Data

General Issues
Planning & Development
Transportation
Specific Topics
Public Amenities
Public Participation
Mass/Public Transport
Collections
University of Southampton Students
Location
Romsey
England
SO51
United Kingdom
Scope of Influence
City/Town
Parent of this Case
The UK Government’s Innovation in Democracy Programme
Files
Outcomes of the Romsey Citizens Assembly - Annex.pdf
Videos
Videos from the first weekend meeting
Videos from the second weekend meeting
Start Date
End Date
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Develop the civic capacities of individuals, communities, and/or civil society organizations
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Approach
Consultation
Total Number of Participants
42
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Open to All
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Stratified Random Sample
General Types of Methods
Community development, organizing, and mobilization
Deliberative and dialogic process
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Inform, educate and/or raise awareness
Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
Plan, map and/or visualise options and proposals
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
Yes
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Ask & Answer Questions
Express Opinions/Preferences Only
Information & Learning Resources
Expert Presentations
Site Visits
Written Briefing Materials
Decision Methods
Voting
General Agreement/Consensus
If Voting
Majoritarian Voting
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Public Report
Type of Organizer/Manager
Local Government
Non-Governmental Organization
Community Based Organization
Funder
Innovation in Democracy Programme
Type of Funder
National Government
Evidence of Impact
Yes
Types of Change
Changes in public policy
Changes in civic capacities
Implementers of Change
Elected Public Officials
Formal Evaluation
Yes
Evaluation Report Documents
Innovation In Democracy Final Evaluation.

CASE

Romsey Citizens' Assembly

June 10, 2023 Paolo Spada
May 23, 2023 hws1g20
May 23, 2023 Samuel Weekes
May 23, 2023 ogunbusolaseyi
May 23, 2023 Eddie Leveritt
May 22, 2023 Eddie Leveritt
May 14, 2023 Eddie Leveritt
May 9, 2023 Eddie Leveritt
May 2, 2023 Eddie Leveritt
General Issues
Planning & Development
Transportation
Specific Topics
Public Amenities
Public Participation
Mass/Public Transport
Collections
University of Southampton Students
Location
Romsey
England
SO51
United Kingdom
Scope of Influence
City/Town
Parent of this Case
The UK Government’s Innovation in Democracy Programme
Files
Outcomes of the Romsey Citizens Assembly - Annex.pdf
Videos
Videos from the first weekend meeting
Videos from the second weekend meeting
Start Date
End Date
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Develop the civic capacities of individuals, communities, and/or civil society organizations
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Approach
Consultation
Total Number of Participants
42
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Open to All
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Stratified Random Sample
General Types of Methods
Community development, organizing, and mobilization
Deliberative and dialogic process
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Inform, educate and/or raise awareness
Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
Plan, map and/or visualise options and proposals
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
Yes
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Ask & Answer Questions
Express Opinions/Preferences Only
Information & Learning Resources
Expert Presentations
Site Visits
Written Briefing Materials
Decision Methods
Voting
General Agreement/Consensus
If Voting
Majoritarian Voting
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Public Report
Type of Organizer/Manager
Local Government
Non-Governmental Organization
Community Based Organization
Funder
Innovation in Democracy Programme
Type of Funder
National Government
Evidence of Impact
Yes
Types of Change
Changes in public policy
Changes in civic capacities
Implementers of Change
Elected Public Officials
Formal Evaluation
Yes
Evaluation Report Documents
Innovation In Democracy Final Evaluation.

The Romsey Citizens' Assembly gathered 42 locals, chosen at random, to make suggestions for enhancing the area around Crosfield Hall and the Bus Station within Romsey. The main focus being on maximising advantages for the community through a final report to the council.

This was a joint project completed for the class ‘Reinventing Democracy: Innovation, Participation and Power’ 2023 at the University of Southampton, by Edward Leveritt, Kayla O’Neil, Harvey Shiers, Seyi Ogunbusola and Samuel Weekesdge.

