Tuesday, June 25, 2002

SUMMARY NOTES: Guidelines Review, Empowerment & Assessment Team, GREAT

City of Portland, Office of Neighborhood Involvement

MINUTES AND SUMMARY NOTES

Members Present:
Patricia Gardner, Co-Chair Pearl District Neighborhood Association
Moshe Lenske, Co-Chair Woodstock Neighborhood Association

Amy Cammack Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Nancy Chapin Alliance of PDX Neighborhood Bus. Assocs.
Cathy Crawford University Park Neighborhood Association
Raymond Hites Lents Neighborhood Association
David Lane Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Stanley Lewis Downtown Community Association
Jerry Powell Goose Hollow Foothills League
Michael O'Malley Irvington Community Association
Mark Sieber Neighbors West/Northwest
Ruth Spetter City Attorney's Office
William Warren Central Northeast Neighbors

Absent
Leonard Gard Southwest Neighborhoods, Inc.
Charles Shi Communities Beyond Neighborhood Boundaries
Kathy Bambeck Bridlemile Neighborhood Association

Visitors
Lee Perlman Media

Decisions by this group are subject to change at future meetings.
Opportunities for public input are at the end of meeting and future workshops.
These minutes and summary notes have not been approved yet by the committee.

MINUTES

Approved Recommended Code Revisions - Changes noted in Bold
· 3.96.060

A) Follow the guidelines for public process established by the Office of Neighborhood Involvement.
· 3.96.070 (This section is not final, the group agreed to make the following changes where "citizen" was used and to add section I)
There is hereby established and created an Office of Neighborhood Involvement which shall consist of a Director and such other employees as the Council may from time to time provide. In order to facilitate participation and improved communication between the public, neighborhood associations, business district associations, district coalition boards and the City, the Office of Neighborhood Involvement shall:

A. Notify interested persons of meetings, hearings, elections and other public participation events;
B. Assist neighborhood associations and district coalition boards and others in planning and developing programs for public participation, crime prevention, dispute resolution and budget review;
C. Act as an information clearinghouse and resource to neighborhood associations, other groups and the public;
D. Promote and facilitate open communication among City agencies, neighborhood associations and district coalition boards;
E. Support and promote involvement within the neighborhood association framework;
F. Adopt and revise such guidelines as are deemed necessary for the implementation of this Chapter and for orderly public participation in City government through neighborhood associations and district coalition boards. In so doing, Office of Neighborhood Involvement shall involve neighborhood associations and other interested people as necessary.
G. Pursuant to the adopted standards, formally recognize a Neighborhood Association and a Business District Association. If a Neighborhood Association or Business District Association fails to meet the minimum requirements of chapter 3.96, ONI may suspend partial or all benefits and may ultimately revoke formal recognition of the Neighborhood Association or Business District Association
H. [Note: Concept moved to this section, may not be H] The Office of Neighborhood Involvement may choose to administer services to neighborhood associations through district coalition boards.
I. Promote, encourage and support diverse and multicultural public involvement.

Goal of Recommended Revisions
· Goal was to ensure that city agencies incorporate the neighborhood system in their public involvement process. Group agreed to have ONI/neighborhoods develop general public involvement guidelines for city agencies.
· Eliminate usage of "citizen" to more inclusive terms such as "public" or "people". Group agreed to only use the term "neighbors" when it specifically relates to the neighborhood system.
· Goal to incorporate the issue of diversity into the ONI section.

SUMMARY NOTES

General Discussion:

· Group agreed to only meet until 10:00am.
· Patricia stated that she did not complete the draft of the two sections as discussed at prior meeting. There is also the outstanding issue of contract but Ruth has been on vacation so we have not been able to address it yet. Nancy has a draft of a business association section. ONI will type the section for discussion at the next meeting.

Approval of Summary Notes
· For May 28, 2002 - move to adopt, accepted.
· For June 11, 2002 - move to adopt, accepted.

