[OccupyNeeds] Draft $1,000,000 distribution plan.
Jay Blas Jacob Cabrera
red at wc.tc
Tue Dec 13 22:38:35 EST 2011
Draft $1,000,000 distribution plan.
Hey everyone,
I have devised a strategy for a funding distribution technique that can be used to distribute any amount of funding from small to big, while making sure that the funds are distributed in a diverse way, and simultaneously in a cohesive budgeted way. For simplicity I am going to use $1,000,000 and a year (365 days), as a model, but you can use any amount of money and any number of days.
I have copied and pasted this entire plan onto the end of the Comprehensive Finance plan in the movement which is editable by anyone:
https://pad.riseup.net/p/FundingPlan
Principles:
- Full inclusivity - anyone who wants to be involved can be involved in the decion-making for distributing the funds
- Conflict of Interest - Anyone who is asking for funds can be involved, but the process makes their vote become separated from their groups funding. No one can block because their group isn't getting funded, and blockers must suggest an alternative for someone else's group to get funding not theirs. Also funding decisions are made by separate groups from the organizations that spends the money. And lastly, the final participatory budgeting process integrity consensus takes place separately from the agreement on the budgetary distribution itself.
- Small Groups - The key to the functioning of making budgetary decisions by consensus is to have small groups of about 10 people. IF bigger groups arise we would break them into smaller groups of 5-10 and use spokes councils as needed for building consensus on budgets.
- Consensus - The goal will be for all decisions to be made by consensus, but there should be default measures to make sure we have back up plans.
- Diversity & cohesion- Goal is to fund a diversity of organizations and projects, but simultaneously all the funds will be coordinated within a cohesive budget.
- Participatory Budgeting - collectively all the small groups will help build the full $1,000,000 budget together, and work collaboratively to ensure the budget is cohesive and meets the primary goals and needs overall.
General Vision:
The $1,000,000 is split into small funding pools of money. This should be done on a multi-level process to ensure there is a participatory budgeting approach to the funding distribution, as opposed to just one time "grants" over and over without any cohesive connection between the organizations and projects.
Levels of Funding:
20%: Annual
20%: Quarterly/Seasonal
20%: Monthly
20%: Weekly
20%: Daily
100%: Total
20% =~ $200,000
Daily Meetings:
The distribution process would occur continuously, with everyday having an open online meeting where anyone could join and be involved in deciding how the daily funding distribution pool would be distributed. Additionally this group would also participate in the budgeting process for the weekly, monthly, seasonal, and annual distributions. In this way participants would be able to prioritize and finalize the small amount of daily funds to be distributed, as well as play a key role in prioritizing and creating the budgets for larger pool distributions.
Here is the Breakdown for the $1,000,000 distribution:
(if consensus or default measure cannot be reached, then the funds would automaticlly roll over to the next day for finalizing the decision.)
Each day $547.94 would be distributed
Each week an additional $3,846.18 would be distributed
Each Month an additional $16,666.70 would be distributed
Each Season an additional $50,000.03 would be distributed
Each Year an additional $200,000.02 would be distributed
Annual distribution per Level:
$199,998.10 - Daily
$200,001.36 - Weekly
$200,000.40 - Monthly
$200,000.12 - Seasonal
$200,000.02 - Yearly
$1,000,000 - Total
Participatory Budgeting Process:
Instead of doing a static participatory budgeting process where everyone collectively works together to create a long term annual budget to be distributed, this process is an Active participatory budgeting process where small amounts of money are actively distributed within the participatory budgeting process itself.
Everyday when the $547.94 is distributed, that distribution is not seen as a separate distribution of funds excluded from the participatory budgeting process. Instead the participatory budgeting process links the daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal, and annual budget processes together to create one single comprehensive annual budget.
For example when creating the comprehensive weekly budget, the total budget for the week will always be $7,681.76 even though $547.94 of that money will actually be distribution on a daily basis. Every days distribution is counted as part of the whole budget and the weekly budget, as a whole, needs to be agreed upon each week, not just a single $3,846.18 funding distribution.
