Democracy Matters phase 2: analysis of responses

5. Accountability and standards

A significant proportion of the consultation paper and facilitated conversations focused on various aspects of how community decision-making bodies can achieve a strong mandate, ensure accountability and demonstrate high standards in how they operate. Many participants suggested that that inclusive and accessible processes are needed to ensure community members are listened to and that regular feedback is given. It was also felt that there should be equal representation in community groups and adequate support. These themes have all been addressed elsewhere in this report.

This chapter presents multiple other themes raised by participants about accountability and standards. These include the need to define local boundaries, the importance of transparent and effective communication, priority setting and evaluation processes, timebound decision-making bodies, standards, and the value in designing a charter to ensure a positive relationship between community decision-makers and other public and decision-making bodies.

Question 6: What do you think are the best ways to ensure new decision-making bodies are accountable to their community?

Question 9: What else should this process include to provide new community decision-making bodies with a strong locally agreed mandate?

Question 6 and Question 9 explore how new decision-making bodies could effectively represent the interests of their communities and remain accountable to them. Participants felt it necessary that boundaries were clearly defined. This would make it clear which geographic, or interest, areas were served by the new community decision-making bodies, and that cross-boundary working was facilitated for larger projects. Strong two-way communication mechanisms were considered important, as was the need to apply robust priority-setting and evaluation processes.

Boundaries and defining communities

The consultation paper noted that many participants in the first phase of Democracy Matters told the Scottish Government that boundaries, locally agreed mandates and setting priorities were interrelated. This attracted further comments on boundaries in participant's responses and facilitated conversations.

Defining local boundaries

Many participants commented on the need for boundaries and terminology to be defined, particularly the word 'local'. Discussion centred on geographical boundaries, though there was no consensus on how these should be determined. It was also noted that local can be considered in terms of communities of interest and communities of place; the conversation hosted by Forth Valley Sensory Centre noting local to participants meant services and organisations for the deaf community as well as the area where they lived.

One suggestion made by SCDC to define or refine boundaries was to consider the common bonds that bring and hold people together in a community with sufficient social capital to function well. Another suggestion from Aberdeen City Council highlighted local authorities' experiences devising Community Council boundaries and that further consultation could ensure community expectations aligned with proposed boundaries.

"There was a suggestion that parish boundaries are still helpful and recognisable, and another that high school catchment areas are a helpful scale, but these would need to be negotiated. Some advocated for going to an even more granular level of neighbourhoods within a ward." - DTAS

Collaborative working across boundaries

The need for local areas to work together across boundaries was also highlighted, such as for larger projects or common issues. Participants explained this could involve communicating or partnering with groups or other organisations in neighbouring areas. A few participants suggested that skills audits could usefully facilitate skill-sharing between communities. A few others highlighted the mobilization of communities during the pandemic to provide vital services as successful examples of working across boundaries. It was also noted that joint arrangements were more likely to be required in rural areas.

However, risks in collaborative approaches were also commonly highlighted. For instance, it was noted that conflict and competition could occur between groups, inequalities may worsen due to some areas having greater access to resources, or overlapping plans could cause confusion regarding responsibilities. One suggested way to coordinate local plans could be for local authorities to retain democratic oversight; Scottish Borders Council called for plans and decisions made by communities to be integrated within local authority and Scottish Government's decision-making processes.

Transparent and effective communication

The importance of community decision-making bodies ensuring transparency and good communication with people in their community was frequently highlighted by participants. Suggestions to promote transparency included ensuring people knew how and when to contact community decision-makers, using accessible language and formats for communication, making minutes and reports publicly available or livestreaming meetings, and using community auditors.

It was also seen as necessary to have a close relationship between decision-makers and community members, such as being easily contactable or participating in question and answer or meet-and-greet sessions. While some suggested this should be done through mailing and digital outreach, a small number wanted representatives to proactively seek feedback to ensure underrepresented groups had their voices heard and needs met. The importance of an open dialogue with elected representatives was also noted.

Some comments about communication with communities mentioned that dialogue should begin as early as possible and remain open as plans or projects are developed and delivered. Those attending the facilitated events emphasised the need to commit to obtaining a range of views and opinions and not make assumptions regarding people's level of understanding of an issue.