Problems and Purpose

The Government initiated the Innovation in Democracy Programme (IiDP) in Dudley, Cambri, and Romsey as an effort to re-engage citizens into more actively participating in their communities. In order to explore solutions of improving the current situation in the Romsey town centre the Romsey Citizens’ Council established a citizens’ assembly using 42 randomly selected citizens to address the question; ‘How do we improve the area around Crossfield hall and the Bus station to deliver maximum benefit to Romsey?’[1]. To properly address this question, the assembly members deliberated on and set out key proposals aiming at improving their town centre. The assembly members then voted on 12 key proposals using a ballot process. Considering the question posed, the assembly was asked to consider the effect of; accessibility to the town centre, the appearance of the town centre, and how the area is used as a place to live, work, and enjoy[2]. By permitting residents of the area to actively participate, the goal of improving the town centre was given legitimacy as the solutions were produced, recommended, and voted on by citizens by careful deliberation.  

Background History and Context

Within Romsey’s large town centre, there are many independent shops as well as high street chains and brands. As a result, it has become a popular location in the area[3]. It is with this in mind that many of the locals are making the improvement of the area an issue of great importance[4]. ​​The Test Valley Borough Council received funds as part of the Innovation in Democracy Programme during the summer of 2018, which allowed councils such as Romsey council to implement various projects. The Innovation in Democracy Programme was announced as part of the UK Government' Civil Society Strategy[5 ][6 ]. 

The Innovation in Democracy programme’s main aims are to: Increase the capability of local people to have a greater say over decisions that affect their communities and their everyday lives, encourage new relationships and build trust between citizens and local authorities and strengthen local civil society by encouraging participation in local institutions [7]. As a result of the project, “waves of local citizens’ assemblies”[8] have been held since the summer of 2019 and a range of different topics have been discussed and recommendations have been made as a result. Lauren Brown reports that by the end of 2021, in the UK more than 23 citizens’ assemblies had taken place, with the last 7 held in the last year alone.[9] 

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

After being selected by the Innovation in Democracy Programme, Test Valley Borough Council commissioned the citizens’ assembly for Romsey[10]. The IDP trials innovative processes of deliberative democracy to help further involve citizens in local government decision making. Romsey Future supported this process. They are an organisation which has set out a long-term vision for the town, working with other organisations and groups to deliver shared ambitions and projects as well as providing advice for future policies and strategies. As well as this the Democratic Society provides support where needed as they work to create opportunities for people to get involved in the decision process for things that affect their lives. This project comes under the council’s commitment to greatly improving decision making to hopefully reflect the needs of all communities. The citizens’ assembly was assisted by the IDP Support Contractors, including, Involve, mySociety and the RSA.[11]

The Sortition Foundation produced an induction process which ensured that assembly members experienced an environment which was safe, supportive, and caring [12]. This helped to provide a level playing field for each participant to participate equally if they required extra support or not. Each participant was made to feel comfortable across the two weekends. 

Backed by the council’s most senior politicians and officers, the development of the citizens’ assembly received significant investment in order to efficiently work with the Democratic Society in the designing of the assembly. The programme itself cost a total of £123,519, almost £60,000 of direct costs used to implement the assembly and a further £64,000 offending for support and reporting [13]. These costs include money which was given to each member across the two weekends.  Each member was given a total of £300 (£150 at the end of each weekend) in order to incentivise, retain and recognise their commitment [14]. Additionally, the cost of childcare, care for those who had caregiving needs and all travel expenses were covered.


Participant Recruitment and Selection

Through a civic lottery distributed to 10,000 postal points in Romsey and the adjacent Parishes, The Sortition Foundation, on behalf of The Democratic Society, selected the members of this Citizens' Assembly. Households that received invitations had the opportunity to express interest in taking part. 

The Sortition Foundation then chose 50 people at random from the pool of submitted responses who broadly reflected the demographic profile of Romsey. To create a "mini-public" representation of Romsey and the surrounding Parishes' demographics, the assembly members were chosen based on seven criteria: gender, age, location, occupation, frequency of travel, and ethnicity. By matching them to the local demographics, The Sortition Foundation was able to find assembly members who were roughly representative of the area.

42 assembly members finished the two weekends in total. At the conclusion of each weekend, the assembly members received £150 (a total of £300), as a means of encouraging, maintaining, and thanking them for their participation. Additionally, they paid for all of the costs associated with day-care, aiding those who required caring, and travel.

