Design challenges
Scenario. Eastbridge adopted a thick mandate for its transit authority six years ago — not just "efficient transportation" but a specific commitment to neighborhood connectivity, dignity on the bus, and service that fits people's real lives. Since then, three routes that served older residents and night-shift workers have been cut for underperformance, a fleet renewal left the low-floor buses the wheelchair users relied on out of the order, and the authority's own drivers have quietly stopped recommending the service to their own parents. A group led by Renata, a hospital janitor who takes the 5am bus, and Sam, a retired planner, want to bring a claim. They are not asking the court to run the authority; they are asking whether it is still doing what it was committed to do.
Challenge: Design the adjudication mechanism for a municipal fidelity court — a forum where residents can take a community-scale institution to court when its operations diverge from its mandate. Produce a short charter including the standing rules, standard of review, and at least one limiting principle.
Design choices
- Standing. Who can bring a fidelity claim — any resident, or only "integrity holders" with a defined role, and how do you constitute integrity holders without creating a new elite?
- Standard of review. What's the analogue of rational-basis / intermediate / strict scrutiny, and when does an institution get deference versus close examination?
- Remedies. Can the court order the authority to change its optimization target, or only to justify its choices against the thick mandate?
- Abuse prevention. How do you prevent fidelity claims from becoming a venue for NIMBYism dressed in the language of values?