logo 60ème en noir et blanc au format jpg

Strasbourg, 28 August 2009                                                                     CDLR(2009)45

Item 6.12 of the agenda

                                                                                                                         

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY

(CDLR)

VOTING MODALITIES BY THE MINISTERS

ON THE FUTURE UTRECHT AGENDA

Secretariat Memorandum

prepared by the Directorate General of

Democracy and Political Affairs

Directorate of Democratic Institutions


This document is public. It will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy.

Ce document est public. Il ne sera pas distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire.


Introduction

This document sets out proposals for the way in which the vote by Ministers on the new Utrecht Agenda is to be organised. It explains the rationale behind the decision to have the ministers voting themselves the priorities for the intergovernmental co-operation in the years 2010-2013 and the possible modalities of the vote (Appendix 1). Preliminary versions of the voting bulletins appear at Appendices 2 and 3.

Action required

The CDLR is to discuss and agree the voting arrangements for establishing the new Utrecht Agenda

In particular the CDLR is invited:

-        to decide that there will be two rounds of voting, one on the challenges and one on     the actions;

-        to establish the voting bulletins, taking appendices 2 and 3 as a starting point;

-        to decide on the voting method;

-        to decide on the presentation of results;

-        to take any other decisions it may deem appropriate.


Appendix 1

From the Budapest Agenda to the Utrecht Agenda

The Budapest Agenda was based on the four main themes on which the intergovernmental co-operation in the field of local and regional democracy is established: Legal framework and institutional structure, Democratic participation and public ethics, Local and regional finance and public services, Transfrontier and interterritorial co-operation. For each theme, the Budapest Agenda identified a number of “challenges”. Each challenge was linked to a number of “actions” guiding the activity and the output to be arrived at through the intergovernmental co-operation in the Council of Europe (in the CDLR).

At Budapest, the ministers adopted the Agenda without expressing a preference for the individual challenges or actions. At Valencia, they both prioritised the challenges and actions and revised some individual actions.

As a first experience, it was a good step in the right direction of the ministers themselves setting the agenda for the intergovernmental co-operation to be pursued in their field of competence through the European committee on local and regional democracy (CDLR). However, the approach lacked flexibility as it did not from the outset allow for the expression of the priorities of individual ministers/member States.

It was therefore suggested from the beginning of the preparation of the Utrecht ministerial session, that the ministers should have much more freedom to express their preferences and adopt an Agenda that takes full account of their wishes for issues to be dealt with at the Council of Europe. The CDLR agreed that this should have as a result that the ministers should be enabled to vote on the actual content of the Utrecht Agenda, to succeed the Budapest/Valencia Agenda that expires in 2009.

What should the ministers vote on?

 

In their responses to the various questionnaires and to the request for identification of “frontline issues of change” at domestic level, member states have listed both challenges to address and actions to be undertaken at European level. This information is contained in documents CDLR(2009)43.

The Budapest Agenda, consisting of four themes, each with challenges and actions, was adopted in one single step. In order to allow for greater flexibility and for the Utrecht Agenda to reflect the genuine concerns and will of ministers, it is proposed that both challenges and actions are put to separate votes.

The identification of the main challenges would give a clear understanding of what governments see as the major issues they will be confronted with in the future. The prioritisation of actions – to be conducted independently of the choice of challenges – would give a genuine picture of what the intergovernmental work of the Council of Europe in the field of local and regional democracy should consist of, while leaving to the CDLR the responsibility of defining the detailed modalities and outputs.


How would the ministers vote?

Two rounds of voting

It follows from the above that is proposed that the ministers should express their priorities for both challenges and actions and thus are to vote twice.

Voting bulletins - lists

Both for the challenges and actions a tentative list has been prepared, appearing in appendices 2 and 3 respectively.

The CDLR is to examine these lists carefully and make any changes it deems appropriate. It may thus decide to add or merge and/or to delete or reduce the elements on the list, to change the order in which they appear and/or to present groups of elements in categories. The lists as adopted by the CDLR at its meeting in September will serve as the voting bulletins for the vote in Utrecht.

Voting method

Two main options for voting arrangements are proposed to choose between:

1          A fully electronic vote, whereby ministers would be able to give priority to 8 items on the respective list of challenges in the first round and actions in the second. Each minister would have a voting machine on which he/she would give the number 1 to the highest priority, number 2 to their second priority and so on up to 8.

The main advantage of this option is that it would allow the results to be instantaneously established and presented on screen in the meeting room, avoiding a delay between the actual vote and presentation of the results. The main disadvantage is that is not possible to give the same level of priority to more than one element.

2          A vote on a paper bulletin, whereby ministers would attribute a total of (up to) 20 points to the items on the respective list of challenges in the first round and actions in the second, with a maximum of 6 points for any individual item on the list. Each minister would fill in a paper bulletin and sign it. The results would entered manually into a computer which would calculate them. The results could then be projected onto a screen.

