GOOD GOVERNANCE AT LOCAL LEVEL – THE CASE OF
SLOVENIA
Iztok Rakar1
Jože Benčina2
ABSTRACT
The article determines the adoption of certain principles of good governance in practice in the case of Slovenian
municipalities by means of empirical analysis. The results of the research indicate that there are important
opportunities for improvements and that the majority of municipalities consider that greater involvement of the
public in the procedures of preparing regulations would have important positive effects; however, on the other
hand, they do not want greater involvement, as public involvement is already sufficient in their opinion.
Key words: good governance, public participation, R.I.A., local self-government, Slovenia
1. INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the Slovenian concept of local self-government, the self-governing local communities are
primarily a service for the provision of public services instead of institutions that authoritatively legally regulate
local affairs of public interest. Despite the predominance of the non-authoritative service function, the
authoritative regulatory function must not be neglected, since it establishes the order required in any form of
grouping of people. Municipalities primarily regulate land use and environmental protection, public order,
control of the implementation of municipal by-laws, the provision of public services and the operation of
municipal authorities.3
From a legal viewpoint, the regulatory function is reflected in the issuance of abstract general legal acts, e.g.
ordinances,4 as well as in the sui generis legal acts, e.g. spatial and developmental planning acts. 5 The procedure
of preparing and adopting regulations (the legislative process) is complex, regulated by rules from the various
acts, is conducted part in several stages, and it includes several participants.
A modern method of governance of public affairs is normally no longer unilaterally authoritative, but includes a
discussion with partners.6 Prior to taking important decisions, a discussion is held with several representatives
with various social interests.7 The process is thus becoming open to the public, which means that it is more
transparent and it allows the public to influence the contents of decisions and become acquainted with the
grounds for their adoption. This led to the formulation of the principles of good governance. 8
1
Iztok Rakar, PhD, assistant professor, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Administration, Slovenia.
Jože Benčina, PhD, associate professor, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Administration, Slovenia.
3
Vlaj (ed.), 2001, p. 73.
4
In addition to the ordinances, municipalities also issue rules, decrees and instructions. Abstract general legal
acts also include the statute, rules of procedures and regulations that regulate the matters falling within the
competence conferred (Articles 64 and 65 of the Local Self-Government Act; Vlaj (ed.), 2001, p. 73).
5
See Vlaj (ed.), 2001, p. 74 and Article 29 of the Local Self-Government Act.
6
Top-down governance is undergoing changes towards greater involvement of affected parties in the decisionmaking process and towards bottom-up governance that includes the elements of negotiation (Magiera,
Sommermann and Ziller (eds.), 2008, p. 843).
7
The Anglo-Saxon political and administrative science uses the term governance, while German science uses
kooperative Regierung (Franz, 2013, p. 175).
8
This method of forming solutions is typical for the EU level, whereas at the national level, there are many
differences between individual countries, within countries and between individual policies (Franz, 2013, p. 175).
Slovenia, for example, regulated this field at the system level by the law governing access to public information
and by the resolution of the legislator, which governs the legislative processes.
2
Good governance results or should result in good regulations. 9 The quality of regulations has a subjective and
objective dimension – the former relates to the evaluation of the selection of a political alternative from the
viewpoint of values and circumstances in which the addressees of the rules live, while the latter relates to the
quality of the process, approaches, tools and methods of preparing and adopting regulations. Better regulations
lead to better public governance, while better public governance results in greater social welfare and improved
quality of life.10 Since the core of local self-government is to ensure a better life for citizens, an important
question is raised regarding the quality of governance in terms of quality of regulations at local level. In the
Resolution on Legislative Regulation of 2009 (hereinafter: Resolution), the Slovenian Parliament assessed the
situation in this field as follows: "municipalities pay insufficient attention to the quality of the legislative
regulation, which is then reflected both in the legal drafting and substantive formulation of regulations, in
concern to ensure adequate staffing and finally, in the deficient cooperation with the public concerned." Since
the observance of the Resolution is also recommended to local communities, the aim of this article is to
determine how the Resolution is implemented in practice and, consequently, what is the situation of this part of
good governance in Slovenian municipalities.