"Genuine listening and an open mind and prepared to change direction if that what the community is asking for. Open-ended surveys rather than those that lead towards the answer favoured by the person or group setting the survey." – Individual

"Communities should be enabled to engage and make alliances with actors and organisations within the political system in order to help them influence and achieve positive change." - SCDC

Participants commented on the need to consider citizens' views in decision-making and provide good feedback. Suggested communication methods included holding regular open meetings in community venues, attending groups people already used, undertaking surveys, providing newsletters, or using social media. For instance, the Children's Parliament suggested a TV show run by the Council called 'You Said, We Did', shown weekly to demonstrate how children's ideas for change had been responded to. Optimising online communications for smartphones was mentioned, as was the need not to rely solely on digital methods.

"Publicise (could be included in facilitator's remit) via social media, local press, local radio, leaflets, open events, open meetings especially for single topics, attendance at local busy events with captive audiences." – Conversation hosted by Campbeltown Community Council

"Using a mini census to help inform decisions on who is selected; hold elections in schools; create a youth forum to enable the disengaged youth and school leavers (16 to 30) to participate. Groups are given time and increased skills and capacity to use new powers to feedback on specific and unrepresented needs and wants, for example. through advocacy groups that represent people who need support to have their voices heard." - Greener Kirkcaldy (submitting on behalf of Greener Kirkcaldy and Nourish Support Centre)

Some advocated for greater information sharing. Types of information sought included easily accessible guides and resources tailored to the diverse needs of community groups, full cost-benefit analyses and financial projections for proposals, or ways to report issues with ideas suggested by participants including feedback post-boxes or apps to report repairs or fly tipping. Accessible databases or websites and service points in communities were also suggested.

A few participants cautioned against consultation fatigue. They shared suggestions on how feedback on activities could be achieved, such as having a visible constitution, reporting on numbers attending public events, explaining how views had been addressed, and reasons for deviated plans.

Effective priority-setting and evaluation processes

Clear terms of reference and SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timebound) objectives were considered good ways to ensure community decision-making bodies continued to have a mandate and worked effectively. Participants suggested SMART objectives should be used as the basis for review and to evaluate progress. Other suggested ways to ensure the legitimacy of community groups included using pilots or minimum participation quotas, continuing only if these were successful, and considering wider boundaries for decision-making bodies such as transport or housing. Voting was commonly suggested as a way for community members to participate in decision-making and was considered a good way of ensuring accountability. For instance, voting could decide which representatives would serve on other local groups or represent the community in other levels of decision-making, or which projects could be taken forward.

"MSYPs said an inclusive and meaningful priority setting process included community consultation, anonymous voting on issues, good financial decisions, clear communications and going into schools to speak with young people." – Conversation hosted by the Scottish Youth Parliament

Community action plans and place plans were felt to be effective mechanisms for developing proposals with communities. Annual reviews or audits were also suggested to provide evidence of performance and progress for individual decision-makers and bodies. Those attending the facilitated conversation in Mull suggested a national body could train and pay community members as auditors who could then provide feedback to the Scottish Government. Others felt that decision-making bodies should demonstrate effective use of resources and how they adapted to changing community needs. Participants attending the facilitated conversation in Dumfries called for a culture of constructive challenge where ideas are tested to ensure they are as effective as possible before implementation.

"Community action plans are an established and effective mechanism to develop proposals from the grassroots about what communities wish to happen in their locality and are a good example of deliberative and participative democracy in action. More recently Local Place Plans have taken this process a step further and are aligned to council development plans." - DTAS

"Transparent and accessible local planning processes are key to opening up discussion around how aspirational communities can be, but aspirations have to be managed alongside expectations at every step of the way." – Scottish Community Alliance

Some commented on the need to challenge poor performance, for example through regular elections or constraints, to ensure mistakes can be avoided. However, one individual called for consideration of the impact of informal scrutiny, and ways to protect community group members from negative feedback.

Dumfries & Galloway Cycling (or Bike Users) felt there should be a mechanism to hold public bodies to account – a theme also highlighted in the facilitated events. Participants in those events called for mechanisms to scrutinise public spending and give feedback on performance or progress. They felt this would result in greater value for money, as public bodies would be more likely to consider the views of those in the community and make better decisions.

Timebound re-elections and renewal ballots

Question 10: Are there ways to ensure new bodies are still wanted – for example by making them time-bound and subject to renewal ballots?

