Communities of Interest Mtg 12 March 2009
Agenda
600-615pm Introductions
615-645pm Initial Questions, Review of CoI Document
645-715pm Additional Questions, Working Plan
715-730pm Closing
Meeting
1. How are Communities of Interest integrated into the CPP system?
2. How can an ‘organic’ organization of communities ensure democratic voice in deliberation?
3. Based on conflicting interest no single view point should dominate, how to construct a fully deliberative system?
4. What are the values for inclusion that need to be established to attract CoI groups?
5. How can issues of autonomy be respected by inclusion within a CPP system? How is CPP different from other processes and what other groups are doing? Is CPP just another organization?
6. Who are the CoI groups we need to reach out to?
7. How can CoI groups be mobilized and help mobilize others to support the CPP?
8. Will CPP distinguish non-profit service providers from advocacy groups?
9. Local government needs citizens much more than we need them? Government needs the organizing energy, the technical capacity and the expertise based in communities to govern the city.
10. Getting stakeholders involved for more effective governance. Not democracy as a catch phrase.
11. Working backward from necessary city agencies to develop CoI’s to insert within each departmental body. Start with the connecting points in city government and work backward.
12. This however may not address desires for inclusion without some specific standard or guidelines.
13. Every department should have a defined CoI constituency and every constituency should have a defined point of contact within city departments to operate.
14. Can we create an example for the next meeting to run a game model of what the system could look like functioning?
15. Identify central CoI that need to be included in our discussion.
16. How to build in “comeback” incentives for community groups that feel their perspective was not given precedence?
Monday, March 23, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Org. Structure Notes
9 March 2009
I. District Neighborhood Councils
a. Boundaries: by planning district or other form?
1. Issue of funding will ultimately determine make up of District Councils. Can’t have too many, can’t have too few that would be cumbersome for District staff.
2. Staffing limits may not be the best criteria. Having staff assigned to specific geographic areas is good but we shouldn’t be creating a new layer. Do we need a regular gathering of people at the planning district level, can we allow for smaller units to address more regular needs and bring people together at planning level for specific issues and needs?
3. By not organizing around planning districts we may build inequity into the system. Due to the spatial concentration of poverty vs. high income areas; advanced education vs. lower education attainment etc. It is important to go forward with a clearly defined structure and not leave it to neighborhoods to develop that structure. By leaving it to neighborhoods it leaves it too vulnerable to political manipulation and control.
4. Decisions concerning the immediate geography should go through the neighborhood association and be delivered through the appropriate District Neighborhood Council.
5. Don’t discount NA’s that see themselves to be the “last word”. How will we get “hardheaded” NA’s to play when they’ve already been so successful in the past?
6. When thinking about boundaries we have to be mindful of the fact that while planning districts might work best for land and zoning issues, other districts may allow for more rational organization for other issues identified by the scope of activities.
7. Where is the actual authorization to create the structure coming from? NA’s that have strong ties to council persons may not see a benefit of joining a District Council.
8. The group began to coalesce around the idea of forming the District Councils geographically around existing planning districts.
9. If we are going to have to revolve around planning districts, a group of neighborhoods should have the option to choose themselves which district they prefer to be a part of if they cross boundaries.
II. Standards
1. Would like to see more emphasis on inequalities and building equity into the system. There may be some communities of interest that even in the best case scenarios will not be integrated into neighborhoods.
2. The standards and guidelines are established to build equity into the system.
3. Groups that don’t adequately represent the entire neighborhood are not NA’s but a community of interest group.
4. ORDA is developing a neighborhood assistance program to help neighborhoods take on physical neighborhood projects, funded by matching grants including in-kind services. To develop sustainable neighborhood groups, that are representative and not just a power block at the neighborhood level.
I. District Neighborhood Councils
a. Boundaries: by planning district or other form?
1. Issue of funding will ultimately determine make up of District Councils. Can’t have too many, can’t have too few that would be cumbersome for District staff.
2. Staffing limits may not be the best criteria. Having staff assigned to specific geographic areas is good but we shouldn’t be creating a new layer. Do we need a regular gathering of people at the planning district level, can we allow for smaller units to address more regular needs and bring people together at planning level for specific issues and needs?