2. GOOD GOVERNANCE IN MUNICIPALITIES
The phrase “good governance” is originally related to the development policy within which the World Bank and
OECD formulated certain requirements for governments of developing countries, the fulfilment of which was
necessary for granting the development aid. 11 This phrase was later used by the European Commission in the
context of governance of European affairs – the following principles of good governance were formulated:
openness, participation, accountability, efficiency and coherence. 12
The principles of good governance at the level of local self-government are presented in The Strategy for
Innovation and Good Governance at Local Level (2008), approved by the Council of Europe Committee of
Ministers (so-called Valencia Declaration). The principles of good democratic governance at local level are
(Appendix 1 of Valencia Declaration): 1) fair conduct of elections, representation and participation, 2)
responsiveness, 3) efficiency and effectiveness, 4) openness and transparency, 5) rule of law, 6) ethical conduct,
7) competence and capacity, 8) innovation and openness to change, 9) sustainability and long-term orientation,
10) sound financial management, 11) human rights, cultural diversity and social cohesion and 12) accountability.
According to the principle of participation, 1) citizens are at the centre of public activity and they are involved in
clearly defined ways in public life at local level and 2) all men and women can have a voice in decision-making,
either directly or through legitimate intermediate bodies that represent their interests. According to the principles
of openness and transparency, 1) decisions are taken and enforced in accordance with rules and regulations, 2)
there is public access to all information which is not classified for well-specified reasons as provided for by law
(such as the protection of privacy or ensuring the fairness of procurement procedures) and 3) information on
decisions, implementation of policies and results is made available to the public in such a way as to enable it to
effectively follow and contribute to the work of the local authority. It follows from this brief overview that
public participation is an integral part of the concept of good governance.
The Resolution emphasises the connection between the quality of regulations on the one hand and the
effectiveness of law and the rule of law on the other. One of the fundamental principles of the preparation of
regulations is the principle of transparency which presumes "1) the presentation of the policy of regulation of a
definite field to as broad a public as possible, especially to target groups to which it relates; and 2)
announcement, preparation, and adoption of regulations under the ordinary (legislative) procedures that enable a
high-quality communication, as well as the response and influence of the public concerned." Public participation
can thus be understood as a key instrument for achieving the enhanced quality of regulations and is closely
linked to the regulatory impact assessments (R.I.A.) and can contribute to the democratic character and
legitimacy of the adopted decisions. 13
9
Good governance and better regulation are connected through participation of the public in the decision-making
process.
10
Virant, 2009, p. 82.
11
Magiera, Sommermann and Ziller (eds.), 2008, p. 851; Franz (ed.), 2013, p. 176. See also Australian Agency
for International Development (2000) and Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs, Austrian
Development Agency (2006 [2011]).
12
Franz (ed.), 2013, p. 176.
13
See paragraph 6, chapter V and paragraph 2, chapter VI of the Resolution.
The Resolution lays out guidelines for R.I.A. R.I.A. should include 1) definition of problem, 2) definition of
goals, 3) alternative solutions and their comparison, 4) impact assessment (environmental, social, economic,
financial and administrative impacts). The Resolution lays out guidelines for co-operation with the professional
public and other interested groups, too, including fundamental principles and minimum recommendations. The
fundamental principles of public participation are 1) timeliness, 2) openness, 3) accessibility, 4) responsiveness,
5) transparency and 6) traceability. Minimum recommendations are:
1) The participation of the public in the preparation of regulations should as a rule last between 30 and 60 days;
regulation proposals in which participation is not possible due to the nature of the matter are an exception
(urgent matters, the national budget, etc.)
2) Suitable materials should be prepared and include a summary of the contents along with professional bases,
key questions and objectives.
3) Upon the conclusion of the participation procedure, a report on the participation should be prepared and
include a presentation of the effects of the participation on the solutions found in the regulation proposal.
4) A call to participate should be made in such a way as to ensure that the target groups and professional public
respond and the broadest possible segment of the public is informed; lists of subjects whose participation in the
preparation of regulations is required by law and whose work takes place in the relevant field should be prepared
for the sake of continued participation and dissemination of information.
According to the Resolution, the authorities of self-governing local communities should pursue the objectives,
principles, and guidelines of this resolution as far as possible.