Question 10 asked participants specifically about timebound re-elections and renewal ballots and there was considerable support for these approaches. Suggested terms ranged from one to six years, or for the duration of the initiative or plan being worked on. The preferred term among some who attended the facilitated events was two or three years. Some noted that terms could be staggered to ensure continuity of service and that limited terms of office could help bodies remain relevant, accountable and legitimate, or that renewal ballots could be triggered by low voter turnout in elections. Voting for members, with representation reviewed regularly and the possibility of co-opted members, was felt necessary to some.

"The local community should be responsible for setting time-bound limitations, where the community deems this necessary, balancing democratic legitimacy with practical resource considerations." - SURF

Trust and governance

During discussions, many participants emphasised that effective decision-making and local mandates could be achieved through adequate governance arrangements. While more detail is provided in the following sections about standards and Community Charters, several participants commented more generally on steps they felt would create trust in decision-making bodies.

Commonly mentioned aspects included the need for clarity, accountability, and regulatory and legal frameworks. A few recommended clear terms of reference and roles and responsibilities, including Community Development Alliance Scotland and South Ayrshire Council – Thriving Communities – Communities Learning Development. Less frequently mentioned governance aspects included considering risk management and willingness to take risks, vision and timescales, conflict resolution mechanisms and organisational sustainability. To illustrate, one individual felt risk management was important but not to the point where it stifled innovation, and Argyll and Bute Council felt any locally agreed action plans should address risk appetite and "how much the community is willing to lose by trying something new".

"New bodies or structures would have to be clear on how they function and decide their purpose… To move towards this, existing structures that work well in communities could be built on, such as Local Area Forums and community sector anchor organisations. Current bodies should be assessed by communities to identify what they are achieving to measure their purpose going forward." – Scottish Community Alliance

"Checks and balances should not be overly burdensome, and support should be in place to ensure community organisations can meet any requirements." – SCDC

A range of specific suggestions were each made by one or two participants about how to oversee staff and volunteers working for community decision-making bodies. These included: giving these bodies a mandate to control corruption; new board members receiving inductions on all aspects of governance; and ensuring that only paid staff work for community bodies to ensure accountability. While some proposed using volunteers, others highlighted limitations, such as volunteer burn out, the inaccessibility of volunteering, and challenges of relying on volunteers. Participants in the facilitated conversation in Pitmedden also noted the need to be mindful of representatives who are 'empire-building' i.e. come to protect their own domain and budgets.

The need to generate trust so community members would wish to participate in decision-making was mentioned by some. This could be done through:

• Transparent communication, as outlined above.
• Creating a respectful and dignified framework, with evidence of listening and responding to views.
• Involving trusted community members.
• Controlling vested interests and private companies.

Several noted a need for transparency and accountability in funding decisions.

Participants recommended financial plans of community decision-making bodies should be explicit and well regulated, with their expenditure monitored. To support this, there were calls for governance structures to be put in place and for accounts and bank statements to be publicly available.

Participants suggested that continuity and support arrangements would be needed for any groups which struggled, for instance, public bodies could investigate and advise or take back control of services. Dissolution of community decision-making bodies could occur as a last resort. One participant suggested a national local government commission for problem solving purposes.

Some identified potential challenges which could impede effective accountability. Examples included the potential to 'rig' online voting, narrow representation of board members if opportunities to serve were poorly publicised, missing deadlines to make legal challenges or inadequate performance measurement. Members of the conversation hosted by Voluntary Groups Sutherland felt it should be an offence for community groups to break their contract with their community.

Standards

The consultation paper and facilitated conversations covered a specific aspect of accountability and good governance: the standards that should be expected of community decision-making bodies and their members.

Question 12: Are the standards set out in the future scenario box [i.e. democratic legitimacy, accessibility, human rights, creativity, and impact] the right set of standards to provide reassurance that new community decision-making bodies will be effective and treat everyone with dignity and respect?

Agreement with suggested standards

Many participants agreed that the five proposed standards would help promote the effectiveness of community decision-making bodies and respectful behaviour. Others reiterated the need for clear, rigorous standards and treating everyone with dignity and respect to establish trust and confidence in community bodies.

"Earning community trust and confidence is crucial for the success of any new local decision-making body. This requires clearly defined standards that are consistently adhered to, demonstrating a commitment to ethical and effective decision-making." – Social Enterprise Scotland

Of the five proposed standards, participants most commonly endorsed human rights, emphasising the importance of inclusivity and equal opportunities for participation in decision-making. A human rights approach was seen as key to recognising and removing structural barriers to participation and ensuring a diversity of representation, which some also advocated for. The CLD Standards Council, calling for a stronger equality and rights based focus, suggested linking the standards to the Human Rights Bill for Scotland.

