Tuesday, June 11, 2002
SUMMARY NOTES: Guidelines Review, Empowerment & Assessment Team, GREAT
City of Portland, Office of Neighborhood Involvement
MINUTES AND SUMMARY NOTES
Patricia Gardner, Co-Chair Pearl District Neighborhood Association
Amy Cammack Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Nancy Chapin Alliance of PDX Neighborhood Bus. Assocs.
Cathy Crawford University Park Neighborhood Association
Leonard Gard Southwest Neighborhood, Inc.
Raymond Hites Lents Neighborhood Association
David Lane Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Stanley Lewis Downtown Community Association
Michael O'Malley Irvington Community Association
Charles Shi Communities Beyond Neighborhood Boundaries
Mark Sieber Neighbors West/Northwest
Ruth Spetter City Attorney's Office
William Warren Central Northeast Neighbors
Moshe Lenske, Co-Chair Woodstock Neighborhood Association
Jerry Powell Goose Hollow Foothills League
Kathy Bambeck Bridlemile Neighborhood Association
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 were approved at the June 25th meeting.
Approved Recommended Code Revisions
- Office of Neighborhood Involvement
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
- Agree to redraft of 3.96.060 and 3.96.070 to be discussed at next meeting.
Goal of Revisions
- Section G - to include a reciprocal statement to what was included in the
Neighborhood Association section regarding ONI recognition of the associations.
Group agreed to also capture recognition of the Business District Associations.
Additional goal was to give an appropriate amount of power to withdraw recognition
but not yield too much power to ONI.
- Redraft of 3.96.060 - to clarify the City Agency section to ensure agencies
will utilize ONI to gain accurate information for their citizen involvement
process. Goal is to strengthen the role of ONI, NOs and NAs in the process.
Chair will draft some language.
- Redraft of 3.96.070 - to strengthen the position of ONI, NAs and NOs within
the City. Goal to capture missing elements including, diversity, other services
- Suggest that it may not be to our benefit to take code to Council without
the revised guidelines. There has been pressure regarding diversity/communities
without boundaries and that is not addressed in code. If you look at code
side by side that appears removed but will be in standards. When we get to
that issue we will need to pull in some other people for the discussion. Group
agreed that it would be confusing to have code adopted but not guidelines.
We might want to revisit code as we encounter things in guidelines. The change
in Commissioner may also impact our process.
- Concern coming from some neighbors that GREAT is losing sight of the role
of NA's. Concern about the communities without boundaries issue, developing
a two track system and loss of power but this is part of ONI's charge. We
want to hold off on this discussion and try to finalize code.
- Discussion regarding the concerns of what is captured in the notes. The
chair reminded the group that the majority of the notes are members' thoughts.
The notes simply capture what was discussed as well as actions taken. Notes
should not be the basis of community reaction. However, if there are concerns
about the code then we should address those issues. The notes are complete
so that the public can get an idea of the process but maybe people are taking
things the wrong way. The mood in the room at the May 28th meeting was discussing
how to make it possible for more notice and the final language is what was
the best for the group to do. Perhaps we need to capture the goal of the discussion.
- Concern raised again about the use of "minutes" or "summary
notes". Do we want to create two documents? Drop the word "summary"
and just call them "notes" and have separate minutes? What would
we post online? The thorough notes at least give the knowledge that there
- We don't want to create more work but maybe we need to say what the goal
is for a section when we are starting. We are subject to public meeting laws,
which requires minutes whether we call them notes or minutes. If notes are
not the minutes then we do need to prepare those as well. Suggest some sort
of highlights in the notes to make it stand out when action was taken.
- Suggest a two-page format on the final document listing the proposed changes
and the motivation for the change but it is hard to do while you are in the
middle of it.
- Suggest a format that would emphasize the approved language and then list
the notes. Starts with actions taken on code language then follow with the
goal of the revision. Finally, include all the summary notes. Call them Minutes
and Summary Notes and make sure it is consistent on the agenda. Group agreed
to new format.
- David Lane stated that he hopes that members go back to their organizations
and share what we are doing. If you are not comfortable with what is happening
please bring it back to the group.
- David asked for clarification on an item discussed at the prior meeting
regarding a SWNI resident member. SWNI chose to have Leonard represent the
area but another representative could be added. We could to appoint Kathy
once ONI is reassigned to a new Commissioner. In the interim Kathy will continue
participating in meetings.