Methods and Tools Used

The assembly, which took place over two weekends, adopted the following approaches: expert presentations, question-and-answer sessions, and group discussion sessions.  

Expert presentations were an important part of the process, providing assembly members with information on the topic at hand. A diverse range of experts, selected by an advisory group, delivered presentations over the four-day period. The roster included individuals such as Simon Eden from the Southern Policy Centre, Jacqui Evans from the East Hants District Council, and Marcin Gerwin, an international expert in deliberative democracy. These presentations were effective at educating larger groups, but due to their size, they may not have been as effective at answering individual participants' questions. To address this, Q&A sessions were organised alongside the presentations, permitting assembly members to interact directly with the experts.  

Q&A sessions provided an avenue for assembly members to directly engage with experts on the topic and obtain valuable insights to be used in subsequent discussion sessions. The format involved experts visiting individual tables, fostering interaction with assembly members, and answering any questions they might have.  

Discussion sessions were integral to the assemblies, involving small table discussions with approximately 8 individuals per table. Conducted every day, they were designed to inform assembly members, gauge their sentiments, and generate a series of recommendations for future policy proposals. As per Smith's perspective, collaborative interaction enables individuals to engage with a wide range of social perspectives, thereby serving as a support for informed decision-making [15]. Moreover, they provided a cost-effective method of gaining valuable public insight. Members of the assembly were encouraged to actively participate in the decision-making process, which included both voting and consensus building. Proposals receiving over 50% support were considered for recommendations to the council. To supplement these methods, the assembly proceedings were streamed live, with a dedicated space on the Romsey Future website for further reflection on the work of the assembly. 

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Before the first meeting of the assembly, Romsey residents were invited to share their views on what they liked, and what could be improved within Romsey, through completing an online survey, completing an in-person survey at Romsey Bus Station, or attending one of the four lived experiences workshops, which varied by group: young people, older people, disabled people and low income. Based on this, mySociety (an organisation within the UK government’s Innovation in Democracy Programme) grouped the responses together into a discussion map [16] to provide clear chains of thought. Representatives from the workshops were provided with the opportunity to present these findings and views to the assembly members on the first day. Assembly members then met over two weekends in November 2019, where presentation, learning, deliberation and decision-making occurred. Members were seated at six tables, each with an independent facilitator and trained council staff. Over the four days of meeting, the seating plans for each table changed to ensure all members could hear a wide range of views from their peers.  

Day 1 

The first day began with a welcome and introduction for members of the Assembly. This introduction involved learning the conservation guidelines, ensuring all members remained open, respectful and understanding towards one another and the process that would occur over the weekends. Members were also informed of the developments that had been designed by Test Valley Borough Council and how the Assembly would fit into this. The meeting then moved to hearing of the lived experiences of Romsey residents. This involved table groups rotating around the room to hear from the various attendees, such as members of the Disability Forum and the older people’s partnership [17]. The aim of undertaking this activity was to “explore what Romsey area is like” [18]. Following on from this, members were then presented with two expert witness panels: a business, enterprise & technology panel, and a plant panel, focusing on the environment, habitat, and heritage [19]. After each panel, participants summarised key points and developed questions, with speakers then rotating every 5 minutes around the tables to answer these questions and provide more detail. Finally, working collectively in a table exercise, members drew up two lists on the outcomes they would like to achieve with the focus on the future of Romsey specific to business and planet. After that, two outcomes from each list were selected as priorities, with each table presenting back to the Assembly. 

Day 2 

The aim on the second day involved learning about two further focus areas, as well as developing a clear set of three priorities per theme for the entire assembly. The day began with two further expert witness panels. These focused on the topic of people, with attention paid to wellbeing and health, as well as a community panel, focusing on civic society and volunteering [20]. Like the panels from the day before, each expert witness would then rotate around the tables every five minutes in a Q&A format, providing more detail if necessary. A second table exercise then occurred, with groups focusing on creating a list of outcomes based on the future of Romsey specific to people and community. In a similarity to Day 1, each table then prioritised two key outcomes from each list, briefly presenting these to the wider Assembly. After this, Assembly members engaged in a process called ‘Free Roaming Graffiti Artists’ [21], whereby the 12 outcome priorities from the four themes and devised by the six tables, were displayed in four separate areas. Members were given the chance to move between the tables and add their thoughts and comments on the various priorities. The aim of this activity was to begin the process of narrowing down the outcome priorities, whilst ensuring Assembly members’ opinions were heard [22]. Following on from this, members were sorted into four groups being tasked with refining the 12 priorities per theme into three priorities per theme, accounting for the additional comments and presenting these back to the wider groups. 