3. By not organizing around planning districts we may build inequity into the system. Due to the spatial concentration of poverty vs. high income areas; advanced education vs. lower education attainment etc. It is important to go forward with a clearly defined structure and not leave it to neighborhoods to develop that structure. By leaving it to neighborhoods it leaves it too vulnerable to political manipulation and control.
4. Decisions concerning the immediate geography should go through the neighborhood association and be delivered through the appropriate District Neighborhood Council.
5. Don’t discount NA’s that see themselves to be the “last word”. How will we get “hardheaded” NA’s to play when they’ve already been so successful in the past?
6. When thinking about boundaries we have to be mindful of the fact that while planning districts might work best for land and zoning issues, other districts may allow for more rational organization for other issues identified by the scope of activities.
7. Where is the actual authorization to create the structure coming from? NA’s that have strong ties to council persons may not see a benefit of joining a District Council.
8. The group began to coalesce around the idea of forming the District Councils geographically around existing planning districts.
9. If we are going to have to revolve around planning districts, a group of neighborhoods should have the option to choose themselves which district they prefer to be a part of if they cross boundaries.
II. Standards
1. Would like to see more emphasis on inequalities and building equity into the system. There may be some communities of interest that even in the best case scenarios will not be integrated into neighborhoods.
2. The standards and guidelines are established to build equity into the system.
3. Groups that don’t adequately represent the entire neighborhood are not NA’s but a community of interest group.
4. ORDA is developing a neighborhood assistance program to help neighborhoods take on physical neighborhood projects, funded by matching grants including in-kind services. To develop sustainable neighborhood groups, that are representative and not just a power block at the neighborhood level.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Ten Minute Briefing on New Orleans' Recovery: Feb 16, 2009
Population, Housing, Economy and Infrastructure 3 1/2 years after Katrina. Plus, update on how New Orleans is faring relative to the national recession, and policy recommendation for the Federal Office of Gulf Coast Recovery. From the New Orleans Index, a collaboration between the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center and the Brookings Institution.
http://www.vimeo.com/3287296
http://www.vimeo.com/3287296
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
This weekend, on 28 February 2009, the NOLA-CPP hosted its first Town Hall Breakfast to discuss the 1st draft of the New Orleans Citizen Participation Program model. The event, held at the Ashe’ Cultural Arts Center was co-hosted by the Central City Renaissance Alliance and the Central City Partnership.
People from across the city came out to have a good breakfast and discuss the proposal for a new Citizen Participation System. Notes from the discussion are attached to this email as well as e-copies of the new Citizen Participation Project Toolkit and the actual Draft Guidelines and Standards reviewed at the breakfast.
There was great enthusiasm about the draft as people began to understand how truly unique and innovative a model it was. The residents who have been coming together since July to discuss the creation of the Citizen Participation Program have crafted a model that brings together the diversity of the New Orleans’ community by recognizing that civic engagement and needs to reach as many voices as possible to be effective.
To do this the Organizational Structure Team has settled on a model for the CPP system that includes a geographic basis for organizing Neighborhood Associations as well as a social or thematic basis for organizing Communities of Interests. At the town hall meeting on Saturday we had an audience of people representing both [geographic] Neighborhood groups and [social] Community groups. Both types of civil
society organization have a great deal to offer the other and as the system is developed we hope to see more partnerships emerge through dialogue and problem solving.
We were also pleased to have staff members from the offices of Council-Persons Mrs. Jackie Clarkson and Mr. Arnie Fielkow. Follow-up meetings with other Council Persons as well as members of the City Planning Commission and ORDA are being planned to keep them all informed of our work and get important feedback.
While we presented the 1st draft of the new CPP model to the public on Saturday, our discussions do not stop there. We plan to have the final draft completed by late May 2009. Now we need to refocus our Action Team discussions around the proposed structure we created. We will continue meetings with the Organizational Structure team that will continue working on the structure and policy of the CPP.