The accessibility standard was next most frequently mentioned, with some seeing accessibility as key to enabling broad community participation, as outlined above in Chapter 4. A small number specifically supported standards relating to impact, democratic legitimacy, and creativity.

"CRER would agree with a human rights approach which allows equal opportunity to participate and recognises structural barriers, including those which impact minority ethnic communities." – Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights

"Standards must reflect the diverse range of our community and take into account the diversity of the local community." – Conversation hosted by Eskdalemuir Community Council

Suggestions for developing standards

Proposals for other standards community decision-making bodies should adhere to according to participants included fair treatment, transparency and opportunity for challenge and feedback. A few felt the standards should be underpinned by a legal framework, with support mechanisms built in, as prioritised by the National Standards of Community Engagement. Some participants suggested the standards be further developed with community involvement and input or advocated for a co-design approach with key stakeholders from local groups. The importance of communities being able to adapt standards to local contexts and review and change these over time was also emphasised.

"These are a good set of standards and there needs to be a starting point for this but there could be a process of developing these with communities over time and informed by the experience and learning of new ways of community governance." – Electoral Reform Society

Some suggested drawing on pre-existing expertise, policies, and standards to develop the standards and increase public confidence in community bodies. Suggestions included:

• National Standards of Community Engagement.
• Councillors' Code of Conduct.
• Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000.
• Model Code of Conduct for Members of Devolved Public Bodies.
• Community Councils standards, community cohesion and equality strategies.
• OSCR regulated charitable community bodies' standards.
• National Occupation Standards (NOS) for Community Development.
• International Standards for Community Development Practice.

"Specialists within the Council could provide support regarding drafting standards. It would also be beneficial to look at the existing standards for Community Councils and build on them to make them fit for this purpose. It is important not to waste resources by reinventing things; use existing expertise and local knowledge to make sure standards are relevant and robust." – Conversation hosted by Forth Valley Sensory Centre

Scepticism about the value of standards

A few participants disagreed with the suggested standards but did not elaborate why. Others expressed doubt that the standards would be put into practice or positively impact the effectiveness of community organisations, ensure respect towards community members or improve participation. One organisation, for instance, felt a lack of diversity in community bodies would prevent the voices of ethnic minority groups from being heard. Others, including The CLD Standards Council, stressed that effective community engagement would not be possible without funding and resources.

"The group was not sure if there are ever any guarantees on effectiveness and respect, time would tell." – Conversation hosted by The Language Hub

Additional measures needed

Regarding ensuring standards are adhered to and representatives and communities are treated with dignity and respect, some participants called for community decision-making bodies to be given advice and support on various issues. Areas for consideration suggested by participants included HR and procurement, as well as support structures and documentation including: guidance materials, benchmarks, frameworks, guidelines, rules or standing orders, codes of conduct, charters, and training on a range of issues mentioned in Chapter 7.

"There needs to be deeper understanding on inclusivity, active listening etc. Given communities are expected to consult widely and with equality, there also needs to be some understanding of biased sampling and partisanship in collection and interpretation of results... Communities may compete for similar resources and may cause harm by exacerbating inequality. Is there a place for a more structured framework to address these dangers? This may become a busy and fractious undertaking for community development officers and would benefit from clear guidelines and indeed rules." – Conversation hosted in Helensburgh

There were also calls for regulation, monitoring and evidencing compliance with standards, through public performance reporting, for example. Others suggested establishing safeguards, accessible complaints procedures, whistleblowing processes, or a system of sanctions where standards are not being met. Foundation Scotland also suggested that mediators or community development specialists could provide a more realistic and robust view on the kinds of support that community bodies might require.

"There must be clear provision for safeguards on personal behaviour, bearing and demeanour, directed, naturally, to ensure respectful intercourse. The coda here is the absolute need to ensure that a Community Council Executive undertaking is protected against abuse-led takeover by special interest groups or activists, live or by way of social media." – Individual

"Any new bodies [should be held to the] same standards of conduct as are expected by councillors, and members of other public bodies… any alleged breaches of the Code would be subject to independent investigation by the Ethical Standards Commissioner, and adjudication by the Standards Commission for Scotland (with the legal powers to impose sanctions should a breach be established)." – Argyll and Bute Council

Designing a charter to ensure positive relationships

Question 13 focused explicitly on exploring views on whether a charter would be a good way to ensure a positive and effective relationship between community decision-making bodies and other public bodies.