City Agency Chapter 3.96.060

Issue of ONI in City Agency section

· Discussion of changes to the City Agency section to get in a reference regarding ONI.
· Who sets up rules for contractors/consultant? The City attorney has some broad rules such as bidding process, code policy. City agencies tend to hire consultants and it is not clear whether we can have an impact on that but putting the ONI system in there may help.
· The Coalition directors and chairs meet monthly and have talked about the same issue of establishing a citizen/neighborhood involvement procedure that would then be adopted by council so that bureaus would have to comply. Suggest each city agency "shall establish a process of citizen involvement that follows the process established by the Office of Neighborhood Involvement". Could this process be established by the time it goes to council? It will probably take a year but could do a parallel process. The guidelines may be the place to put it - "shall establish a process as outlined in the Standards". Task specific is difficult in code. Suggest that maybe we just need a paragraph giving neighborhoods a de-facto advisory position that would give the neighborhood system some authority. Suggest that we make it broad and develop the tasks in standards. Suggest that it would still need to be general in standards.
· Concern that "clearinghouse" is not clear.
· Discussion of whether we want it in standards and this committee write it or as a separate committee? If it is a separate committee it may be easier to accomplish it by the time code and standards go to council. Some disagree and feel that this group should do the work since it should go with the standards.
· Currently each agency is willing to develop a process, which may or may not involve the neighborhoods. Using "citizen involvement" does not say they will use the neighborhood system.
· If we use proposal #1 below, would the process be stated just below it? It could be but this is code so we had discussed putting it elsewhere. Suggest that it may be advantageous to have it in code since other agencies have their process in code. However, if it is elsewhere then the process could evolve.
· The goal is for the notice to happen and often agencies are trying but leave out an important component. For example, an agency may involve the neighborhood but never notify the coalition or vice versa.
· Ruth suggested that the goal is also to have something adopted and not shot down. Concern that if the process is going to make people feel it is too complicated or time consuming that it is not going to happen. Concern that people would object to proposal #1 (ONI developing a process), although if it is completed by the time this goes to council perhaps people would be satisfied. It would need to be very low level and general to apply across the board.
· Concern that if we have a separate process then it may be rushed. Is there anything we could put in generally and then could develop a process that would be binding?
· Suggest that a committee of 1/2 city agencies and 1/2 neighbors would be critical. Perhaps the citizen involvement city network could meet with the coalition directors/chairs.
· Concern that this committee does not have time to develop the process suggest delegating to coalition directors/chairs and then maybe the result could end up back in code or standards. Suggest that we just choose a placeholder right now and #1 seems like a better process.
· Ruth worried about the word process. Since we want certain things to happen the process may not matter. Suggest "guidelines" or "principles". Group disagrees - each bureau does have a process and it is in code now. ONI would be establishing a base guideline for the process.
· Sewers do sewers and transportation does transportation. If another bureau tried to do transportation planning they would be outraged. However, ONI is the public outreach bureau and every bureau establishes their own outreach process without necessarily involving the neighborhoods. The implication that this is where outreach starts will be problematic since there is concern about neighborhoods not being representative. Process will need to clarify who is contacted and it will not just be the NA's. The specifics will need to be developed elsewhere.
· It will take politics and all commissioners sold on the concept for this to succeed. One recent problem issue came from the mayor's office with a 3-day turnaround so this would apply to them as well.
· Suggest starting with the guiding principles already passed by Council.

Proposals:

1) A) Follow the process established by the Office of Neighborhood Involvement.
2) In preamble: Each City agency shall establish a Citizen Involvement process as outlined in the Standards that conform minimally to the following:
3) A) Follow the guidelines for public process established by the Office of Neighborhood Involvement.

Motion:
· Motion to accept #3 (as a placeholder) accepted.

Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Chapter 3.96.070

Issue of Diversity - "other organizations"

· Code needs to read clearly that ONI will be working hard on this issue. May be able to get money for ONI for translators, etc. The issue of funding will also be critical.
· Coalition would like to see more people involved and more capacity in the coalition structure. W/NW board passed an outreach plan for under-served populations asking for more money to do baseline outreach to every household in the neighborhood. They are not going to take current resources and volunteers and stretch to add this function but to grow the resources and volunteers to achieve the work. It is about the system and the capacity to do the work. Coalitions are already doing some of this work but do not have the full capacity.
· Concern that "promote" may be asking ONI to do work that they are not able to do. Suggest leaving it in since all three combined may mean providing interpreters or other things that may require additional funding. If concern comes that we are not promoting then will need to go to council.
· Suggest moving it up in the list. The Chair suggested accepting all the sections and then reorganizing them all.
· Suggest accepting language in #2 but perhaps add another section with more implementation, which would take it to another level. Think we could accomplish this by revising some of the language in other sections since this concept is already there.
· Suggest language that all will be provided "as directed by council and as funding is appropriated". The preamble of the section already refers to employees provided from "time to time". There is no language in ONI that they are looking for money and group agrees that it would not be appropriate.
· Suggest "public" since citizen is a difficult word with many communities.
· If this is replacing the language about working with communities without neighborhood boundaries (which is working with specific groups), concern that something more specific may be needed. That concept was not in code and when we review it in standards hopefully we can come up with something else. We will be talking to a lot of people and commissioners when we address that issue.

Proposals:

1) I) Promote, encourage and support diverse and multicultural citizen involvement.
2) I) Promote, encourage and support diverse and multicultural public involvement.

Motion:
· Motion to accept #2 and to change "citizen" to "public" or other terms throughout the section.
· Motion accepted.

These summary notes have been approved.
The information contained in this document is preliminary and informal in nature and does not necessarily reflect the views or adopted policies of the City of Portland or the final outcomes of this project; the reader should exercise caution in its interpretation.

NEXT MEETINGS

Tuesday, July 9
8:30 AM - 10:30 AM
City Hall, Lovejoy Room, 1221 SW 4th Avenue

Tuesday, July 23
8:30 AM - 10:30 AM
City Hall, Lovejoy Room, 1221 SW 4th Avenue

Tuesday, August 13
8:30 AM - 10:30 AM
City Hall, Lovejoy Room, 1221 SW 4th Avenue

Prepared by: Amy Cammack, Office of Neighborhood Involvement