Democratic review workflow
CivicSyn is public/cooperative coordination infrastructure for essential goods and services. Local nodes coordinate demand, capacity, inventory, delivery, funding, and governance. The system recommends; people decide; every decision leaves evidence.
The first domain connects kitchens, food banks, delivery partners, agencies, co-ops, and public reviewers around transparent allocation decisions.
- Current picture: needs, capacity, inventory, delivery windows
- Evidence trail: source, freshness, confidence, audit record
- Public view: aggregate dashboards, maps, exports, outcomes
- Human review: objections, approvals, overrides, follow-through
Open proposals
Allocation decisions, policy proposals, and civic reviews that are currently open.
Assemblies
Public bodies and topic spaces where review and deliberation happen.
Participatory budgets
Public spending proposals with project summaries and support totals.
How public review works
- Proposal cards show status, node, assembly, voting/support state, and implementation state.
- Comments and support counts help reviewers see public input, but voting/support UI must state eligibility and avoid pressure tactics.
- Objections and overrides stay visible in decision records so final accountability is not lost after approval.
- Moderation and appeals have timelines, reasons, status, and next steps without exposing private evidence.
What is public and what is not
Public governance pages show titles, statuses, counts, timelines, summaries, and decision records. Private evidence, internal moderation notes, sensitive incident details, and personal information stay out of public pages and exports.
Submit a proposal
Residents and reviewers can draft a public proposal for an assembly. Proposal bodies are stored as private evidence and public pages show only title, status, counts, and decision records.
CivicPulse meeting pages
Meeting pages show agenda, time, location/remote access, related proposals, documents, comment window, and accessibility accommodations.
- Agenda
- Time
- Location/remote access
- Related proposals
- Documents
- Comment window
- Accessibility accommodations
Meeting summaries distinguish official record, staff summary, public comment, AI-assisted draft, and human-approved summary.
- Official record
- Staff summary
- Public comment
- AI-assisted draft
- Human-approved summary
Officials, agencies, and comments
Officials or agency pages show jurisdiction, role, contact channel, term/status, and related public decisions.
- Jurisdiction
- Role
- Contact channel
- Term/status
- Related public decisions
Public-comment flows make eligibility, deadline, moderation, visibility, and appeal process clear.
Budget transparency cards
Budget cards explain source, fiscal year, department/program, amount, status, and plain-language consequence.
- Source
- Fiscal year
- Department/program
- Amount
- Status
- Plain-language consequence
Budget/procurement links are traceable from proposal to contract, invoice, delivery outcome, and public dashboard.
- Proposal
- Contract
- Invoice
- Delivery outcome
- Public dashboard
Transparency boundaries
Civic transparency views avoid partisan framing and focus on process, decision, evidence, and outcome.
Residents can subscribe or follow a proposal/topic without exposing private contact details publicly.
Open proposals
- No proposals are open yet. A coordinator can publish allocation plans for public review.
Assemblies
- No active assemblies yet.
Participatory budgeting
- No public budget rounds are open yet.
Deliberation summaries
- No public deliberation summaries yet.
AI-assisted summaries must be human-approved before they appear as public summaries. Bodies, vote reasons, moderation reasons, and evidence keys stay private; public pages show counts and statuses.
Appeal workflow
Moderation and allocation-related appeals are public as process timelines, not as private reason text.
- No appeal workflows have been started yet.