Question 13: How could a charter be designed to best ensure a positive relationship between community decision-makers and their partners in national and Local Government and the wider public sector?

Developing a charter

There was considerable support for a collaborative and co-design approach to designing a charter, with participants highlighting the need to work with all stakeholders including the public, community members, decision-makers, businesses, community groups, local interest groups, public sector bodies, third sector organisations, trade unions and partners in local and national government. Participants expressed the view that this level of collaboration would secure buy-in and a sense of ownership from all parties and strengthen relationships between them. Methods proposed to inform the development of a charter included Citizen Assemblies or juries, social media opinion polls, surveys, one-to-one meetings with local leaders, public meetings, community conferences, and participatory workshops and events.

Some emphasised the importance of developing the charter with openness and transparency to build trust and respect in both the charter and the wider community decision-making body. Having an accessible development process and charter was also identified as essential by some participants; suggestions were made to advertise widely using accessible spaces, language and consultation formats in line with considerations of inclusivity outlined earlier in this report. Similarly, there were calls to ensure a diverse representation when designing a charter.

"They should use plain language in multiple formats, make it accessible to everyone, as well as digital and in-person formats…. The charter needs to simplify our democratic levers and make politics accessible and understandable." – Conversation hosted by Cranhill Cakes and Conversation at Christmas

Gartmorn Dam Country Park Development Trust advocated for the charter development to be facilitated by a neutral body. Other suggested forms of support for charter design included financial resources, expertise, and information and guidance on designing and using charters in practice. Some highlighted the potential to draw on best practices from other countries, UK-based development trust and businesses, or align with existing constitutions, frameworks, and charters, such as the Verity House Agreement, Place Principle, PANEL human-rights principles, Volunteer Charter, and Community Wealth Building charters.

"Look at similar charters around the globe to see what ideas could be copied. Pass on all suggestions to a consultation body that can address all legal implications and possibilities so a charter is realistic and can actually be implemented." – Conversation hosted by The Language Hub

"A Community Charter will have considerable resource implications across multiple stages, from consultation and development to promotion and practical implementation. More significantly, public bodies and local community actors must have the necessary capacity to meet their new responsibilities in a timely and effective manner." – SURF

A small number commented on timeframes, stating that charter development should be time-bound, revisited at future points, or that communities should be supported to understand and set realistic timelines for community decision-making. A few felt it would be helpful for the charter principles to be nationally co-ordinated and aligned. Reasons for this included that it would provide a foundation of principles to build on or help ensure a charter reflects the national policy framework, allowing community action to be framed within broader local and national strategic objectives. Suggestions included the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015, The New Scots Strategy, the National

Performance Framework/Scotland's Wellbeing Framework, Sustainable Development Goals, and the PANEL principles (Scottish Human Rights Commission). However, as with wider standards, some emphasised the need for flexibility and for local communities to adapt the principles to their bespoke needs and changing views.

"The same charter with uniform, practical details being applied to the whole of Sutherland would be unrealistic. Local needs need to be considered." – Voluntary Groups Sutherland

Charter content

Many participants commented on charter content. Most commonly, it was suggested that a charter should clarify the roles, responsibilities, duties, voting rights, the need for timely communication using a variety of channels, and powers of different bodies. One individual suggested including organograms, showing 'who does what, in what capacity, and who the key points of contact are'".

"We suggest a charter is based on defined responsibilities of the community councils versus those of the Local government/regional councils and how each side is expected to support the other." - Conversation hosted by Renfrewshire Effort to Empower Minorities

There were mixed views about the weight of voice that should be given to the different parties within a charter. Some emphasised an equal partnership, others felt a charter should emphasise the shift in power to new community decision-making bodies, and others highlighted the importance of being explicit about the limitations of new community groups' powers or responsibilities.

"A charter should support and ensure that the new decision-making bodies are regarded as partners by and at all levels." – Conversation hosted in Helensburgh

"A charter would have to clearly set out the limits of the decision-making powers that a new community decision-making body shall have and matters that are retained by existing partners... to have a positive relationship, each body needs to have an understanding of what is expected of the other – in terms of activity, outcome and behaviour." – Argyll and Bute Council

Volunteer Scotland stressed that any new liabilities assumed by community groups needed to be fully transparent within a charter. A small number also felt that establishing shared goals and detailing the aims and expectations of collaboration between the different decision-making bodies was crucial for positive working relationships and achieving objectives.

