Community Involvement Committee
Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.
Committee Members present: Paula Amato, Jason Barnstead-Long, Judy BlueHorse Skelton, Liz Gatti, Judith Gonzalez Plascencia, Stanley Penkin,Howard Shapiro
Absent: Lois Cohen, Anyeley Hallova, Shirley Nacoste, Linda Nettekoven, Lai-Lani Ovalles, Kevin Pozzi, Ryan Schera, Alison Stoll, Peter Stark
Staff: Eden Dabbs, Diane Hale, Deborah Stein, and Marty Stockton
Marty Stocktonshared the results of the doodle poll, seeking more responses before the Executive Subcommittee decides on the CIC meeting schedule for 2013.Howard Shapiropointed out that there is almost consensus on every month, two hour meetings and close on the extended lunch. Liz Gatti asked if the CIC is meeting in December. Howard suggested keeping the December date and everyone agreed.
No CIC meeting in November due that the CIC meeting would fall the day before the Thanksgiving. A Doodle Poll will review CIC meetings options for 2013.
Marty announced the meetings below:
- Parking Study at the Planning and Sustainability Commission, Tuesday, November 13th, 12:30p.m.; 1900 SW 4th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 2500
- Equity Working Group, Wednesday, November 14th, 3:00-5:00p.m.; 1900 SW 4th Avenue, 7th Floor, Conference Room 7A
Policy Expert Groups –October/November Meetings
- Residential Development and Compatibility PEG meeting, Thursday, October 11th, 4:00-6:00p.m.; 1900 SW 4th Avenue, 7th Floor, Conference Room 7A
- Education and Youth Success PEG meeting, Monday, October 15th, 4:00-6:00p.m.; 1900 SW 4th Avenue, 7th Floor, Conference Room 7A
- Economic Development PEG meeting, Wednesday, October 17th, 11:30a.m. to 1:30p.m.; 1900 SW 4th Avenue, 7th Floor, Conference Room 7A
- Neighborhood Centers PEG meeting, Thursday, October 18th, 8:00-10:00a.m.; 1900 SW 4th Avenue, 7th Floor, Conference Room 7A
- Community Involvement PEG meeting, Thursday, October 18th, 6:00-8:00p.m.; City Hall, 1221 SW 4th Avenue, Pettygrove Conference Room
- Network PEG meeting, Wednesday, October 31st, 3:00-5:00p.m.; 1900 SW 4th Avenue, 7th Floor, Conference Room 7A
- Infrastructure Equity PEG meeting, Wednesday, November 7th, 10:00a.m. to 12:00p.m.; 1900 SW 4th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 2500A
CIC decisions and follow up actions
Marty summarized the outreach subcommittee worked on the metrics issues, and there was no further refinement from other subcommittee members. The subcommittee conversation focused on the metrics, and staff added some metrics per the subcommittee along with their origin (e.g. subcommittee PP Goal, staff). The metrics will be used to evaluate the process. As staff and the CIC are moving into this process, there will be opportunity to revise the principles and metrics based on what was learned through thePortland Plan. In thePortland Plan, the concept of early involvement wasn’t evaluated, or the concept of good quality process design. For example in principle 5, there are many new metrics that have been added that involve the CIC process because the CIC’s recommendations are really a key component of good process design. The role of the CIC wasn’t interwoven in the Portland Plan progress reports, which is a missed opportunity.
Howard stated the need to vote on the proposed metrics, but don’t have a quorum. Howard wants to explore a vote via proxy. Others suggested attendance via Skype and conference call. Marty and Howard will look into other options. Deborah Stein asked if a vote can be achieved via email. Marty stated that a change to the bylaws would require going back to the state.
Going back to the memo, Liz asked why back a bunch of metrics were added when she thought the intent was to be more efficient. Marty said that the newly added metrics are very easy to track.
Howard asked about the need to take a vote? Marty suggested that staff needs to move forward, and could staff just get a blessing tonight and move forward with that. Marty suggested that these metrics will be incorporated into the periodic progress reports. Liz asked when that happens. Deborah said we might have some flexibility to do it when it makes sense.
