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
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
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
Monday, October 27, 2008
Notes, CPP Collaborative Meeting, 10.21
CPP Collaborative Meeting Notes, 10.21
Meeting begins with a brief discussion about why everyone is here and what they hope to accomplish.
First question:
Is the Vision/Mission statement redone and ready to vote? If not, how long do we give these teams to work post-collaborative meeting to resubmit/finalize their work?
There are not set due-dates, but we will press the team to re-meet soon and finalize the statements.
Review of the 2004 draft
Organizational Structure team began looking at the model and how it relates to neighborhood organizations; feels that directly using the 3 tiered system based around neighborhood councils could have some problems. Example: in a certain area (Treme), one team member could join 4 different neighborhood associations that claim her street. How do you reconcile those overlaps within the neighborhood councils?
Org. Structure Team proposal:
Planning districts, where appropriate, would be broken into multiple councils which would consist of a grouping of neighborhood and community groups.
Each individual resident within the boundary of the Neighborhood Council would vote for representatives on the council board. [Actual number to be determined.]
For instance, District 4 could be said to consist roughly of two distinct regions that could be formed into aggregate neighborhood councils. Namely Mid-City and Downtown. Dividing District 4 into these two regions to form neighborhood councils could avoid some of the conflicts over boundaries and representation. Also the structure could keep intact the social organizations of neighborhood and community groups without having to impose overburdening standards upon them.
Questions and concerns:
Would specific organizations or constituencies get guaranteed representation on the board such as neighborhood associations, renters, ethnic minorities? Or would voting just remain open, meaning that these constituencies would have to compete for the support of Neighborhood Council residents?
Is this actually creating a four-tired system- Neighborhood associations, neighborhood council, another council board for the district, and then citywide?
Does this proposal address citywide communities?
There should be as few tiers/layers as possible between citizens and government.
The larger this gets, with more and more layers, the more expensive this becomes- need to think strategically about funding and make this have as small as budget as possible.
Where exactly should affinity groups plug in? If this takes a one person, one vote on geographic basis as how this is going to be organized, we can’t have people be able to vote a second time as a member of a special-interest group.
Should there be some sort of sunset clause for displaced residents, i.e. they can vote in these neighborhood elections until a certain cut-off date? Can’t leave out displaced residents or we will perpetually have the green-dot conversation.
We also need to know how to include people not geographically based.
Participatory Budgeting/LA Budget Day presentation
This has been going on for four or five years now- all neighborhoods/citizens invited to participate in the Mayor’s Budget Day. Khalil and Dave from the Scope of Activities Team attended. 90 neighborhoods sent 2 representatives each.
City of LA is experiencing a massive budget shortfall and so is California in general. The budget was distributed out in handy blue-books that show where the money is coming from and where the money is going to, and the citizens looked at how the budget could be reallocated before they started to look at what programs to cut.
Overall a very good experience. Participatory budgeting is something that the Scope of Activities team is thinking about including in the CPP.
Discussion of the CPP process in general-
Things need to be simplified and easy to understand and we need an expedited response time to deal with issues as they arise.
There will be community polling during the month of November- short 10 question poll followed by distributing information. Info/polls can be distributed at neighborhood meetings. This will mostly serve as an outreach tool- no real scientific merit to the polling, but might provide some interesting data to work with.
Also, we are going to organize a community breakfast on January 10th. Will work to bring more people into the process as we begin to work on the draft, and will also serve as a larger conversation between all the action teams to start making concrete decisions.
Should start looking into free publicity, try to get on talk radio, post meetings in newspaper, cable access- all sorts of ways to reach out to more people and CPP should become more active in that way. Need to set up a constant info flow with Unified Non-Profits.
Next CPP Collaborative Meeting: Nov. 18th, 6:00pm, 3500 Canal Street
Meeting begins with a brief discussion about why everyone is here and what they hope to accomplish.
First question:
Is the Vision/Mission statement redone and ready to vote? If not, how long do we give these teams to work post-collaborative meeting to resubmit/finalize their work?
There are not set due-dates, but we will press the team to re-meet soon and finalize the statements.
Review of the 2004 draft
Organizational Structure team began looking at the model and how it relates to neighborhood organizations; feels that directly using the 3 tiered system based around neighborhood councils could have some problems. Example: in a certain area (Treme), one team member could join 4 different neighborhood associations that claim her street. How do you reconcile those overlaps within the neighborhood councils?
Org. Structure Team proposal:
Planning districts, where appropriate, would be broken into multiple councils which would consist of a grouping of neighborhood and community groups.
Each individual resident within the boundary of the Neighborhood Council would vote for representatives on the council board. [Actual number to be determined.]
For instance, District 4 could be said to consist roughly of two distinct regions that could be formed into aggregate neighborhood councils. Namely Mid-City and Downtown. Dividing District 4 into these two regions to form neighborhood councils could avoid some of the conflicts over boundaries and representation. Also the structure could keep intact the social organizations of neighborhood and community groups without having to impose overburdening standards upon them.
Questions and concerns:
Would specific organizations or constituencies get guaranteed representation on the board such as neighborhood associations, renters, ethnic minorities? Or would voting just remain open, meaning that these constituencies would have to compete for the support of Neighborhood Council residents?
Is this actually creating a four-tired system- Neighborhood associations, neighborhood council, another council board for the district, and then citywide?
Does this proposal address citywide communities?
There should be as few tiers/layers as possible between citizens and government.
The larger this gets, with more and more layers, the more expensive this becomes- need to think strategically about funding and make this have as small as budget as possible.
Where exactly should affinity groups plug in? If this takes a one person, one vote on geographic basis as how this is going to be organized, we can’t have people be able to vote a second time as a member of a special-interest group.
Should there be some sort of sunset clause for displaced residents, i.e. they can vote in these neighborhood elections until a certain cut-off date? Can’t leave out displaced residents or we will perpetually have the green-dot conversation.
We also need to know how to include people not geographically based.
Participatory Budgeting/LA Budget Day presentation
This has been going on for four or five years now- all neighborhoods/citizens invited to participate in the Mayor’s Budget Day. Khalil and Dave from the Scope of Activities Team attended. 90 neighborhoods sent 2 representatives each.
City of LA is experiencing a massive budget shortfall and so is California in general. The budget was distributed out in handy blue-books that show where the money is coming from and where the money is going to, and the citizens looked at how the budget could be reallocated before they started to look at what programs to cut.
Overall a very good experience. Participatory budgeting is something that the Scope of Activities team is thinking about including in the CPP.
Discussion of the CPP process in general-
Things need to be simplified and easy to understand and we need an expedited response time to deal with issues as they arise.
There will be community polling during the month of November- short 10 question poll followed by distributing information. Info/polls can be distributed at neighborhood meetings. This will mostly serve as an outreach tool- no real scientific merit to the polling, but might provide some interesting data to work with.
Also, we are going to organize a community breakfast on January 10th. Will work to bring more people into the process as we begin to work on the draft, and will also serve as a larger conversation between all the action teams to start making concrete decisions.
Should start looking into free publicity, try to get on talk radio, post meetings in newspaper, cable access- all sorts of ways to reach out to more people and CPP should become more active in that way. Need to set up a constant info flow with Unified Non-Profits.
Next CPP Collaborative Meeting: Nov. 18th, 6:00pm, 3500 Canal Street
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Forum on the Master Plan; Master Plan language explanation
On Thursday, October 23, there will be a public forum on the proposed master plan charter amendment. It will take place from 6:30 - 8:00 PM at St. Matthew's Church, 1333 S. Carollton Avenue. Panelists will be Bill Borah and Ron Nabonne, and Keith Twitchell of CBNO/MAC will moderate. There will be a lot of time for questions from the audience.
Following is an English Language Summary of the proposed Master Plan Charter Change developed by CBNO/MAC.
Proposed Amendment to the New Orleans City Charter
Regarding the Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Citizen Participation
Appearing on the November 4, 2008 Ballot
English Language Summary
This summary does not cover every individual detail of the proposed Charter change. Rather, it seeks to translate the substantive changes into easily understood language. It does not take any position for or against the proposed change. CBNO/MAC thanks Neighborhoods Partnership Network and the Louisiana chapter of the American Planning Association for their assistance in preparing this summary.
Section 5-401
This section impacts the appointment of members to the City Planning Commission (CPC). It eliminates the nominating committee to recommend new members, as well as the two-term limit for Commission members. It eliminates the requirement that vacancies on the Commission be filled within 90 days, but it ensures that at least one new member will be appointed every year.
Section 5-402
This is the section that mandates that the city will create a “twenty year Master Plan”. Specific reference is made to including maps, and Plan elements including Vision, Goals and Policy; Land Use; Transportation; Housing; Community Facilities and Infrastructure; and Historic Preservation. It says that other elements may be included. It also says that the “elements are to be interrelated with each other and shall provided the overall guidance for city policy and priorities.”