In addition, in the next few days we will be sending out meeting dates to restart the discussion began in 2008 with other Action Teams such as;
1. Financing a CPP
2. Public Access to Information and Data
3. Race, Gender and Class perspectives of Citizen Participation
4. Scope of Activities
5. Civic Education and Capacity Building
6.Outreach and Inclusion
In addition to these familiar topics, we are creating a new Team to help us specifically address the inclusion and creation of Community of Interest Councils in the CPP system. Questions on the proper structure, rules of engagement, accountability and others will be of major concern as that group’s discussion moves forward.
We hope that you will work with us and build on the great energy we experienced on Saturday to complete the CPP model by May 2009.
People from across the city came out to have a good breakfast and discuss the proposal for a new Citizen Participation System. Notes from the discussion are attached to this email as well as e-copies of the new Citizen Participation Project Toolkit and the actual Draft Guidelines and Standards reviewed at the breakfast.
There was great enthusiasm about the draft as people began to understand how truly unique and innovative a model it was. The residents who have been coming together since July to discuss the creation of the Citizen Participation Program have crafted a model that brings together the diversity of the New Orleans’ community by recognizing that civic engagement and needs to reach as many voices as possible to be effective.
To do this the Organizational Structure Team has settled on a model for the CPP system that includes a geographic basis for organizing Neighborhood Associations as well as a social or thematic basis for organizing Communities of Interests. At the town hall meeting on Saturday we had an audience of people representing both [geographic] Neighborhood groups and [social] Community groups. Both types of civil
society organization have a great deal to offer the other and as the system is developed we hope to see more partnerships emerge through dialogue and problem solving.
We were also pleased to have staff members from the offices of Council-Persons Mrs. Jackie Clarkson and Mr. Arnie Fielkow. Follow-up meetings with other Council Persons as well as members of the City Planning Commission and ORDA are being planned to keep them all informed of our work and get important feedback.
While we presented the 1st draft of the new CPP model to the public on Saturday, our discussions do not stop there. We plan to have the final draft completed by late May 2009. Now we need to refocus our Action Team discussions around the proposed structure we created. We will continue meetings with the Organizational Structure team that will continue working on the structure and policy of the CPP.
In addition, in the next few days we will be sending out meeting dates to restart the discussion began in 2008 with other Action Teams such as;
1. Financing a CPP
2. Public Access to Information and Data
3. Race, Gender and Class perspectives of Citizen Participation
4. Scope of Activities
5. Civic Education and Capacity Building
6.Outreach and Inclusion
In addition to these familiar topics, we are creating a new Team to help us specifically address the inclusion and creation of Community of Interest Councils in the CPP system. Questions on the proper structure, rules of engagement, accountability and others will be of major concern as that group’s discussion moves forward.
We hope that you will work with us and build on the great energy we experienced on Saturday to complete the CPP model by May 2009.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Notes, CPP Meeting, 1.5.09
Notes, CPP Meeting, 1/5/09
The meeting was called to discuss a list of questions/points that needed to be resolved in order to move forward with rewriting a new draft CPP.
It was noted at the beginning of the meeting that it needs to be made clear that the CPP is neither a challenge to nor an intrusion into our role or function of our elected representatives.
The role of the CPP is to organize the process of communication between city leaders and residents. Residents need to have more clarity and structure to the process of citizen engagement in public discussions and the decisions that impact them. A structure that provides some standards for the incorporation of resident input and accountability when decisions are made contrary to the expressed views of the impacted community.
City officials need to be confident that when they request input from residents on important decisions, that input reflects and is the result of a legitimate process of dialogue.
CPP is ultimately a process of information sharing and a way for communities to impact the “pathway to decision-making”. CPP will not produce statements such as “this is what the CPP says/wants/endorses” but instead be a tool to gauge opinions, ideas, and desires of communities to enhance decisions that the city takes.
First question discussed:
Currently the CPP was originally proposed working off of a three-tiered system model, which rises from Neighborhood Councils, District Councils (planning district), and a Citizens Voice Council at the city-wide level. Is this a good system to work from, or should it be revisited?
- Original draft that we agreed to use was based upon these 3 tiers
- 3 tiers represent the different levels of analysis for the issues
- The tiers enable the organization of participation around specific issues.
- Question: How will differences in population impact the tier structure?
- Question/Comment: In order to determine the right structure, more discussion on the actual role or function of each structure needs to be addressed.
