Communities of Interest Mtg 12 March 2009
Agenda
600-615pm Introductions
615-645pm Initial Questions, Review of CoI Document
645-715pm Additional Questions, Working Plan
715-730pm Closing
Meeting
1. How are Communities of Interest integrated into the CPP system?
2. How can an ‘organic’ organization of communities ensure democratic voice in deliberation?
3. Based on conflicting interest no single view point should dominate, how to construct a fully deliberative system?
4. What are the values for inclusion that need to be established to attract CoI groups?
5. How can issues of autonomy be respected by inclusion within a CPP system? How is CPP different from other processes and what other groups are doing? Is CPP just another organization?
6. Who are the CoI groups we need to reach out to?
7. How can CoI groups be mobilized and help mobilize others to support the CPP?
8. Will CPP distinguish non-profit service providers from advocacy groups?
9. Local government needs citizens much more than we need them? Government needs the organizing energy, the technical capacity and the expertise based in communities to govern the city.
10. Getting stakeholders involved for more effective governance. Not democracy as a catch phrase.
11. Working backward from necessary city agencies to develop CoI’s to insert within each departmental body. Start with the connecting points in city government and work backward.
12. This however may not address desires for inclusion without some specific standard or guidelines.
13. Every department should have a defined CoI constituency and every constituency should have a defined point of contact within city departments to operate.
14. Can we create an example for the next meeting to run a game model of what the system could look like functioning?
15. Identify central CoI that need to be included in our discussion.
16. How to build in “comeback” incentives for community groups that feel their perspective was not given precedence?
Monday, March 23, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Org. Structure Notes
9 March 2009
I. District Neighborhood Councils
a. Boundaries: by planning district or other form?
1. Issue of funding will ultimately determine make up of District Councils. Can’t have too many, can’t have too few that would be cumbersome for District staff.
2. Staffing limits may not be the best criteria. Having staff assigned to specific geographic areas is good but we shouldn’t be creating a new layer. Do we need a regular gathering of people at the planning district level, can we allow for smaller units to address more regular needs and bring people together at planning level for specific issues and needs?
3. By not organizing around planning districts we may build inequity into the system. Due to the spatial concentration of poverty vs. high income areas; advanced education vs. lower education attainment etc. It is important to go forward with a clearly defined structure and not leave it to neighborhoods to develop that structure. By leaving it to neighborhoods it leaves it too vulnerable to political manipulation and control.
4. Decisions concerning the immediate geography should go through the neighborhood association and be delivered through the appropriate District Neighborhood Council.
5. Don’t discount NA’s that see themselves to be the “last word”. How will we get “hardheaded” NA’s to play when they’ve already been so successful in the past?
6. When thinking about boundaries we have to be mindful of the fact that while planning districts might work best for land and zoning issues, other districts may allow for more rational organization for other issues identified by the scope of activities.
7. Where is the actual authorization to create the structure coming from? NA’s that have strong ties to council persons may not see a benefit of joining a District Council.
8. The group began to coalesce around the idea of forming the District Councils geographically around existing planning districts.
9. If we are going to have to revolve around planning districts, a group of neighborhoods should have the option to choose themselves which district they prefer to be a part of if they cross boundaries.
II. Standards
1. Would like to see more emphasis on inequalities and building equity into the system. There may be some communities of interest that even in the best case scenarios will not be integrated into neighborhoods.
2. The standards and guidelines are established to build equity into the system.
3. Groups that don’t adequately represent the entire neighborhood are not NA’s but a community of interest group.
4. ORDA is developing a neighborhood assistance program to help neighborhoods take on physical neighborhood projects, funded by matching grants including in-kind services. To develop sustainable neighborhood groups, that are representative and not just a power block at the neighborhood level.
I. District Neighborhood Councils
a. Boundaries: by planning district or other form?
1. Issue of funding will ultimately determine make up of District Councils. Can’t have too many, can’t have too few that would be cumbersome for District staff.
2. Staffing limits may not be the best criteria. Having staff assigned to specific geographic areas is good but we shouldn’t be creating a new layer. Do we need a regular gathering of people at the planning district level, can we allow for smaller units to address more regular needs and bring people together at planning level for specific issues and needs?
3. By not organizing around planning districts we may build inequity into the system. Due to the spatial concentration of poverty vs. high income areas; advanced education vs. lower education attainment etc. It is important to go forward with a clearly defined structure and not leave it to neighborhoods to develop that structure. By leaving it to neighborhoods it leaves it too vulnerable to political manipulation and control.
4. Decisions concerning the immediate geography should go through the neighborhood association and be delivered through the appropriate District Neighborhood Council.
5. Don’t discount NA’s that see themselves to be the “last word”. How will we get “hardheaded” NA’s to play when they’ve already been so successful in the past?
6. When thinking about boundaries we have to be mindful of the fact that while planning districts might work best for land and zoning issues, other districts may allow for more rational organization for other issues identified by the scope of activities.
7. Where is the actual authorization to create the structure coming from? NA’s that have strong ties to council persons may not see a benefit of joining a District Council.