Here is how it would work:
Daily Funding Pools:
The meeting times would be set in advance (each day of the week could technically have a different time, or the time could be the same for every day). The goal of this would be to allow for smaller groups because the groups would be dealing with less money on a daily biases. If on any particular day, the group got too large, over 10/12 people, the group would be split into two smaller groups of 5-10 people and the funding distribution would be split in half. This would be true at all levels.
The individuals in the small groups would suggest ideas of where the money could go towards, and could even suggest their own projects and proposals. There would be a prioritization process and polling to see which projects had the most support. Then proposals would be herd on how to distribute the funds, and the group would need to come to consensus on distributing their total to either one organization or project, or to give to multiple projects. Consensus would need to be reached, or a default measure could be used if consensus wasn't achievable. If there was a large enough group that needed to split into smaller groups, each smaller group would be able to allocate its funding total independent of the other on a daily biases. If the group is unable to come to consensus, or reach their default measure vote, then those funds would be roll over into the next day.
After consensus or default measure is achieved, the group will need to pic a neutral representative who is willing to observe and not participate in the weekly funding pool distribution. If the group is unable to reach a decision, then they cannot choose a neutral observer for the weekly funding pool.
Also each daily meeting will require the typical consensus meeting set up including a facilitator, note taker, time keeper, and the notes will be the legally binding document that will allow for the official release of the funds to the organizations that has been awarded. These notes must be taken in a transparent manner so everyone can verify the decisions that were made by each daily meeting.
After the daily distribution has been agreed upon, each daily group can discuss the weekly, monthly, seasonal and yearly budget(s) and give priorities and recommendations into the participatory budgeting process. Most importantly as part of the participatory budgeting process, the priorities of each day will automatically be compiled into the weekly, monthly, seasonal and yearly budget priorities and be an essential component for how the budgets are allocated and approved. Therefore, although each daily allocation of $547.94 will be finalized, the group actually participates in the full budgeting of $1,000,000 and its distribution. Daily groups can also suggest specific line items within the larger budget as well as create proposals for entire sections or updates to the larger budgets as they become more understood and established.
Weekly funding pools:
The weekly funding pool budget meeting should take place on the day of the week and time when the most people are able to attend based on the scheduling process.
Each week the group that comes together will be responsible for passing a comprehensive weekly budget in the amount of $7,681.76. Although the group will not be allocating all of those funds, as some of the funds will have already been allocated throughout the week, the decision will not be single allocations, but instead the full approval of the weekly budget, and within that the allocations agreed upon will be approved.
Everyone who gets on the call will be able to Fully participate in the decision-making, except for the neutral observers who where chosen at each daily funding pool. Therefore, there can be a maximum of 6 neutral observers and a minimum of 2? or 3? (need to make this decision still), will be needed to sign off on the completion of the participatory budgeting process itself after the final budget is agreed upon. More will be explained bellow.
In this weekly meeting, the group will allocate of the remaining weekly funds. Each day $547.94 is allocated for each of 6 days. Because the seventh day of each week allocates the weekly budget, we add the daily budget to that total to get the full amount to be allocated within the weekly meeting if everything has gone smoothly during the daily funding rounds.
Total already distributed from daily rounds: $3,287.64
Total to be allocated for the weekly pool: $4,394.12
Total to be agreed upon for the weekly budget: $7,681.76
Because the weekly meeting is dealing with more money than the daily meetings, naturally it will have more people who are interested in getting involved. Therefore at the beginning of the meeting, if there are more than 10-12 people, the group will be split up into smaller groups of 5-10 people, and each group will be responsible for proposing the allocation of its portion of the $4,394.12.