At the same time, the section eliminates references to streets, bridges, waterways, parks and open spaces, public buildings and structures, public utilities, public housing, “slum clearance”, and redevelopment projects in the Master Plan guidelines, and also eliminates the power of the Planning Commission to “hear and decide all applications for conditional uses”.
This section also mandates that “consistent with the Master Plan” a zoning ordinance will be developed, and that the ordinance will include an official Zoning Map. Both the Master Plan and the zoning ordinance (CZO) are required to be developed “… consistent with the requirements of Section 5-404”.
Section 5-403
This section requires a certain amount of public participation in the development of the Master Plan and CZO, and also in any future changes to the documents. Specifically, it requires that the CPC “shall hold at least one public meeting for each planning district or other designated neighborhood planning unit” prior to adopting the Master Plan, and states that the purpose of the meetings is to “solicit the opinions of citizens that live or work in that district or planning unit”. It also requires a minimum of one citywide hearing. The standard for public notice of these meetings is also defined: they must advertised in “a newspaper of general circulation” between 15 and 45 days prior to the meeting. And, it requires CPC to “comply with the requirements of any neighborhood participation program that the City, pursuant to Section 5411, shall adopt by ordinance.”
The section also defines the process for the City Council to adopt or reject the Master Plan once it has been approved by CPC; if the Council makes any changes, the Plan goes back to CPC for approval. However, the power of CPC to modify the Plan any time it chooses to do so is eliminated.
This section is where the “force of law” is given to the Master Plan. The amendment states that once the Master Plan has been adopted, “no public project or facility, and no public utility … shall be authorized or significantly altered” unless it conforms to the Master Plan. It also requires that all future land use decisions and regulations, including the CZO, must be consistent with the Master Plan. Consistency with the Master Plan is defined as advancing, or at least not interfering with, the “goals, policies and guidelines” of the Master Plan. However, no procedure for determining whether or not something conforms to the Master Plan is defined.
The section states that changes or modifications to the Master Plan and CZO cannot be made more than once per year, except in response to “a disaster or other declared emergency”, but requires that the documents be reviewed at least every five years to see if any changes are needed. At least one public hearing must be part of making this determination. If CPC proposes any changes, it must follow the same procedures as previously described for getting public input and City Council approval.
Section 5-405
This section requires the City Council to follow the Master Plan when it adopts or modifies street plans or any other part of the official city map.
Section 5-406
This section requires that any zoning ordinance or zoning amendments “adopted by the City Council must be consistent with the Master Plan.” It also requires CPC to review the CZO whenever it makes changes to the Master Plan.
Section 5-407
The amendment deletes this entire section that used to require CPC to hold “a public hearing” prior to recommending any changes to the CZO. The new section increases the time CPC has to consider “any proposal” from 60 days to 90 days, and eliminates the ability of any “governing authority” to override a negative vote by CPC regarding any proposal involving “the expenditure of public moneys”. Primarily, this means that if CPC rejects a proposal that includes any city funding, the City Council cannot subsequently approve it.
Section 5-408
This section increases the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) from five to seven members, and eliminates a nominating committee to recommend new members.
Section 5-409
This section requires that all CPC and BZA members have a minimum of six hours of orientation and training prior to taking office or within one year of taking office, and that they all receive at least six hours of continuing education within each calendar year. Members who fail to meet these requirements may be removed by a majority vote of their boards, but decisions in which they participated are still valid.
Section 5-410 contains no changes.
Section 5-411
This section mandates that the city will “establish by ordinance a system for organized and effective neighborhood participation in land use decisions and other issues that effect the quality of life.” It requires “timely notification” to any neighborhood of any proposed land use action that will impact the neighborhood (though it does not define what “timely means”, nor how such notice will be delivered. It also requires that neighborhoods have an opportunity for “meaningful neighborhood review of and comment on such proposals,” and that they have an opportunity for “meaningful” participation in the creating and amending of the Master Plan.
Section 5-412
This section defines certain terms used in the document, including Future Land Use Map, Land Use Action and Zoning Map.
Following is an English Language Summary of the proposed Master Plan Charter Change developed by CBNO/MAC.
Proposed Amendment to the New Orleans City Charter
Regarding the Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Citizen Participation
Appearing on the November 4, 2008 Ballot
English Language Summary
This summary does not cover every individual detail of the proposed Charter change. Rather, it seeks to translate the substantive changes into easily understood language. It does not take any position for or against the proposed change. CBNO/MAC thanks Neighborhoods Partnership Network and the Louisiana chapter of the American Planning Association for their assistance in preparing this summary.
Section 5-401
This section impacts the appointment of members to the City Planning Commission (CPC). It eliminates the nominating committee to recommend new members, as well as the two-term limit for Commission members. It eliminates the requirement that vacancies on the Commission be filled within 90 days, but it ensures that at least one new member will be appointed every year.
Section 5-402
This is the section that mandates that the city will create a “twenty year Master Plan”. Specific reference is made to including maps, and Plan elements including Vision, Goals and Policy; Land Use; Transportation; Housing; Community Facilities and Infrastructure; and Historic Preservation. It says that other elements may be included. It also says that the “elements are to be interrelated with each other and shall provided the overall guidance for city policy and priorities.”
At the same time, the section eliminates references to streets, bridges, waterways, parks and open spaces, public buildings and structures, public utilities, public housing, “slum clearance”, and redevelopment projects in the Master Plan guidelines, and also eliminates the power of the Planning Commission to “hear and decide all applications for conditional uses”.
This section also mandates that “consistent with the Master Plan” a zoning ordinance will be developed, and that the ordinance will include an official Zoning Map. Both the Master Plan and the zoning ordinance (CZO) are required to be developed “… consistent with the requirements of Section 5-404”.
Section 5-403
This section requires a certain amount of public participation in the development of the Master Plan and CZO, and also in any future changes to the documents. Specifically, it requires that the CPC “shall hold at least one public meeting for each planning district or other designated neighborhood planning unit” prior to adopting the Master Plan, and states that the purpose of the meetings is to “solicit the opinions of citizens that live or work in that district or planning unit”. It also requires a minimum of one citywide hearing. The standard for public notice of these meetings is also defined: they must advertised in “a newspaper of general circulation” between 15 and 45 days prior to the meeting. And, it requires CPC to “comply with the requirements of any neighborhood participation program that the City, pursuant to Section 5411, shall adopt by ordinance.”
The section also defines the process for the City Council to adopt or reject the Master Plan once it has been approved by CPC; if the Council makes any changes, the Plan goes back to CPC for approval. However, the power of CPC to modify the Plan any time it chooses to do so is eliminated.
This section is where the “force of law” is given to the Master Plan. The amendment states that once the Master Plan has been adopted, “no public project or facility, and no public utility … shall be authorized or significantly altered” unless it conforms to the Master Plan. It also requires that all future land use decisions and regulations, including the CZO, must be consistent with the Master Plan. Consistency with the Master Plan is defined as advancing, or at least not interfering with, the “goals, policies and guidelines” of the Master Plan. However, no procedure for determining whether or not something conforms to the Master Plan is defined.
The section states that changes or modifications to the Master Plan and CZO cannot be made more than once per year, except in response to “a disaster or other declared emergency”, but requires that the documents be reviewed at least every five years to see if any changes are needed. At least one public hearing must be part of making this determination. If CPC proposes any changes, it must follow the same procedures as previously described for getting public input and City Council approval.
Section 5-405
This section requires the City Council to follow the Master Plan when it adopts or modifies street plans or any other part of the official city map.
Section 5-406
This section requires that any zoning ordinance or zoning amendments “adopted by the City Council must be consistent with the Master Plan.” It also requires CPC to review the CZO whenever it makes changes to the Master Plan.
Section 5-407
The amendment deletes this entire section that used to require CPC to hold “a public hearing” prior to recommending any changes to the CZO. The new section increases the time CPC has to consider “any proposal” from 60 days to 90 days, and eliminates the ability of any “governing authority” to override a negative vote by CPC regarding any proposal involving “the expenditure of public moneys”. Primarily, this means that if CPC rejects a proposal that includes any city funding, the City Council cannot subsequently approve it.
Section 5-408
This section increases the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) from five to seven members, and eliminates a nominating committee to recommend new members.
Section 5-409
This section requires that all CPC and BZA members have a minimum of six hours of orientation and training prior to taking office or within one year of taking office, and that they all receive at least six hours of continuing education within each calendar year. Members who fail to meet these requirements may be removed by a majority vote of their boards, but decisions in which they participated are still valid.
Section 5-410 contains no changes.
