November 15, 2003
(Updated) Neighborhoods To ONI: Return To Your Roots
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
As we head towards next year's 30th anniversary of Portland's neighborhood system, an increasing number of neighborhoods appear to have growing concerns that the Office of Neighborhood Involvement has drifted too far from its original mission, and needs to retun to its origins.
Initially conceived simply as a means to create neighborhood representation and participation in the life of the City, critics of today's ONI worry that the increasing addition of the responsibility to provide City services is pushing the bureau away from its core mission, relegating neighborhood residents to the role of consumers rather than citizens.
Critics see this growth as an unchecked and unfair growth of the city�s neighborhood structure. Neighborhood volunteers might wonder why they do not see a proportionate increase in services. There are two things to consider in looking at the numbers. First, the vast majority are not directly related to the bureau�s original reason for existence - direct support for neighborhood volunteers. The second is that the bureau�s most rapid growth, especially within the last year, has been the transfer of long-established functions from other bureaus into ONI.
This is the underlying fear -- to take just one example -- which manifests itself in opposition to Commissioner Randy Leonard's proposal to create so-called "mini City Halls" across Portland, affording residents more direct and neighborhood-based access to various City services.
While many critics of this plan too often manage to mischaracterize it, usually by erroneously claiming that it intends to usurp the offices and staff of neighborhood coalitions (when, in fact, it merely intends to situate existing City staff, currently centralized downtown, in the neighborhoods they're charged with serving), it's clear to me after today's neighborhood summit that opposition to this plan is not necesarily based on a belief that distributing access to City services is itself a bad idea, but rather on the belief that doing so under ONI auspices will dilute the bureau -- or, to their minds, continue to do so -- and distract from its intended purpose.
In essence, what these neighborhood residents want is for ONI to provide information, training, and resources (including funding) for neighborhoods; and to advocate for neighborhood access to and involvement in City processes. And that's pretty much it.
There was much discussion today about what structural changes might be necessary in order to help return ONI to something more akin to its original intention. At one end of the spectrum, neighborhoods seek, at the very least, to have input when the Mayor assigns a ONI to a new Commissioner. At the other end, some neighborhood residents seek to place ONI itself under the auspices of a board consisting of representatives from neighborhood coalitions.
The logic for this last is as follows: Other bureaus are arguably appropriate for a more top-down management approach (notwithstanding various public involvement elements) -- but not ONI. In essense, they want ONI to be a bottom-up bureau whose authority comes from below, not from above. Some suggestions were made that as a potential interim step in such a transition, ONI could be put under the authority of the City Auditor, thereby removing it from the politics of the City Council itself.
To be honest, in all the time I've tried to follow developments at ONI since I started this site, until today I'd not heard such a direct challenge to ONI being operated by a member of the City Council. Rather, much of the discussion I'd heard centered around the creation of some sort of "neighborhood congress" to exert decision-making pressure upon the Council that way. But more than once today, that idea was ridiculed by other residents as a needless addition of yet another layer of City bureaucracy, regardless of it coming from the bottom.
There's something to be said for the idea of reversing the authority of ONI and placing it under the control of a neighborhood board. And there's no reason that the "mini City Hall" idea (and all of the various City services already provided through ONI) could not still be instituted through some other bureau, or as a cooperative effort amongst relevant bureaus.
Interestingly, such an approach would also take some of the political heat off the Commissioners themselves. While they would still take such heat if neighborhoods continue to feel unheard, the operation and very relevance of ONI and Portland's neighborhoods would rest entirely within the hands of the neighborhoods themselves. Provided proper resources, it would be entirely up to the neighborhoods themselves to make it work for them.
I continue to believe that distributing access to City services is a smart move. Further, I think it just as smart to situate that access, whenever possible, in the same physical locations which house neighborhood associations or coalitions.
But (to use a term I dislike) the paradigm shift of inverting the direction of authority for ONI may very well be the key to reinvigorating Portland's 30-year experiment in institutionalized neighborhood involvement. And that reverse would necessitate that service provision -- a top-down activity if there ever was one -- would need to cease being ONI's responsibility.
It's unlikely that service provision will cease to be an ONI responsibility any time soon. And even if neighborhoods agitate for obtaining direct control of the bureau, there's no reason to not keep an eye on the pilot project for "mini City Halls" in the meantime, with the intent of supporting the idea, but only if it is utlimately transferred to some other bureau or bureaus before it's rolled out citywide.
