by Hans Schoenberg
from Shareable.net

The most emailed NY Times article right now is titled “But Will It Make You Happy?” Questioning our consumer culture, the author interviews a number of wealthy yet unhappy people who found relief in giving away their many possessions. One of the interviewee’s has the last line: “Give away some of your stuff,’ she advises. See how it feels.”

Here in New Haven, Connecticut, USA, there are hundreds of people living within one mile of the coffee shop where we wrote this essay who lack access to some of the most fundamental human needs. At the same time, hundreds more are frustrated with the way consumption has taken over their lives and cluttered their homes. The abundance of stuff that is the result of our consumption driven culture could potentially be used to not only help friends share with friends, but to change entire communities.

Each year, Yale Recycling’s Spring Salvage program gathers the goods students would have otherwise thrown away as they move out of their dorms. The “waste,” worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, is then distributed to local nonprofits. This event demonstrates that the New Haven community already has the resources it needs in the form of excess stuff, but for most of the year those resources sit unused in our houses and dorms. A system only exists to reuse this “waste” once a year and only because Yale can afford to finance it. We saw an opportunity to reimagine how communities can share and work together.

We started GiftFlow to give communities a new set of tools. Here’s how it works: individuals log onto GiftFlow and create a profile where they list everything they have to give away (ranging from a spare jacket to an hour of volunteer time) and everything they need. You give what you can to get what you need. Each transaction is recorded so that individuals can gain a reputation for contributing to their community.

The driving force behind the system is an ethic of indirect reciprocity or circular giving. Lewis Hyde described it best in his book The Gift:

“Circular giving differs from reciprocal giving in several ways. First, when the gift moves in a circle, no one ever receives it from the same person she gives it to...When the gift moves in a circle its motion is beyond the control of the personal ego, and so each bearer must be part of the group and each donation is an act of social faith.”

Hans first came across accounts of gift economies while studying economic anthropology. Giving without expectation of immediate return, many people in Mali participate in an informal gift economy that includes everything from child care to food from the garden. They see the gift as a string, connecting families, friends and neighbors in a web of mutual support. As a political organizer, Hans believed the idea of a gift economy carried far more potential to create change than mainstream campaigns around distant and often negative political issues.

The ethic of indirect reciprocity can support entire organizations, however, these social structures aren’t always robust. Cris learned this first hand when he helped to create the New Haven Bike Collective. Based around a gift economy of unwanted bicycles and the free time of volunteers, the main drag on the group came from a constant sense of being “free-ridden.” People would take a free bike and give little back to the organization. Cris immediately got involved in Giftflow because he saw how it could provide a platform to account for who supports and who benefits from the Collective.

In the past, gift economies only worked in small social circles because of problems with coordination and reputation. Brandon had been studying how the Internet can change social interactions, and realized that an online social network could support a gift economy. A website could strengthen and formalize what is already happening in communities around the world, making it work well across greater distances, in larger social circles, between individuals as well as institutions.

Our team continues to grow. We are a non-profit and welcome the gifts and contributions of anyone who might be interested. We hope that the online community of GiftFlow creates an offline community of mutual interdependence and support.

By Tim Huet

A Manifesto for a Life-Changing Conclusion

When my colleagues, the editors of this publication, asked me to write a brief piece explaining why I got into cooperative development, I responded that this posed a perhaps insurmountable difficulty: briefly explaining how I arrived at the life-changing conclusion that (trumpets, please) There Is No More Important Social Change Work You Can Do Than Cooperative Development. I mentioned that I'd been thinking of writing an essay arguing that— while chaining oneself to a tree might be sexier; while blockading WTO meetings might seem more “front-line”; while busting-out Starbucks windows might seem more cutting-edge—There Is No More Important Social Change Work You Can Do Than Cooperative Development (hereinafter, TINMISCWYCDTCD). The editors responded with the generous offer of feature space in order to accommodate the TINMISCWYCDTCD argument. So, the editors having called my bluff (giving me enough space/rope to hang myself), here I am pounding out my Cooperative Manifesto.

In the following section, I've laid out six conclusions I reached some dozen years ago (in my mid-twenties) that premised my decision to devote myself to cooperative development. Before launching into those conclusions/premises, I wish to clarify that I don't use the term “cooperative development” in some restrictive sense to mean only starting new cooperatives or expanding/restructuring established ones. For me, anything that a member does to improve her/his cooperative or help it achieve its mission is cooperative development (could be excellent customer service, could be developing personnel systems). I'll argue herein that all such cooperative development work is inherently important social change work.

