished to have
greater influence in determining what projects were approved for their neighborhoods.
The third and final session for the first round was scheduled in January with investors. It was not certain
whether any representatives from this group would attend as there had been little contact with them
beforehand. But again approximately eight representatives showed up for the meeting. This session ended
up being the most surprising as the investors were quite open and critical of the current process. There was
some expectation that investors would be critical of neighborhood activists but the opposite was true.
Several of them reported how they no longer even attempt to do business with the city as their process is
3
not transparent and fair. They were quite skeptical whether any changes could be made to improve the
situation although they were very clear about the need for changes.
During this time, several different materials were being translated and presented to the Commission
members as additional background on how various cities are utilizing other practices to prepare planning
and development projects.
In February, a group of four members from the Commission and two staff from CCO traveled for one week
to England to learn more about how practices are carried out in another European Union country.
Arrangements were made to visit London, Durham County and Newcastle. A very busy schedule was
prepared with a variety of contacts ranging from national officials utilizing e-planning to local officials,
municipal staff as well as neighborhood activists and staff from middle and low income neighborhoods.
The delegation found this trip to be extremely valuable and inspirational. They returned with a better
understanding of how development projects could be prepared in a more effective manner for the whole
community.
Throughout the remainder of winter and early spring, drafts were prepared summarizing all the meetings,
conversations, translated materials and site visit to England. A draft and then final report was prepared
with conclusions and with main recommendations highlighted. The group agreed to hold a press
conference to publicize the results. All parties who had participated in the process were invited to the press
event. The press event went quite well with the exception of the lack of the city’s presence. Those who
attended strongly urged the Commission to continue its work and to attempt to ensure the implementation
of their recommendations.
Results/Analysis
The work of the Commission has been an excellent start and hope for some changes in the process. Many
people acknowledged that while there was nothing particularly surprising in the final report, it was the first
time that it had been actually documented and made public. Fundamental to the whole process was an
effort to be pro-active in addressing the problem. Instead of continuing to simply complain and to fight,
leaders attempted to utilize a more systemic approach in looking at the whole process.
It was also very helpful to consider experience outside of Banska Bystrica. Members of the Commission
continually commented on how helpful it was to consider other options and new ways of thinking.
The ultimate effects of the report are uncertain as the recommendations are yet to be implemented. One
factor that was taken into account was that local elections would be held within approximately six months
from the release of the final report. It is intended that this could be used by citizens and others as an
additional tool by which to hold potential candidates accountable by asking their opinion about the report
and possible promises to see it enacted into law as well as administrative practices implemented.
Ironically, as NOK was completing its work on the draft document, the city launched yet another large
development project in a neighborhood just east of the downtown area. The proposed project was very
controversial and many people were opposed to the designs proposed. The city attempted to utilize a
minimal approach to involving citizens including no public hearing. NOK officially objected to the project
and helped to support an effort to involve citizens. City Council approved a motion to extend the time for
comments and required that a public hearing be held. Over 400 people came to the hearing and loudly
protested the approval of the project. NOK intends to continue to push for implementation of their
recommendations and this controversial project will help support their recommendations.
One other immediate effect of the work of the Commission was that they were invited by the city to send a
representative to help prepare the “Program for Economic and Social Development”. Very few
organizations were invited to participate which demonstrates some immediate respect shown for the
Commission and its work.
4
Success factors/Risks/Recommendations
Key factors, which contributed to our success, were:
1. Talented and good people were recruited to serve on the Commission. They dedicated a considerable
amount of time to the project. In the end, two of the eight members of the Commission were unable to
attend a sufficient number of meetings and were then not listed in the final report. But the remaining six
made invaluable contributions.
2. If you wish to have the participation of investors, it will likely help to have at least one member of the
commission from that sector. We are convinced that their participation was significantly enhanced by the
presence of an investor on the commission.
3. An open and transparent process was undertaken by talking with all parties involved to secure their
perspective on the current situation.
4. It was critical that an organization like CCO was there to guide the process including having the facility
for meetings, working with leaders to prepare agendas, raise needed funds (including money for the site
visit to England) and for translations and printing.
The primary risk involved is process that the recommendations will not be enacted. If there is not
additional pressure placed on officials and candidates for local office, nothing will happen. The work of
the Commission was a start, not an end to the work.
Our recommendation is that this process can be very useful but would be much more difficult without the
presence of an organization that can assist in the overall management of the process. It is also important to
consider the remaining task of helping to ensure that some changes will result from the effort.
Contacts information
The case was prepared by Chuck Hirt, Consultant with Center for Community Organizing. For and further
questions or comments please fill free to contact him at:
Kapitulska 13
97401 Banska Bystrica
Slovakia
(421) 48-412 38 80
(421) 905 654 212
chuck@cko.sk
5