"Some time after assuming control (of a community toilet) a community was informed that the building contained asbestos, and that they were now liable for regular legionella testing. This information was not disclosed at the time of transfer, potentially leaving volunteers and the general public at considerable risk… We would recommend the Community Charter include a transparency and accountability principle to ensure a clear and informed transfer of power into the hands of communities from partners." – Volunteer Scotland

Regulation

Several participants agreed that issues of regulation, mechanisms of accountability, performance measurement, and processes for complaints, conflict resolution, and sanctions should be set out in the charter. For instance, participants at the Making Rights Real event emphasised the need for whistleblower mechanisms to raise and address issues such as racism, as well as ensuring people had access to internationally recognised rights-based accountability mechanisms. Some wanted guidance or a framework to follow where relationships become contentious or clear consequences for non-compliance with the charter. However, one individual felt "a charter that focuses on aspiration and what a great relationship would look like is more engaging than a list of rules of how all the possible imagined transgressions will be punished!"

"A core aspect of any charter should be a statement of subsidiarity… to ensure powers are not hoarded or centralised by central government, and local communities undermined in their decision-making. Mechanisms of accountability, such as access to freedom of information requests, as well as committee scrutiny should be considered to protect the autonomy of local government." – The Common Weal

The need to monitor compliance with the charter or suggested ways of ensuring adherence were raised by several participants. These included: regular reviews, reporting, and performance measurement, a regulatory body, establishing formal contracts, robust legal frameworks, or making the charter statutory. However, Foundation Scotland expressed concern that legally binding charters might waste resources by "replicating ineffective systems of bureaucracy." Aberdeen City Council also stressed that: "care should be taken to ensure that [a charter] is not seen as a means of existing local or national government imposing control on new bodies."

Other charter content

Some, including Voluntary Groups Scotland, called for a focus within the charter on ways of involving the community and increasing democratic involvement. Suggestions for how this could be done were frequently made, but they align closely with those already described in Chapter 4.

A small number commented that issues linked to providing specialist advice, resourcing, or frameworks for calculating funding arrangements should be set out in the charter. In a conversation hosted by Carluke Community Development Trust, participants highlighted the need for clarity around funding sources and the responsibilities placed on communities accepting this.

"It may be that the new body requires support from professional services in the Council… A charter or service level agreement or contract could set out what would be provided and what the resourcing terms of that agreement are." – Argyll and Bute Council

Ensuring positive working relationships

The relational dynamics, structures, and communication processes needed to support community decision-making were raised by some. To build relationships and ensure successful collaboration between the different bodies, participants called for: transparent, cooperative, open, respectful, supportive, and accountable interactions; an understanding of the pressures and concerns of others; and strong communication based on timely responses, a shared language, avoidance of the use of jargon, information sharing, and feedback loops. Training, a relationship manager, and spaces and forums for stakeholders from different bodies and levels of decision-making to come together were also identified by participants as necessary to facilitate positive working relationships.

"A positive relationship will only be attained if all parties and decision-makers and their partners agree to work with each other and respect the views, opinions and decisions made within such groups." – Ythan Community Council

"It would not be the charter itself that ensures behaviour… this will be based on the personalities and conduct of those involved. Therefore, it would be very important for all members of bodies subject to the charter to also (complete) something like co-production training. This better enables a positive culture of working together where all are equally informed, and have a baseline skill level, of behaviours and ways of working." – Argyll and Bute Council

Scepticism about the value of a charter

While many participants were positive, some expressed scepticism about the value of a charter or felt this was unnecessary. Others doubted the potential for positive working relationships between community decision-makers and their partners in national and Local Government and the wider public sector, or highlighted barriers to these. These included: resistance to change; complex or unproductive relational dynamics; competing democratic mandates, responsibilities, and accountability between partners; and the risk of tokenism without sufficient additional resourcing, buy-in from different parties, or practical application of the charter.

"A charter is, by itself, insufficient to ensure a productive partnership between community decision-makers and their partners… To be meaningful, additional engagement and strategic co-ordination with local decision-making bodies will require an investment in capacity from Councils. This investment does not occur in a vacuum, with council services under enormous and increased financial pressure." – Scottish Borders Council