A Long and Logical Road

Premise 1: Regulation and reform will not keep capitalism from destroying our environment and creating disastrous social cleavages; fundamental change is needed.

I could go on for a quite a while regarding why capitalism inevitably leads to ecological and social ruin -- and there was a time (during my student days) when I did go on at length about the pathology and prognosis. But I came to the conclusion that it was largely a waste of time. Because—

Premise 2: There's no point convincing people of the prevailing system's intrinsic and inevitable failings if you can't offer hope of anything better.

I became very proficient at persuading people regarding the downsides and doom. But that simply led to the question, “What can you offer better?” And, believe me, an exploration of the theoretical promise of anarcho-syndicalism or your-ideal(ist)-prescription-of-choice won't get you very far with most people. Because—

Premise 3: The overwhelming majority of people cannot be convinced with theoretical arguments, but require demonstrative proof.

Moreover—

Premise 4: You can't simply wait for capitalism to collapse (or work to “tear down capitalism”), with the expectation that “after the collapse” people will “get revolutionary consciousness” and be receptive to your arguments about building a truly democratic society and economy.

History indicates clearly that, in the wake of economic collapse, people are more likely to listen to fascist/totalitarian appeals to their fears and hunger than they are to elaborate proposals for building a more democratic economy and society. We cannot simply await the apocalypse, cheering or working for capitalismís collapse; we need to build the democratic future now. We at least need to build a working example of a democratic future economy and society, an inspiring example people can turn to as their eyes are opened wide by capitalismís escalating crises and increasingly frequent crashes. Moreover—

Premise 5: Efforts to tear down the system or protest its injustices do not develop the constructive skills and habits of mind that a democratic economy and society require.

There is plenty about the current regime that inspires and even requires protest. But we get stuck in an oppositional, critical, reactive mentality if all we do is protest. By endeavoring to build working models of economic democracy, we also build the constructive skills and thinking that will be needed to operate the equitable ìpost-capitalistî society we envision.

Moreover—

Premise 6: You cannot achieve true democracy without economic democracy, democracy in the workplace.

You cannot say a society is truly democratic if its adults spend the majority of their waking hours in undemocratic workplaces and do not enjoy control over the basic elements of their lives (no control over their jobs ultimately means no security regarding their homes, healthcare, time, education, etc.). And the undemocratic nature of work for most adults has effects beyond the workplace and outside working hours. Autocratic models of relating in the workplace carryover into the family, larger community, and political realm. Conversely, I believe that members of worker cooperatives learn democratic skills and ways of interacting with each other—and the confidence that comes from taking control over your life—hat benefits their families and larger communities, and can carryover into the political realm.

Indeed, I don't think there is much hope for achieving even limited political democracy (what I refer to as “periodic democracy”) if you don't have the everyday democracy of workplace democracy. It is a dirty secret that no liberal and few progressives wish to acknowledge: an electorate without everyday democratic experience/perspective/skills, and the security that comes from controlling oneís fate, is too easily manipulated by fear-mongers, prejudice-peddlers, and other rightist political operators. And yet so much progressive energy goes towards state, national, and international campaigns when we lack communities/bases of everyday democracy from which to build—when we have failed to build up everyday democracy from the grassroots, community by community.

So, the more obvious meaning of my seventh premise is that “we wont have achieved true democracy until we have workplace democracy”; but the more important meaning, the one that drives my action agenda, is “we need to build cooperatives as bases for a democracy movement.”

The Promise and Importance of Worker Cooperatives for a Broader Democracy Movement

For me, worker cooperatives are not simply businesses; they are democracy demonstration projects, schools for democracy, laboratories for democracy, and organizing bases for democracy. What I mean by worker cooperatives being schools and organizing bases for democracy is perhaps clear from the above sections. But there are a couple of other points I would like to make and expand on.

Democracy demonstration projects: As stated above, it is critical to build working examples of economic democracy that people can see and experience. From that point of view, every worker cooperative is a democracy demonstration project beyond simply being a business. In addition to producing bread, bicycles, etc., we produce hope and inspiration.