- One member pointed out a clerical error on page 3 of the recommended code
- Benefits to NA's should be section "D".
- Nancy has language for BDA section. Chair anticipates addressing City Agency
and ONI sections at next meeting and BDA at July meeting.
Approval of Summary Notes
- For May 28, 2002 - Group agreed to have the notes reorganized into the newly
identified format prior to approval.
- Clarified that notes/minutes are typically not posted on the website until
Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Issues of recognizing/withdrawing recognition and sole source contract
- Proposed adding section G (recognizing/withdrawing recognition from NA's)
and H (sole source contract) at the prior meeting.
- The group discussed the need to distinguish between NO's and other contractors.
Ruth indicated that we still need to clarify with purchasing whether a sole
source is appropriate. It was waived by Council but it may be that you need
findings in order to have a sole source. State statute supercedes City code.
The group described the conflict when the Commissioners Office moved to put
out a bid to show that we could provide services better. This may be a larger
discussion but there is still the question of whether a contract is necessary.
Perhaps changing it so that it is not a PTE contract is the goal. Goal is
to find a mechanism to consistently sole source the funds to the district
offices as neighborhood associations have established them.
- There is a history of where neighborhoods were not pleased. Right now people
are generally happy but if they aren't in the future we want to be careful
not to have a sole source and require the money to go to an unsatisfactory
coalition. That was the theory behind the letters of support so we need to
get to that goal but have the flexibility for neighborhoods to choose.
- The group discussed the creation of Neighborhood Offices. There is language
in NA section B5 that NA's may "cooperate with other Neighborhood Associations
to create Neighborhood Offices". Suggest that we need to clarify the
role of developing a NO. In North and East, NA's did choose for the NO to
go out of business and City had to go back. In North there is some support
for money going to NAs and then they choose what to do with the funds (whether
to go to the coalition or not). Group discussed whether the NA or NO has the
power. On budget issues it is the NO right now with the power and feel that
NA should have the power. Suggest there could be language about how many NAs
to form a NO. The coalition is composed of the neighborhoods and has representatives
on the board. In SWNI NAs get no money and depend on SWNI for materials, publishing,
and copying and they raise money when needed for other projects. SWNI has
$5000 earmarked for each NA that goes to the newsletter, etc. but it doesn't
work that way in every office. For NA to get money directly there would be
strings so giving the money to coalitions gives city assurance but NA control.
- The unaffiliated NA's stand out since they are different and are generally
not involved in issues outside their boundaries. One member suggested it would
be beneficial to identify the selling points for being a part of a NO.
- The group agreed that there needed to be some work done to reach language
about the contract with NO's. David agreed to come up with some language but
would like a neighborhood representative involved as well. Some draft language
will be written and the issue discussed at the next meeting.
- Section G (recognizing/withdrawing recognition) is already encompassed in
the Neighborhood Association section so we should have a reciprocal piece
in NO section. One member suggested removing the previous section if we put
it under ONI but the group agreed that often people only read the sections
that apply directly to them and we do not want this item missed.
- Suggest "Recognize and suspend" but group agrees that does not
make sense. Why not just reiterate all of the language in the NA section?
We need to incorporate the "if" statement and the relationship to
- One member suggested including coalitions as well as NA's and BDA's. Clarified
that ONI does not recognize NO's but enters contracts for services.
1) G. Recognize and withdraw (revoke?) recognition from NA's and BDA's as
provided for in The Standards.
2) G. Pursuant to the adopted standards, recognize and suspend partial or
all benefits to NA's and BDA's. ONI may ultimately revoke formal recognition
of NA and BDA.
3) G. Pursuant to the adopted standards, formally recognize NA and BDA. ONI
may suspend partial or all benefits and may ultimately revoke formal recognition
of NA and BDA.
4) G. Pursuant to the adopted standards, formally recognize a NA and a BDA.
If a NA or BDA 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 NA or the BDA.
- Move to adopt "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
- Motion accepted.
Issue of remaining ONI section
- Is the current section strong enough for what we intend for ONI to do or
should we expand to incorporate the additional services provided? In one sense
it is strong and it is clear that bureaus should be using the neighborhood
system. Maybe we need to add language to make it even stronger to ensure that
bureaus comply. The way it is written now puts the burden on ONI instead of
on other agencies. Maybe there should be something in city agency section
requiring them to use ONI for the information to ensure they are involving
the NA's and BDA's.