Deborah suggested that it would be helpful to start the data tracking. Liz said it would be helpful for committee members that weren’t at the subcommittee meeting could look at it clearly.Stanleysuggested that this is progress, but there aren’t targets included which could potentially be added? Marty said that is a good point and continued stating that one of thePortland Plangoals was to involve as many people as possible, but the goal here is different. Marty asked is it the numbers of people contacted, or the quality of the engagement?
Judy Bluehorse Skelton suggested an addition to principle 3. Judy gave the example of the federal government wanting to track a specific data point, but she and her colleagues realized that there was no mechanism to track what kind of child that person became. It might be helpful to have a qualative/quantative measure that says because underrepresented people are part of the engagement; there are several of individuals that became more engaged than they ever would have been if they hadn’t been involved in the early efforts (vision PDX).Edenasked if she means that not all engagement can be captured in a stat.Eden, continued by asking “are you trying to qualify that no matter how well we measure engagement there are things that will have value beyond this effort alone.” Judy said yes, recognizing that staff and the committee recognize that the efforts and relationship building are ongoing and looking at ways to measure those long-term benefits.
Howard stated that the comments are very appropriate as related to how is this working, as the CIC put the efforts into a plan. Howard asked “are we going to reenergize and what is the quality of our work.” Howard asked for a sense. Liz suggested “describe any examples of relationship and capacity building in the community.” Principle 5 gets at the highlights of the staff and community relationship.
Judith Gonzalez Plascencia said before she blesses the document she wants to ask about the capacity, and she wants to see the network about what is happening, when this is happening, this is what is taking over by another committee, just want to add/measure the capacity of the committee, and what is something else that someone else can take on before we don’t do it.
Howard asked when the CIC will next see this. Marty responded that the CIC will next see this in the Community Involvement Plan or if not, make sure it ultimately is addressed in the Community Involvement Plan. Marty said she will email out the draft prior to the next meeting in December.
Deborah thanked and applauded the committee that in four years CIC members are still here and smiling. Deborah continued by asking that CIC members share where each is at personally in the process:
Stanley– I was very excited at arriving at the final product (Portland Plan). My only concern is there is a small level of burnout, and I think we need everyone in the room together to get a sense of recommitment from the members.
Jason – My big thoughts are honest, collaboration, and progress. The hope for that is what brought me here, and the reality of it is driving my continued attendance and increased involvement and feeling really confident that this will be the tool that it is meant to be and can possible be.
Liz – I’ve been a process person for a long time but haven’t been around people that believe in that for a while. When I started on this committee I was on two other CIC type groups, and there were challenges around the fact that I was one of the few that really cared about the process of taking input and really figuring out what we are doing. This experience has really sustained me. This is something very important to me and to be on a committee that is full of intent is good. I took on the PEG work because I am so committed and fulfilled on this committee.
Howard – If you come with me to the big picture place, at the end of the day I think we want to be doing worthy work, and that is the reward. What Liz just articulated is that it is important that the committee. My ongoing concern is not about the worthiness of what we do, but is our work doing any good. My concern is to have some sort of an ongoing roadmap/matrix that allows us to track and see what we do and how it moves along. Requiring citizen involvement and valuing are two different things – I want to know we are valued.
Judy – I came to this table at the suggestion of a younger generation, and I learned a lot and really stretch to participate more. Along these lines of Howard, I don’t have another place I’m moving too, I feel the commitment will be long-term and I don’t know that it will end. I see a younger generation who come to observe and are very impressed and it means a lot to me. Thanks to the staff and everyone because I think it is very important.
Judith – I’ve been in grad school for most of the committee, and I go in waves, my participation and commitment is a bit chunky. I feel that I need to study and assess it, not only what is going to make me show up at the meetings but also put in a couple of hours every week. It is hard to have a diverse representation because it is hard to make the time for things. I am just expressing the struggle. I’ve seen it when I’ve done work in this committee and in the community, and it is amazing and some of the best work I’ve done. I just need to see what that means for me over the next few years.