Such an authority reversal would in not way mean that the City could pull back from its goal of instituting standards for public involvement, since every bureau is responsible for such activities. But it would mean that everything else neighborhoods are seeking to have through ONI -- the sharing of information, training, resources, bottom-up decision-making -- would be in the hands of the neighborhoods themselves.
Which is good both for the neighborhoods, who would find themselves with the challenge of both the power and the responsibility, and for the Commissioners, who would find themselves freed from the ever-growing crticisms of neighborhoods that their bureau appears to no longer truly be theirs.
Update
In addition to the "neighborhood congress" idea referenced above (or perhaps related to it), one other piece of literature being distributed at yesterday's summit was a fact sheet on a proposal for a neighborhood council:
We need a new Neighborhood Council elected by the voters in addition to the City Council. That council would consist of one member for every 5000 residents. Instead of replacing the City Council it would share authority with it. Every city ordinance would have to be approved by both the City Council and by the Neighborhood Council.
If supporters of this idea happen to come across this item, I'm sure to get slammed for arguing that the last thing City politics needs is yet another governing body inserting itself into every single decision made by the City Council. Involvement? Sure. But another institution? That's entirely the wrong direction.
Comments (10)
steve on 15 Nov 2003
I missed Commissioner Leonard's speech in the morning but it sounds like it epitomized the problem with (lack of) neighborhood involvement and in P town. Randy Leonard as Commissioner of ONI has become an oxymoron.
Sorry, someone else will have to post the details. But I do know he felt compelled to address the reservoir issue before his "main" speech which, once again citing the "dead body" event of last winter and how sorry he feels for anyone drinking the water at that time. It got worse I hear. This man may actually be on a par with George W. He rambled on overtime and, when nudged that the show must move on, he said, "no." He seemed arrogant and stupid.
But he summed himself up best by virtue of staying 30 minutes out of a 7-hour event.
The One True b!X on 15 Nov 2003
I have fairly full notes from Leonard's remarks, but I'm holding off on that part of the story. Partly because I'm just plain tapped out in terms of getting stuff written up from today, and partly because I'm betting that Leonard-relevant coverage will appear in other coverage of the event, and I can use those articles as a framework for adding observations from my own notes. This probably means a delay until Monday morning, presuming at least The Oregonian has something in that edition.
Randy Leonard on 16 Nov 2003
B!X-
No one loves a good, strong spirited debate more than I do. However, It is amazing to me that someone could start a posting with
"I missed Leonard's speech but...."
And then go on to make judgments and comments about what he had "heard"....including mistakenly telling your readers I was there for 30 minutes.
In fact, I sat painstakingly through each speech, some of which were as full of accurate information as was Steve's posting here.
As a lifelong Portland resident who began his political career as a representative to the NE Coalition of Neighborhoods in 1975, I am deeply disappointed that some neighborhood activists/leaders seem to feel at liberty to say anything -whether true/accurate or not- to stop any change that I or the ONI staff propose.
Their claims that there was no outreach or decision processing are just flat false....and they continue to make that claim even after I recreated for them from my calendar the many neighborhood meetings and mass e-mails where these concepts have been discussed and modified as a result of public input. I will not list the false claims and misleading exaggerations that were made by invited speakers at yesterdays forum....but for anyone wanting to actually know the facts of neighborhood service centers or any of the other initiatives we are discussing at ONI, the speeches yesterday were more a forum for individuals to promote their own agendas (one of the invited speakers has been quoted in the media as intending to run against me) than it was a forum to have an honest discussion of our collective visions of the future of neighborhoods and ONI's role with helping us all get there.
The not so secret secret around local government in Portland and Multnomah County is that some neighborhood activists and leaders are uncompromising and reactionary to any idea that is not their own. While they are in a distinct minority, their volume would at times make it appear as though they are in the majority.
Some -and I want to emphasize a very few some- neighborhood activists allow no room for error and employ the "gotcha" kind of politics we observed when President Clinton was hounded by an element that fought everything he stood for. To propose any new way of doing business at ONI is to invite the ax of political anarchy to fall on your neck.
Notwithstanding that barrier to change, I have tried to remember that there is a huge underserved population who are separated from better services by this daunting force against reason and change.
After hearing what I did yesterday, I am more focused than ever to get to that place.
Randy
The One True b!X on 16 Nov 2003
Ignore this. I'm suddenly having trouble posting items, and want to see if comments are busted as well.