Section 5-411
This section mandates that the city will “establish by ordinance a system for organized and effective neighborhood participation in land use decisions and other issues that effect the quality of life.” It requires “timely notification” to any neighborhood of any proposed land use action that will impact the neighborhood (though it does not define what “timely means”, nor how such notice will be delivered. It also requires that neighborhoods have an opportunity for “meaningful neighborhood review of and comment on such proposals,” and that they have an opportunity for “meaningful” participation in the creating and amending of the Master Plan.
Section 5-412
This section defines certain terms used in the document, including Future Land Use Map, Land Use Action and Zoning Map.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Clarifying the NOLA-CPP and the Master Plan
Are the CPP and Master Planning processes the same? Will the Master Planning process marginalize our citizen driven CPP initiative and push its own CPP agenda? Why isn't the CPP more central to the Master Planning process? Is the CPP being used to legitimize a flawed Master Plan and Charter Ammendment?
These are just some of the questions many of you have asked us about the relationship of the CPP to the Master Plan process. We hope the following will help to answer these and offer some clarity.
1. Are the CPP and Master Planning processes the same?
The process to create a formal CPP and the Master Planning process are independent projects. The Master Plan is being coordinated by the City Planning Commission and the Goody Clancy Planning firm. The goal of the master planning process is to create a city-wide Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the city that will clarify these areas and dictate what type of developments can be created and where.
The Citizen Participation Project is a non-government organized project to create a formal citizen participation system for the city's residents. The Master Plan will lay the foundation for the physical development of the city as it relates to Land Use and Zoning. Although many topics will be covered in the Master Plan document, these will be covered as visioning principles, goals and policy suggestions.
The CPP on the other hand is currently considering three broad topics as its focus areas. These are: 1. Land Use and Zoning; 2. Participatory City Budgeting and; 3. Public Services Program Review. There could potentially be a fourth area,[Economic Development] as well.
The challenge for the CPP is to create system broad enough to capture the interest of a diverse group of people. If the CPP were only able to address the physical infrastucture of our city through land use and zoning policies, it would exclude many people who don't see those issues as their priority. For instance by taking on the issue of the City Budget, we allow space for a range of issues to be discussed, from Jobs to Recreation, Arts and Culture to Transportation and Streets. In addition, this type of citizen input into the city budget can help communities began to submit their own proposal for local projects and priorities to the city. This type of proactive engagement is one of the most important features of our CPP proposal as neighborhood or project planning without any relationship to a budget is often little more than wishful thinking.
So while the current Master Plan and CZO will help us define where certain types of development can or can not take place, the CPP will help us create the necessary public partnerships with city government that will enable us to see these proposals become reality.
Similarly, by addressing the issue of Public Service Program Review the CPP establishes a system whereby residents can be involved in monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of city services in a number of areas.
As you can see the Master Plan will only address 1 of the 3 issues currently identified by residents and our CPP-Scope of Activities Team as priorities for citizen engagement in our city. With this is mind we can say that the CPP system we are creating will offer us an opportunity to be involved in many issues beyond those included in the master plan. So pairing the CPP to the Master Plan or City Planning Commission could limit our ability to impact the wider issues that impact our lives and the development of our city.
2. Will the Master Planning process marginalize our citizen driven CPP initiative and push it's own CPP agenda?
The Master Plan process is not creating a Citizen Participation System. Community members just like you are and we invite any and everyone to participate in this process.
What is happening within the Master Planning process is that the Future Vision section of the plan is being written to include a chapter on how a formal Citizen Participation process will allow city residents to be "stewards" of the plan.
The Future Vision chapter is essentially a statement with some detail of what we desire for the future of our city. This future vision includes a formal Citizen Participation Program. By including the CPP in this section the City Planning Commission and City Council who must approve the final document are endorsing the creation of a formal CPP but not defining it. This will include a section on procedures for how residents can ensure regular reviews of the Master Plan and a structure for our participation in the decisions related to it.
For instance the proposed charter ammendment states that once given the force of law, all future land use/zoning decisions and regulations must be "consistent" with the Master Plan. However, this term, "consistent" is not defined in the charter. This makes it our responsibility through this planning process to define and create easily understandable indicators of what it means to be consistent with the master plan we create. Then we can judge with confidence when any proposal is or is not in compliance with the Master Plan. Leaving that to interpretation is potentially leaving the plan even with the force of law, open to manipulation by powerful interest.
3. Why isn't the CPP more central to the Master Planning process?
Hopefully this question was answered in the first section of this entry. But to state it in another manner; the City Planning Commission developed its own process for public participation in the Master Plan processs. We are unable to directly influence their decision on this matter. Given that the process was already established there was little room for us to be involved in that capacity. Our role at this point is simply to outline as mentioned above our desires for a formal CPP in the Future Vision section of the plan.
However, if any groups feel the current structure of public engagement limits your access to the process, the Goody Clancy team has committed itself to honoring the additional request of any neighborhood and community organizations who want to set up meetings with them about the plan. If your group would like CPP staff support in arranging these meetings please contact us.
4. Is the CPP being used to legitimize a flawed Master Plan process and Charter Amendment?
As it regards the CPP or its staff, we have never taken a formal stance on the proposed charter change. Like most people, the CPP supports the idea of a legally binding Master Plan to define in a clear and open manner the land use and zoning policies for the city. This can potentially empower residents to demand transparency and hold accountable city government as well as private developers who propose new developments in our communities. However we are not endorsing the manner nor the time at which the idea was brought to the public. We would have liked to see more public discussion about the charter amendment and more time for residents to understand and make a clear decision.
Our interest have always been on trying to ensure a process that allowed for meaningful participation of the city's residents in these decisions. If done correctly, the Master Plan should reflect our communities' priorities as they relate to land use and zoning issues. Once we have defined how to measure compliance with these prioritites we can then judge with confidence what developments we desire and which we do not.
Failing to engage the process would leave our priorities to be determined by others. So while the CPP does not formally endorse the charter change amendment we strongly encourage participation in the process whether or not there is a charter change giving it the force of law at this time. Should the final draft of the Master Plan diverge from the priorities we establish through the public process, we then have a basis to demand accountability from the CPC and City Council on why and by whom were our collective desires not incorporated.
We hope this helps to provide some clarity on the relationship of the CPP to the Master Plan process. If you have any more questions or need further elaboration please contact us.
These are just some of the questions many of you have asked us about the relationship of the CPP to the Master Plan process. We hope the following will help to answer these and offer some clarity.
1. Are the CPP and Master Planning processes the same?
The process to create a formal CPP and the Master Planning process are independent projects. The Master Plan is being coordinated by the City Planning Commission and the Goody Clancy Planning firm. The goal of the master planning process is to create a city-wide Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the city that will clarify these areas and dictate what type of developments can be created and where.
The Citizen Participation Project is a non-government organized project to create a formal citizen participation system for the city's residents. The Master Plan will lay the foundation for the physical development of the city as it relates to Land Use and Zoning. Although many topics will be covered in the Master Plan document, these will be covered as visioning principles, goals and policy suggestions.
The CPP on the other hand is currently considering three broad topics as its focus areas. These are: 1. Land Use and Zoning; 2. Participatory City Budgeting and; 3. Public Services Program Review. There could potentially be a fourth area,[Economic Development] as well.
The challenge for the CPP is to create system broad enough to capture the interest of a diverse group of people. If the CPP were only able to address the physical infrastucture of our city through land use and zoning policies, it would exclude many people who don't see those issues as their priority. For instance by taking on the issue of the City Budget, we allow space for a range of issues to be discussed, from Jobs to Recreation, Arts and Culture to Transportation and Streets. In addition, this type of citizen input into the city budget can help communities began to submit their own proposal for local projects and priorities to the city. This type of proactive engagement is one of the most important features of our CPP proposal as neighborhood or project planning without any relationship to a budget is often little more than wishful thinking.
So while the current Master Plan and CZO will help us define where certain types of development can or can not take place, the CPP will help us create the necessary public partnerships with city government that will enable us to see these proposals become reality.
Similarly, by addressing the issue of Public Service Program Review the CPP establishes a system whereby residents can be involved in monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of city services in a number of areas.
As you can see the Master Plan will only address 1 of the 3 issues currently identified by residents and our CPP-Scope of Activities Team as priorities for citizen engagement in our city. With this is mind we can say that the CPP system we are creating will offer us an opportunity to be involved in many issues beyond those included in the master plan. So pairing the CPP to the Master Plan or City Planning Commission could limit our ability to impact the wider issues that impact our lives and the development of our city.
2. Will the Master Planning process marginalize our citizen driven CPP initiative and push it's own CPP agenda?
The Master Plan process is not creating a Citizen Participation System. Community members just like you are and we invite any and everyone to participate in this process.