Participants also wrote a quick note to themselves for use at the start of the next weekend to remind them about what had been discussed over the previous two days. 

Day 3 

The aim of the second weekend was to address the question which formed the basis of Romsey’s citizens’ assembly: “How do we improve the area around Crosfield Hall and the Bus Station to deliver the maximum benefit to Romsey?” and enhance the 12 priority statements for the four themes [23]. After a brief reminder of the previous weekend’s work, members first heard from a panel of expert witnesses with the focus being on the area within the question posed to the Assembly. Following this, the assembly undertook a ‘walk and talk’ [24], visiting four locations with experts, to gain a first-hand account of the areas in question [25]. Afterwards, attention then turned to the 12 priority outcome statements. After a presentation designed to help members think about the considerations of the 12 priorities, the assembly was tasked with reviewing the first six priorities, with each table taking on one priority. Specific proposals were designed using a planning template [26], with each table rotating to spend time on the various priorities to account for the widest possible viewpoints. The tables then presented to one another on their proposals for the six priorities.  

Day 4 

The aim of the final day was to finish developing the other six priority outcomes, as well as voting on the full set of 12 to understand which had the strongest level of support, before presenting to the officers from the council. Like day 3, members began by developing the second six proposals from the priority outcomes, working in tables that rotated around the room. Having developed a completed set of 12 priority proposals, members were reminded of them, and then invited to vote on the question: “To what extent do you support or oppose the following proposals for improving the area around Crosfield Hall and the Bus Station to deliver the maximum benefit to Romsey?”[27], with each proposal being ranked from Strongly Oppose to Strongly Support [28]. The votes were counted and presented back to the Assembly, providing the opportunity for the strength of support both for and against each proposal. In the exercise that followed, proposals that had the strongest level of support (“those with over 50% of the ‘strongly support’ vote”) [29] were placed on tables, with members being asked to share their views on both why they thought the proposal was important, and what impact the proposal would make [30]. Based on this and the shortlisted proposals, a presentation was then designed and given to Test Valley Borough Council officers, including the Chief Executive [31], who had the opportunity to ask questions. Members were then invited to a celebration event in December, where the recommendations and next steps by the council and others would be discussed. 

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The overall program's objectives were to provide locals more power to influence decisions that have an impact on their neighbourhoods and daily life, to promote new connections and increase cooperation between residents and local government and encourage participation in local institutions to enhance the local civil society. In general, the assembly was a success and a good experience for all those involved. Through the process, the independence, and the representative nature of the Assemblies, a fundamental theme that permeated all of the comments was one of credibility and authority. For example, participants acknowledged that they gained abilities that will be useful in their professional lives. Unintended benefits of the scheme included the participants' increased social capital as a result of the Citizens' Assemblies. They felt more connected to their community because of creating these connections and taking part in the process[32].

The Romsey Citizens' Assembly was established specifically for discussion on Romsey Town Centre’s future. How the area around Crosfield can be improved was a significant topic put to the assembly. The outcomes demonstrated that all 12 proposals received significant support from Citizens' Assembly members, with 7 of the 12 proposals obtaining more than 50% of the vote for "strongly support." There was disagreement to several suggestions, with "green town status by 2025" and "reduce the number of vehicles by half by 2025" garnering the highest criticism overall[33]. 

There has been some success in the adoption of the recommendations. According to the Constitution Unit, the Romsey Citizens’ Assembly has received both an official response from the council, and as of 2022, has received significant follow through[34]. Furthermore, Test Valley Borough Council debated and adopted the recommendations from the citizens’ assembly, incorporating the recommendations into a South of Romsey Town Centre Masterplan[34].

