Tuesday, June 12, 2001

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

City of Portland, Office of Neighborhood Involvement

Members Present:
Nancy Chapin Alliance of Portland Neighborhood Business Associations
Bud Breithaupt Central Northeast Neighbors
Cathy Crawford University Park Neighborhood Association
Raymond Hites Lents Neighborhood Association
Moshe Lenske Woodstock Neighborhood Association
Stanley Lewis Downtown Community Association
Jerry Powell Goose Hollow Foothills League
Mark Sieber Neighbors West/Northwest
William Warren Central Northeast Neighbors
Patricia Gardner Pearl District Neighborhood Association
Brian Hoop Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Joleen Classen ONI
David Lane ONI

Lee Perlman Hollywood Star/Eliot Neighborhood Association

Members Absent:
Rey Espana Multnomah County Aging/Disabilities Services
Frank Dixon City of Portland, Commissioner Saltzman
Lanita Duke NECN
Ruth Spetter City of Portland, Attorney's Office

I. Correction to Minutes
Nancy Chapin pointed out that she is with the Alliance of Portland Neighborhood Business Associations.

II. Notes/changes
Wes McMullen, Southwest Neighborhoods, Inc., has resigned. Go to http://www.myportlandneighborhood.org under resources for summary notes from last meeting.

III. Role of Chairs
Patricia Gardner offered to co-chair the committee. Based on initial GREAT guidelines for one citizen and one ONI co-chair, ONI proposes Brian Hoop be other co-chair.
Extensive discussion on the role of the chairs followed.
Motion from Jerry Powell. The committee will be run in a democratic fashion with a staff person as facilitator. Mark Seiber seconds.
Discussion: Primary leader needs to be citizen. City facilitated process will not look good to public even if it works within group.
Friendly Amendment: Moshe and Brian be co-chairs. Main motion dies by vote.
Motion from Cathy Crawford. Two citizen facilitators who give direction and a staff person to assist them. Moshe and Patricia co-chairs. Rotate lead facilitation between two. Seconded by Nancy Chapin.
Discussion: Concern that two co-chairs is confusing. Need one chair to provide visible public voice with authority.
Vote: Motion passes. 9 yes. 3 no. Patricia will facilitate current meeting; Moshe will facilitate July meeting.

IV. Role of the ONI Guidelines
Discussion on individual perspectives of the role, purpose and goals of the guidelines. Are the rules meant to be vague and open to interpretation or to be empirical?
Several comments that we need to first address what will be voluntary guidelines and what will be required city code. Guidelines may be the wrong term. We need to be clear if these are mandatory, i.e. code. Many think "guidelines" mean voluntary.
Need to clarify assumptions about the neighborhood system. Where does the power to enforce Guidelines rest? ONI gets several calls a day demanding/requesting interpretation of by-laws and guidelines. Who has or should have the authority to resolve these questions and grievances?
Comment that there is no mechanism for neighborhood associations to be held responsible for resolving grievances other than being de-recognized.
Comments ranged from leaving the Guidelines to a minimum as advisory since the city can not tell citizens how to be citizens to using Guidelines as rules to provide clarity where there is much confusion and uncertainty.
Comment made that the Guidelines should require City Bureaus to prioritize notification of all proposed actions to affected citizens and associations. Concern that bureaus are getting lazy with commitment to this citizen involvement principle. (Pointed out: City Code always provides this in ONI's chapter defining the Bureau.)
Suggestion that we create two tiers: A preamble as a statement of purpose followed by the actual rules. A preamble at the beginning would clarify key goals and that majority of decisions need to be made by neighborhood and business associations. These organizations need to police themselves.
Suggestion that the Citizen Involvement Handbook is an example of voluntary suggestions for how to run an association.
Concern raised that State non-profit law requires certain requirements of the neighborhood associations. Disagreement to that raised that requiring members to sign-up for a vote is contradictory to the spirit of intent for neighborhood associations.
Preamble needs to state values of how authority and decision making are established in this system.
ACTION: Send out copies of City Principles of Citizen Involvement, City Code for ONI, and principle statement from Central City Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan. Design Review Guidelines has aspirational rules and hard rules.
ACTION: Suggestion that everyone review the current guidelines and highlight in yellow marker the sections that they believe should be voluntary. Send to Brian who will create a matrix to show range of thoughts on how much change folks are thinking about. Suggestion made that examples of what should be code is how to run meetings and membership criteria.
ACTION: David Lane will ask Ruth Spetter to provide a list of what she advises would be minimum requirements to keep as code.
Many philosophical statements made such as there should be multiple paths to resolving conflicts and reaching a goal.

V. Next steps
Patricia, Moshe and Brian will meet to set next agenda.

Tuesday, July 17th
8:30 AM - 10:00 AM
City Hall, Pettygrove Room, 1221 SW 4th Ave.

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.