What is happening within the Master Planning process is that the Future Vision section of the plan is being written to include a chapter on how a formal Citizen Participation process will allow city residents to be "stewards" of the plan.
The Future Vision chapter is essentially a statement with some detail of what we desire for the future of our city. This future vision includes a formal Citizen Participation Program. By including the CPP in this section the City Planning Commission and City Council who must approve the final document are endorsing the creation of a formal CPP but not defining it. This will include a section on procedures for how residents can ensure regular reviews of the Master Plan and a structure for our participation in the decisions related to it.
For instance the proposed charter ammendment states that once given the force of law, all future land use/zoning decisions and regulations must be "consistent" with the Master Plan. However, this term, "consistent" is not defined in the charter. This makes it our responsibility through this planning process to define and create easily understandable indicators of what it means to be consistent with the master plan we create. Then we can judge with confidence when any proposal is or is not in compliance with the Master Plan. Leaving that to interpretation is potentially leaving the plan even with the force of law, open to manipulation by powerful interest.
3. Why isn't the CPP more central to the Master Planning process?
Hopefully this question was answered in the first section of this entry. But to state it in another manner; the City Planning Commission developed its own process for public participation in the Master Plan processs. We are unable to directly influence their decision on this matter. Given that the process was already established there was little room for us to be involved in that capacity. Our role at this point is simply to outline as mentioned above our desires for a formal CPP in the Future Vision section of the plan.
However, if any groups feel the current structure of public engagement limits your access to the process, the Goody Clancy team has committed itself to honoring the additional request of any neighborhood and community organizations who want to set up meetings with them about the plan. If your group would like CPP staff support in arranging these meetings please contact us.
4. Is the CPP being used to legitimize a flawed Master Plan process and Charter Amendment?
As it regards the CPP or its staff, we have never taken a formal stance on the proposed charter change. Like most people, the CPP supports the idea of a legally binding Master Plan to define in a clear and open manner the land use and zoning policies for the city. This can potentially empower residents to demand transparency and hold accountable city government as well as private developers who propose new developments in our communities. However we are not endorsing the manner nor the time at which the idea was brought to the public. We would have liked to see more public discussion about the charter amendment and more time for residents to understand and make a clear decision.
Our interest have always been on trying to ensure a process that allowed for meaningful participation of the city's residents in these decisions. If done correctly, the Master Plan should reflect our communities' priorities as they relate to land use and zoning issues. Once we have defined how to measure compliance with these prioritites we can then judge with confidence what developments we desire and which we do not.
Failing to engage the process would leave our priorities to be determined by others. So while the CPP does not formally endorse the charter change amendment we strongly encourage participation in the process whether or not there is a charter change giving it the force of law at this time. Should the final draft of the Master Plan diverge from the priorities we establish through the public process, we then have a basis to demand accountability from the CPC and City Council on why and by whom were our collective desires not incorporated.
We hope this helps to provide some clarity on the relationship of the CPP to the Master Plan process. If you have any more questions or need further elaboration please contact us.
Monday, October 13, 2008
CPP Staff Travels
On Monday 6th October and Tuesday 7th October, CPP project Director, Khalil Shahyd traveled to Baltimore to participate in the Case Foundation's, "Make it Your Own" awardees training.
The training brought together all 20 awardees from Case Foundation's online competitive grant contest in which the CPP was the top vote getter. http://www.neworleanschamber.org/index.php?id=362
The training, moderated by "Everyday Democracy" [http://www.everyday-democracy.org/en/index.aspx] included discussions on community organizing, recruitment for participation and fundraising activities. A consistent theme mentioned by the many participants who were all developing some form of community engagement program was the felt need to be seen not as working in isolation but a part of a movement of people.
One such initiative that is attempting to bring local democracy projects together to influence the national agenda is the "November 5th Coalition." [http://www.novemberfifth.org/]
The coalition ask the question; "Who should advise the next president on issues of public enagagement and democratic goverance?"
The meeting was very productive in being able to talk with and meet participants in other democracy initiatives around the country, but unsuprising, New Orleans, was the topic many of them wanted to discuss and hear from.
===================================================================================
After returning from Baltimore on Wednesday CPP staff took another short trip to learn more about how other cities incorporate varoius aspects of citizen participation. Project Director Khalil Shahyd, this time accompanied by Scope of Activities Team member David Crais on Friday left for Los Angeles to be obersrves at that city's Mayoral Budget Day.
With the Scope of Activities Team's interest in how our residents can have greater access and influence over the city's budget process, we were invited by the L.A. Office of Neighborhood Empowerment to participate in the Budget Day activities on Saturday 11th October.
Starting at 830am with a speach from the Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa the Budget Day was a very informative event. Over 500 city residents packed into the City Council Chamber on a beautiful Saturday to discuss their town's fiscal policies.
The Mayor's talk was followed by a budget presentation and Q and A led by the Office of Neighborhood Empowerment. Each of the city's more than 90 Neighborhood Councils [neighborhood associations] were represented by 2 budget representatives.
A major discussion among the budget representatives was about how to best allocate the city budget. Should it 1. be allocated equally across the city's districts; or 2. be allocated based on population; or 3. be determined by a need based allocation?
Not an easy thing to decide in a city of over 4million people.
Each participant was give a Budget Survey to complete and return to the Office of Neighborhood Empowerment, although the survey will continue to be taken up through January 2009. The survey asked basic questions like the one mentioned above but also more pointed questions meant to measure the community's spending priorities for the coming cycle.
Each Neighborhood Council was given a copy of the city budget summary which includes brief overviews of the budget process and its components. There was also a "Budget Dollar" diagrahm breakdown of the city budget in two phases. A dollar bill was shown divided into parts, first showing where the city's revenues come from and second showing where it is spent.
This was a simple method of showing residents the sources of the city's money and the spending decisions made previously per dollar.
We also attended two breakout sessions, including one on Branding and Marketing for Neighborhood Councils and another on using the city's web based Council File Management System [CFMS} and Community Impact Statement[CIS] forms. The CFMS is an online data base of every document filed in the City Council. Along with the online, Early Notification System, Neighborhood Councils are made aware of pending decisions or projects that might impact their community.
By filling out the CIS the Neighborhood Council can have it's formal position attached to any legislation addressed by City Council.
Overall we saw that there was a great deal to be learned from city's like L.A.
More information on the L.A. trip will be given at the upcoming CPP Collaborative meeting to be held 21st October 2008, at 3500 Canal Street.
The training brought together all 20 awardees from Case Foundation's online competitive grant contest in which the CPP was the top vote getter. http://www.neworleanschamber.org/index.php?id=362
The training, moderated by "Everyday Democracy" [http://www.everyday-democracy.org/en/index.aspx] included discussions on community organizing, recruitment for participation and fundraising activities. A consistent theme mentioned by the many participants who were all developing some form of community engagement program was the felt need to be seen not as working in isolation but a part of a movement of people.
One such initiative that is attempting to bring local democracy projects together to influence the national agenda is the "November 5th Coalition." [http://www.novemberfifth.org/]
The coalition ask the question; "Who should advise the next president on issues of public enagagement and democratic goverance?"
The meeting was very productive in being able to talk with and meet participants in other democracy initiatives around the country, but unsuprising, New Orleans, was the topic many of them wanted to discuss and hear from.
===================================================================================
After returning from Baltimore on Wednesday CPP staff took another short trip to learn more about how other cities incorporate varoius aspects of citizen participation. Project Director Khalil Shahyd, this time accompanied by Scope of Activities Team member David Crais on Friday left for Los Angeles to be obersrves at that city's Mayoral Budget Day.
With the Scope of Activities Team's interest in how our residents can have greater access and influence over the city's budget process, we were invited by the L.A. Office of Neighborhood Empowerment to participate in the Budget Day activities on Saturday 11th October.
Starting at 830am with a speach from the Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa the Budget Day was a very informative event. Over 500 city residents packed into the City Council Chamber on a beautiful Saturday to discuss their town's fiscal policies.
The Mayor's talk was followed by a budget presentation and Q and A led by the Office of Neighborhood Empowerment. Each of the city's more than 90 Neighborhood Councils [neighborhood associations] were represented by 2 budget representatives.
A major discussion among the budget representatives was about how to best allocate the city budget. Should it 1. be allocated equally across the city's districts; or 2. be allocated based on population; or 3. be determined by a need based allocation?
Not an easy thing to decide in a city of over 4million people.
Each participant was give a Budget Survey to complete and return to the Office of Neighborhood Empowerment, although the survey will continue to be taken up through January 2009. The survey asked basic questions like the one mentioned above but also more pointed questions meant to measure the community's spending priorities for the coming cycle.