- Discussion whether ONI should receive all notices and concern that it would
we be duplicating the work at NO's. ONI should not be notified and then responsible
for notice but could post information on the website. Maybe some people do
not connect to their NA but would check ONI website. The goal is to figure
out a relationship between bureaus, ONI, NO and NA. ONI would not need to
get all the documents but need notice when something is happening. Concern
that agencies may think they are off the hook so it needs to be clear that
ONI is just another partner that receives the information.
- Suggest using "ONI and/or NO" which would reinforce ONI being
the "funnel" to NO's.
- Concern that NAs do not always have a full board or communicate effectively
within their board. Group agreed that ONI cannot be a "baby sitter"
and that NA's need to be responsible for their internal communication.
- ONI wants bureaus to use the neighborhood system as a primary way to get
to the neighbors rather than as a separate system. Some bureaus pay private
contractors or have staff and we would rather have more staff or funding at
- "Shall" is going to make the notice mandatory. We need to be
careful about the language and determine if ONI is required to give notice
whether that could be substituted by others such as contracting it out to
a coalition. We can be specific about what information goes to ONI and not
put the responsibility of notice on ONI.
- Concern that "central clearinghouse" is a problematic term and
needs to be defined. Suggest "information clearinghouse".
- Discussion whether the concept should be in the preamble of the City Agency
section or as a new subsection C. Suggest a rewrite of the City Agency section
to "set up a process that conforms to
a, b, c, d".
- We say that City agencies shall establish a citizen involvement process
and then also tell them to use ONI. Do we want bureaus to use the neighborhood
system? They are currently giving you paper, but they are not using you for
outreach. We need to make the intent clear to council. There is more room
in The Standards to describe what we want than in code.
- City agencies can come to ONI on what their citizen involvement process
will be - ONI can say where there are gaps.
- Concern that ONI (ONI, NO's, NA's) is not seen as a bureau and as important
a party at the table as the rest of the bureaus. Maybe instead of saying "make
a process" we want them to come participate in our process. That is the
way it used to be but that has eroded.
- There have been two suggestions 1-ONI augments and 2-ONI as primary. We
need to think about the implications. Many bureaus want to use the larger
1) Add section to 3.96.060 City Agency into preamble or as a section C. Proposed
C. "Shall use ONI as a central clearinghouse to establish a citizen involvement
participation process between affected NA and BDA"
2) C. Shall use ONI as [an information] clearinghouse to establish a citizen
involvement participation process between affected NA and BDA.
- No formal motion but group agreed to revise 3.96.060 and to work on 3.96.070.
Patricia will work on language to put this all together for City agencies.
Guidance regarding other sections in 3.96.070
A) Notify interested persons of meetings, hearings, elections and other citizen
· Section will need to be clarified based on the City Agency section.
· Notify on elections? Need to specify what elections and who does
it (interpreted as coalition offices for NA and coalition board elections).
B) Assist neighborhood associations and district coalition boards and others
in planning and developing programs for citizen participation, crime prevention,
dispute resolution and citizen budget review;
· Section B refers to the citizen budget review. OMF has budget public
involvement but are not using neighborhoods. There are two ways to address
this issue: 1) ONI could do all the citizen involvement or 2) ONI could be
an agent to facilitate within the bureaus - go in and get the information
so that they can create the product.
· Group support for the agent model. ONI should help create the relationship
between neighborhoods and bureaus.
D) Promote and facilitate open communication among City agencies, neighborhood
associations and district coalition boards;
E) Support and promote citizen involvement within the neighborhood association
· Sections D and E are the core. Example of the Coliseum- money went
to coalitions to do outreach and the bureau was satisfied with the results.
- Diversity would be good to include.
- Other services provided by ONI. Suggest including a list in the standards,
which would be easier than having to change code when services change.
- Kinds of assistance ONI can give to the NO's responding to legal or financial
questions. The relationship is becoming more and more like contract through
reporting tools and uniform standards. Suggest including professional support
such as developing accounting standards.
- Suggest "for appropriate compensation" so bureaus don't think
ONI is doing work for free.
- Maybe we need to have a citywide talk about government. When public meetings
are going to happen it will be good to have group members meet with council
as well as David.
- Suggest reorganization - D, C and A are about communication and B and E
are about how ONI assists the neighborhoods (direct services and how to grow
the system). Suggest order of E, B, D, C, A.
These minutes and summary notes were approved at the June
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.