3. REGULATION OF MUNICIPAL RULEMAKING IN SLOVENIA
The implementation of constitutional provisions on local self-government results in the fact that in addition to all
other activities, municipalities also issue general legal acts (by-laws).14
An ordinance is a regulation by which a municipality regulates most of the matters within its original
competence. According to its function and its significance in practice, it may be considered as a kind of
municipal law. From the viewpoint of citizens, ordinances are the most important municipal by-laws, since they
regulate the legal relations and the rights and obligations of citizens in particular fields of municipal regulation.
Therefore, these are the most common regulations by which a municipality regulates the most important matters
within its competence.15
The issuance of municipal by-laws is governed by the principle of legality, both in substantive and formal sense.
The Local Self-Government Act includes few provisions on the procedure for issuing by-laws; therefore, the
majority of these issues are regulated by municipalities themselves in the statutes and rules of procedure of
municipal councils, while some issues are already regulated in the constitution (e.g. the obligation of publishing
of adopted by-laws) and in the Public Information Access Act (public notice of proposed by-laws)16. Taking into
account only the ordinances as typical municipal by-laws, this would mean the following: the ordinance may be
proposed by the mayor, the councillor, the working body of a municipal council and citizens (popular initiative);
the working texts of the ordinances are mostly prepared by the municipal administration; the ordinances are
adopted by the council at open sessions 17 by way of normal, summary or emergency procedure, whereby the
procedure for the adoption of spatial planning documents is specifically regulated; and the publication of adopted
ordinances is arranged by the mayor. 18
14
Brezovnik et al., 2014, p. 35. The first paragraph of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia
and Article 2 of the Local Self-Government Act constitute the general legal basis for the issuance of municipal
by-laws.
15
Brezovnik et al., 2014, p. 44.
16
Article 10 of the Public Information Access Act.
17
The public may be excluded.
18
Articles 31, 33, 66 and 89 of the Local Self-Government Act. Compare with The Statute of the Dobje
municipality and The Rules of procedure of the Dobje municipal council. In addition to the aforementioned acts,
the procedure of preparing and issuing municipal by-laws is directly or indirectly regulated by several other acts,
e.g. Aarhus Convention.
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN MUNICIPAL RULEMAKING IN SLOVENIA
4.1 Methodology
The questionnaire19 was used to verify the extent to which the municipalities observe minimum
recommendations of the Resolution for public participation and R.I.A. guidelines in the adoption of ordinances.20
Additionally, the opinion of municipalities on the significance and consequences of public participation was
asked for.
The questionnaire therefore included questions concerning:




the information of the public and the accessibility of materials;
the possibilities and methods of public participation; and
the publicly available components of materials; and
the opinion of municipalities on the significance and consequences of public participation.
To gain an insight into the structure of municipalities by size, the questionnaire included two additional
questions concerning:


the size of the administration (number of employees); and
the size of the municipality (number of inhabitants).
An online questionnaire was drawn up for the purpose of research, and e-mails were sent to all Slovenian
municipalities (211),21 asking them to complete the questionnaire. The survey was carried out from 18 March
2014 to 3 April 2014. 75 municipalities responded to the invitation to complete the questionnaire. 15
municipalities only clicked the address and 21 municipalities only entered the questionnaire, while one
municipality started to complete the questionnaire, but did not provide any response. Therefore, 38 appropriate
questionnaires (51%) were received, of which 32 (43%) were fully completed. The response, calculated for the
appropriate questionnaires in relation to the overall population of municipalities, was 18.1%.22
The sample distribution in graph 1 indicates that the sample distribution is slightly skewed towards larger
municipalities (distribution for the overall population: 20%, 32%, 22%, 17%, 8%); however, it is possible to
conclude that the sample distribution is suitable.
Graph 1: Frequency distribution of municipalities by number of inhabitants
19
See Appendix 1.
The research was limited to the formulation and adoption of ordinances other than those that refer to the
budget, spatial planning and environmental protection.
21
Municipality of Ankaran is the 212th municipality, established by the decision of the Constitutional Court of
the Republic of Slovenia, but it hasn't been constituted yet.
22
The response to the questionnaire was rather low, despite the fact that letters of support of the Association of
Municipalities of Slovenia (Združenje občin Slovenije (ZOS)) and of the Association of Municipalities and towns
of Slovenia (Skupnost občin Slovenije (SOS)) were obtained and sent.