Because the group on a whole is approving the weekly budget and not single allocations, each smaller group is only able to propose its distribution of funds instead of directly distributing them. In that way, each smaller group will propose its allocation to the larger group for an up or down vote, but only the smaller group can change the amount. If agreement can be reached for some of the smaller groups, but not others, then the amount within the groups that did not get agreed upon will simply roll over to the next week, and all the funds that have been approved will be allocated as part of the budget. Although the weekly budget can allocate all of the funds, they can also agree to roll over any amount of funds to the next week if they aren't ready to allocate them, there is no requirement to allocate all of the money.
Each group cannot simply allocate the funds to whoever they want, because other groups meeting simultaneously may decide to allocate it to the same group, and since everyone is tasked to create an overall budget, it is the responsibility of each group to be in communication with the other groups and come back together to make sure the overall budget fits together.
More importantly it is essential that the weekly funding decision follows the protocol of using the budgetary priorities etablished throughout the week during weekly funding rounds. The weekly funding group can also add to those priorities but they must allocate the funds based on the agreed upon priorities of everyone participating within the participatory budgeting process.
This process can be taking place online, and through email list serves throughout the week to have a draft budget already created for each week when going into the meeting.
After the weekly budget is finalized, it is the role of the neutral observers to make sure that the protocol has been followed and that the participatory budgeting process has included all the input from the daily funding rounds as well as other online input.
At the end of the meeting, after the budget has been approved by consensus, or using the default measure, the neutral observers will be the only people who can speak except for the facilitator(s) to call on the neutral observers to speak. Anyone else who interrupts will be removed. If for any reason, the neutral observers feel the participatory budgeting process has not been followed, any one of them can block the signing off of the process. There will be no default measure for coming to consensus on the integrity of the participatory budgeting process itself. If any one of the neutral observers feel the process was not fair, interactive, or was dominated or controlled for special interest, they can block signing off on it. Although the neutral observers can block for any reason, the most obvious reason will be if they feel that the group that came together that day did not incorporate any of the input from previous meeting or the priorities set forth by people who were not able to attend, and instead they simply pushed their own projects through disregarding the input from everyone else and creating their own budget based on their own needs.
Neutral observers do have the right to step into the meeting at anytime if they notice something going on that is putting the process in jeopardy and to put the process back on track. But Neutral observers cannot talk or make any suggestion about how funds should be allocated, they are only allowed to talk about the participatory process itself.
Neutral observers cannot request changes to the budget in any manner, and only have the option of consenting on the process that occurred or blocking it. If a neutral observer blocks the integrity of the participatory budgeting process, then they must state what went wrong and how the process can be improved. The group can then try to set up an additional meeting during the week to continue discussion, or the entirety of the allocation will be rolled over into the next week. The next weeks budget will need to take into account the previous budget priorities and not start from scratch.
On the other hand, if the neutral observers do feel the participatory budgeting process was fair and inclusive, then they can sign off by consensus and allow the budget to be allocated. This must be showed in the notes before any allocations are made.
After the Neutral Observers have come to consensus to sign off on the integrity of the participatory budgeting process, the entire group then nominates 1 or 2 people to be a Neutral Observer for the Monthly funding pool, these people do not need to be one of the current neutral Observers from that weeks round.
After the monthly Neutral Observers have been chosen, for those who want to stick around the group can continue discussion about priorities and draft budgets for the monthly, seasonal, and yearly funding pools.
Monthly Funding Pools:
The monthly funding pools are much the same format as the weekly funding pool, so some of this will be very repetitive.
The monthly funding pool budget meeting should take place on the same day of the week and time when the most people are able to attend based on the weekly scheduling process.
Each month the group that comes together will be responsible for passing a comprehensive monthly budget in the amount of about $47,393.74 depending on the number of days per month. Although the group will not be allocating all of those funds, as some of the funds will have already been allocated throughout the month, the decision will not be single allocations, but instead the full approval of the monthly budget, and within that the allocations agreed upon will be approved.
Everyone who gets on the call will be able to fully participate in the decision-making, except for the 1-2 neutral observers who where chosen at each of the three weekly funding pools. Therefore, there can be a maximum of 6 neutral observers and a minimum of 2? or 3?, will be needed to sign off on the completion and integrity of the participatory budgeting process itself after the final budget is agreed upon. More will be explained bellow.