Analysis and Lessons Learned

The analytical methodology developed by Graham Smith[36] will be used in this section assessing the benefits and drawbacks of this assembly, using six democratic qualities: inclusion, popular control, considered judgement, transparency, efficiency, and transferability. 

In terms of inclusion, the Romsey Citizens’ Assembly was particularly successful. Smith’s definition requires that focus must be given to both how the participants are selected and the extent to which a participant has a voice within participation[37]. The Sortition Foundation recruited participants in order to form a mini public of Romsey and the surrounding parishes. They were selected under 7 categories, including gender, age, and ethnicity. For example, within Romsey, 96.0% of the population are white, whereas within the Citizens’ Assembly 96.5% of participants were white[38]. Due to sufficient demographic representation, this process was able to reduce inequalities in discussion and decision making that would occur if certain groups weren’t represented at the level they are in the overall community.

Before the citizens’ assembly took place, other residents contributed to the process by sharing their views on what they think should be improved in Romsey. This set out a range of opinions from across the town that would be discussed during the assembly. Just like the selection process for the assembly, this prior exercise ensured to include citizens from different backgrounds and demographics. This process enabled even more of the town to be involved in the process. 

The assembly enabled all participants to share their opinion equally and as described by one participant after the process “from the very first letter… it was obviously going to be an inclusive exercise”[39]. The assemblies included a mix of evidence hearing, facilitation and discussion which created a safe and inclusive environment for discussion. Graham Smith provides evidence suggesting that no matter the size of the citizens’ assembly, participation is restricted[40]. This may be the case for the Romsey assembly as participation was not compulsory so those who chose not to participate won’t have their views represented. However, within the assembly, 80% of participants strongly agreed that they were given plenty of speaking opportunities during discussions. This affirms the level of inclusion during this assembly. Although not everyone may be entirely involved with the discussion process, most people still strongly agreed that they had every opportunity to do so if they wanted. 

Following Graham Smiths definition of inclusion, the Romsey Citizen’s Assembly covered successful levels of inclusion in both how participants are selected and who was given a voice during the process.

Popular control is the degree of influence that participants have over the decision-making process[41]. In establishing the problem definition, there was some popular control, with Test Valley Borough Council identifying the future vitality of the town centre as the topic of discussion[42] and a small independent advisory group establishing the speakers and materials, as well as establishing the potential activities that took place[43]. This provides some popular control over the problem definition, with the Council and advisory group providing the focus of the Assembly, but residents providing the bases of discussion.

The assembly included a mix of evidence hearings, facilitation, and discussion, which created a safe and inclusive environment for deliberation. Participants were encouraged to share their views and opinions, ensuring that a diverse range of perspectives were considered during the process. This inclusive approach allowed for a thorough analysis of the various options available to address the identified problems.

The assembly members voted on 12 key proposals using a ballot process, which ensured that the participants had a direct say in the final recommendations. The democratic nature of the voting process allowed for control in the selection of the preferred options to set the agenda. 

However, popular control in the assembly may have been limited as the policy recommendations required approval from Test Valley Borough Council suggesting they had the potential to be altered. Despite this, all recommendations were considered and given responses. This is evident in the ‘masterplan’ developed by the council which demonstrates that the participants' input was valued and considered during the implementation phase. This is supported by the fact that 88% of participants agreed with the recommendations put forward to the council[44].

Thus, the assembly demonstrated a reasonable level of popular control throughout most development stages. The assembly's inclusive and democratic approach allowed participants to have a direct influence on the decision-making process, ensuring that their voices were heard and considered in addressing the issues concerning the Romsey town centre. However, the extent of popular control was limited by the requirement that policy recommendations receive approval from local councillors, which may have restricted the participants' influence on the final outcomes.