20
Source: own.
4.2 Results
The response to questions on online accessibility and publication in the results relating to questions on the
information of the public and the accessibility of materials shows that virtually all municipalities (except one)
ensure the familiarisation with the agenda of meetings of the municipal council through online publication and
allow access to the ordinances decided upon by the municipal council on the municipalities’ webpages. All
municipalities except one also publish the entire material. The question on the formulation stage at which the
materials are published results in the 60%/40% distribution; 60% of municipalities publish the draft ordinance
while 40% of municipalities publish only proposals. The correlation of the number of inhabitants with the
publication stage is not statistically significant. Graph 2 indicates that among the smallest and largest
municipalities, more municipalities publish only the ordinance proposal, while among the municipalities with
2,500–5,000 citizens, almost all municipalities (6 out of 7) publish the draft ordinance.
Graph 2: Publication at the formulation stage by group of municipalities according to the number of inhabitants
Source: own.
From these results, it can be concluded that the public is informed of the ordinances decided upon by the
municipal council, and that as many as 40% of municipalities publish only the ordinance proposal and not the
draft. The one-sample binomial test for the variable Publication at the formulation stage is not statistically
significant (p = 0.324); therefore, the null hypothesis on distribution uniformity must be retained. This leads to
the conclusion that the ordinances are published at the draft stage by half of the municipalities in the overall
population, whereas the other half publishes the ordinances at the proposal stage. In view of the above, it may be
established that the principle of accessibility is implemented, whereas the principle of openness offers important
opportunities for improvement.
The possibility of public participation is analysed with the questions on the call for comments, the possibility of
making comments on the materials, the entity that normally makes comments and with the questions on
responding to comments and reporting on comments.
The question on the call for comments reveals that only 41% of municipalities always and frequently publish the
calls, while almost 60% of municipalities rarely or never publish the calls. The uniform distribution testing by
using the one-sample binomial test showed that the null hypothesis on uniformity must be retained; therefore, it
may be concluded that at least half of the municipalities in the overall population rarely or never publish the
calls. Graph 3 indicates that this ratio is the lowest in the group of municipalities with 5,000–10,000 citizens (1
out of 4).
Graph 3: Calls to the public to comment on the drafts/proposals of ordinances by group of municipalities
according to the number of inhabitants
Source: own.
From the above data, it can be concluded that there is a wide range of opportunities for improvement with regard
to the recommendations on the call for public participation laid down in the Resolution, in particular considering
that this recommendation has an important effect on the implementation of the principles of timeliness and
openness.
The possibility of making comments is available in almost all municipalities, since only three municipalities do
not offer this possibility, whereby this applies to one of the municipalities with more than 20,000 citizens. The
method of making comments on the materials (Table 1) indicates that as many as 80% of municipalities from the
sample allow making comments in writing and that making comments by phone is the least common method,
while making comments online and in person is available in just over a half of the municipalities.
Table 1: Possible methods of making comments on the drafts/proposals of ordinances
No
On the webpage
In writing
By phone
In person
17
7
21
17
Yes
48,6%
20,0%
60,0%
48,6%
18
28
14
18
51,4%
80,0%
40,0%
51,4%
Source: own.
The absence of possibility of making comments in writing is mainly the characteristic of smaller municipalities.
The methods of making comments do not display a statistically significant connection with the size of
municipalities. However, it is interesting that large municipalities virtually do not allow making comments in
person or by phone (only 1 out of 5) and that online comments are not allowed in almost half of the
municipalities. Thus, there are important opportunities for improvement in this field.
In most of the municipalities, comments may be addressed to the administration; however, this is not consistent,
since their citizens can also address their comments to the mayor, councillors or members of the working bodies.
In half of the municipalities, the timing of publication is 15 days, while in nearly one-sixth of the municipalities,
the timing is 30 days. In other municipalities, the rules vary, depending on the type of ordinances. Based on these
data, it can be concluded that the recommendation that the materials should be published for 30 to 60 days is
generally not followed. However, there is a possibility that this time period for publication of materials is
reasonable and appropriate at the municipal level; therefore it could be considered as consistent with the
principle of timeliness.