Neighborhood Council level-
- Example: Carrollton Area Network; CAN is not just the neighborhoods but also businesses and nonprofits in the area
- CAN does not control or supersede the neighborhoods within it; Neighborhoods do not have to all agree on an issue to be a part of the council.
- Used for informational, networking, and development purposes
- Question: Does the council system effectively add a fourth layer to the tiered structure?
District Council level-
- Question: Should districts be comprised of the planning districts (geographic-based), or to the council districts (politically-based)?
- Geographic organization of the middle tier might be best due to the amount of collaboration already occurring geographically.
- Political districts might be good because it would be a way of applying pressure to the political system/deal with the political reality of the city.
- Question: Could district coordinators be hired to manage input at the council and district levels?
General Comments on Structure
- Some participants stressed that participation should be “organic” and open to all; should not try to re-organize groups that are already organized.
- However, others felt there should be some type of organizational structure in order to ensure that their standards and rules of access and participation both for organizations claiming to represent geographies and community based constituencies as well as rules for engagement and participation in public discussions.
- Keeping an ‘organic’ structure might privilege those groups with greater resources and better organization to control the participation process.
Next meeting, 12 January 2009, 5:30
The next meeting will continue the ongoing discussion about structure and the effective role of the various groups and tiers in the process.
We will begin a discussion on the potential budget and how to finance a CPP which will be carried over to a full discussion at the third group meeting on 15 January 2009.
The meeting was called to discuss a list of questions/points that needed to be resolved in order to move forward with rewriting a new draft CPP.
It was noted at the beginning of the meeting that it needs to be made clear that the CPP is neither a challenge to nor an intrusion into our role or function of our elected representatives.
The role of the CPP is to organize the process of communication between city leaders and residents. Residents need to have more clarity and structure to the process of citizen engagement in public discussions and the decisions that impact them. A structure that provides some standards for the incorporation of resident input and accountability when decisions are made contrary to the expressed views of the impacted community.
City officials need to be confident that when they request input from residents on important decisions, that input reflects and is the result of a legitimate process of dialogue.
CPP is ultimately a process of information sharing and a way for communities to impact the “pathway to decision-making”. CPP will not produce statements such as “this is what the CPP says/wants/endorses” but instead be a tool to gauge opinions, ideas, and desires of communities to enhance decisions that the city takes.
First question discussed:
Currently the CPP was originally proposed working off of a three-tiered system model, which rises from Neighborhood Councils, District Councils (planning district), and a Citizens Voice Council at the city-wide level. Is this a good system to work from, or should it be revisited?
- Original draft that we agreed to use was based upon these 3 tiers
- 3 tiers represent the different levels of analysis for the issues
- The tiers enable the organization of participation around specific issues.
- Question: How will differences in population impact the tier structure?
- Question/Comment: In order to determine the right structure, more discussion on the actual role or function of each structure needs to be addressed.
Neighborhood Council level-
- Example: Carrollton Area Network; CAN is not just the neighborhoods but also businesses and nonprofits in the area
- CAN does not control or supersede the neighborhoods within it; Neighborhoods do not have to all agree on an issue to be a part of the council.
- Used for informational, networking, and development purposes
- Question: Does the council system effectively add a fourth layer to the tiered structure?
District Council level-
- Question: Should districts be comprised of the planning districts (geographic-based), or to the council districts (politically-based)?
- Geographic organization of the middle tier might be best due to the amount of collaboration already occurring geographically.
- Political districts might be good because it would be a way of applying pressure to the political system/deal with the political reality of the city.
- Question: Could district coordinators be hired to manage input at the council and district levels?
General Comments on Structure
- Some participants stressed that participation should be “organic” and open to all; should not try to re-organize groups that are already organized.
- However, others felt there should be some type of organizational structure in order to ensure that their standards and rules of access and participation both for organizations claiming to represent geographies and community based constituencies as well as rules for engagement and participation in public discussions.
- Keeping an ‘organic’ structure might privilege those groups with greater resources and better organization to control the participation process.
Next meeting, 12 January 2009, 5:30
The next meeting will continue the ongoing discussion about structure and the effective role of the various groups and tiers in the process.
