Tuesday, January 22, 2002
SUMMARY NOTES: Guidelines Review, Empowerment & Assessment Team, GREAT
City of Portland, Office of Neighborhood Involvement
These minutes are not approved yet.
Patricia Gardner, Co-Chair Pearl District Neighborhood Association
Moshe Lenske, Co-Chair Woodstock Neighborhood Association
Nancy Chapin, Alliance of PDX Neighborhood Bus. Assocs.
Raymond Hites, Lents Neighborhood Association
Brian Hoop, Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Joleen Jensen-Classen, Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Stanley Lewis, Downtown Community Association
Jerry Powell Goose, Hollow Foothills League N.A.
Michael O'Malley, Irvington Community Association
Charles Shi, Communities Beyond Neighborhood Boundaries
William Warren, Central Northeast Neighbors
Cathy Crawford, University Park Neighborhood Association
Leonard Gard, Southwest Neighborhood, Inc.
Mark Sieber, Neighbors West/Northwest
Ruth Spetter, City Attorney's Office
David Lane, Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Decisions by this group are subject to change at future meetings.
Opportunities for public input at the end of meeting and future workshops.
These minutes have not been approved yet by the committee.
Changes to January 8, 2002 Minutes
- Change City Attorney's comments. Third bullet should lead "Does the
City Code require other bureaus to conform to the neighborhood association
language in Chapter 3.96?" Ruth is also checking on the issue of whether
italics or underlines carry more weight in the code.
Workshops about the Guidelines
- Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 3rd Annual Neighborhood Summit. Hold a workshop
for neighborhood leaders to learn about how the guidelines relate to their
associations. Q&A and collect suggestions for changes.
- Tuesday, March 26 or Monday, March 25 - Group discussed a workshop on Tuesday
for public input on the GREAT committees work to date and suggest changes.
After the meeting it was realized Brian and Joleen had already scheduled a
Monday, March 25 date workshop that appeared in the Winter/Spring workshop
brochure. Discuss at next meeting.
Responsibilities of Neighborhood Associations (3.96.030 section C according
to the new numbering system)
Discussion on #1
- Concern raised what does reasonable notice mean? Ruth says this means as
a minimum you need to provide reasonable notice to interested parties. Issue
brought up about OPDR fee waiver applications about inviting the applicant
and providing reasonable notice. Suggestion to eliminate it out of code to
reduce risk of lawsuits.
- Reference made to former Oregon Supreme Court ruling that associations are
not applicable to state open meetings law. City Council required it anyway.
Issue raised we need to have some kind of open meetings and public records
law to maintain political support for neighborhood system as an open and accountable
- Suggestion to use interested parties instead of affected parties in section
- Suggestion to drop #1 entirely because it is duplicative of #2, which refers
to all applicable rules in the standards and open meetings law. Concern expressed
to keep it to emphasize reasonable notice about meetings is important.
- Suggestion made to write our own City open meetings and public record code
to cover this. Question raised if we create a local open meetings law which
has more precedence, state or local law. E.g. will neighborhood associations
be required to meet state ADA accessibility rules.
- Concern raised that we need #1 that refers people to what reasonable notice
is. Perhaps that we need to refer people to specific sections in the standards
where they will find this information for quick reference. Realistically most
individuals will not take the time to read through the entire open meetings
document. We provide a summary in the appendix of the guidelines.
Discussion on #2
- Suggestion to have #2 as the opening obligation.
- We need to clarify if we are referring to state, ONI or all regulations.
Suggestion made to take out reference to municipal open meeting rules since
there is no municipal code right now. Suggestion made to say "Oregon"
statutes. Suggestion made to take out "both municipal and state"
in statement 2. Take out "all" before applicable statutes. Suggestion
made to drop all reference to open meetings and public records law and hold
people applicable to all applicable laws in general.
- Ruth feels that "all" refers to statutes that are applicable to
neighborhood associations. Ruth thinks it is important to include both municipal
and state open meetings law.
- Group requests Ruth to research what is connection between various sections
of city code, e.g. between 3.96 and Title 33 which is about planning code.
Can our code language affect other chapters and vice-a-versa regarding open
- Suggestion to refer people in section to ORS chapter 192 so they know where
to go to learn what are the rules regarding open meetings law. Concern raised
that by refering people only to open meetings regulations we are suggesting
that people are not bound to other applicable laws.
- Proposed language: "Neighborhood associations shall abide by ORS chapter
192 regulating open meetings and public records."
- We need these sections to address the reality that private meetings were
being held and we wanted the code to refer people to the importance of open
meetings and public record law.
- If a neighborhood association is a recognized non-profit they may need to
follow ORS 65 rules regarding non-profit status.
- Ruth speaks to what is a private and public function. Legal opinions are
unclear on the details of how neighborhood associations must follow ORS 192.
- Suggestion to take out reference to municipal rules which may stop City
bureaus from creating new rules in their code section to make it harder on
neighborhood groups to jump through more rules in order to function.
- Suggestion to add "all applicable statutes" after reference to
open meetings and public records law.
- Need to focus on what are minimal requirements for associations.
- Motion: "Neighborhood associations shall abide by ORS Chapter 192 regulating
open meetings and public records." Passed. Two nay votes.
- Motion: Remove existing statement #1 completely. Passed.
Discussion on Section #3
- Perhaps this section should be a "may" to encourage neighborhood
associations to work with the city. Suggestion made to take out the section
completely. Was this meant as leverage to make bureaus reach out to neighborhood
associations which they should do more. Ruth suggests that this is saying
an association must work with the city.
The Meeting adjourned at 10:00 AM.
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.
Prepared by: Brian Hoop, Office of Neighborhood Involvement