Tuesday, July 31, 2001
SUMMARY NOTES: Guidelines Review, Empowerment & Assessment Team, GREAT
City of Portland, Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Nancy Chapin, Alliance of Portland Neighborhood Business Associations
Leonard Gard, Southwest Neighborhoods, Inc.
Patricia Gardner, Pearl District Neighborhood Association
Raymond Hites, Lents Neighborhood Association
Brian Hoop, ONI, City of Portland
Joleen Jensen-Classen, ONI, City of Portland
David Lane, 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
Cathy Crawford - excused University Park Neighborhood Association
Rey Espana Latino Network
Lanita Duke Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods
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 Correction of July 10
- Discussion on question of why were district coalitions set up in the first
place? Jerry Powell notes that they were set up to pool finances and
- Discussion on question if neighborhood associations are required to raise
money? The answer was no but the minutes noted coalitions received the money.
Jerry Powell notes that the money is allocated for neighborhood associations,
which have chosen to direct those funds for their district coalitions.
II. Discussion of requirements for public meeting notices for these meetings.
- Several members note there is a need to advertise, put our press release,
notice to chairs, need to reach people who are not part of the neighborhood
- Ruth Spetter, City Attorney, notes: the state open meetings law applies
to meetings that have a quorum. This guidelines committee does not have one
so technically the open meetings laws does not apply.
- MOTION: Send meeting notice and agendas to Oregonian and Tribune,
coalition papers. Send agendas and minutes to presidents, keep a notebook
at ONI and post on web site. Research costs for ads in Oregonian. PASSED.
- ACTION ITEM: Proposal that we include a public comment at end of
III. Discussion on Guidelines Review Committee (GREAT) relationship to the
proposed Re-examine and Re-connect effort
- David discusses his vision of how GREAT takes a micro look at rules
and regulations for the neighborhood system whereas Re-examine and Re-connect
has a broad conceptual focus on long-range organizational development.
- David is open to suspending the GREAT meetings until Re-Examine Re-Connect
becomes more solidified if that what the group wants.
- Joleen reviews three goals in Saltzman's press release re: Re-examine
A. How ONI should best support neighborhood associations and their connection
to the coalitions.
B. How to increase the number and representation of neighbors in our neighborhood
C. How to improve partnerships within the City and examining how to get more
financial resources to neighborhood associations and more involvement with
- Mark asks if there are legal reasons to hold this committee now.
Ruth Spetter says no. City code says ONI needs to "revise such guidelines
as are deemed necessary for the implementation" of city code re: neighborhoods.
But the timeline of when that happens is flexible. Four years has been established
- Leonard asks if Re-examine and Re-connect moving forward? Will it
impact guidelines? David says ONI is working with coalition leaders to identify
a plan of action. It could impact it if big issues come up but did he did
not intend to raise major issues that would dramatically impact the Guidelines.
- William suggests having two members from Guidelines Review committee
on the Re-examine and Re-connect steering committee if there is one.
- Discussion on if there is a hierarchy of authority between the two groups.
Does the Guidelines Review committee get to review and weigh in on the proposals
from Re-examine and Re-connect? David suggests they are two unique efforts
and hopes that there is interaction.
- Brian suggests some neighborhood leaders are looking to GREAT group
for definitive answers on issues like how to deal with grievances and boundary
- Discussion about whether the group moves forward focusing on ONI Guidelines
or have a broader focus or suspend itself.
- Moshe - This group is representative & is carrying many of the
charges he suspects from R&R. Wants to keep moving forward.
- Mark - Wants process to move forward.
- Leonard - Wants group to keep them moving forward.
- David - Reminds members R&R is "us", neighborhood
folks & will interact with GREAT.
- Stanley - Does not see any sign of secretive efforts. Go forward.
- Patricia - Hears general support for moving forward.
IV. Review of Chapter 3.96 of Portland City Code.
- Group wants to review and suggest changes to City code regarding neighborhood
- Brian distributes matrix matching up sections of City Code to ONI
- Brian notes the 1987 version of Chapter 3.96 is the most current
copy of Code.
- ACTION: Change all Office of Neighborhood Associations to Office
of Neighborhood Involvement. Agreed.
- Start with: 3.96.010 Purpose. This
Chapter sets out the basis for City recognition of neighborhood associations,
district coalition boards, and the responsibilities and benefits accruing
thereto; creates the Office of Neighborhood Associations and sets out its
functions, duties and responsibilities.
Nothing in this Chapter shall limit the right of any person or group to participate
directly in the decision making process of the City Council or of any City
- Suggestion to add business associations, neighborhood offices, communities
beyond boundaries in purpose statement.
- Add alternative delivery structure to groups under recognition.
Possibly identify other more inclusive term or other future generic
forms for "alternative delivery services or structures".
- Need to differentiate that business associations have a different
status than neighborhood associations.
- Add sentence that acknowledges role of business associations and
communities without boundaries.
- Jerry suggests idea of a category of alternatives to place-based
groups (neighborhood associations are placed-based and others are
- Discussion of using more inclusive terms and the contrast of "place-based"
versus "non-place-based" neighborhoods.
- Need to suggest people to recruit to represent concerns of communities
- Discussion around purpose of business associations.
- ACTION: Need to change business associations to "business
district associations". OK.
- Discussion on funding communities without boundaries such as ethnic/cultural
communities. Who's to decide policy on funding slices for these communities?
- Discussion on differences between our groups are self-help or providing
- Recognize that communities without boundaries will be big issues.
Need to address in this process.
- Policy question of involving other types of groups. What are their
responsibilities and what benefits do they get.
Agreed upon language for purpose statement:
This Chapter sets out the basis for City recognition of neighborhood
associations, district coalition boards, and alternative delivery structures,
and the responsibilities and benefits accruing thereto. This chapter also sets
out the basis for City acknowledgement of neighborhood business associations
and communitites beyond boundaries and the responsibilities accruing therto.
This chapter also creates the Office of Neighborhood Involvement and sets out
its functions, duties and responsibilitiesNothing in this Chapter shall limit
the right of any person or group to participate directly in the decision making
process of the City Council or of any City agency.
V. ACTION: Everyone should read full Code 3.96 language. At the
next meeting we will be looking at definitions, therefore names of entities
at the beginning of the guidelines can be adjusted as we go along.
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.