Smith's definition of considered judgement requires that citizens develop their understanding and appreciate opposing perspectives[45]. We can identify the Romsey citizens’ assemblies as having substantial examples of the effective use of considered judgment that took place during the process. Examples were achieved due to the success of properly and effectively informing participants during the 2 weekends. This included an expert presentation which provided assembly members with information on the topics at hand. Multiple expert witnesses also presented relevant information and background to the assembly and assisted groups in their deliberations[46], with an effort being made to ensure evidence given was fair and balanced[47]. Furthermore, the 2 weekends included trained independent facilitators ahead of the first weekend, with the goal of stimulating ideas and discussion to help work ideas into recommendations[48]. The facilitators proved not to be biased, as shown in the evaluation report on the assembly, 72% of participants either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the table facilitators tried to influence the group with their own ideas[49]. Moreover, their lack of bias is proven further in the fact that 88% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that facilitators made sure that opposing arguments were heard[50]. Which yielded for fair and knowledgeable discussion.

Moreover, the project included small discussion assemblies, which were an essential tool in achieving consistently high levels of considered judgement. The discussions took place every day with the intention of informing the assembly members and resulted in new recommendations for future policy proposals to be produced. In addition, the assembly discussions allowed different assembly members from varying backgrounds to better understand and thus engage with each other[51]. This effective incorporation of considered judgement granted well-informed and substantive dialogue.  The constructive use of considered judgment allowed for the proposals to be received with strong levels of support overall, such as shown in a survey taken at the end of the process, with 45% of the participants agreeing and 43% of participants strongly agreeing with the recommendations brought forward and reached by the assembly[52].

 In accordance with Graham Smith’s definition of considered judgment, the Romsey Citizens’ Assembly showed to be successful in achieving consistent levels of considered judgement throughout the project through the information received and a developed understanding from participants that facilitated well informed and balanced discussion.

In defining transparency, Smith[53] highlights the need for internal transparency, that participants have a clear understanding of the conditions of participation, as well as external transparency, that scrutiny from the wider public can occur. In application, the Citizens’ Assembly demonstrated high levels of both. For internal transparency, participants were given an introduction on Conversation Guidelines at the beginning of both weekends, ensuring everyone could participate fairly in the process[54], similarly, they were informed over what had already been developed by the Council and the role the Assembly played in the wider process[55], demonstrating good transparency in situating the participants into the process. Furthermore, there were good examples of external transparency. The presentations from both weekends were recorded and uploaded to YouTube, providing an opportunity allowing the general public to view them. In addition to this, observers, those with an interest in the assembly question and the process behind a citizen’s assembly, were invited too, being allowed to sit in on the weekends, but prevented from participating[56]. These were both members of the public and from organisations, implying high levels of external transparency in allowing scrutiny within the Assembly process.

Smith[57] argues democratic innovations necessitate citizens and officials engaging in new political practices, which will entail both civic costs and rewards, thus an evaluation of innovations must also consider the demands they place on citizens and other institutions, as well as whether these are worth bearing individually and socially. In the Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, it can be assessed there was a high level of efficiency. The distribution of funding serves as an excellent example. The citizens' assembly's access to financial investment increased its efficiency significantly. Furthermore, the £300 each member received incentivized for them to stay committed and improved efficiency; this was especially visible in the areas of childcare coverage and travel costs, which increased members' capacity to participate.

Despite these findings, the IiDP reported that within the entire program, 28% of attendees expressed dissatisfaction with the meeting's time management, perceiving it as rushed[58]. Additionally, 21% indicated that the practical aspects of the meeting, such as the venue, acoustics, or quality of refreshments, were inadequate. These results suggest a slight lack of effective time management and overall subpar treatment of participants. It is important to note that this information was gathered by asking respondents about their least favourite aspects of the weekend's event. However, due to the limited number of responses received, it may not be fully representative of the entire assembly. Although this observation is not directly related to the Romsey, it raises concerns about the overall timing of the program. However, a significant majority of participants in Test Valley, approximately 71%, expressed that they felt sufficiently informed to actively participate during the second weekend, even considering the time constraints that may have impeded the availability of evidence panels, questioning opportunities, and discussions[59]. These limitations may have had an impact on the generation of efficient ideas.

The assembly was also efficient because of the long-term societal advantages. 65% of participants strongly agreed with the statement, "I think there will be improvements as a result of this Citizens' Assembly." The assembly led to a further improvement in the interaction between the councils and the inhabitants as well as a rise in social capital. 

