Skip to Main Content View Text-Only

The City of Portland, Oregon

Planning and Sustainability

Innovation. Collaboration. Practical Solutions.

Phone: 503-823-7700

Curbside Hotline: 503-823-7202

1900 SW 4th Ave, Suite 7100, Portland, OR 97201

More Contact Info

Subscribe to RSS feed

Most Recent

View Less

Summary Meeting Notes: June 20, 2013 Community Involvement PEG

Summary Meeting Notes

Community Involvement Policy Expert Group

Date: June 20, 2013

Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Location: City Hall, 1221 SW 4th Avenue,Portland, Pettygrove Room


PEG Attendees: Polo, Catalani, Greg Greenway, Paul Leistner/ PEG co-lead, Linda Nettekoven, Sara Schooley, Marty Stockton/ PEG co-lead, Desiree Williams-Rajee, Robb Wolfson

Facilitator: Deb Meihoff

View the original agenda, including materials, for this meeting.


Key Points and Outcomes

  • Refined suggestions for Community Involvement goal changes in Chapters 1 and Chapter 8.
  • Final refinements to the PEG summary memo.
  • CI PEG members reflected on the PEG process, meaningfulness to their community work, and areas where similar processes could be improved in the future.


Welcome, Meeting Overview and Introductions   

FACILITATED DISCUSSION: Final Discussion of Suggestions for Goals and Policy Refinements (6:05 p.m. / 60 minutes)

Facilitator: Deb Meihoff

Description: The PEG, with assistance from the PIAC Comprehensive Plan Work Group, has reviewed the Working Draft for incorporation of best practices in community involvement resulting in suggested reorganization and changes to Chapters 1 and 8. The CI PEG provided additional clarification to policy revisions from the previous meetings and also forwarded suggested changes to the Chapter 1 Goals.

Handout and resource

  • Change ideas for Goals
  • CI PEG suggested changes to Chapter 1 Goals (June 20, 2013)


Final Draft CI PEG Summary Memorandum

Facilitator: Deb Meihoff

Description: PEG members provided refinements to the PEG memo Key Elements and Next Step sections. PEG members requested the addition of a Key Element that speaks to the suggested reorganization of Chapter 1 into policies to guide ongoing community involvement efforts needed to carry out the Comprehensive Plan and those that address project-specific involvement needs. CI PEG members reinforced that the Public Involvement Advisory Council (PIAC) is a resource for BPS staff, to help with drafting the community involvement manual and with implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The final CI PEG summary memo will be revised to reflect the meeting discussion. 


PEG Wrap Up Discussion

Facilitator: Deb Meihoff

Marty provided a summary of the Comprehensive Plan process going forward.  In addition the PIAC and the PIAC Work Group will be working with BPS staff on the next internal draft of Chapter 1 goals and policies, expected for review later this summer. BPS is organizing an all-PEG meeting anticipated for September, that will provide all PEG members the opportunity to discuss the Working Maps (Part 2 of the Comprehensive Plan Update) and share perspectives with each other.  CI PEG members are encouraged to participate in this workshop.

As it was the final meeting of the CI PEG, members were asked to reflect on the PEG process, outcomes, and ideas for improvements to similar processes in the future.

CI PEG Comments:

  • The conversations of the CI PEG were so different from other PEGs - these were more involved than many of the other groups who spent most meetings receiving presentations, proposals, and information from staff and asked to respond. The small size of the CI PEG made it easy to have meaningful dialogue and tap the expertise of PEG members.
  • CI PEG members expressed concern that there were so few members of the public who attended CI PEG meetings. It may have been that the topic is too abstract (compared to other PEG topics) or the level of detail of PEG discussions made it difficult for non-PEG members to connect.
  • That said, PEG members noted that the deep level of discussions and experience were very meaningful for them personally. They noted some difficulties finding the right balance between ‘early involvement’ and ‘meaningful involvement’.
  • PEG staff noted that the CI PEG ended up forming into a group that was heavier on agency staff than on community members. One problem is that many community members were already at capacity for volunteer efforts, often through PIAC and/or neighborhood association service. Given a second chance, staff would have made changes to the recruitment process to find a better balance in membership.
  • Allowing staff to participate as PEG members was very helpful in the discussions and made the process stronger.
  • In hindsight, the scope of influence and clarity about the role of the group could have been communicated better and more strongly. In some cases the scope changed through the course of the process, but the meaning of the changes wasn’t always clear.


Public Comment

[No public comments.]


Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.