Tuesday, August 28, 2001
SUMMARY NOTES: Guidelines Review, Empowerment & Assessment Team, GREAT
City of Portland, Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Nancy Chapin, Alliance of Portland Neighborhood Business Associations
Jeff Cogen, Office of Commissioner Saltzman
Cathy Crawford, University Park Neighborhood Association
Leonard Gard, Southwest Neighborhoods, Inc.
Patricia Gardner, Pearl District Neighborhood Association
Raymond Hites, Lents Neighborhood Association
Brian Hoo,p ONI, City of Portland
Joleen Jensen-Classen, ONI, City of Portland
Moshe Lenske, Woodstock Neighborhood Association
Stanley Lewis, Downtown Community Association
Jerry Powell, Goose Hollow Foothills League
Mark Sieber, Neighbors West/Northwest
Ruth Spetter, City Attorney's Office, City of Portland
William Warren, Central Northeast Neighbors
Bud Breithaupt, Central Northeast Neighbors
David Lane, ONI, City of Portland
Karen Lehman, PSU Student Intern, ONI Office
Decisions by this group are subject to change at future meetings.
Opportunities for public input at the end of meeting and future workshops.
I. Minutes Corrections for August 14:
Change page 3 of 4 under "Process issue: Should this group be dealing with large policy issues?" Correct to say Ruth reminded group Guidelines have been adopted by resolution but are required by code, which have been adopted by ordinance and have the force of law.
II. City Code, Chapter 3.96 - General discussion on definitions
Jerry asks if there might be conflicting definitions in other parts of city code. Ruth did not think there would be conflicts.
Group considered the need to cross reference whole code for conflicts but realized that would be too complicated.
There is no central part of the code that lists all definitions.
Stan asked what are pros and cons of definitions being in code vs. guidelines?
Code has more permanence.
Code more difficult to change.
Other bureaus would have to refer to our definitions.
Guidelines would allow flexibility every four years.
Several people commented they were ready to support moving definitions to code.
Mark asked how do we ensure other bureaus follow our definitions? Ruth says usually we state definitions are for the purpose of this chapter and we can't control other bureaus definitions but we can expect them to respect our language.
III. Definitions: City Agency
Question was asked if we include City Council in the definition. Ruth suggested to keep them out.
MOTION: Accept existing definition of City Agency. PASSED.
IV. Definitions: Neighborhood Associations
Moshe proposed elements to include:
All the citizen/residents and others defined in the NA bylaws
Within designated geographic boundaries which are accepted by adjacent NA's
A responsible governing board of properly elected leaders.
Discussion re: concerns about the word boundaries. Suggestion made to use "Place-based" instead. People don't always identify with geographic boundaries. May have broader concepts of community.
Suggestion raised to eliminate multiple definitions of neighborhoods and only use "Recognized Neighborhood Association."
Comments made that we need to be flexible to include neighborhood groups that want to be independent and don't want to be recognized. Others felt that no one is suggesting they don't have a right to exist, but clarification would make it clear the city and guidelines only deal with "recognized neighborhood associations."
Suggestion to acknowledge ORS 65 defines what groups are non-profits, which we require neighborhood associations to be. We should include that NA's need to be non-profits.
Concern raised that groups like SWHRL are unique groups that we don't know where they fit in. Is SWHRL recognized or simply acknowledged. They get no money but get notices.
Moshe emphasized importance of geographic boundaries provide equity so that everyone is in a NA and has a right to participate in that group.
Patricia proposes working language:
"This chapter governs a neighborhood association formally recognized by the Office of Neighborhood Involvement. A recognized neighborhood association is a geographically based group of people that meets the minimum standards of this chapter and applicable guidelines adopted by City Council."
Nancy suggests simply add word "Recognized" at beginning of code language for neighborhood association definition.
Leonard suggests add "recognized by ONI."
Suggestion made to clarify how groups are recognized but that is covered in other parts of the guidelines.
Several comment to support keeping geographic boundary concept.
Several comment again to focus definitions on "recognized groups."
Mark suggests refer back to by-laws of groups to show where geographic boundaries are.
Ruth proposed working language:
"A group, within a specific geographic area, that is formally recognized by ONI and which meets the minimum standards of this Chapter and any applicable sections of the xxx Guidelines as adopted by the City Council."
Leonard suggests language saying "neighborhood based group that is geographically based and recognized by ONI."
Nancy proposes working definition:
"A group within a specific geographic boundary which is formally recognized by the ONI and which meets the minimum standards of this chapter and applicable guidelines adopted by City Council."
Group decides to table the topic to next meeting.
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.