Smith defines transferability as the process of understanding “whether designs can operate in different political contexts” making account for scale, the political system, and the type of issue[60]. In evaluating the Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, we can observe a high level of transferability, with areas where it can be transferred, such as the procedures and processes behind it, and areas where it cannot, such as the specificity of the issue. The idea of a Citizen’s Assembly is one that has been transferred across different countries and different contexts, however as identified, there is not one standard approach for this process, with specifics on the topic differing[61]. Nevertheless, Romsey’s Citizens’ Assembly was part of a larger project run by the national government, with an aim of addressing local issues[62]. It limits the transferability in this aspect, as the topic discussed was specific to Romsey. However, the processes adopted can remain the same, with other Citizens’ Assemblies, such as the Kingston Borough Citizens’ Assembly [63], also using question and answer sessions and expert presentations, highlighting successful transferability. 

Similarly, the willingness of Test Valley Borough Council to participate in the project highlights the political will needed for transferability of a Citizens’ Assembly. In choosing to participate, Test Valley Borough Council highlighted their intentions on improving their links with local communities[64], demonstrating that for a successful transfer of a Citizens’ Assembly, a political will is required from all those involved. However, transferability may be limited in the costs and organisations that were associated by the project[65]. Of the three Citizens’ Assemblies that were part of the IiDP, the local authorities voiced concerns over the amount of funding they could provide, and which organisations were required for the process to take place[66], however, all cases were supported by the IiDP which was organised, and party funded by central government[67]. It implies that for successful transferability, the funding and organising from a national government is required, providing possible limited transferability for smaller Citizens’ Assembly projects.

Overall, the Romsey Citizens’ Assembly demonstrated a reasonable level of transferability with the processes used for being able to be transferred.

The Romsey Citizen Assembly demonstrates remarkable levels of innovation in terms of democratic governance. It effectively embraces inclusivity by modelling the assembly to reflect the demographics of Romsey and its surrounding areas. Additionally, the assembly allowed participants to have a significant role in setting the agenda. Moreover, the use of professional facilitators and the provision of balanced information contributed to participants feeling well-informed. Notably, both internal and external transparency are maintained at exceptionally high levels, ensuring rigorous scrutiny. Additionally, the distribution of funding and effective time management practices contributes to an efficient and productive citizens assembly. As a result, the assembly has proven to be a valuable platform for citizens to engage with local councils, extending its impact beyond the assembly itself.

However, the assembly could have been improved if councils had less authority in agenda setting, limiting their ability to focus solely on the city centre. Furthermore, the council's power to reject recommendations undermined the extent of control participants had. 

Overall, efficiency could have been improved if time management was more effective, allowing participants additional time for thorough discussion and debate on various topics. Lastly, the fact it was concentrated on a local issue hindered the prospects of transferability, however, the process itself was successful and demonstrates the overall necessity of citizens' assemblies. 

Therefore, the Romsey Citizen Assembly stands out for its innovative and inclusive approach, ensuring informed participation, transparency, efficiency, and wider engagement with local councils. 

See Also

Dudley Council's Citizens' Assembly: The Future of Dudley

Greater Cambridge Citizens' Assembly on Infrastructure Development

References

[1] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly. p.2 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[2] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly.https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[3] Romsey (2023) In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 22, 2023 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romsey

[4] Romsey Future (2023) Citizens Assembly  https://www.romseyfuture.org.uk/citizens-assembly

[5] The Democratic Society (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme https://www.demsoc.org/projects/innovation-in-democracy-programme

[6] Romsey Future (2023) Citizens Assembly  https://www.romseyfuture.org.uk/citizens-assembly

[7] The Democratic Society (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme https://www.demsoc.org/projects/innovation-in-democracy-programme

[8] Brown, L. (2022, March 25) Local citizens’ assemblies in the UK: a second report card. The Constitution Unit. https://constitution-unit.com/tag/romsey-citizens-assembly/

[9] Brown, L. (2022, March 25) Local citizens’ assemblies in the UK: a second report card. The Constitution Unit. https://constitution-unit.com/tag/romsey-citizens-assembly/

[10] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly. p.2 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[11] For a full list of the IiDP Support Contractors and how they contributed to the citizens’ assembly, see The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly. p.3 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[12] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly. p.7 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[13] For the full table showing the whole breakdown of expenditure, see Table 18 in The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.70 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[14] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly. p.7 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[15] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations. Cambridge University Press. p.94

