August 31, 2005 Team Meeting Agenda & Notes for BIP #9: Public Involvement
Welcome/Introductions - (15 minutes)
Introduction to this Project, Q&A - (20 min)
Review purpose of this group, compare with other efforts - (20 min)
Discuss goals, work plan, next steps - (45 min)
Determine meeting schedule - (15 min)
Remind participants of website and encourage them to subscribe to receive email notification of new postings. - (5 min)
Bureau Innovation Project #9: Public Involvement Team Meeting Notes
August 31, 2005:Mt.ScottCommunity Center,
Team Members Present:
JoAnn Bowman (Lead), Barbara Hart (Lead), Brian Hoop (Lead), Elizabeth Kennedy-Wong, Mary Jo Markle, Art Alexander, Laurel Butman, Lynn Coward, Sue Diciple, Christine Egan, Jim Gladson, Karen Withrow.
Team Members Not Present:
Eileen Argentina (Lead), Gay Greger, Gretchen Hollands, Linda Hunter, Beth Kaye, Sandra LeFrancois, Romeo Sosa, Rick Williams.
Laurel Butman, Maija Spencer.
Paul Leistner, Steve Hoyt, Alison Stoll (for Sandra LeFrancois), David Pool, Glenn Bridger, Antoinette Pietka (for Beth Kaye), Jimmy Brown.
1. Project Introduction/Q&A:
Elizabeth Kennedy-Wong, Mayor’s Office, reviewed a handout describing the differences between BIP #1, #8, and #9.
Community governance partnership model – focus of #1 and Mayor’s leadership (see link on #9 website for more detail)
#1 – community vision to drive bureau strategic plans
#8 – neighborhood system & how can system support/interact w/City
#9 – structures & procedures of public involvement
How do you foresee cross-fertilization of #1/8/9?
There is shared participation – some people are members of multiple teams. There may possibly be quarterly meetings of #8 & #9 team leads. Be conscious of not operating in a vacuum – intentional coordination.
Can people attend & listen to other BIP meetings?
Yes, all meetings are posted on the web, as well as meeting notes.
Can people participate in any BIP committee? Who brings people up to speed?
Yes, anyone can participate. Committees are set, but especially with #8 & #9, committees are charged with including public in discussion. For #9, should develop guidelines/ground rules for this group.
How will this group draw on prior work of Public Involvement Task Force?
We have that info at hand, and it is on the website. We will bring info to the table that is connected to the discussion at hand.
2. Review Purpose of this group:
JoAnn Bowman walked through the charge for this group: “Develop consistent public engagement procedures and process.” (See handout overview BIP #1, 8, & 9). She asked the group: Are these the right questions?
How do you marry “consistent” with “one-size doesn’t fit all”?
Sue Diciple mentioned IAP2 matrix. A neighborhood or project may want to operate under one end of spectrum or the other, but should be consistent within these approaches.
Need to take these higher level questions to a deeper level. Example: how can we ensure that groups develop charters? How do we select stakeholders?
How to assess what level of public involvement you need?
Need flexibility in types of audiences as well as types of projects.
How do you create the culture change (once you’ve set the standards)?
How do we choose which projects need public info, involvement, engagement, and/or community governance?
3. Discussion of guiding questions:
What are the roles & responsibilities of the public engagement process? How does this build public capacity? Clarification that this team focuses on city consistency & capacity.
Relief that public capacity issues will be addressed by Team #8.
Which group is addressing groups beyond neighborhood associations? Examples: business/industry/employee/unions/etc.? Answer: That is within #8 – assumes neighborhood system could change.
What does a bureau need to provide to the public to assist them in engaging effectively?
How do we consistently identify the right audiences?
How do we engage business & private sector interests?
How can we create consistent processes that are supported by all organizational levels?
How can we develop ways to ensure we engage all audiences, including those like big private entities, in the process so they don’t go around the process?
Should we have large business at this table?
It was pointed out that we have one member from LDTMA (business-related org) & we did focus groups before.
PDC does consider business communities on par with citizens. They might be turned off by using the word “citizen.”
Include language of “communities of interest” or something like that, instead of by using the word “citizen.”
How do we include “equal upside” for all interests? Businesses tend to feel there is only a downside to engagement.
Need to differentiate between different types of projects – will need to create standards that apply to different types of projects. How do we apply appropriate approaches based on the type of project?
What is the cultural change that will need to take place at the City to have effective public engagement? What are the common elements for different audiences? Do we need to have them in a room together?
Apprehensive about defining the “types of project” – how do you do that? Tough.
PDC has a 5 month old draft manual that uses a matrix based on the New Zealand model.
Noted that there are “Wal-Mart moments” where all requirements are met & input doesn’t matter.
Is it the responsibility of #8 to engage business as a part of citizen?
Need to design processes for both – public and business.
How do we make it clearer, easier to use, easier to understand how City does processes for broad audiences?
Does this imply that projects need to start with the City? Can community help start projects? Answer: Focus of #9 is on tools for engagement for City to use, not on genesis of the projects. We’re thinking mainly of City projects.
Where do the most trip-ups happen in public involvement? This is mostly in area of deciding which process to use with which project. What kinds of decisions need what kind of public engagement?
Will need to address how we change culture of City Hall.
Look at distinction between policy & administrative decisions. Use communities of interest/stakeholders, not citizens.
4. Work Plan:
Leads will develop draft plan based on input of group.
5. Future Meetings:
A regular meeting day/time was discussed. Consensus was reached that the last Tuesday of every month from would probably work. This decision is pending the input of team members not present. Next meeting tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, September 27. Meeting location will change each time – a list was passed around, asking team members to sign up to host a meeting. It was noted that childcare/transportation funding is available, if needed. It was suggested that driving directions/bus lines be posted with meeting notices.
The website is www.portlandonline.com/bip - go to the link from there to BIP #9. At the very top right-hand side of the page, there is link that says “subscription.” By setting up a subscription, you can receive daily, weekly, or monthly email alerts of any additions to the BIP website. The email will contain links to any additions, such as meeting notes or meetings scheduled on the calendar. Ask Laurel Butman if any questions about this or if you have suggestions for the website content.
Sue Diciple will provide a checklist of potential ground rules to the leads. They can go over it, and present it at the next meeting for team approval.
Team members are encouraged to act as ambassadors to bring people into the conversation & raise awareness about the work of this team.
It was suggested that team members create their own networks to get feedback from.
Brian Hoop passed out a summary of the prior work of the PI task force and drafted updated public involvement principles. More info is on the BIP website for #9 – there is a link to the Public Involvement materials on the ONI site.