As importantly, we can provide an example and experience of community, which people hunger for in our disconnected society. I see the proof and power of this on a regular basis through the cooperative bakeries with which Iím mostly directly associated. Customers come in not simply for the great bread, but also for the sustenance of community. They sense the community at our cooperatives and want to be part of that.

It follows from this that every interaction with the general public is imbued with social change importance and opportunity. Conversely, it is a wasted opportunity (or worse) if we fail to show care or concern, if we fail to serve our communities any better than “wage slaves” under the watch of a boss.

Worker cooperatives have to work for everyone, not just idealists or activists: Earlier I referenced the promise of worker cooperatives to provide activists with “right livelihood,” the opportunity to live out and further their values; however, I feel strongly that worker cooperatives have to be attractive workplaces for people other than avowed activists. If we only build businesses-communities that work for idealists (“Aren't you dedicated enough to work for minimum wage?!), we've hardly proven anything regarding the viability of economic democracy. Personally, I find it most satisfying when we hire people who've never heard or cooperatives and have never been active in their communities. It is one of the greatest pleasures of my work to see such people blossom, to grow in confidence and skills —and then perhaps lend their newly-developed skills to broader community endeavors.

Laboratories for democracy: The sad fact is that humanity has only the most rudimentary knowledge, vocabulary, technology, etc. for how to relate to each other and work together as equals. An important part of our function as cooperators and agents for social change is to be very conscious regarding our experiments in democracy and community. We are developing knowledge (regarding conflict resolution, communication, collective decision-making) very much needed not simply for the effective functioning of democratic workplaces, but for the establishment of relations based on equality and respect throughout society.

Worker cooperatives can generate capital for social causes, but shouldn't give it all away: During the 1970s ferment of U.S. worker cooperative development (I'm referencing such things as the “food conspiracies” that blossomed in the Upper Midwest, Bay Area, etc.), there was a prevalent “hippie ethic”: making money was evil and paying attention to business was “uptight” and “bourgeois”. Some movement maturation and natural selection took place. The cooperatives that survived and thrived were generally ones that realized paying attention to business allowed you to better serving your community, including generating resources for community betterment.

I know that in my region, worker cooperatives have historically been important and generous contributors to (other) social change organizations. This is something to be proud of. However, I do wonder if we have not historically under-estimated the social change value of worker cooperative development by underinvesting in our own movement. It is my hope that worker cooperatives will begin to seriously consider whether contributing to the development of more democratic jobs might be as worthwhile as donating money to charities, the arts, and other social change organizations.

Likewise, valuing our inherent social change role should inform the relationship of worker cooperatives to the larger social justice movements. While social change work is my motivation for being involved with cooperatives, it does not follow that I believe cooperatives should serve, above all, as platforms or purses for political causes. Worker cooperatives do have resources and a great deal of visibility that we can lend to various causes. However, I believe we should do this only in a focused and judicious way (for instance, a grocery cooperative focusing its support in the areas of organics and farm workers rights, or a taxi cooperative focusing its efforts on transportation policy). We need to be cautious not to tear ourselves apart or alienate our customer bases by involving ourselves in every hot-button-issue-of-the-day; to do this would waste our social capital, since by forwarding the worker cooperative movement we may contribute more to the social change movement in the long-run. This does not mean that I think worker cooperatives should stand apart from other social change movements, as I will explain in the concluding section.

As Important, Not More Important—

And Not Sufficient

I'm aware that my opening claim of TINMISCWYCDTCD would strike some activists in other social change movements as a bit grandiose and perhaps even offensive (“How can he put that on the same level as the urgent frontline work we're doing?!). I'm hoping that this essay might reach and provoke such activists to see cooperatives as an integral to any movement for justice, peace, and sustainability. That you're not accomplishing much to save the environment if you don't address the economic engine that drives consumption and belches out pollution. That, if you want peace and democracy overseas, you should care fiercely about establishing economic as well as political democracy domestically; that developing locally-rooted sustainable economic democracy is critical to countering the forces of global expansionism and military adventure.

Yet, I do not claim that cooperative development is more important than all other forms of social change work. There are various forms of social change work that are just as important, and need to be carried out simultaneously if not in conjunction. I don't think cooperative development in itself will ever solve all the world's problems. Nor do I think worker cooperatives can or should stand apart from other social change movements; for instance, we need to battle the many injustices (racism, sexism, etc.) that pervade our society and will not be barred from our doors by any declaration that “we're all equal here at our cooperative”. In particular, I think worker cooperators need to think of ourselves and act as part of the larger labor movement, not leaving behind other workers because “we got ours”.