We will begin a discussion on the potential budget and how to finance a CPP which will be carried over to a full discussion at the third group meeting on 15 January 2009.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Collaborative Meeting Notes, 11.18
CPP Notes
Collaborative Meeting, 11.18
Meeting begins with staff update about CPP, attending the Master Plan meetings, and the Community Survey, which has so far reached around 175 individuals, most who have not heard of the CPP prior to the survey. CPP staff will look into creating an online survey via survey monkey.
Scope of Activities Team Report
Team started by looking at charter for points of entry for citizen participation; this was difficult and produced vague results.
Team is primarily concerned with three issue areas under which many different concerns can be clustered: Land Use and Zoning, Participatory Budgeting, and Program Review/Service Delivery
Program/Service Review and Participatory Budgeting are close in concept; gives citizens the ability to see where the money comes from, where the money is going, and what they are receiving as far as services/programs are concerned.
Perhaps the place to concentrate citizen participation in regards to the budget and programs would be at the council-district level- but it’s important to strike the right balance between constituencies and the people elected to the council. But using council districts as a focal point could greatly inform the actions taken by the executive/legislative branch.
Also possible place for interaction would be at the department level rather than the council level, especially for program/service review.
Must be pragmatic and realistic about what CPP should be able to do in order to not spread ourselves too thin and dilute any real impact that the program can have.
Important to create win/win situation between citizen and government so both sides are impacted positively by CPP.
Should CPP be based around planning districts or political districts? Decision has yet to be made.
CPP and the Master Plan
CPP was recently informed that we should provide an abstract to the City Planning Commission and Goody Clancy describing the project and the conversations occurring within it so they can integrate it with the “Future Vision” Working Group. That WG is where the CPP is currently housed- it’s the group tasked with describing what New Orleans should look like in the future.
Timeline issues: The Master Plan will be doing their first draft in Jan/Feb, but CPP is not doing a draft until March. Will the MP supersede what the CPP produces? No, because we will be done in May, and they will not have their plan finalized until September.
CPP should take this opportunity to integrate to an extend with the Master Plan- capture some of the momentum, for instance- but there are several aspects of the CPP that are not wholly related to the Master Plan, and we should not get hamstrung by tying CPP to the CPC or the Master Plan so early in the process.
A lot of people are still confused about the relationship between the MP and CPP. Perhaps some language that is simple and explains the relationship would be good to develop and have on hand.
Also important to remember that some areas/neighborhoods are just beginning to get organized and will need help understanding CPP when the system is in place.
Next Collaborative Meeting: Tuesday, December 16th
Collaborative Meeting, 11.18
Meeting begins with staff update about CPP, attending the Master Plan meetings, and the Community Survey, which has so far reached around 175 individuals, most who have not heard of the CPP prior to the survey. CPP staff will look into creating an online survey via survey monkey.
Scope of Activities Team Report
Team started by looking at charter for points of entry for citizen participation; this was difficult and produced vague results.
Team is primarily concerned with three issue areas under which many different concerns can be clustered: Land Use and Zoning, Participatory Budgeting, and Program Review/Service Delivery
Program/Service Review and Participatory Budgeting are close in concept; gives citizens the ability to see where the money comes from, where the money is going, and what they are receiving as far as services/programs are concerned.
Perhaps the place to concentrate citizen participation in regards to the budget and programs would be at the council-district level- but it’s important to strike the right balance between constituencies and the people elected to the council. But using council districts as a focal point could greatly inform the actions taken by the executive/legislative branch.
Also possible place for interaction would be at the department level rather than the council level, especially for program/service review.
Must be pragmatic and realistic about what CPP should be able to do in order to not spread ourselves too thin and dilute any real impact that the program can have.
Important to create win/win situation between citizen and government so both sides are impacted positively by CPP.
Should CPP be based around planning districts or political districts? Decision has yet to be made.
CPP and the Master Plan
CPP was recently informed that we should provide an abstract to the City Planning Commission and Goody Clancy describing the project and the conversations occurring within it so they can integrate it with the “Future Vision” Working Group. That WG is where the CPP is currently housed- it’s the group tasked with describing what New Orleans should look like in the future.
