Taylor, I don't suppose the concept of participatory budgeting has been raised in the Inclusive WG, has it?
Shea, while the concept has some
weaknesses as currently practiced, the ease with which
stakeholders can engage in helping to determine how public funding
is spent is a potential measure of the degree of collaboration
within a community. (Relatively few will take the time and
trouble to drive to Beaufort and back on three consecutive days.)
Chris, while many donors may not care to be involved in budgetary details, they might be willing to contribute more if the results (outputs & outcomes) were reported in an open, standard, machine-readable format so that value-added intermediaries -- like the Community Foundation -- can make such information readily available and comprehensible not only to donors but also prospective beneficiaries, partners, and other stakeholders.
If folks don't believe enough of other people's money is being
spent, it should be easy for them to indicate how much more of
their own they'd like to contribute to the realization of clearly
specified objectives, each with its own performance metrics.
In any event, hope one of the objectives (strategies) coming out of the Connected and Collaborative WG will be to create a StratML-enabled directory of area and regional organizations.
If a center of excellence is formed to focus on public planning
and engagement, participatory budgeting is fertile ground for
improvement... and it seems like leadership and progress in that
regard might be more likely in a community like ours than, say,
Chicago or Porto Alegre, Brazil. Indeed, the very notion of
excellence rings hollow without consideration of budgeting.
Owen