And I can fully understand someone dedicating herself or himself to another form of social change work and never having anything to do with cooperatives. Those who seek to be agents of social change should choose the area(s) in which they can best contribute and find the most fulfillment. For myself, I have found cooperative development to be very fulfilling as well as meaningful, and I hope to convince many others to join in.

Tim Huet helps to establish and develop bakery cooperatives through the Association of Arizmendi Cooperatives, which he co-founded in Northern California. Until recently, he was also a member of Rainbow Grocery Cooperative, where he served in various management capacities. Tim serves other worker cooperatives as an organizational consultant and attorney. He also is a Board Director for the U.S. Conference of Democratic Workplaces. His writing on cooperatives and self-management has been published in Dollars & Sense, Grassroots Economic Organizing, Peace Review, and The Stanford Law & Policy Review.

Include the citation below and GEO Newsletter grants permission to copy, use, and distribute this article.
Permission not for commercial or for-profit use.
©2004 GEO, P.O. Box 115, Riverdale, MD 20738-0115
http://www.geo.coop
http://www.geo.coop

by Mira Luna

I came to currency work out of a sense of hope for a new economy that builds relationships between people and with nature rather than breaking them. I also come from a place of trauma. I have watched through my activist work people being exploited in sweatshops, people being poisoned to death or disability, and the Earth that I love so much be carelessly destroyed. I have also experienced trauma of exploitation, abuse and alienation in personal relationships as a result of the money paradigm.

In my activist work, I see people destroying each other and the Earth in order to gain a profit or just make a living in poorly designed economy that doesn’t provide enough money for everyone to feel secure. They chase after pieces of paper or numbers in an account in cyberspace believing this is the only way to get their needs met.

In my personal relationships, I see my friends, family, coworkers and lovers try to maximize their share of the pie. They see me as separate from them, especially when I need help buying medicine, conveniently reconnecting when I seem more well or financially independent (which is really challenging when you have a life-threatening, disabling illness). In several relationships, I’ve had boyfriends reconsider our relationship because I didn’t make enough or they saw the hole of medical debt I’m in and run away scared. I’ve had friends partners who have lots of money sit by and watch me get ill again as I couldn’t afford the right medicine. I’ve had family members stop contacting me for fear I’ll ask them for money, even if I never had. I’ve also had people close to me steal money from me or not pay me back even when they are able. I struggle all the time as I see my old fears manifest. On my side, I have enough love and compassion to want everyone to be provided for, but sometimes I feel have to protect myself and the little money I have in order to stay alive.

If you don’t trust others to take care of you and so you don’t take care of them, then they will feel the same way. On the other hand, when you take care of others and trust them to take care of you in return, the more they will feel able to trust you to do the same. It's a chain reaction, like the flap of a butterflies wings or the fall of a domino. The trust I am speaking of requires you to jump out on a limb the same way you do in serious romantic relationship. Yet, I am asking you to do this with almost everyone you meet. There are people who are so far from ready to make the leap that making that leap yourself to meet them may only serve to crush your ability to trust anyone in the future. But I believe most people can, and the more people we can make that leap with together, the more we will have a community of trust that provides much more security than any bank account ever could.

And what if my happiness was bound up in yours? What if we recognized our connection to each other so strongly that we knew we need to trust in order to truly be happy and we knew we need to take care of each other in order not to feel the others’ suffering so we could feel their joy. I see so many people separated from each other, by money, by fear, by their work and they feel there is no alternative. So they try to create happiness through buying things or going on fancy vacations, and a deep depression lingers just below the surface. Some of these people go to a potluck or the Really Really Free Market or Burning Man and I see them come alive because their needs are being met without worrying about the scarcity of money and therefore not holding a wall between beings that long for connection.

We’ve all had traumas around interpersonal money issues and around the destructive capacity of profit-maximization. Can we get over them? I am not asking you to jump off a cliff with me right now. I am asking you to start making small steps to take care of the people around you and the Earth without fear of money. We don’t need money at all to do work or to get most of things we need if we are creative and have community. I am also advocating that when you do this, you tell people you trust them to take care of you when you need it so that they know there is string attached to your help and you may need to use it some day. Strings are good, they weave together healthy reciprocal community.

