September 27, 2006 Meeting Notes for BIP #9: Public Involvement
1. Greetings/Introductions/Review of the Agenda:
Members Present: Eileen Argentina, Jo Ann Bowman, Laurel Butman, Megan Callahan, Brian Hoop, Elizabeth Kennedy-Wong, Sandra LeFrancois, Karen Withrow.
Members Not Present: Art Alexander, Sue Diciple, Christine Egan, Gay Greger, Tim Hall, Barbara Hart, Brian Hockaday, Beth Kaye, Marsha Palmer, Cameron Vaughan-Tyler, Rick Williams.
Staff: Maija Spencer Guests: John Ryan
2. Public Comments: John Ryan mentioned the online catalog he submitted, and the concerns and personal issues he is dealing with
3. Notes from August 30th: It was moved by Jo Ann and seconded by Laurel
4. Review of Final Report:
Fiscal Impact Statement (p. 3 of IEFI) raised the following questions:
- Where should the staffing position live? ONI or the Mayor’s Office or ??
- Timing: When does the next committee start? During the Toolkit pilot or after it ends?
- What about BIP #8/Community Connect & visionPDX?
- How does the Toolkit become institutionalized?
Discussion points:
- We should take advantage of the momentum and leadership support of public involvement that is happening now. We shouldn’t delay the formation of the next group.
- Maybe we should form the next group later, after the pilot is done and results from visionPDX and Community Connect are out.
- Perhaps the Implementation Team can decide where the staffing should live.
- The experience at Metro was that they tried to push an initiative but had little authority. They had influence, but regardless, it was time consuming.
- The resolution can be one way to show authority.
Decisions made:
- Remove ONI reference from financial analysis. The staffing position may or may not belong in ONI and should be seen as belonging to all bureaus.
- Add a recommendation to reconvene the staff public involvement network as soon as possible, and clarify that the ongoing group should be made up of public and city staff members.
- Ongoing group should be formed no later than March 2007.
- Report should be clear in expectations and timelines.
5. Review of Final Product
The main issue for the Toolkit was what to do about Question #11, the placeholder question, on the Level of Impact of Questions.
Decisions made:
- It was decided that Question #11 seems to fit into the Guidelines for Using this Toolkit, now that this is written. Question #11 will be removed from the list of questions and incorporated into the paragraph on stakeholder identification in the section “Before the Toolkit (page 1 of Guidelines).
- In the Process Overview (Appendix A of Toolkit) – change “Type 1, Type 2 …” boxes to Levels of Involvement (Inform, Consult, etc).
6. Review of Resolution
The group discussed when the resolution should be brought to Council. Since BIP #9 will recommend that the next group be formed by March 2007 and the resolution establishes the pilot programs, the resolution should be issued soon. Laurel
7. Debrief/Next Steps for Implementation
- Jo Ann and Eileen have met with staff from the Water Bureau to discuss the pilots, and they have already begun their plans. Jimmy Brown is assigning a staff person to monitor and report on the pilot at the end. They will meet with Jesse Beason who will be working on the arts funding pilot.
- Eileen, Laurel, and Maija met with Michael Mills, the City’s ombudsman to make him aware of the Toolkit and BIP #9’s recommendations.
- Jo Ann has met with Commissioner Sten, and he was very supportive of BIP #9’s work.
- Maija and Laurel will send out the revised package, with this meeting’s feedback incorporated, to the team, and ask them to send feedback. October 12 is the deadline for submitting the final recommendations and report to the Mayor’s Office for the November 2nd Implementation Team meeting.