Paula Amato – The time has flown by. I’ve been very impressed by the staff’s responsiveness and the voices of the members bringing their constituents to the. I look forward to continuing, but maybe it is a good time to offer a refresh and ask if some people want to move off the committee and recruit new members.
Deborah responded that it would be a good time to offer that for people. She’d like to give people permission and a graceful way to exit off the committee. They have given a lot of effort and commitment and it is valuable, but we want people to be productive.
Jason added that the experience and history of long-term members is very valuable. He would like to acknowledge but not encourage people to leave because he doesn’t want to lose people if the committee doesn’t have to. Maybe the committee could expand the group to 18 or 20, and then if people don’t show up we would still have enough people.
Deborah suggested that other methods could help too, such as subcommittee work.
Marty said that maintaining a committee takes a lot of time, and reducing the frequency of meetings could allow for capacity for other work.
Howard – Well the members have suggested they have a willingness to commit monthly, but it doesn’t always have to be used as a full and regular meeting. It could be subcommittee meetings.
Liz stated she likes the idea of alternating between full meetings and subcommittee meetings, but added that she wasn’t sure how she feels about bringing in newcomers at this stage because of the four years the committee has been in place with its existing membership.
Judith asked what about mentoring new members?Edenstated that PEG members could be brought into the CIC. Howard asked whether it is onerous to bring in new people, but followed up with the need to see where existing members are before adding new people.
Jason requested to make sure to include the new format – one month full meeting and the next month is subcommittee meeting. Deborah feels it is liberating because the subcommittee work doesn’t require a quorum. The committee requested that members be contacted asking about participation and Howard will check into PSC members.
Judith stated that she thinks the new format will be better for recruiting and making the committee more attractive to people and that the committee is not just pushing paper, but doing action.
Marty asked about the alternative month subcommittee meeting, wanting to know what kind of focus the CIC wants for that time? Jason responded that it would change from month to month depending on the needs.
Policy Expert Group (PEG) updates
Judy shared that serving on the Watershed Health and Environment PEG, they just got an overview of the Economic Development PEG draft, and it made her think about the Industrial Watershed subcommittee being formed. Judy continued that the PEGs were told that equity is woven throughout the plan, so she asked if that subcommittee being formed will be discussing the issue of environmental justice and equity.Edenstated that she can’t think of a better use of time and energy and commitment than to address those cross PEG topics. Marty shared from staff’s point of view, they know that there will be some hard choices.
Liz requested an update on what resources are to be put forward for equity. Deborah responded that the November PEG meetings are focused on equity, so that will help but staff may also be able to put forward other resources and that staff, the PEGS, the CIC, etc. will need to see what can be continued and what resources will need to be put forward.
Marty reported that the subcommittee met and that the leading workshop proposal would be similar to the fair or open house format, although Marty asked the CIC for input on changing the name for the event series. Within the fair/open house there would be an overview that would happen periodically throughout the event, and then there would be stations around the room that would focus on the chapters of the document, highlighting key questions. Additionally there could be breakout sessions that would focus on topics more deeply
Marty briefly outlined the community-hosted topic forums, stating that these events would follow the first round of workshops. Marty continued by stating that while staff might suggest a list of potential topics, staff would also encourage community organizations to suggest the topics so they can help lead. The outcomes is that there would be a city-led or sponsored track that would happen in February/March and a community sponsored track that would follow and may have a longer timeline.
The subcommittee had a couple of key asks: 1) more information on the key choices/questions; and 2) more information on the venues being considered.
The next step is to hold a subcommittee meeting in November.
No public members were in attendance.
The next CIC meeting will be moved up a week to Wednesday, December 12, 2012 from 8:00-10:00 a.m.
For more information, please contact Marty Stockton, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability at 503-823-2041 or firstname.lastname@example.org.