June 03, 2003
Neighborhoods See Need for Transparency, Representation, and Funding in Public Involvement Process
This evening at SE Uplift, a small group of neighborhood association representatives and interested residents gathered to discuss Portland's search to develop new citywide public involvement standards.
It was the second in a series of "constituency meetings" the city's PI task force has arranged for this month, which will include meetings with other neighborhood associations, city staff, public involvement consultants, ethnic and immigrant communities, the business community, and others.
At the conclusion of the wide-ranging open discussion about what works, what doesn't and what should exist when it comes to public involvement, the group marked a dozen or so items as most importlant. What follows is taken from the comments at this constituency meeting, although elements may be synthesized (by me) to make the premises of various suggestions more clear.
Two items received the highest number of "votes" (what I'm terming "votes" was actually just a matter of each person marking the items they found most important, which resulted in some items receiving several marks, others none, and many in between) with five each.
First was the proposal that the city could not spend any money earmarked for any given project in any given neighborhood without first meeting the standards for proper public involvement, whatever those standards are ultimately determined to be.
In conversation, this proposal seemed to generate much head-nodding agreement, as if it was the simplest thing in the world yet no one had yet managed to put it into words.
Ultimately, the hope appeared to be that placing such a procedural hurdle before city leaders would necessarily place more power and control in the neighborhoods themselves (a common theme for the evening). Presuming that public involvement standards were rigorous enough, of course, to result in true public input and direction. But even if PI standards were weak, the simple need to delay action in order to maneuver through an involvement process would at the very least mean more time to properly notify residents of the city's plans.
The second of the highest-ranking proposals was that the city needs to "come clean" with all the information regarding to a given project, as well as reveal all the "hidden" agendas.
The flow of information was an issue that arose repeatedly, and in many different respects, over the course of the discussion. Participants complained of incomplete or even dishonest information from the city regarding projects and activities. But they also objected to the directionality of the information flow, especially as it related to the determination of "problems" that need addressing. Too often, they said, the city comes into neighborhoods with a decision made, or a project approved, leaving residents only to quibble over random details.
As for "hidden" agendas, I don't recall this ever being expressly commented upon during the open discussion, but experientially I can say that one example of such concerns would probably be the Mt. Tabor reservoir issue, where residents complained, for instance, that the consulting group responsible for the planning was also responsible for defining the process of public involvement -- thereby raising at least the appearance of an improper conflict of interest.
Next highest of all the items ranked (with a total of four "votes") was somethingalluded to above: The need for any given neighborhood to be involved in the actual determination and definition of problems confronting that neighborhood.
In other words, there was a general exasperated frustration (as stated above) that, far too often, the city simply charges into a neighborhood with a decision already made, or an alleged problem already identified, leaving next to no control over the situation in the hands of the neighborhood itself. You'll note how this scenario is also potentially addressed by the previous suggestion that no money can actually be septn on projects in neighborhoods where a proper public involvement process, meeting whatever standards are adopted, has not already occurred.
Three proposals garnered three "votes" apiece, one of which is essentially a duplicate of the one just discussed: There needs to be a process by which the neighborhoods themselves can identify a problem which needs to be addressed, and through which the neighborhood can than bring that problem to the city.
The second of these three suggestions once again brings the issue of money into the mix, but with a twist -- and one which generated not inconsiderable excitement whenever it was discussed: The idea of a percentage of the tax base being dedicated to fund "ombudsman" positions in each of the city's neighborhoods -- someone to act as the focal point for, say, the flow of information from city to neighborhood and neighborhood to city. Many different thoughts were expressed about how to generate ot provide funding to neighborhoods to allow them to more actively participate in any truly legitimate process of public involvement.
Last up in this set of items was the need for proper "constituent representation" -- meaning, in essence, that the public involvement process must, in order to be legitimate, adequately reflect the communities being impacted.
And then there were a total of nine proposals which each received a single "vote." I'll take them in no particular order.
There was a fair amount of discussion at one point about various constituencies never being brought together to discuss the impact of city decisions. This was illustrated through the example of the Portland Development Commission inviting, say, developers to one meeting, and neighborhood associations to another -- reinforcing obstacles between different communities, rather than fostering dialogue between them.
This was raised earlier in the discussion when someone pointed out that it seems as if the business community also complains, as much as the neighborhoods do, about not being taken into account. Developers, it was argued, say the problem is the neighborhoods, while the neighborhoods blame developers -- and nothing in the public involvement process seeks to bring these disparate parties together.
Next was the suggestion that neighborhood associations be considered -- and utilized as -- "hubs" for residents. Much of this was reflected in conversations about the need for real funding -- allowing for increased staffing and services -- at either the neighborhood association or coalition level.
One important suggestion at this level of the rankings was to "meet on their turf" -- meaning that discussions (and decision-making processes) of any project or decision which involves or impacts a given neighborhood or community must take place in that neighborhood or community. In other words, the city should not insist that a community come to it. Instead, the city must be required to go to that community (be it a physical community or otherwise). It's somewhat appropriately ironic that these constituent convseration sessions seem to be doing just that, to a degree anyway.
Moving along, there was the simple phrase "ask before design." This is something of an over-simplified reduction of the idea that no real decisions should be made until and unless the impacted communities have been involved in the process itself.
This next item, I confess, I do not actually understand. It must be shorthand for part of the earlier discussion, but nothing in my notes is triking a chord. The item? "Did the process build on a relationship?" I have no idea what it means.
Continuing, we run right into an item which was discussed with some interest during the open conversation. There is, it was argued, a question of scale: "In a city of people so close and densely together, it doesn't seem feasible for four or five people to adequately represent or administrate all the details that go into being a community." Increasing the real input and real involvement of, for example, the neighborhood associations, which exist day-to-day out in Portland itself, would help provide for a "more diverse representation."
Another of the single-vote items is something that has arisen repeatedly during the work of the public involvement task force: Holding more City Council meetings in the evening, allowing for more partcipation and attendance by people who, well, work for a living. This item seems to pretty much be a no-brainer, and never seems to result in any criticism from other participants in these discussions.
Rounding out the list of one-vote items is, first off, something of a repeat: Allocate a percent of the city'd budget to neighborhoods for the purposes of public involvement. There seemed to be general agreement that any truly effective and legitimate public involvement process is going to require funds to properly support.
Lastly, a need was seen for giving the neighborhoods access to legal advice. The premise here was that other parties involved in projects and decisions impacting one part of the city or another have enough of a financial foundation to easily access such legal advice, putting neighborhood associations -- and the communities they represent -- at a decided disadvantage.
Believe it or not, this is hardly all of what the participants in this discussion had to offer the debate over public involvement standards. A good number of other good proposals and observations were made, and I might get to some of them at a later date.
For the purposes of this report, I wanted to focus on the fifteen items the group ended up "voting" for as the most important. Especially because my intent here is to generate similar reports on some of the other constituency sessions, for comparative purposes. Focusing on what the sessions themselves deem most important, therefore, will make those comparisons less cumbersome here.