Even as we do this, we need to build measures for collective security, like healthcare and housing. Most healthcare could be provided through alternative and preventive care outside the mainstream healthcare system, but occasionally we need expensive medicines or hospital care. We should have universal, guaranteed healthcare so people can feel more able to let go and trust that they won’t die for lack of money. We also need to make sure everyone has a place to live and food. The fear of not being able to afford rent or mortgage and therefore being homeless, also drives people to fight over money or take on unethical work. I believe if we can get government or form our own collectives to take care of these basic needs in a more formal and secure manner, we could meet almost all of other needs through more informal, relationship-based collective action and mutual aid, like barter, timebanks, and gifting circles. Collectivity and mutual aid would flourish as fears about our most basic needs not being met disappear. Without formal measures, we are still all responsible for each others’ care.

We are all connected. As you realize and actualize this, you may notice that you feel happier as you feel walls built by money drop down. You may feel more loved and relaxed. You may feel like you can start planning to quit an unethical job and direct your energy in a better way. You may feel like you can move your investments to sustainable and equitable local projects since you see the value of community and a healthy Earth above money for care and security.

Separation is a painful illusion that nullifies love, love is the source of happiness, and your happiness is tied in a web of connection to the happiness of the world. Take the leap. I am ready to join you.

Here is a recent article about participatory budgeting in Chicago. Will SF be the next city? Perhaps to the first in the US to have a municipal-wide participatory budgeting process? The SF Community Congress has listed this among its top priorities to discuss at the Congress. Participatory budgeting is one giant step towards real democracy and participatory local self-governance, as well as a tool to move money towards other programs of real social change.

from Yes Magazine
by Josh Lerner

Chicago’s $1.3 Million Experiment in Democracy
For the first time in the U.S., the city’s 49th Ward lets taxpayers directly decide how public money is spent.

by Josh Lerner, Megan Wade Antieau
posted Apr 20, 2010

Ward 49 Ballot

All 49th Ward residents age 16 and over, regardless of voter registration or citizenship status, were invited to vote on the 36 budget proposals developed by the community.

On Chicago's far north side, citizens are taking democracy into their own hands. Through the first "participatory budgeting" experiment in the United States, residents of Chicago's 49th Ward have spent the past year deciding how to spend $1.3 million in taxpayer dollars. Over 1,600 community members stepped up to decide on improvements for their neighborhoods, showing how participatory budgeting can pave the way for a new kind of grassroots democracy, in Chicago and beyond.

From Porto Alegre to Chicago

Chicago may seem an unlikely site for participatory democracy, given the city's famous patronage system and lack of transparency in public finances. Faced with this system, community groups end up competing for budgetary scraps—an exhausting struggle. But frustration with backroom dealing is in part what makes Chicago and the United States ready for new ways of managing public money.

In 2007, Alderman Joe Moore discovered an alternative at a US Social Forum session on participatory budgeting. There, he learned about Porto Alegre, Brazil, where since 1990 tens of thousands of people have been directly deciding how to spend as much as 20 percent of their city's annual budget. Moore also learned how participatory budgeting has gone global, spreading to over 1,200 cities around the world and winning the United Nations' recognition as a best practice of democratic governance.

No U.S. city had let citizens directly decide how to spend public money, but Moore saw Chicago's 49th Ward as the perfect place to try.
Democracy in Action

The 49th Ward, home to over 60,000 people and the neighborhood of Rogers Park, is known for its diversity and vibrant community life. Over 80 languages are spoken within less than two square miles. Independent-minded citizens have often put intense pressure on local officials. Concerned that Moore wasn't responding to ward needs, they nearly voted him out of office in the last election. So how does one of the nation's most diverse neighborhoods bring opinionated residents together to make difficult budget decisions?

Moore started by setting aside his $1.3 million "menu money," the discretionary budget that each alderman receives for capital infrastructure projects. In April 2009, with guidance from The Participatory Budgeting Project, Moore invited leaders of all the ward's community organizations and institutions to form a Steering Committee, which decided the timeline and structure of the process.
"At the community meetings everyone was complaining about their block," says 49th Ward resident Laurent Pernot. "But now every single committee has taken stewardship of the whole ward as their mission."