Anne on 16 Nov 2003
As someone who stayed for the entire Summit and heard every speech and presentation, including Commissioner Leonard's, (just before he left for the day), I am not surprised that my previous evaluation of him as someone who reaches conclusions without considering other viewpoints is accurate. We used to call it poorly informed. To put down a speaker because he had announced his intention at one point to challenge the Commissioner for his seat on the Council seems to forget that we have an open political process which welcomes differing views and hopefully offers at least two good candidates in every race. To say that the voices heard at the Summit were somehow a small group of dissidents who just wanted to make trouble could have been tested had Commissioner Leonard actually taken the time to speak to any of us personally. His statement about numerous neighborhood association meetings and contacts is simply untrue. And, as a supporter of President Clinton, I dispute the suggestion that opposition to Commissioner Leonard has any similarity at all to what went on with President Clinton. I, for one, don't want to "hound" anyone from office. I want to tell someone I elected that he is not doing the job in the way he promised when he ran for office; that he has broken his promise by becoming the worst kind of insider; that he has manipulated and misused his power over bureaus assigned to him to institute ideas without regards to their cost or future effectiveness; and that he has failed to make sure the public voice is heard and considered in what he does while in office as an elected representative. His lack of respect for both the public and an open public decision making process, as well as for individual citizens with views different than his own, make him unacceptable to this citizen activist who takes government of the people, by the people, and for the people seriously.
Randy Leonard on 17 Nov 2003
B!X-
In the interest of full disclosure, "Anne" is in fact Bonnie McKnight....another person who has indicated she may challenge me in next years election.
Randy Leonard (real name)
Charles Heying on 17 Nov 2003
Below I have posted the comments I delivered at the opening of the neighborhood summit.
Good morning, I am Charles Heying, Board member of Southeast Uplift and Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association. In a few minutes we will begin a discussion that will help shape the future of our City’s neighborhood system. As a point of departure for that discussion we have before us Commissioner Leonard’s proposal to make the Coalition offices into mini-city halls. While this proposal is a radical departure from the historic purpose of the Neighborhood system it is a continuation of the recent drift of ONI away from its activists roots toward becoming decentralized outposts for city bureaucracies. This drift is demonstrated in the budget priorities of ONI. Currently, 80% of ONIs budget pays for city services and only 20% is directed toward neighborhood initiatives.
All policy proposals have implications for democratic process. The proposal to turn the Coalition offices into mini-city halls is no exception. I believe it has all the characteristics of what political theorist; Benjamin Barber has called “weak democracy”. In a weak democracy, citizens are reframed as consumers of city services. Their participatory role is relegated to an occasional opportunity to either affirm or deny the electoral ambitions of political entrepreneurs. Policy directions are shaped by vested interests, articulated by politicians, and implemented by bureaucratic professionals.
In the weak democracy model, citizen participation is determined from the top. When citizens participate, it is at the “invitation” of public officials. Public officials choose who will participate; they frame the agenda, shape the contours of the discussion, determine the schedule, and “manage” the process so it reaches their intended outcomes. In essence, this process underpowers democratic involvement because it constructs citizens as misinformed and narrowly interested. Citizen action is seen an uncomfortable and politically dangerous bump in the road on the way to good policy determined by the enlightened elite.
The founding and early years of Portland’s Neighborhood system suggests a very different vision of democracy, what Benjamin Barber has called “strong democracy.” In these early years, there was a consensus that an empowered citizenry and active neighborhoods were essential to maintaining quality of life and a vibrant urban environment. It recognized that citizenship and civic competence require sustenance at the grassroots. In creating the Office of Neighborhood Associations, the City committed itself to supporting and maintaining neighborhood organizing. It was understood that a City functions best when neighborhoods and the city work together. This does not mean an absence of tension, far from it, it means the generation of creative tension, the friction of good ideas being tempered by open dialogue. It was expected that this process would generate a new flow of political participants from empowered neighborhoods. In this strong democracy model the neighborhood organizations become the source of civic innovation and grassroots activism.
Today will we engage this question again; we can choose the path of weak democracy represented by the mini-city hall approach or the path of strong democracy and reclaim our historic legacy.
