April 16, 2003
Public Involvement Versus 'Civic Anarchy'
Also missed in yesterday's Tribune is more coverage of the Citywide Public Involvement Standards Task Force. Criticisms quoted are a little more direct than have appeared elsewhere:
According to Brian Hoop, the involvement office staffer working on the review, one reason for the split is the lack of a consistent involvement policy.
"There are no standards for citizen involvement for all bureaus. Each bureau does outreach as they see fit. They all use different strategies and methods," he said.
Task force member Frank Dixon is more blunt.
"Right now we have civic anarchy," he said.
Some Portlanders see a more devious reason for the split, however. A number of neighborhood activists said they believe city officials frequently make up their minds about projects before they ask Portlanders what they think.
"I've testified at many City Council hearings, and I've seen the same thing happen over and over again," said David Redlich, chairman of the Homestead Neighborhood Association in Southwest Portland.
"First the bureaucrats and special interests testify, and the City Council is very attentive," he said. "Then it's time for the citizens to testify, and the commissioners start talking to each other or walking out of the room."
Some city officials, of course, don't buy it:
Portland Mayor Vera Katz does not believe the council is ignoring the city's residents.
"We're elected to make tough decisions. Sometimes people don't like the results. Instead of simply accepting that they lost, sometimes they say we didn't listen to them," she said.
This nicely demonstrates the very dismissiveness of which so many Portland residents complain when speaking of the city's public involvement process.
Had the Mayor been present, even hiding in the shadows somewhere, for the first public workshop of the Task Force, she would not have seen an entire room full of petulant and whining losers. She would have seen a wide range of concerned citizens who deeply believe that the current public involvement process is poorly serving both the City Council and Portland residents alike.
It can be made even simpler than that, however. If a substantial number of the city's residents have a staggering lack of faith in the public involvement process as it is currently conceived and executed, then there is a problem with that process.
Any public involvement structure which fails to capture the imagination and the belief of the public itself simply has no legitimacy.
Neither the Mayor nor anyone else should dare brush that aside with a tired wave of their hand and an exapserated, "Oh, whatever."