August 14, 2004
New Mayor Should Call A Strategic Plan Summit
Counter-Proposal To Potter's Plan To Hold All Bureaus
At various points during the last week or so, we made reference to a pair of Randy Gragg articles in The Oregonian addressing the Mayoral candidates Jim Francesconi and Tom Potter. Our original intention was to see what should be brought into discussion here from each of these articles, but upon reflection during the last hour, we've decided that what we want to do instead is focus on one aspect of Potter's campaign, which comes up again in Gragg's piece on Potter:
I ask him to describe the first days of a Potter mayorship. The former police chief says he would become the city's CEO, taking over every bureau and directing the chiefs to create a four-point action plan to better serve customers, empower employees, achieve racial parity with the community in 12 months and re-establish citizen advisory committees for every city department.
(Since we're focusing on Potter's idea here, we're not discussing Gragg's article on Francesconi. But now you at least have the link to it.)
After a primary campaign where the greatest criticism against Potter was a lack of specificity, this plan to control all City bureaus for the first six months in office during the budget process has received a fair amount of attention. Until today, we were ambivalent, or undecided, on whether or not it was a worthwhile approach.
This evening we decided that it isn't. But rather than merely outline our criticisms of the plan, we're going to offer what we think is a better alternative -- and one, in fact, that bettter fits Potter's rhetoric about public involvement. It also offers a better match to the filter we called an ethic of accessibility through which we said we were going to try to filter policies and proposals we cover here.
As indicated above, Potter's plan revolves around taking all City bureaus into his own portfolio for his first six months in office, during the budgeting process, in essence to direct all of them to create some form of strategic plan -- and presumably to create such plans in ways that are complimentary and somewhat cooordinated. We have no quarrel nor quibble with that goal. But we believe that reaching for that goal by attempting to administer all 20-plus City bureaus at once seems not only too daunting and clumsy a method, but one that contradicts Potter's support for community involvement in City affairs.
In the past, the City has conducted community forums during the budget process. Our proposal to Potter (or, for that matter, his opponent) is to greatly expand upon that idea.
Rather than take temporary control over all bureaus, the new Mayor should make bureau assignments to members of the City Council as is normally the case -- but on the condition (in a sense) that all commissioners and all bureau heads will participate in a six-month summit of sorts, consisting of a series of public hearings to discuss each individual bureau and its strategic plan.
Yes, that would mean an intense and sustained workload for six months straight, as a series of 20-plus public hearings are held, one for each bureau, to generate City and community discussion as to how each bureau can best focus its responsibilities.
In some sense, such a six-month Strategic Plan Summit would be even more audacious than Potter's intention to control all bureaus on his own for that same time period. Certainly, it would require no small effort from all five members of the City Council, all bureau heads, and all interested members of the community. While it would be asking a great deal from all concerned, it would maintain the involvement of (not to mention good will amongst) all Council members -- something the new Mayor, no matter who it is, would be wise to heed.
It also avoids even the appearance of a mayor/council form of government. We've defended commission government before, and since we're certain that another attempt to change it to something else is inevitable, we're wary of anything that might give such an attempt a boost.
The notion of strategic plans is one that has arisen repeatedly during ths campaigns for Mayor and City Council this year. It's a common theme that we fully expect to be addressed and implemented in some fashion no matter which candidates are elected in November.
But as it stands today, there's no real sense from Francesconi as to how he'd approach the creation of such plans, and Potter's idea doesn't reflect what we've come to expect from Portland in terms of community involvement, and our support for an ethic of accessibility.
So we offer into the mix our own proposal. Whoever is elected Mayor should call for a six-month Strategic Plan Summit, enfranchising members of Council, bureau heads, and the community-at-large into the discussion. It calls upon Francesconi's emphasis on the basics and creating focus and also upon Potter's emphasis on community dialogue.
Everyone's goal appears to be for all City bureaus to formulate clear plans to guide their responsibilities, and do so in a coordinated way to make the City as a whole more focused in its responsibilities. So let's do it in the Portland way, accessible to everyone (City Council included).
If nothing else, it's a Big Idea that perhaps both Francesconi and Potter could apppreciate from their own perspectives.