In this monthly meeting, the group will allocate the remaining monthly funds. Each week $7,681.76 is budgeted for each of 3 week. Because the fourth week of each month allocates the last weekly budget, we add one weekly budget to that total to get the full amount to be allocated within the monthly meeting if everything has gone smoothly during the weekly and daily funding rounds.
Total already distributed from daily and weekly rounds: $23,045.28
Total to be allocated for the Monthly pool: $24,348.46
Total to be agreed upon for the weekly budget: $47,393.74
Because the monthly meeting is dealing with more money than the weekly meetings, naturally it will have more people who are interested in getting involved. Therefore at the beginning of the meeting, if there are more than 10-12 people, the group will be split up into smaller groups of 5-10 people, and each group will be responsible for proposing the allocation of its portion of the $24,348.46.
Because the group on a whole is approving the monthly budget and not single allocations, each smaller group is only able to propose its distribution of funds instead of directly distributing them. In that way, each smaller group will propose its allocation to the larger group for an up or down vote, but only the smaller group can change the amount. If agreement can be reached for some of the smaller groups, but not others, then the amount within the groups that did not get agreed upon will simply roll over to the next month, and all the funds that have been approved will be allocated as part of the budget. Although the monthly budget can allocate all of the funds, they can also agree to roll over any amount of funds to the next month if they aren't ready to allocate them, there is no requirement to allocate all of the money.
Each group cannot simply allocate the funds to whoever they want, because other groups meeting simultaneously may decide to allocate it to the same organization or project, and since everyone is tasked to create an overall budget, it is the responsibility of each group to be in communication with the other groups and come back together to make sure the overall budget fits together.
More importantly it is essential that the monthly funding decision follows the protocol of using the budgetary priorities etablished throughout the month during weekly and daily funding rounds. The monthly funding group can also add to those priorities but they must allocate the funds based on the agreed upon priorities of everyone participating within the participatory budgeting process.
This process can be taking place online, and through email list serves throughout the month to have a draft budget already created for each week when going into the meeting.
Because the monthly budget decision-making process could attracts more people, it is possible that it could take longer than one single meeting. The group can easily schedule a back up date for further disscussion ahead of time so that if the group runs out of time without coming to consensus, they can continue the discussion on this topic separately from other daily funding rounds.
After the monthly budget is finalized, it is the role of the neutral observers to make sure that the protocol has been followed and that the participatory budgeting process has included all the input from the daily funding rounds as well as other online input.
At the end of the meeting, after the budget has been approved by consensus, or using the default measure, the neutral observers will be the only people who can speak except for the facilitator(s) to call on the neutral observers to speak. Anyone else who interrupts will be removed. If for any reason, the neutral observers feel the participatory budgeting process has not been followed, any one of them can block the signing off on the integrity of the process. There will be no default measure for coming to consensus on the integrity of the participatory budgeting process itself. If any one of the neutral observers feel the process was not fair, inclusive, or was dominated or controlled for special interest, they can block signing off on it. Although the neutral observers can block for any reason, the most obvious reason will be if they feel that the group that came together that day did not incorporate any of the input from previous meetings or the priorities set forth by people who were not able to attend, and instead they simply pushed their own projects through disregarding the input from everyone else and creating their own budget based on their own needs.
Neutral observers do have the right to step into the meeting at anytime if they notice something going on that is putting the process in jeopardy and to help the process back on track. But Neutral observers cannot recommend or make any suggestion about how funds should be allocated, they are only allowed to talk about the participatory process itself.
Neutral observers cannot request changes to the budget in any manner, and only have the option of consenting on the process that occurred or blocking it. If a neutral observer blocks the integrity of the participatory budgeting process, then they must state what went wrong and how the process can be improved. The group can then try to set up an additional meeting during to continue discussion to meet the needs of the neutral observer(s). Otherwise the entirety of the allocation will be rolled over into the next month. The next months budget will need to take into account the previous budget priorities and not start from scratch.