Each Neighborhood Council was given a copy of the city budget summary which includes brief overviews of the budget process and its components. There was also a "Budget Dollar" diagrahm breakdown of the city budget in two phases. A dollar bill was shown divided into parts, first showing where the city's revenues come from and second showing where it is spent.
This was a simple method of showing residents the sources of the city's money and the spending decisions made previously per dollar.
We also attended two breakout sessions, including one on Branding and Marketing for Neighborhood Councils and another on using the city's web based Council File Management System [CFMS} and Community Impact Statement[CIS] forms. The CFMS is an online data base of every document filed in the City Council. Along with the online, Early Notification System, Neighborhood Councils are made aware of pending decisions or projects that might impact their community.
By filling out the CIS the Neighborhood Council can have it's formal position attached to any legislation addressed by City Council.
Overall we saw that there was a great deal to be learned from city's like L.A.
More information on the L.A. trip will be given at the upcoming CPP Collaborative meeting to be held 21st October 2008, at 3500 Canal Street.
Update on Action Team Meetings
Hello NOLA-CPP Supporters and Action Team Volunteers,
On 1 October 2008, two Action Team meetings where held. The first was a lunch meeting with the Scope of Activities Team. This Team is responsible for finding out what range of issues and policies will the CPP focus on.
In a previous meeting the group agreed that the goals of the CPP should be seen in two parts; "Front End Input" and "Back End Evaluation". What this means is that the CPP should make it possible for any resident to be able to be involved in the planning stage of any development or policy that impacts them. As well, we should have the ability to then evaluate the outcomes of those proposed developments or policy changes at the end of the year.
With this in mind the Scope of Activities Team divided the CPP's issues into three braod categories. 1. Land Use and Zoning and 2. City Budgeting. With these two issues the Team felt it was important for residents to have access and input in the planning [Front End] stages of the process.
The third category the Team wanted to give CPP authority on is 3. Program Review. By "Program Review" what the Team means is that residents should have the opportunity to request and participate in reviews of City Departments and public services to ensure that the goals of the program were being delivered as promised. It is an opportunity to measure the quality of the city's public service delivery and/or make comments on improving it.
The Team then set itself the task of looking at other cities CPP programs to get an idea of how they address citizen engagement on these various issues. In addition, the group has planned to set meetings with city attorneys to discuss the legal points of access that residents currently have to city processes, in particular the budget. With that in mind they've also set themselves the goal of meeting with City Council Budget Committee Chair, Cynthia Hedge-Morrell.
==================================================================================
The second meeting of that day was with the Race/Gender and Class Action Team. They begin their conversation with an opening question on how the term, "Citizen" is being used and defined within the CPP.
Questions of who participates, how to increase participation among marginalzied groups, and how are we measuring success were also identified as key issues that the group would like to address.
The Team settled on a working definition of racism that attempted to see its outcomes in our current environment. For the group, the important impacts of racism are conditions of disinterest or neglect for the needs and suffering of others. The Team felt that the impact of modern day racism was less about hating another group or hating someone for the color of their skin. Racism today is perhaps more about the devaluing of the experience and perspective of whole groups of people for reasons that on the surface may appear to have very little to do with race. It is the systematic denial of entry and inclusion to these groups to basic rights of participation by establishing environments antagonistic to their presence.
The Team then set itself the task of reviewing the 2004 Draft Model CPP as the common starting point for all our Teams. Starting by thinking about arguments for why the issues being raised in this team are important to revisions of that draft such as: why should we have a loose definition of citizen? Why should we strive to include group identities? How do we help create constructive conversations that do not alienate individuals who are participating?
==================================================================================
On the 9th October, the Outreach and Inclusiveness Team met and discussed a number of important initiatives. First, at the request of the staff the Team discussed how to reestablish the CPP as a "popular" process and not one confined to participation in the Action Teams.
In November the CPP staff with support from the Outreach Team and a corps of students from Tulane's service learners project will unveil and conduct a city-wide community survey to gage people's feelings and get ideas on the need for more transparency and accountability in city government. The survey will be conducted on the street, at grocery stores and even at polling stations during the November 4th elections.
It will also be an opportunity to widen people's awareness about the CPP and recruit more participants onto Action Teams.
In addition to the survey the Outreach Team discussed the possibility of the CPP hosting a number of Saturday morning community breakfast forums. These forums would allow a larger number of residents to come together to talk about the CPP, ask questions and contribute to the design of the final CPP Model. The first breakfast forum would be held in January with another to follow two months after.
More Team meetings are being scheduled for this month. CPP is moving forward, but not without your efforts. We thank you all for your continued support and committment to making New Orleans a place with city residents and government can work in partnership to improve our city for everyone.
Look for the latest updates in our weekly e-blast, due out every Monday.
Reminder: The CPP-Collaborative Meeting is scheduled for 21st October at 600pm. 3500 Canal Street 2nd floor.
On 1 October 2008, two Action Team meetings where held. The first was a lunch meeting with the Scope of Activities Team. This Team is responsible for finding out what range of issues and policies will the CPP focus on.
In a previous meeting the group agreed that the goals of the CPP should be seen in two parts; "Front End Input" and "Back End Evaluation". What this means is that the CPP should make it possible for any resident to be able to be involved in the planning stage of any development or policy that impacts them. As well, we should have the ability to then evaluate the outcomes of those proposed developments or policy changes at the end of the year.
With this in mind the Scope of Activities Team divided the CPP's issues into three braod categories. 1. Land Use and Zoning and 2. City Budgeting. With these two issues the Team felt it was important for residents to have access and input in the planning [Front End] stages of the process.
The third category the Team wanted to give CPP authority on is 3. Program Review. By "Program Review" what the Team means is that residents should have the opportunity to request and participate in reviews of City Departments and public services to ensure that the goals of the program were being delivered as promised. It is an opportunity to measure the quality of the city's public service delivery and/or make comments on improving it.
The Team then set itself the task of looking at other cities CPP programs to get an idea of how they address citizen engagement on these various issues. In addition, the group has planned to set meetings with city attorneys to discuss the legal points of access that residents currently have to city processes, in particular the budget. With that in mind they've also set themselves the goal of meeting with City Council Budget Committee Chair, Cynthia Hedge-Morrell.
==================================================================================
The second meeting of that day was with the Race/Gender and Class Action Team. They begin their conversation with an opening question on how the term, "Citizen" is being used and defined within the CPP.
Questions of who participates, how to increase participation among marginalzied groups, and how are we measuring success were also identified as key issues that the group would like to address.
The Team settled on a working definition of racism that attempted to see its outcomes in our current environment. For the group, the important impacts of racism are conditions of disinterest or neglect for the needs and suffering of others. The Team felt that the impact of modern day racism was less about hating another group or hating someone for the color of their skin. Racism today is perhaps more about the devaluing of the experience and perspective of whole groups of people for reasons that on the surface may appear to have very little to do with race. It is the systematic denial of entry and inclusion to these groups to basic rights of participation by establishing environments antagonistic to their presence.
The Team then set itself the task of reviewing the 2004 Draft Model CPP as the common starting point for all our Teams. Starting by thinking about arguments for why the issues being raised in this team are important to revisions of that draft such as: why should we have a loose definition of citizen? Why should we strive to include group identities? How do we help create constructive conversations that do not alienate individuals who are participating?
==================================================================================
On the 9th October, the Outreach and Inclusiveness Team met and discussed a number of important initiatives. First, at the request of the staff the Team discussed how to reestablish the CPP as a "popular" process and not one confined to participation in the Action Teams.
In November the CPP staff with support from the Outreach Team and a corps of students from Tulane's service learners project will unveil and conduct a city-wide community survey to gage people's feelings and get ideas on the need for more transparency and accountability in city government. The survey will be conducted on the street, at grocery stores and even at polling stations during the November 4th elections.
It will also be an opportunity to widen people's awareness about the CPP and recruit more participants onto Action Teams.
In addition to the survey the Outreach Team discussed the possibility of the CPP hosting a number of Saturday morning community breakfast forums. These forums would allow a larger number of residents to come together to talk about the CPP, ask questions and contribute to the design of the final CPP Model. The first breakfast forum would be held in January with another to follow two months after.
More Team meetings are being scheduled for this month. CPP is moving forward, but not without your efforts. We thank you all for your continued support and committment to making New Orleans a place with city residents and government can work in partnership to improve our city for everyone.
Look for the latest updates in our weekly e-blast, due out every Monday.