Charles Heying on 17 Nov 2003
I was present at the conference for the entire day and found it most refreshing and hopeful. I was particularly encouraged to see that Commissioner Leonard's opening comments did not go unchallenged. Immediately following his presentation, one person challenged statements he had made about the rehiring of crime prevention specialist. Another person ask a very relevant question regarding campaign financing of the elections. When I had my opportunity to speak, I was able to challenge Leonard's characterization of his interaction with the Friends of the Reservoirs, of which I am an active member. Commissioner Leonard used a considerable amount of his alloted 10 minutes to address his reasons for his support of the burial project. Consistent with his past responses, he continued the process of building the case around fear rather than reason.
Commissioner Leonard sited the death of Glenn Russell Behnke in a Mt. Tabor reservoir. Instead of referring to him by name, Commissioner Leonard denied him his humanity even in death by characterizing him as a "homeless person" and intimated (without evidence) that he might have had a communicable disease. Commissioner Leonard then went on to express his concern for the persons who might have consumed water before the valves were shut off. His concern is an interesting contrast to the immediate assurances by the water bureau on the day of the occurrence that the water was completely safe to drink. The water bureau is well aware that any issues of contamination are mitigated by the huge volumes of water in the reservoirs. As with nearly all other contaminants, the solution is dilution.
Perhaps the best piece I have read on the matter of Mr. Behnke's death was Jim Redden's 1/24/2003 Tribune article written after they reviewed the video tapes of the event. Below are selected quotes from the article:
"At first glance, Behnke's death seemed to show that the reservoirs are vulnerable to attack. But a review of the surveillance footage indicates that the incident that led to Behnke's death could have been avoided if police had simply escorted him out of the park."
"The council may have decided that the reservoirs are potential terrorist targets, but it has not given police special instructions to move unauthorized people away from them."
Returning to Commissioner Leonard remarks to the Neighborhood Summit, he also used more than his alloted time to apprise the audience of his operating style. His anecdotal references to his years on the fire bureau were revealing. He is a self-described command and control person and I think that this is evident in his approach to politics and administration. He gives the commands, he is in control. He is willing to consult as long as it is on his terms and with those who do not challenge him. If you challenge him, he goes into attack mode, as he has with the persons who have posted on this list. If you continue to disagree either with his ideas, their implementation, or his style, he characterizes this failure to come to heel as "uncompromizing" and he does his best to marginalize those who are making the comments.
His actions and style are having their affect on the people in the bureaus who are afraid for their jobs. During the day, I had a long conversation with an employee of one of the bureaus in Leonards Portfolio (I will not reveal either the bureau or the persons name because they have asked me not to). The employee's story is consistent with those of others we have heard that Commissioner Leonard is making decisions that will not increase efficiency or access to services. That decsions are made without consultation and without a good sense of what will work. The conversation also confirmed that employees are afraid for their jobs.
But, as I said, the neighborhoods had a good day despite all. There were real conversations, real ideas, and specific proposals for a better ONI. I don't think that Commissioner Leonard would have gotten much by staying around. This is the slow and tedious business of working out ideas with others. By his own assessment, it is not something he is comfortable with. He would rather be leaping into action, putting out fires. While these are absolutely critical skills in emergency work, I believe that good political work requires a different set of analytical and collaborative skills. This is especially true for the person charged with oversight of ONI, whose mission is to encourage policy discourse and participation from the grassroots.
Randy Leonard on 17 Nov 2003
Charles-
Thanks for the comments. I would like to make just two points.
1- I have communicated to the SEUL Chair and members of your board that if the coalition does not want a service center located within SEUL's building then no service center will be located there. We are attempting to locate buildings that will enhance community participation...not weaken it. For an example, we are working with the Woodstock Community to keep open their Community Center that is scheduled to close next July 1st due to budget cuts. We will place city workers involved with neighborhood livability issues into the Woodstock Community Center thereby keeping the Community Center open and available to the neighborhood for the Community to use as it has been. We are having the same discussions to keep the Overlook House open that is also scheduled to close next July 1st.
2- Your point about me needing to process decisions more is a point well taken. In fact, I attempted to acknowledge that shortcoming of mine in my remarks at the summit. I am committed to attempting to include more stakeholders in major policy changes at ONI.
Randy Leonard
Bonny Anne McKnight on 17 Nov 2003
I just wanted to thank Commissioner Leonard for fully identying my response. The fact that the comments were attributed to Anne was a reflection of my lack of skill in posting to this site. I, of course, have always spoken clearly in public about me views. I expect others to challenge Commissioner Leonard in next year's election. I will continue to work as a citizen volunteer doing everything I can to make sure my elected officials are accountable for their actions.
Bonny (Anne) McKnight