Step 2 - A deeper risk assessment

You have proceeded to step 2 because you considered in a first assessment that there was a moderate or high risk of hatred and threats against elected representatives and/or staff in one or more cases/issues. In step 2, each case/issue is assessed separately.

Who makes the assessment in step 2?
You may choose here to involve colleagues with security responsibilities and/or others who have additional knowledge of the issue. 
When people from several departments or units work together, the interaction between different parts of the organisation is strengthened. Working together in a group and discussing issues has value in itself. You will have different experiences and knowledge. Together you can make better assessments.
In both Step 2 and Step 3, those aware of what is being written in the media and on social media can help assess attitudes among citizens - or civil society groups. 
Reason with each other to see different perspectives and draw on each other's experiences. This is not a question of who is right but of making a choice based on all existing knowledge. 

Assessment step by step
Read each claim and then make an assessment of risk in the case in question based on your experience of:

Similar situations in the past
Similar situations in other neighbouring municipalities
Groups and individuals involved or affected
Experience of elected officials with previous hatred or threats
Make a choice of the risk level that you think fits each allegation. If you disagree or are unsure, choose the higher risk level rather than, the lower one.
Reason with each other and try to see different perspectives on the issue/case. Draw on each other's experience. This is not a question of who is correct but of making a choice based on all available knowledge.

1. The concrete issue and society's response
1.1 There is evidence that the issue or matter is attracting the involvement of groups or individuals known for hatred, intimidation, harassment or violence aimed at influencing or disrupting decision-making
1.2 This is a controversial matter that arouses strong emotions
1.3 There is a sensitive history of the issue involving resistance, demonstrations and the like.
1.4 intimidation or hatred is expressed on social media or reported in the press.
2. Elected officials and their experience of hate and intimidation
2.1 The elected representative(s) driving the issue may be seen by others as "controversial" (due to gender, age, orientation, party affiliation, etc.) or acting in a way that provokes a reaction from some.
2.2 There is a history of threats and hatred against individual elected representatives or experiences of threats and hatred in general.
3. Affected citizens (stakeholders)
3.1 There is a group or individual with a history of, for example, intimidation and hatred, unlawful behaviour, criticism, protest or sabotage that is related to the issue.
3.2 There are indications that citizens expect or demand to be involved, but there are no plans to open up participation.