Timeline issues: The Master Plan will be doing their first draft in Jan/Feb, but CPP is not doing a draft until March. Will the MP supersede what the CPP produces? No, because we will be done in May, and they will not have their plan finalized until September.
CPP should take this opportunity to integrate to an extend with the Master Plan- capture some of the momentum, for instance- but there are several aspects of the CPP that are not wholly related to the Master Plan, and we should not get hamstrung by tying CPP to the CPC or the Master Plan so early in the process.
A lot of people are still confused about the relationship between the MP and CPP. Perhaps some language that is simple and explains the relationship would be good to develop and have on hand.
Also important to remember that some areas/neighborhoods are just beginning to get organized and will need help understanding CPP when the system is in place.
Next Collaborative Meeting: Tuesday, December 16th
Monday, November 17, 2008
Scope of Acitivites Team Meeting Notes, 11.13
11.13.08
Scope of Activities Team Meeting
Brief discussion of work thus far regarding the exploration of participatory budgeting.
In LA, the city distributes a small blue book that is a comprehensive tally of all the income and then allocations of the city budget. Each neighborhood gets one, and during budget day, neighborhoods can help discuss different appropriations and budgetary concerns.
Participatory budgeting and program/service review are closely related. Participatory budgeting strives to include citizens in the allocation process, while service review makes sure that the money allocated is being spent wisely and the services/programs the city is running are performing adequately.
But the roles of government and the roles of citizens should be clearly defined when pursuing this.
Should program/service review be mainly focused on city departments or specific programs?
Both, when possible.
Should be able to do a department by department look at fund, the regulations on the funds as to what they can be used for, and citizens/communities should be able to help set programmatic priorities.
Example of an unclear program:
City Economic Development Fund
“Economic Development” is not clearly defined, also, the process as to how to allocate money within the fun is not defined
Conversation comparing small versus large development is currently closed to the public and should be opened up
Metrics and definitions of what a success looks like and what a failure looks like must be agreed upon before pushing for program/service review.
How do you make programs more efficient, and how do you make sure that certain standards are being met?
Issues on the “front end” of programs /services that need to be defined:
What are priorities?
How are they implemented?
Issues on the “back end” that need to be defined:
What are the returns?
What are the impacts?
Main goal: making programs efficient versus funding programs without oversight.
Questions:
Is the City Charter too rigid to do this?
Next steps:
Contact the I.G. (Cerasoli) about coming to a meeting and discussing this aspect of CPP
One page synopsis of each of the three legs of Scope of Activities
Review of the City Charter
Scope of Activities Team Meeting
Brief discussion of work thus far regarding the exploration of participatory budgeting.
In LA, the city distributes a small blue book that is a comprehensive tally of all the income and then allocations of the city budget. Each neighborhood gets one, and during budget day, neighborhoods can help discuss different appropriations and budgetary concerns.
Participatory budgeting and program/service review are closely related. Participatory budgeting strives to include citizens in the allocation process, while service review makes sure that the money allocated is being spent wisely and the services/programs the city is running are performing adequately.
But the roles of government and the roles of citizens should be clearly defined when pursuing this.
Should program/service review be mainly focused on city departments or specific programs?
Both, when possible.
Should be able to do a department by department look at fund, the regulations on the funds as to what they can be used for, and citizens/communities should be able to help set programmatic priorities.
Example of an unclear program:
City Economic Development Fund
“Economic Development” is not clearly defined, also, the process as to how to allocate money within the fun is not defined
Conversation comparing small versus large development is currently closed to the public and should be opened up
Metrics and definitions of what a success looks like and what a failure looks like must be agreed upon before pushing for program/service review.
How do you make programs more efficient, and how do you make sure that certain standards are being met?
Issues on the “front end” of programs /services that need to be defined:
What are priorities?
How are they implemented?
Issues on the “back end” that need to be defined:
What are the returns?
What are the impacts?
Main goal: making programs efficient versus funding programs without oversight.
Questions:
Is the City Charter too rigid to do this?
Next steps:
Contact the I.G. (Cerasoli) about coming to a meeting and discussing this aspect of CPP
One page synopsis of each of the three legs of Scope of Activities
Review of the City Charter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