At a series of neighborhood assemblies starting in November, residents brainstormed initial spending ideas and self-selected community representatives who would transform those ideas into concrete proposals. These representatives, along with Steering Committee mentors, split into six thematic committees. They then spent four months meeting with experts, conducting research, and developing budget proposals.

The Public Safety Committee, for instance, received many requests for security cameras. To learn more, they visited the neighborhood’s 24-hour camera viewing center. As community representative Marilou Kessler explained, "everyone [on the committee] came—about 15-16 people on a workday. It was astonishing cooperation." The trip shifted the committee's priorities: They learned that the cameras are used only occasionally, mostly by specialty police teams, and are not continuously monitored. After police explained that lighting is more effective at deterring crime, the committee replaced several camera proposals with street light proposals.

At first, some skeptics worried about what residents would propose. Would they rush through inappropriate projects, or focus just on their personal needs? Not quite. To identify sidewalks most in need of repair, Transportation Committee members walked almost every block of the ward, in the middle of the Chicago winter. "I will never look at sidewalks the same way again!" reflected Dena Al-Khatib, one of the sidewalk inspectors. Community representatives also learned to move beyond their initial assumptions and priorities. As Laurent Pernot of the Transportation Committee said, "At the community meetings everyone was complaining about their block... But now every single committee has taken stewardship of the whole ward as their mission."


After months of work and more neighborhood assemblies, the community representatives presented a ballot of 36 specific budget proposals, and then helped organize a publicity campaign. The Arts and Other Committee put together an artistic exhibition of proposals at Mess Hall, a local cultural center. Andy De La Rosa, an artist on the committee, found himself swayed by the proposals from other committees. "This is all extra," he said of his committee's proposals for murals, artistic bike racks, and historical markers. "I hope people vote for the streets."

49th Ward Discussion

On April 10th, all ward residents age 16 and over, regardless of voter registration or citizenship status, were invited to vote on the proposals at a local high school. In the week beforehand, 428 residents voted early at the Alderman’s office—more early voters per day than during the 2008 presidential election. On the final voting day, a stream of people filled the school cafeteria, reading over proposals, consulting with community representatives, and voting for up to eight projects on paper ballots.

In the end, 1,652 residents turned out, not to elect someone to decide for them, but to make their own decisions about the ward. The turnout vastly exceeded expectations, considering the brand-new process, lack of media coverage, and absence of any other elections or ballot measures to inspire turnout.

The $1.3 million was enough to fund the 14 most popular projects. The proposal to fix sidewalks received the most votes, and other funded projects included bike lanes, community gardens, murals, traffic signals, and street lighting. Every committee had at least one proposal funded.

Democratizing Democracy

But participatory budgeting in Chicago still has a long way to go. Like at most community meetings in the ward, turnout did not reflect the full diversity of residents. In most participatory budgeting processes, disadvantaged communities turn out in droves, but not yet in the 49th Ward. Despite additional Spanish-language assemblies, materials, and outreach, Latino turnout was particularly low. According to Latino leaders, this was due largely to general distrust of government and worries about immigration status. Some community organizers added that there was too little time for one-on-one meetings with such leaders early on, and that the infrastructure funding did not speak to the concerns of many low-income residents. Had turnout been more diverse, would funding have been allocated differently?

Organizers will have a chance to find out, since Moore has already committed to continuing participatory budgeting. As he wrote in a letter to constituents, it "exceeded even my wildest dreams. It was more than an election. It was a community celebration and an affirmation that people will participate in the civic affairs of their community if given real power to make real decisions." Community representatives are already debating how to deepen community engagement by building on the outreach from this year.

Important as it is, the ward's $1.3 million discretionary budget is just the beginning. Residents are now discussing how to bring participatory budgeting to other budgets, and some reformers in other wards are already considering running on a participatory budgeting platform in the next municipal elections. This energy shows the power of truly democratic experiences, and opens up new possibilities for democracy in Chicago and beyond.

Josh Lerner is co-director of The Participatory Budgeting Project, a resource organization that has advised Alderman Joe Moore throughout the 49th Ward’s participatory budgeting process.
Megan Wade Antieau, a writer and ward resident, has served as a community representative in the 49th Ward Participatory Budget, working with other residents to transform community input into budget proposals.