On the other hand, if the neutral observers do feel the participatory budgeting process was fair and inclusive, then they can sign off by consensus and allow the budget to be allocated. This must be showed in the notes before any allocations are made.
After the Neutral Observers have come to consensus to sign off on the integrity of the participatory budgeting process, the entire group then nominates 2-3 people to be a Neutral Observers for the Seasonal funding pool, these people do not need to be one of the current neutral Observers from this monthly round.
After the monthly Neutral Observers have been chosen, for those who want to stick around, the group can continue discussion about priorities and draft budgets for the seasonal, and yearly funding pools.
Seasonal Funding Pools:
The seasonal funding pools are much the same format as the monthly and weekly funding pool, so some of this will be very repetitive.
The seasonal funding pool budget meeting should take place on the same day of the week and time when the most people are able to attend based on the weekly scheduling process.
Each season the group that comes together will be responsible for passing a comprehensive monthly budget in the amount of about $192,181.25 depending on the number of days per month/season. Although the group will not be allocating all of those funds, as some of the funds will have already been allocated throughout the month, the decision will not be single allocations, but instead the full approval of the monthly budget, and within that the allocations agreed upon will be approved.
Everyone who gets on the call will be able to fully participate in the decision-making, except for the 2-3 neutral observers who where chosen at each of the three weekly funding pools. Therefore, there can be a maximum of 6 neutral observers and a minimum of 2? or 3?, will be needed to sign off on the completion and integrity of the participatory budgeting process itself after the final budget is agreed upon. More will be explained bellow.
In this quarterly meeting, the group will allocate the remaining seasonal funds. Each month $47,393.74 is budgeted for each of 2 months. Because the third month of each season allocates the last monthly budget, we add one monthly budget to that total to get the full amount to be allocated within the seasonal meeting if everything has gone smoothly during the month, weekly and daily funding rounds.
Total already distributed from daily, weekly, and monthly rounds: $117,787.48
Total to be allocated for the Season pool: $74,393.77
Total to be agreed upon for the seasonal budget: $192,181.20
Because the seasonal meeting is dealing with more money than the monthly and weekly meetings, naturally it will have more people who are interested in getting involved. Therefore at the beginning of the meeting, if there are more than 10-12 people, the group will be split up into smaller groups of 5-10 people, and each group will be responsible for proposing the allocation of its portion of the $74,393.77.
Because the group on a whole is approving the seasonal budget and not single allocations, each smaller group is only able to propose its distribution of funds instead of directly distributing them. In that way, each smaller group will propose its allocation to the larger group for an up or down vote, but only the smaller group can change the amount. If agreement can be reached for some of the smaller groups, but not others, then the amount within the groups that did not get agreed upon will simply roll over to the next season, and all the funds that have been approved will be allocated as part of the budget. Although the monthly budget can allocate all of the funds, they can also agree to roll over any amount of funds to the next month if they aren't ready to allocate them, there is no requirement to allocate all of the money.
Each group cannot simply allocate the funds to whoever they want, because other groups meeting simultaneously may decide to allocate it to the same organization or project, and since everyone is tasked to create an overall budget, it is the responsibility of each group to be in communication with the other groups and come back together to make sure the overall budget fits together.
More importantly it is essential that the seasonal funding decision follows the protocol of using the budgetary priorities etablished throughout the season during monthly, weekly and daily funding rounds. The monthly funding group can also add to those priorities but they must allocate the funds based on the agreed upon priorities of everyone participating within the participatory budgeting process.
This process can be taking place online, and through email list serves throughout the season to have a draft budget already created going into the meeting.
Because the seasonal budget decision-making process could attract more people, it is possible that it could take longer than one single meeting. The group can easily schedule a back up date for further disscussion ahead of time so that if the group runs out of time without coming to consensus, they can continue the discussion on this topic separately from other daily and weekly funding rounds.