Reminder: The CPP-Collaborative Meeting is scheduled for 21st October at 600pm. 3500 Canal Street 2nd floor.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Upcoming CPP Meetings
Thursday, Oct. 9th- Outreach Team, 6:00pm, 3500 Canal Street
Monday, Oct. 13th- Organizational Structure Team, 5:30pm, 3500 Canal Street
Topic to be discussed: the first tier of a CPP system, Neighborhood Councils
Wednesday, Oct. 22nd- Scope of Activities Team, 12:00 noon, 3500 Canal Street
Topic to be discussed: LA budget day, participatory budgeting
Wednesday, Nov. 12th- Building on What Exists Team, 5:45pm, 3500 Canal Street
Monday, Oct. 13th- Organizational Structure Team, 5:30pm, 3500 Canal Street
Topic to be discussed: the first tier of a CPP system, Neighborhood Councils
Wednesday, Oct. 22nd- Scope of Activities Team, 12:00 noon, 3500 Canal Street
Topic to be discussed: LA budget day, participatory budgeting
Wednesday, Nov. 12th- Building on What Exists Team, 5:45pm, 3500 Canal Street
Meeting Notes, 10/8 Building on What Exists Team
There are worries that CPP is going to be left in the dust with the Master Plan due to the presence of the Community Advisory Groups. These groups were a big surprise for those who attended the Summit. Strong feelings that this a citizen-lead process and it needs to become more organized, move forward strongly and quickly, and have the ability to impact the Master Plan. There are 5 working groups as well as the CAG; Khalil is going to work on the future visioning team, which will have something to do with citizen participation. First meeting is Oct. 19th.
However, it is important to remember that CPP and the Master Plan are separate entities. This is a problem due to the confusion and anger of a lot of citizens about the Master Plan. The main way communities/neighborhoods are going to be able to influence the MP is through asking them to attend community meetings. The MP is not mandated to create a citizen participation program- that language was removed from the charter change. The citizen participation program that they are designing is only for input for the master plan and possible review opportunities, not anything else.
It would be best to send out all CPP participants all of the blasts and information about all of the public processes so no one is surprised by any process or feels left out. If this is truly a citizen driven process than all information pertinent to the process should be shared with the participants. It’s a shame that the MP process is not more open, and we should be sure to maintain the openness of CPP. Also- perhaps when we start hosting info sessions again, participants can come and be presenters as well; that way we can have multiple faces on the project.
Working with ORDA on re-starting the 18 recovery target zones district meetings. Exploring the ideas of using the 18 district zones as pilot areas for CPP.
Worries that CPP is losing momentum and that the timeline is too stretched out to be effective. Suggestions that we have some much larger and explicit planning sessions 2 – 3 hrs long to really work on writing and solidifying the model. That way we could have dates where things are obviously going to happen which might spur people into working more diligently. Focus should definitely be on the model. When the draft is finished, we need to do something more active than just a review/comment process, since that seems to defeat the actual purpose of CPP.
The work of BWE and the Organizational Structure team are moving closer and closer together. It might be best for the teams to merge. Tilman will attend the next Org. Structure meeting, and figure out the best way for the teams to proceed.
Next Building on What Exists Meeting: November 12th, 5:45pm, 3500 Canal Street
However, it is important to remember that CPP and the Master Plan are separate entities. This is a problem due to the confusion and anger of a lot of citizens about the Master Plan. The main way communities/neighborhoods are going to be able to influence the MP is through asking them to attend community meetings. The MP is not mandated to create a citizen participation program- that language was removed from the charter change. The citizen participation program that they are designing is only for input for the master plan and possible review opportunities, not anything else.
It would be best to send out all CPP participants all of the blasts and information about all of the public processes so no one is surprised by any process or feels left out. If this is truly a citizen driven process than all information pertinent to the process should be shared with the participants. It’s a shame that the MP process is not more open, and we should be sure to maintain the openness of CPP. Also- perhaps when we start hosting info sessions again, participants can come and be presenters as well; that way we can have multiple faces on the project.
Working with ORDA on re-starting the 18 recovery target zones district meetings. Exploring the ideas of using the 18 district zones as pilot areas for CPP.
Worries that CPP is losing momentum and that the timeline is too stretched out to be effective. Suggestions that we have some much larger and explicit planning sessions 2 – 3 hrs long to really work on writing and solidifying the model. That way we could have dates where things are obviously going to happen which might spur people into working more diligently. Focus should definitely be on the model. When the draft is finished, we need to do something more active than just a review/comment process, since that seems to defeat the actual purpose of CPP.
The work of BWE and the Organizational Structure team are moving closer and closer together. It might be best for the teams to merge. Tilman will attend the next Org. Structure meeting, and figure out the best way for the teams to proceed.
Next Building on What Exists Meeting: November 12th, 5:45pm, 3500 Canal Street
Friday, October 3, 2008
Race/Class/Gender Team Meeting Notes, 10.1
Meeting Notes
Race/Class/Gender Team, 0ct.1st
Present: Ted Quant, Lance Hill, Michael Kane, Michael Wong, Kirwan, Aaron Schneider, Rebeca Zuniga, Khalil Shahyd, Breonne DeDecker
How are we defining citizen in this process? Citizen is a loaded word and might discourage people who are not citizens of this country think they are not able to participate.
Currently we are defining it as anyone who lives or works within Orleans parish. However, if we focus only on people within the geographic location of New Orleans as being able to participate, then we might exclude the diaspora and individuals who want to come back and want to affect the program but currently cannot.
Big questions: Who participates? Who is legitimate? How do we address low participation from certain groups/communities?
It is key to also address group identities as well as geographic (neighborhood) identities. So that there is not only space for neighborhoods to talk about their priorities, but groups such as women to also have space to address their specific priorities. So representation should be geographic, thematic, and identity based. Questions, though: how do you call a meeting for these groups, how to you determine a successful meeting, and how to you aggregate votes/opinions for recommendations? What is the theoretical change that we are pushing for, and how do we know when it is successful?
We also need to determine what is dividing the communities of New Orleans right now and how to enter into constructive dialog about them. Also: how do we bridge education gaps to produce worthwhile participation? Important to show that this process is not just a rubber stamp of participation to legitimize decisions that have already been made but a worthwhile process for community engagement.
Also important to note that it is impossible to get everyone to participate so you much construct a mechanism of sorts that will take everyone into account- present or not. Important to instill empathy and interest of other’s opinions and views into the process. Perhaps there can be some sort of training prior to participation? Important to challenge the power conversation and recognize power differences. Also, think about diversity and what it means to different communities: is diversity encouraged out of interest in other communities, or is it to receive public services that are not readily available within certain communities, or is it done to try and change the other into something better? Means different things to different people.
Conversation about race is going to be difficult, partially because we are working with a 50yr old definition of what racism is. It really seems to be no longer about dislike, but about disinterest and neglect- perceiving that some communities have an absence of value.
Marching Orders:
Review the 2004 draft model and think about it in terms of race/class/gender issues.
Starting thinking about arguments for why the issues being raised in this team are important: why should we have a loose definition of citizen? Why should we strive to include group identities? How do we help create constructive conversations that do not alienate individuals who are participating? Etc.
Crystallize the key points to create the “prism” through this program will be viewed by the participants.
Come up with 3 or 4 main statements for the basis of the next discussion.
Race/Class/Gender Team, 0ct.1st
Present: Ted Quant, Lance Hill, Michael Kane, Michael Wong, Kirwan, Aaron Schneider, Rebeca Zuniga, Khalil Shahyd, Breonne DeDecker
How are we defining citizen in this process? Citizen is a loaded word and might discourage people who are not citizens of this country think they are not able to participate.
Currently we are defining it as anyone who lives or works within Orleans parish. However, if we focus only on people within the geographic location of New Orleans as being able to participate, then we might exclude the diaspora and individuals who want to come back and want to affect the program but currently cannot.
Big questions: Who participates? Who is legitimate? How do we address low participation from certain groups/communities?
It is key to also address group identities as well as geographic (neighborhood) identities. So that there is not only space for neighborhoods to talk about their priorities, but groups such as women to also have space to address their specific priorities. So representation should be geographic, thematic, and identity based. Questions, though: how do you call a meeting for these groups, how to you determine a successful meeting, and how to you aggregate votes/opinions for recommendations? What is the theoretical change that we are pushing for, and how do we know when it is successful?
We also need to determine what is dividing the communities of New Orleans right now and how to enter into constructive dialog about them. Also: how do we bridge education gaps to produce worthwhile participation? Important to show that this process is not just a rubber stamp of participation to legitimize decisions that have already been made but a worthwhile process for community engagement.
Also important to note that it is impossible to get everyone to participate so you much construct a mechanism of sorts that will take everyone into account- present or not. Important to instill empathy and interest of other’s opinions and views into the process. Perhaps there can be some sort of training prior to participation? Important to challenge the power conversation and recognize power differences. Also, think about diversity and what it means to different communities: is diversity encouraged out of interest in other communities, or is it to receive public services that are not readily available within certain communities, or is it done to try and change the other into something better? Means different things to different people.