[16] See Annex 1 for the discussion maps from the lived experiences workshops and bus station survey in The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly. pp. 48-53. https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[17] For a full list of speakers, see The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly. p.15. https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[18] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly. p.15 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[19] For the full list of speakers see The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.15 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[20] For the full list of expert witnesses, see The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.16https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[21] For a list of all the priorities developed for each category by the six tables see The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, pp. 24-27 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[22] For a list of all the priorities developed for each category by the six tables see The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, pp. 24-27 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[23] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.17 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[24] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.17 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[25] For a full list of locations, see The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.17 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[26] For the planning template, see The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.18 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[27] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.18 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[28] For the ballot paper used, and the options available see The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.19https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[29] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.20 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[30] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.20 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[31] For the full list of council officers, see The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.21 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[32] Brammal, S. & Sisya K. (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme Evaluation. Renaisi. p.45 https://involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Innovation-in-Democracy-Programme-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

[33] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.4 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[34] Brown, L. (2022, March 25) Local citizens’ assemblies in the UK: a second report card. The Constitution Unit. https://constitution-unit.com/tag/romsey-citizens-assembly/

[35] See full council agenda and minutes at Test Valley Borough Council (2020) Agenda and minutes: Council- Wednesday 2 September 2020 5.30pm. https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=2654

[36] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations. Cambridge University Press

[37] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations. Cambridge University Press. p.21.

[38] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.9 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[39] Brammal, S. & Sisya K. (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme Evaluation. Renaisi. p.24 https://involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Innovation-in-Democracy-Programme-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

[40] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations. Cambridge University Press. p.79.

[41] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations. Cambridge University Press. p.12.

[42] Brammal, S. & Sisya K. (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme Evaluation. Renaisi. p.16 https://involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Innovation-in-Democracy-Programme-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

[43] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.9 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[44] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.45 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[45] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations. Cambridge University Press. p.12.

[46] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.12 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[47] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.9 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[48] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.12 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[49] Brammal, S. & Sisya K. (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme Evaluation. Renaisi. p.31 https://involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Innovation-in-Democracy-Programme-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

[50] Brammal, S. & Sisya K. (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme Evaluation. Renaisi. p.32 https://involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Innovation-in-Democracy-Programme-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

[51] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.12 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[52] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.45 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[53] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations. Cambridge University Press. p.25.

[54] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.14 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[55] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.14 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[56] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.11 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

[57] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations. Cambridge University Press. p.26

[58] Brammal, S. & Sisya K. (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme Evaluation. Renaisi. p.47 https://involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Innovation-in-Democracy-Programme-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

[59] Brammal, S. & Sisya K. (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme Evaluation. Renaisi. p.26 https://involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Innovation-in-Democracy-Programme-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

[60] Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations. Cambridge University Press. p.13.

[61] Brammal, S. & Sisya K. (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme Evaluation. Renaisi. p.12 https://involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Innovation-in-Democracy-Programme-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

[62] Brammal, S. & Sisya K. (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme Evaluation. Renaisi. https://involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Innovation-in-Democracy-Programme-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

[63] Kingston Borough Citizens’ Assembly on Air Quality (2019). In Participedia. Retrieved May 23, 2019 from https://participedia.net/case/6076

[64] Brammal, S. & Sisya K. (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme Evaluation. Renaisi. p.16 https://involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Innovation-in-Democracy-Programme-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

[65] Brammal, S. & Sisya K. (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme Evaluation. Renaisi. p.14 https://involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Innovation-in-Democracy-Programme-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

[66] Brammal, S. & Sisya K. (2020) Innovation in Democracy Programme Evaluation. Renaisi. p.14 https://involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/Innovation-in-Democracy-Programme-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

[67] The Democratic Society (2019) Romsey Citizens’ Assembly, p.3 https://democracy.testvalley.gov.uk/documents/s10727/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Romsey%20Citizens%20Assembly%20-%20Annex.pdf

External Links

Romsey