After the seasonal budget is finalized, it is the role of the neutral observers to make sure that the protocol has been followed and that the participatory budgeting process has included all the input from the daily, weekly, and monthly funding rounds as well as other online input.
At the end of the meeting, after the budget has been approved by consensus, or using the default measure, the neutral observers will be the only people who can speak except for the facilitator(s) to call on the neutral observers to speak. Anyone else who interrupts will be removed. If for any reason, the neutral observers feel the participatory budgeting process has not been followed, any one of them can block the signing off on the integrity of the process. There will be no default measure for coming to consensus on the integrity of the participatory budgeting process itself. If any one of the neutral observers feel the process was not fair, inclusive, or was dominated or controlled for special interest, they can block signing off on it. Although the neutral observers can block for any reason, the most obvious reason will be if they feel that the group that came together that day did not incorporate any of the input from previous meetings or the priorities set forth by people who were not able to attend, and instead they simply pushed their own projects through disregarding the input from everyone else and creating their own budget based on their own needs.
Neutral observers do have the right to step into the meeting at anytime if they notice something going on that is putting the process in jeopardy and to help the process back on track. But Neutral observers cannot recommend or make any suggestion about how funds should be allocated, they are only allowed to talk about the participatory process itself.
Neutral observers cannot request changes to the budget in any manner, and only have the option of consenting on the process that occurred or blocking it. If a neutral observer blocks the integrity of the participatory budgeting process, then they must state what went wrong and how the process can be improved. The group can then try to set up an additional meeting to continue discussion to meet the needs of the neutral observer(s). Otherwise the entirety of the allocation will be rolled over into the next month. The next months budget will need to take into account the previous budget priorities and not start from scratch.
On the other hand, if the neutral observers do feel the participatory budgeting process was fair and inclusive, then they can sign off by consensus and allow the budget to be allocated. This must be showed in the notes before any allocations are made.
After the Neutral Observers have come to consensus to sign off on the integrity of the participatory budgeting process, the entire group then nominates 1-2 people to be Neutral Observers for the Annual funding pool, these people do not need to be one of the current neutral Observers from this monthly round.
After the seasonal Neutral Observers have been chosen, for those who want to stick around, the group can continue discussion about priorities and draft budgets for the yearly funding pool.
Yearly Funding Pool:
The yearly funding pools are much the same format as the seasonal, monthly and weekly funding pool, so some of this will be very repetitive.
The yearly funding pool budget meeting should take place on the same day of the week and time when the most people are able to attend based on the weekly scheduling process.
Each year the group that comes together will be responsible for passing a comprehensive yearly budget in the amount of $1,000,000. Although the group will not be allocating all of those funds, as some of the funds will have already been allocated throughout the year, the decision will not be single allocations, but instead the full approval of the yearly budget, and within that the allocations agreed upon will be approved.
Everyone who gets on the call will be able to fully participate in the decision-making, except for the 1-2 neutral observers who where chosen at each of the three seasonal funding pools. Therefore, there can be a maximum of 6 neutral observers and a minimum of 2? or 3?, will be needed to sign off on the completion and integrity of the participatory budgeting process itself after the final budget is agreed upon. More will be explained bellow.
In this yearly meeting, the group will allocate the remaining yearly funds. Each season $192,181.20 is budgeted for each of 3 seasons. Because the fourth season of each year allocates the last seasonal budget, we add one seasonal budget to that total to get the full amount to be allocated for the yearly funding round meeting if everything has gone smoothly during the season, monthly, weekly and daily funding rounds.
Total already distributed from daily, weekly, monthly, and seasonal rounds: $694,331.08
Total to be allocated for the Yearly pool: $305,668.92
Total to be agreed upon for the yearly budget: $1,000,000
Because the yearly meeting is dealing with more money than the seasonal, monthly and weekly meetings, naturally it will have more people who are interested in getting involved. Therefore at the beginning of the meeting, if there are more than 10-12 people, the group will be split up into smaller groups of 5-10 people, and each group will be responsible for proposing the allocation of its portion of the $305,668.92.