Conversation about race is going to be difficult, partially because we are working with a 50yr old definition of what racism is. It really seems to be no longer about dislike, but about disinterest and neglect- perceiving that some communities have an absence of value.
Marching Orders:
Review the 2004 draft model and think about it in terms of race/class/gender issues.
Starting thinking about arguments for why the issues being raised in this team are important: why should we have a loose definition of citizen? Why should we strive to include group identities? How do we help create constructive conversations that do not alienate individuals who are participating? Etc.
Crystallize the key points to create the “prism” through this program will be viewed by the participants.
Come up with 3 or 4 main statements for the basis of the next discussion.
Scope of Activities Team Meeting, 10.1
Scope of Activities Team Meeting Notes, Oct. 1st
Participatory Budgeting: Perhaps the best place to impact the budget via participation would be at the council district level, by pressing for budget hearings in the different council districts.
We need to be able to effectively distinguish between the short term goals, medium term goals, and long term goals. Short term: the budget for the next fiscal year is already being worked on, so if we want to have an impact on it, we need to figure out a strategy now). Possible goal: allocation discussions and priority discussions crafted to include council persons knowledge of their own districts’ priorities. The executive branch (where the budget currently originates) might be more difficult to influence at this point in time. Should follow up with Hedge-Morrell to float this idea and see how receptive she is to it.
Blakely wants to restart the district meetings around the 18 recovery zones and the CPP has been tapped to assist with the meetings. The meetings could also be used to function as a sort of preliminary participatory budget format, with the target money/budget being not the city budget but the recovery budget. But we would have to be very careful about what the deliverables would be in that setting, and causing hard feelings among the community if too much is promised and nothing comes as a result. People are tired of planning processes, so in order to get enthusiastic participation one must demonstrate exactly what is on the table. Moreover, pushing for clarity over the budget (what is possible, what is not) might help clarify a lot of the public planning processes that are currently ongoing and winnow down the choices.
We need to figure out who gets what for which projects and who decides.
Use the trip to LA’s budget day to explore how it works. Start a dialog with Hedge-Morrell to see what she thinks about the budget.
Participatory Budgeting: Perhaps the best place to impact the budget via participation would be at the council district level, by pressing for budget hearings in the different council districts.
We need to be able to effectively distinguish between the short term goals, medium term goals, and long term goals. Short term: the budget for the next fiscal year is already being worked on, so if we want to have an impact on it, we need to figure out a strategy now). Possible goal: allocation discussions and priority discussions crafted to include council persons knowledge of their own districts’ priorities. The executive branch (where the budget currently originates) might be more difficult to influence at this point in time. Should follow up with Hedge-Morrell to float this idea and see how receptive she is to it.
Blakely wants to restart the district meetings around the 18 recovery zones and the CPP has been tapped to assist with the meetings. The meetings could also be used to function as a sort of preliminary participatory budget format, with the target money/budget being not the city budget but the recovery budget. But we would have to be very careful about what the deliverables would be in that setting, and causing hard feelings among the community if too much is promised and nothing comes as a result. People are tired of planning processes, so in order to get enthusiastic participation one must demonstrate exactly what is on the table. Moreover, pushing for clarity over the budget (what is possible, what is not) might help clarify a lot of the public planning processes that are currently ongoing and winnow down the choices.
We need to figure out who gets what for which projects and who decides.
Use the trip to LA’s budget day to explore how it works. Start a dialog with Hedge-Morrell to see what she thinks about the budget.
Timeline for the CPP
Draft Timeline for CPP
Sept. 23rd Collaborative Meeting
Setting up quorum standards
Vision/Mission team presentation- finalization of vision/mission statement
Presentation of Draft Timeline
Voting on 2004 Draft Model as starting point
Oct. 21st Collaborative Meeting
Organizational Structure team presentation
Funding team presentation
Nov. 1st
Start date for community survey, goal 2 – 3 week completion, data synthesized by Dec. 16th
Nov. 18th Collaborative Meeting
Scope of Activities/ Data team presentation
Update from Outreach team
Dec. 16th Collaborative Meeting
Building on What Exists team presentation
Results of community survey presented
Jan. 20th Collaborative Meeting
Outreach team presentation
Capacity Building team presentation- headed by TCA
March 3rd Collaborative Meeting
Presentation of new CPP Draft
Synthesis/Action planning
March – April
Civic education campaign
May
CPP presented before City Council
Sept. 23rd Collaborative Meeting
Setting up quorum standards
Vision/Mission team presentation- finalization of vision/mission statement
Presentation of Draft Timeline
Voting on 2004 Draft Model as starting point
Oct. 21st Collaborative Meeting
Organizational Structure team presentation
Funding team presentation
Nov. 1st
Start date for community survey, goal 2 – 3 week completion, data synthesized by Dec. 16th
Nov. 18th Collaborative Meeting
Scope of Activities/ Data team presentation
Update from Outreach team
Dec. 16th Collaborative Meeting
Building on What Exists team presentation
Results of community survey presented
Jan. 20th Collaborative Meeting
Outreach team presentation
Capacity Building team presentation- headed by TCA
March 3rd Collaborative Meeting
Presentation of new CPP Draft
Synthesis/Action planning
March – April
Civic education campaign
May
CPP presented before City Council
September 23rd, 2008 Collaborative Meeting
CPP Collaborate Meeting Notes, 9.23
Discussion of the internal decision-making process:
Action Teams should be the focal point within the process, and the majority of the decision-making should take place within the Action Teams. Wanted to steer away from making the Collaborative Meeting a governing body and instead use it as a place to discuss what the Action Teams are proposing and provide feedback; up/down votes will most likely be a rare occurrence within the Collaborative Meeting. Quorum will be loosely defined for. It is important right now to have the Action Teams moving forward, with the Teams focusing on their respective areas of interest and serving as the main place for decisions to be made.
Discussion of the proposed Vision/Mission Statements:
Proposed Vision Statement:
Successful democracy is based upon shared accountability between empowered citizens and their government. The Citizen Participation Program ensures citizen empowerment and joint accountability, resulting in the most beneficial outcomes for the community as a whole.
Comments:
Might be helpful to define who a “citizen” is, as well as define “government” clearly, meaning does the CPP target departments, civil servants, elected officials, etc.
“Shared accountability” is a term that could mean many different things, perhaps better to use a phase like “shared responsibility”; also good to maybe allude to what that responsibility/accountability is for citizens.
Proposed Mission Statement:
Trust and confidence in government is built through citizens' ability to effectively participate in public decisions. The mission of the Citizen Participation Program (CPP) is to enable citizens to have a greater say in city government's priority-setting and decision-making, and to give government officials a more effective and clearly defined way to communicate with the people. The CPP is an official vehicle to establish continuing dialog between communities, neighborhoods, and officials, in order to facilitate a process where citizens can have a direct impact on all aspects of government policies, actions, and public services relevant to their quality of life. The views within CPP are derived democratically, and strive for consensus by taking account of not only the rights and needs of individuals and locales, but the interest of the city as a whole.
Comments:
It might work better if it were more condensed. The second sentence in particular could work as a base for a truncated mission statement.
It is a strong change from the 2004 mission statement- it went from “providing an additional tool” in 2004 to being “the official vehicle”. Is this what we want to say? Perhaps say “the preferred vehicle” in order to leave open alternate forms of citizen participation.
“Democratically derived” also means “majority opinion”. Should we include something about CPP being a way to express minority opinions as well?
“Public decisions” should be made clear. Which decisions, and who has a right to have input in which decisions? IE does everyone get to help make decisions for a certain neighborhood, or will the decisions mainly be made by those who are affected by them?
“All aspects of government policies” should be made more clear.
A lot of this mission statement could be refined into goals- We can create a shorter mission statement that is more easy to remember and concise, and then also supply a list of goals that can draw from a lot of this information.
Feedback will go back to the Vision/Mission team, and they will work on the language some more.
Discussion on the timeline/using the 2004 model as a starting point:
Using it as starting point does not mean accepting it as is in regards to implementation. It will be a working document, and still available for changing as necessary. Group decides to move forward using the 2004 draft as a starting point.
The timeline seems good- it’s not set in stone, some teams might not be ready to present when they are scheduled, etc, but having a target end date as May 2009 is a realistic goal. Would be helpful to set out some writing assignments for teams around Nov./Dec. Certain teams should expect to be involved in supplying language/writing for the final document.
Discussion of the internal decision-making process:
Action Teams should be the focal point within the process, and the majority of the decision-making should take place within the Action Teams. Wanted to steer away from making the Collaborative Meeting a governing body and instead use it as a place to discuss what the Action Teams are proposing and provide feedback; up/down votes will most likely be a rare occurrence within the Collaborative Meeting. Quorum will be loosely defined for. It is important right now to have the Action Teams moving forward, with the Teams focusing on their respective areas of interest and serving as the main place for decisions to be made.