Posted at 08:41 PM | PermalinkComments (7) | TrackBacks (1)
More In 2004 Mayoral Campaign, Metro-Area Politics
Trackbacks (1)
-
A Strategic Plan Summit for Portland, OR on 14 Aug 2004
The One True b!X has a post entitled New Mayor Should Call A Strategic Plan Summit. The following is an excerpt. As indicated above, Potter's plan revolves around taking all City bureaus into his own portfolio for his first six months in office,...
Comments (7)
The One True b!X on 14 Aug 2004
Extra bonus advantage: With each bureau receiving its own specific public hearing, the local papers would have the opportunity to write pieces explaining to Portlanders each bureau's responsibilities, and each one's history. The "summit" would provide a doorway into a sustained six-month public education in how City government functions.
Chris Woo on 15 Aug 2004
For a candidate who believes that community participation is so central to good government, I think it highly unlikely that Tom would overlook such a critical component to his plan.
That said, I think you're point focuses things in the right direction.
The One True b!X on 15 Aug 2004
For a candidate who believes that community participation is so central to good government, I think it highly unlikely that Tom would overlook such a critical component to his plan.
Oh, I don't either. I just think that we can capitalize on a larger potential for constructive involvement by all relevant parties (as well as the bonus educational benefits) if he didn't try to do it all out of the Mayor's office.
Jim on 15 Aug 2004
Having spent over a decade in public service, most of it as Senior Staff Assistant to then-County Chair Beverly Stein specifically focused on public involvement, I can say with authority that this is great idea with many, many opportunities to go wrong.
The key matter, and I think it would be good to adopt this language from the start, is to focus on “meaningful community involvement.” At least this sets the stage for the question “what is meaningful and what is not?” I’ve seen hundreds of acts of bad theater pass as informing elected officials on the public interest. (b!X, you were already on this track when you mentioned “constructive” involvement, and as boring as it may become, I think it’s essential to add such a modifier every time this is discussed.)
I could write a thesis on this, but instead I’ll just note three starting points:
* I’ve worked directly with Tom, and indirectly with Jim, and regardless of where their hearts are, or their political beliefs are, I’m not convinced that either has the skill set to pull this off in a meaningful way. Hiring the right person and giving him or her the authority and the freedom from politics to direct this project would be the key, but I wonder if either Tom or Jim could do that well.
* It’s a self-imposed limitation to focus on “hearings” as the modality for implementing a meaningful community involvement process. Yes this is the most familiar process; but there are many other processes, many of them designed and field-tested locally, and nearly all of them have huge advantages over traditional hearings.
* The “bonus educational benefits” can be quickly reversed by shoddy editing, reporting, and headline writing. Look at how often the Oregonian and local TV news programs and the AP got the facts of the gay marriage story fundamentally wrong. Without a thoughtful media-oversight component to this, the public could be MIS-educated about civic affairs, making things worse rather than better.
But don’t get me wrong — I think this is a great idea. It’s just that a great idea and a great implementation are two different matters, and BOTH are needed for a great outcome.
wally on 15 Aug 2004
* It’s a self-imposed limitation to focus on “hearings” as the modality for implementing a meaningful community involvement process. Yes this is the most familiar process; but there are many other processes, many of them designed and field-tested locally, and nearly all of them have huge advantages over traditional hearings.
What are the other modalities besides hearings? Which one would be most useful in this situation (for both involving and educating the public)?
Jim on 15 Aug 2004
I will be gone for the rest of the day, but I'll try to pull up some old documents and give a thoughtful response to Wally's question tomorrow. ;)
Robert Bole on 16 Aug 2004
Another thing to consider in an extended citizen-input model is the ability to maintain that process as the plan veers off the tracks over time, as it inevitably will do so.
We all know that life is chaotic and that small decisions and events can add up to move whole systems, indeed swiftly, from the commonly-agreed goals.
While an open, sincere and flexible strategic summit process can produce a positive initial outcome and direction for the city, the question is how do you correct over time?
How do you balance the expectations of involvement and transparency with the daily business of running the city that can quickly move away from the strategy?
I am wary of building complicated systems of public involvement if there are not the resources and unanimous support of the commissioners, agency directors, etc. to maintain such as system over time.
Such as system goes beyond expectations of involvement into actual mechanics of converting popular sentiment into concrete directions for the city's managers.
In some ways, I think that if a leader can be transparent enough about their views and decision-making than that can enhance community involvement as much as the possiblity of having rounds of specfic public input.