Because the group on a whole is approving the yearly budget and not single allocations, each smaller group is only able to propose its distribution of funds instead of directly distributing them. In that way, each smaller group will propose its allocation to the larger group for an up or down vote, but only the smaller group can change the amount of allocation. If agreement can be reached for some of the smaller groups, but not others, then the amount within the groups that did not get agreed upon will simply roll over to the next year or season, month, week etc.., and all the funds that have been approved will be allocated as part of the budget. Although the yearly budget can allocate all of the funds, they can also agree to roll over any amount of funds to the next year if they aren't ready to allocate them, there is no requirement to allocate all of the money.
Each group cannot simply allocate the funds to whoever they want, because other groups meeting simultaneously may decide to allocate it to the same organization or project, and since everyone is tasked to create an overall budget, it is the responsibility of each group to be in communication with the other groups and come back together to make sure the overall budget fits together.
More importantly it is essential that the seasonal funding decision follows the protocol of using the budgetary priorities etablished throughout the year during seasonally, monthly, weekly and daily funding rounds. The yearly funding group can also add to those priorities but they must allocate the funds based on the agreed upon priorities of everyone participating within the participatory budgeting process.
This process can be taking place online, and through email list serves throughout the season to have a draft budget already created going into the meeting.
Because the seasonal budget decision-making process could attract more people, it is possible that it could take longer than one single meeting. The group can easily schedule a back up date for further disscussion ahead of time so that if the group runs out of time without coming to consensus, they can continue the discussion on this topic separately from other daily and weekly funding rounds.
After the yearly budget is finalized, it is the role of the neutral observers to make sure that the protocol has been followed and that the participatory budgeting process has included all the input from the daily, weekly, monthly, and seasonal funding rounds as well as other online input.
At the end of the meeting, after the budget has been approved by consensus, or using the default measure, the neutral observers will be the only people who can speak except for the facilitator(s) to call on the neutral observers to speak. Anyone else who interrupts will be removed. If for any reason, the neutral observers feel the participatory budgeting process has not been followed, any one of them can block the signing off on the integrity of the process. There will be no default measure for coming to consensus on the integrity of the participatory budgeting process itself. If any one of the neutral observers feel the process was not fair, inclusive, or was dominated or controlled for special interest, they can block signing off on it. Although the neutral observers can block for any valid reason, the most obvious reason will be if they feel that the group that came together that day did not incorporate any of the input from previous meetings or the priorities set forth by people who were not able to attend, and instead they simply pushed their own projects through disregarding the input from everyone else and creating their own budget based on their own needs.
Neutral observers do have the right to step into the meeting at anytime if they notice something going on that is putting the process in jeopardy and to help the process back on track. But Neutral observers cannot recommend or make any suggestion about how funds should be allocated, they are only allowed to talk about the participatory process itself.
Neutral observers cannot request changes to the budget in any manner, and only have the option of consenting on the process that occurred or blocking it. If a neutral observer blocks the integrity of the participatory budgeting process, then they must state what went wrong and how the process can be improved. The group can then set up an additional meeting to continue discussion to meet the needs of the neutral observer(s).
On the other hand, if the neutral observers do feel the participatory budgeting process was fair and inclusive, then they can sign off by consensus and allow the budget to be allocated. This must be showed in the notes before any allocations are made.
After the Neutral Observers have come to consensus to sign off on the integrity of the participatory budgeting process, the entire group does not necessarily need to appoint an additional neutral observer. Although this will be the final yearly funding round, it is completely possible to integrate this $1,000,000 funding process into larger participatory budgeting processes, so it can still be needed to appoint a neutral observer into a larger context of participatory budgeting.
If there is a larger participatory budgeting process, those who wish to continue discussion could talk about the larger budget as is needed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/private/occupyneeds/attachments/20111213/d005fd8e/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the OccupyNeeds
mailing list