The main advantage of this system is that it allows for more flexibility in the vote, it being possible to give the same weight to more than one item on the list. The main disadvantage is that the procedure would take longer to execute (probably 30 minutes between the collection of the voting bulletins and the final result).


Results

The results of the voting will be that the challenges and actions are presented in the order of priority and reflecting the number of countries supporting them (thus giving an indication of whether items that have similar total number of points have a higher priority for a limited number of states, or a lower priority for a large number of states. This is likely to have an impact on the choice of activity to be undertaken.). No challenges nor actions will be cut off the list, but the future intergovernmental work of the CDLR will start on the challenges and actions that come at the top of the list. Those coming at the (near) bottom will be taken up only after the others (or if the ministers change their priorities at the next ministerial conference).

How would the vote translate into concrete activities/outputs?

The outcome of the vote will appear in the Utrecht Agenda, itself part of the Utrecht Declaration. Subsequently, it will be for the CDLR at its meeting in Spring 2010 to adopt a programme of the concrete activities to be undertaken in the years 2010-2013 in function of the priority given by the ministers to the challenges and actions.


Appendix 2

Voting bulletin

CHALLENGES


I. CHALLENGES

The biggest challenges to our current system of local and regional democracy and good governance are:

VOTE

1

The impact of demographic/migration trends

2

The impact of the current financial/economic crisis

3

The lack of democratic participation in public life at local and regional level

 

4

The complexity/inefficiency/high cost of the current system of local and regional government

5

The difficulty of dealing with a growing divide between rural and urban areas

6

The difficulty of dealing with a growing divide in prosperity between local authorities/regional authorities

7

The poor quality of democratic governance in many local and regional communities or authorities

 

8

The establishment/development of territorial governance across the borders

 

9

The expansion of big conurbations to the expenses of medium /small sized cities and villages

10

The impact of the EU legislation on local and regional democracy

11

The increase of political and religious radicalisation


Appendix 3

Voting bulletin

ACTIONS


II. ACTIONS

VOTE

1

To review or to reform the constitution and/or primary legislation on local/regional authorities

2

To address the challenge of abstention in local/regional elections

3

To review the electoral system and/or to introduce electoral reform

4

To ensure that more women and other underrepresented groups in society stand for local elections and/or are employed by local/regional authorities

5

To review and/or modify the functions (competences) of local/regional authorities with a view to identifying optimal competences

 

6

To review/adjust the size and/or number of local/regional authorities

7

To facilitate and/or encourage the voluntary amalgamation of local/ regional authorities

 

8

To facilitate and/or encourage inter-municipal co-operation

9

To safeguard local/regional authorities’ financial autonomy and responsibility in times of financial crisis and economic downturn

 

10

To increase the own resources of local/regional authorities and reduce transfers

 

11

To reduce earmarked grants in favour of general grants to local/ regional authorities

12

To enhance the quality and status of local/regional authorities’ staff

13

To make more effective use of public-private partnerships at local level

14

To establish or reinforce dialogue and consultation procedures or mechanism between central state (regions) and various tiers of government

15

To review and/or improve the conditions of local/regional elected and/or executive office

16

To review/strengthen the internal auditing of local/regional authorities



II. ACTIONS

VOTE

17

To review the external auditing of local/regional authorities

18

To review the administrative supervision of local/regional authorities

19

To improve the respect for public ethics at local/regional level

20

To review the rules applicable to budgets and  budgetary management at local and regional level

21

To review critically legislation and procedures (public tenders, land use, public housing, etc.) that potentially lend themselves to unethical or corrupt behaviour

22

To review and improve equalisation mechanisms for local/regional authorities

23

To review the legal remedies available to local/regional authorities

24

To enhance the use of information and communication technologies in participation and service delivery at local and regional level

25

To promote the participation by other means of persons not entitled to vote in local/regional elections

26

To encourage or establish participatory mechanisms and procedures open to all: local referenda, consultative bodies, infra-municipal councils or assemblies, petitions, participatory budgeting etc.

27

To facilitate/encourage the responsiveness, accountability, openness and transparency of local/regional authorities

28

To facilitate/encourage local/regional authorities to respect and promote human rights, cultural diversity and social cohesion

29

To facilitate/encourage innovation and openness to change by local/regional authorities

30

To encourage and reward environmentally friendly urban policies: housing, transport, mobility, energy generation, etc.

31

To draft a consolidated convention on transfrontier co-operation (transfrontier governance), based on the Madrid convention, its protocols and other relevant instruments



II. ACTIONS

VOTE

32

To systematically assess the impact of state-wide policies and transfers of competencies to local/regional authorities on cross-border co-operation

33

To promote cross-border governance by encouraging/facilitating the sharing of experiences, regular consultations between local/regional authorities, the reciprocal exchanges of staff, etc., and by developing a people-to-people approach

34

To promote a common ‘knowledge network’ open to all actors involved in transfrontier co-operation

35

To promote the establishment of a “platform of actors of transfrontier co-operation” (European associations, national agencies etc) in order to facilitate the access of local/regional authorities to existing capacity-building tools and facilities and promote their development