In more than a half of the municipalities, the comments are normally made by individuals, while in other
municipalities, the comments are normally made by stakeholders or organisations. It is interesting that
individuals prevail in all of the smallest municipalities. As far as responding to comments is concerned, two
thirds of municipalities always provide a response, while one third of municipalities often provides a response.
Only three municipalities pay less attention to providing responses (8.3%). In view of the above, it can be
concluded that the principle of responsiveness is generally implemented.
However, the reporting presented in graph 4 can be highlighted as an important opportunity for improvement
within this set of questions.
Graph 4: Drafting of reports on stakeholders' comments to the drafts/proposals of ordinances
Source: own.
The graph shows that nearly 45% of municipalities only occasionally or never draw up reports, and that only
one-third of the municipalities have implemented a rule on reporting of all stakeholders' comments on the
ordinances. In view of the above data, it can be concluded that the recommendation on the preparation of the
report on public participation is generally not followed.
In the definition of the components of materials it became apparent that almost all municipalities provide only
explanations to the materials, failing to include other elements determined by the R.I.A. guidelines (e.g.
definition of the problem, presentation of alternative decisions etc.). Among the evaluation of consequences, all
municipalities take into account in particular the financial consequences or consider the consequences with
regard to the type of materials, whereas they almost never take account of administrative consequences.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the field of R.I.A. offers a wide range of opportunities for improvement.
The attitude of municipalities towards participation of the public in the preparation of regulations was measured
with questions concerning their opinion on the significance and consequences of involvement of the public in the
procedure of preparing ordinances. The respondents assessed the consequences of greater involvement of the
public in the procedure of preparing ordinances and expressed their wishes regarding the intensified involvement
of the public in the procedure of preparing of ordinances.
Graph 5: What would, in your opinion, be the consequences of greater involvement of the public in the
procedure of preparing ordinances?
Source: own.
Graph 5 shows that the majority of municipalities consider that greater involvement of the public in the
procedures of preparing regulations would have positive effects on quality (33.3%) and acceptance (43%) of
ordinances.
The second question concerning the attitude of municipalities towards the involvement of the public in the
procedures of preparing ordinances reflects their views on the potentially intensified involvement of the public in
the procedures. The result was surprising, considering their positive opinion on the consequences of public
involvement. Almost three-fourths (72.7%) of municipalities responded that they do not want greater public
involvement. In their responses to the question why there is no need for greater public involvement in their
opinion, the municipalities that provided a negative response to the previous question almost unanimously
(79.3%) responded that public involvement is sufficient.
Graph 6: Readiness for greater involvement of the public in the preparation of regulations by group of
municipalities according to the number of inhabitants
Source: own.
The distribution of responses by group of municipalities according to their size (Graph 6) shows that none of the
large municipalities want to increase the intensity of involvement of the public in the preparation of regulations.
In the remaining groups of municipalities, the ratio between the municipalities that reject the increased intensity
and the municipalities that want intensified involvement is greater in both groups of smaller municipalities. It is
obvious that the size of the municipality has no effect on the attitude towards the involvement of citizens in the
procedure of preparing regulations.
5. CONCLUSION
The results of the empirical research on whether the municipalities observe minimum recommendations for
public participation and R.I.A. guidelines laid down in the Resolution on Legislative Regulation in Slovenia
show that there are important opportunities for improvements. This applies in particular to the principle of
openness, the recommendation regarding the call to public participation, the possibility of online comments, the
preparation of the report on public participation and R.I.A. On the other hand, it can be determined that the
principle of accessibility and generally also the principle of responsiveness are almost fully implemented.
Furthermore, the majority of municipalities that completed the questionnaire consider that greater involvement
of the public in the procedures of preparing regulations would have important positive consequences; however,
on the other hand, they do not want greater involvement, as public involvement is already sufficient in their
opinion.
REFERENCES
1) Australian Agency for International Development. 2000. Good governance: Guiding principles for
implementation. Canberra. Available at:
http://www1.aucegypt.edu/src/engendering/Documents/Engendering_Macroeconomics/good_governan
ce%20guiding%20principales%20for%20implementation.pdf (accessed February 12, 2014)
2) Brezovnik, Boštjan, Grafenauer, Božo, Oplotnik, Žan, Železnik, Milan. 2014. Statutarna ureditev
občine : (z osnutkoma statuta občine in poslovnika občinskega sveta). Maribor: Inštitut za lokalno
samoupravo in javna naročila.
3) Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 33I/1991 and
amendments.
4) Council of Europe. 2007. Valencia Declaration (Good Local and Regional Governance – the European
Challenge). MCL-15(2007)5 final (16 October 2007). Available at:
https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=
1095949&SecMode=1&DocId=1350476&Usage=2 (accessed March 23, 2014)
5) Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs, Austrian Development Agency. 2006 (2011).
Good Governance: Policy document. Vienna. Available at:
http://www.entwicklung.at/uploads/media/PD_Good_governance_July2011.pdf (accessed April 2,
2014)
6) Franz, Thorsten. 2013. Einführung in die Verwaltungswissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
7) Local Self-Government Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 72/1993 and
amendments.
8) Magiera, Siegfried, Sommermann, Karl-Peter, Ziller, Jacques, eds. 2008. Verwaltungswissenschaft und
Verwaltungspraxis in nationaler und transnationaler Perspektive: Festschrift für Heinrich Siedentopf
zum 70. Geburtstag. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
9) Public Information Access Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 24/2003 and
amendments.
10) Resolution on Legislative Regulation, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 95/2009.
11) Rules of procedure of the Dobje municipal council. Available at:
list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlurid=20072036 (accessed April 9, 2014)
http://www.uradni-
12) Statute of the Dobje municipality. Available at:
http://www.rpls.si/Predpis.aspx?id=40013&obcina=DOBJE (accessed April 9, 2014)
13) Vlaj, Stane, ed. 2001. Vodnik po slovenski lokalni samoupravi. Ljubljana: Inštitut za lokalno
samoupravo pri Visoki upravni šoli.
14) Virant, Gregor. 2009. Javna uprava. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za upravo.
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
A) INFORMATION OF THE PUBLIC AND ACCESSIBILITY OF MATERIALS
Is the public informed of the agenda of the meetings of the municipal council?
If yes, in what way:
- Municipality's webpage
- Municipal newsletter
- Other: ____________
Are the ordinances decided upon by the municipal council made available to the public before the meeting?
- Yes
- No
- If yes:
o Where:
 On the municipality's webpage
 Municipal newsletter
 Other: __________
o At what stage of the formulation:
 Draft ordinance
 Ordinance proposal
o The volume of materials:
 Only the text of the ordinance
 The complete material
B) PARTICIPATION POSSIBILITIES
Is the public called upon to make comments on the drafts/proposals of the ordinances?
- Yes
- No
Is the public given the opportunity to comment on these materials?
If yes:
- In what way?
o On the webpage
o Directly to the mayor
o Through municipal councillors
o Through the working bodies of the municipal council
-
For how long?
o 15 days
o 30 days
o Other: __________
-
Comments are usually made by:
o Individuals
o Stakeholders
o Experts
-
Are responses provided to the comments made?
o Yes
o No
Is a report on the comments made drawn up?
o Yes
o No
-
C) COMPONENTS OF MATERIALS
What are the components of the materials on the ordinance decided upon by the municipal council?
- Assessment of the situation and definition of the problem
-
Purpose and objectives
Proposed solutions and alternatives
Explanation
Evaluation of the consequences:
o financial
o environmental
o social
o economic
o administrative
D) OPINION ON THE SIGNIFICANCE AND CONSEQUENCES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
What would, in your opinion, be the consequences of greater involvement of the public in the procedure of
preparing ordinances?
- Better quality
- Improved acceptance
- Prolonged procedure
- Higher costs of the procedure
- Increased burden on the administration
- Other: _______________
Would you like to involve the public in the procedure of preparing ordinances more intensely in view of the
present situation?
-
Yes
No
If not, why?
- We think that public involvement is sufficient
- This would excessively prolong the procedure
- This would excessively increase the costs of the procedure
- This would excessively increase the burden on the administration
- Other: _____________
E) DATA ON MUNICIPALITY SIZE
Number of employees in the municipal administration
- less than 10
- from 10 to 20
- from 21 to 50
- more than 50
Number of municipality inhabitants
up to 2,500
from 2,500 to 5,000
from 5,000 to 10,000
from 10,000 to 20,000
more than 20,000