Discussion of the proposed Vision/Mission Statements:
Proposed Vision Statement:
Successful democracy is based upon shared accountability between empowered citizens and their government. The Citizen Participation Program ensures citizen empowerment and joint accountability, resulting in the most beneficial outcomes for the community as a whole.
Comments:
Might be helpful to define who a “citizen” is, as well as define “government” clearly, meaning does the CPP target departments, civil servants, elected officials, etc.
“Shared accountability” is a term that could mean many different things, perhaps better to use a phase like “shared responsibility”; also good to maybe allude to what that responsibility/accountability is for citizens.
Proposed Mission Statement:
Trust and confidence in government is built through citizens' ability to effectively participate in public decisions. The mission of the Citizen Participation Program (CPP) is to enable citizens to have a greater say in city government's priority-setting and decision-making, and to give government officials a more effective and clearly defined way to communicate with the people. The CPP is an official vehicle to establish continuing dialog between communities, neighborhoods, and officials, in order to facilitate a process where citizens can have a direct impact on all aspects of government policies, actions, and public services relevant to their quality of life. The views within CPP are derived democratically, and strive for consensus by taking account of not only the rights and needs of individuals and locales, but the interest of the city as a whole.
Comments:
It might work better if it were more condensed. The second sentence in particular could work as a base for a truncated mission statement.
It is a strong change from the 2004 mission statement- it went from “providing an additional tool” in 2004 to being “the official vehicle”. Is this what we want to say? Perhaps say “the preferred vehicle” in order to leave open alternate forms of citizen participation.
“Democratically derived” also means “majority opinion”. Should we include something about CPP being a way to express minority opinions as well?
“Public decisions” should be made clear. Which decisions, and who has a right to have input in which decisions? IE does everyone get to help make decisions for a certain neighborhood, or will the decisions mainly be made by those who are affected by them?
“All aspects of government policies” should be made more clear.
A lot of this mission statement could be refined into goals- We can create a shorter mission statement that is more easy to remember and concise, and then also supply a list of goals that can draw from a lot of this information.
Feedback will go back to the Vision/Mission team, and they will work on the language some more.
Discussion on the timeline/using the 2004 model as a starting point:
Using it as starting point does not mean accepting it as is in regards to implementation. It will be a working document, and still available for changing as necessary. Group decides to move forward using the 2004 draft as a starting point.
The timeline seems good- it’s not set in stone, some teams might not be ready to present when they are scheduled, etc, but having a target end date as May 2009 is a realistic goal. Would be helpful to set out some writing assignments for teams around Nov./Dec. Certain teams should expect to be involved in supplying language/writing for the final document.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Review of the CPP Summit
On July 11 and 12, 2008, the first major milestone in the New Orleans Citizen Participation Program took place: a Citizen Participation Summit that brought together people from throughout the city. At the Summit, participants reviewed CPP models from around the country, including a draft model New Orleans CPP that was developed pre-Katrina, and discussed how these might be applicable to the current situation in the city.
Keynote speaker Judith Mowry, from the Office of Neighborhood Participation in Portland, Oregon, spoke of the values of citizen participation and the importance of working together, through obstacles and even conflict, to achieve the goal of a powerful and inclusive citizen voice in city government.
By the conclusion of the Summit, participants had identified the key components that will be part of the process going forward to design and implement the New Orleans CPP. Action Teams were formed to work on each of these components, with Action Team meetings beginning within 3 days of the Summit.
The following Action Teams were established:
1. Building on What Exists
2. Organizational Structure
3. Scope of CPP Activities
4. Inclusiveness and Outreach
5. Race/Class/Gender
6. Civic Education and Capacity Building
7. Research and Data Needs for CPP
8. Funding a Permanent CPP
9. Vision and Mission Statement
More information on the Action Teams can be found at the NOLACPP website. Presently, the overall structure for moving forward with this project is being defined, including a process for citizen decision-making. The Action Teams will continue their work within this structure. Future actions and timelines will be decided by the citizens who are engaged in this project. People interested in joining this effort should contact us through the www.nolacpp.org web site.
Keynote speaker Judith Mowry, from the Office of Neighborhood Participation in Portland, Oregon, spoke of the values of citizen participation and the importance of working together, through obstacles and even conflict, to achieve the goal of a powerful and inclusive citizen voice in city government.
By the conclusion of the Summit, participants had identified the key components that will be part of the process going forward to design and implement the New Orleans CPP. Action Teams were formed to work on each of these components, with Action Team meetings beginning within 3 days of the Summit.
The following Action Teams were established:
1. Building on What Exists
2. Organizational Structure
3. Scope of CPP Activities
4. Inclusiveness and Outreach
5. Race/Class/Gender
6. Civic Education and Capacity Building
7. Research and Data Needs for CPP
8. Funding a Permanent CPP
9. Vision and Mission Statement
More information on the Action Teams can be found at the NOLACPP website. Presently, the overall structure for moving forward with this project is being defined, including a process for citizen decision-making. The Action Teams will continue their work within this structure. Future actions and timelines will be decided by the citizens who are engaged in this project. People interested in joining this effort should contact us through the www.nolacpp.org web site.
Welcome to the NOLA CPP Blog Space
Welcome to the New Orleans Citizen Participation Project Blog.
This site will be used as a rapid online communication tool between NOLACPP Staff , Action Teams, other partners and concerned residents.
The New Orleans Citizen Participation Project [CPP] is a citizen driven campaign to develop a system of direct involvement of the city’s residents in the public decisions and development planning that can impact and enhance our quality of life.
On Monday 18 August 2008, the New Orleans Citizen Participation Project held its first CPP Collaborative meeting. The meeting was meant to be an opportunity for representatives of the 9 Action Teams and our Community Partners to come together and discuss the projects activities and get feedback from project staff. The notes from this meeting is attached to this email.
The 9 Action teams were created during the Citizen Participation Summit on 11-12th July. Summit participants divided the CPP campaign into 9 topical areas that need attention as we develop the formal CPP model to be presented to the City Council next year.
During our collaborative meeting, our Organizational Structure Team proposed that each team be required to meet at least once every three weeks, in addition to sending at least one representative to the monthly CPP collaborative meeting in the 4th week of each month. We would like all Teams to contact us as to when their next meeting is scheduled. If it is not yet scheduled, we can help you set it up. The agenda for the next Collaborative Team Meeting is currently open for suggestions from the teams. The next CPP Collaborative Team Meeting is scheduled for:
Tuesday, September 23rd
6:00 pm
3500 Canal Street, 2nd floor
We also announced the launch of the NOLACPP website, at www.nolacpp.org. The website is a resource and point of contact for people interested in learning more about the CPP and wanting to get involved.
If you’d like to be involved in an Action Team , or would like to schedule a discussion or presentation about CPP with your organization please contact Project Assistant, Breonne DeDecker at; [btdedecker@gmail.com], 504.267.4665 or Project Director, Khalil Shahyd at; [khalil05@aol.com], 504.267.4696.
This site will be used as a rapid online communication tool between NOLACPP Staff , Action Teams, other partners and concerned residents.
The New Orleans Citizen Participation Project [CPP] is a citizen driven campaign to develop a system of direct involvement of the city’s residents in the public decisions and development planning that can impact and enhance our quality of life.
On Monday 18 August 2008, the New Orleans Citizen Participation Project held its first CPP Collaborative meeting. The meeting was meant to be an opportunity for representatives of the 9 Action Teams and our Community Partners to come together and discuss the projects activities and get feedback from project staff. The notes from this meeting is attached to this email.
The 9 Action teams were created during the Citizen Participation Summit on 11-12th July. Summit participants divided the CPP campaign into 9 topical areas that need attention as we develop the formal CPP model to be presented to the City Council next year.
During our collaborative meeting, our Organizational Structure Team proposed that each team be required to meet at least once every three weeks, in addition to sending at least one representative to the monthly CPP collaborative meeting in the 4th week of each month. We would like all Teams to contact us as to when their next meeting is scheduled. If it is not yet scheduled, we can help you set it up. The agenda for the next Collaborative Team Meeting is currently open for suggestions from the teams. The next CPP Collaborative Team Meeting is scheduled for:
Tuesday, September 23rd
6:00 pm
3500 Canal Street, 2nd floor
We also announced the launch of the NOLACPP website, at www.nolacpp.org. The website is a resource and point of contact for people interested in learning more about the CPP and wanting to get involved.
If you’d like to be involved in an Action Team , or would like to schedule a discussion or presentation about CPP with your organization please contact Project Assistant, Breonne DeDecker at; [btdedecker@gmail.com], 504.267.4665 or Project Director, Khalil Shahyd at; [khalil05@aol.com], 504.267.4696.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)