8. The group began to coalesce around the idea of forming the District Councils geographically around existing planning districts.
9. If we are going to have to revolve around planning districts, a group of neighborhoods should have the option to choose themselves which district they prefer to be a part of if they cross boundaries.
II. Standards
1. Would like to see more emphasis on inequalities and building equity into the system. There may be some communities of interest that even in the best case scenarios will not be integrated into neighborhoods.
2. The standards and guidelines are established to build equity into the system.
3. Groups that don’t adequately represent the entire neighborhood are not NA’s but a community of interest group.
4. ORDA is developing a neighborhood assistance program to help neighborhoods take on physical neighborhood projects, funded by matching grants including in-kind services. To develop sustainable neighborhood groups, that are representative and not just a power block at the neighborhood level.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Ten Minute Briefing on New Orleans' Recovery: Feb 16, 2009
Population, Housing, Economy and Infrastructure 3 1/2 years after Katrina. Plus, update on how New Orleans is faring relative to the national recession, and policy recommendation for the Federal Office of Gulf Coast Recovery. From the New Orleans Index, a collaboration between the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center and the Brookings Institution.
http://www.vimeo.com/3287296
http://www.vimeo.com/3287296
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
This weekend, on 28 February 2009, the NOLA-CPP hosted its first Town Hall Breakfast to discuss the 1st draft of the New Orleans Citizen Participation Program model. The event, held at the Ashe’ Cultural Arts Center was co-hosted by the Central City Renaissance Alliance and the Central City Partnership.
People from across the city came out to have a good breakfast and discuss the proposal for a new Citizen Participation System. Notes from the discussion are attached to this email as well as e-copies of the new Citizen Participation Project Toolkit and the actual Draft Guidelines and Standards reviewed at the breakfast.
There was great enthusiasm about the draft as people began to understand how truly unique and innovative a model it was. The residents who have been coming together since July to discuss the creation of the Citizen Participation Program have crafted a model that brings together the diversity of the New Orleans’ community by recognizing that civic engagement and needs to reach as many voices as possible to be effective.
To do this the Organizational Structure Team has settled on a model for the CPP system that includes a geographic basis for organizing Neighborhood Associations as well as a social or thematic basis for organizing Communities of Interests. At the town hall meeting on Saturday we had an audience of people representing both [geographic] Neighborhood groups and [social] Community groups. Both types of civil
society organization have a great deal to offer the other and as the system is developed we hope to see more partnerships emerge through dialogue and problem solving.
We were also pleased to have staff members from the offices of Council-Persons Mrs. Jackie Clarkson and Mr. Arnie Fielkow. Follow-up meetings with other Council Persons as well as members of the City Planning Commission and ORDA are being planned to keep them all informed of our work and get important feedback.
While we presented the 1st draft of the new CPP model to the public on Saturday, our discussions do not stop there. We plan to have the final draft completed by late May 2009. Now we need to refocus our Action Team discussions around the proposed structure we created. We will continue meetings with the Organizational Structure team that will continue working on the structure and policy of the CPP.
In addition, in the next few days we will be sending out meeting dates to restart the discussion began in 2008 with other Action Teams such as;
1. Financing a CPP
2. Public Access to Information and Data
3. Race, Gender and Class perspectives of Citizen Participation
4. Scope of Activities
5. Civic Education and Capacity Building
6.Outreach and Inclusion
In addition to these familiar topics, we are creating a new Team to help us specifically address the inclusion and creation of Community of Interest Councils in the CPP system. Questions on the proper structure, rules of engagement, accountability and others will be of major concern as that group’s discussion moves forward.
We hope that you will work with us and build on the great energy we experienced on Saturday to complete the CPP model by May 2009.
People from across the city came out to have a good breakfast and discuss the proposal for a new Citizen Participation System. Notes from the discussion are attached to this email as well as e-copies of the new Citizen Participation Project Toolkit and the actual Draft Guidelines and Standards reviewed at the breakfast.
There was great enthusiasm about the draft as people began to understand how truly unique and innovative a model it was. The residents who have been coming together since July to discuss the creation of the Citizen Participation Program have crafted a model that brings together the diversity of the New Orleans’ community by recognizing that civic engagement and needs to reach as many voices as possible to be effective.
To do this the Organizational Structure Team has settled on a model for the CPP system that includes a geographic basis for organizing Neighborhood Associations as well as a social or thematic basis for organizing Communities of Interests. At the town hall meeting on Saturday we had an audience of people representing both [geographic] Neighborhood groups and [social] Community groups. Both types of civil
society organization have a great deal to offer the other and as the system is developed we hope to see more partnerships emerge through dialogue and problem solving.
We were also pleased to have staff members from the offices of Council-Persons Mrs. Jackie Clarkson and Mr. Arnie Fielkow. Follow-up meetings with other Council Persons as well as members of the City Planning Commission and ORDA are being planned to keep them all informed of our work and get important feedback.
While we presented the 1st draft of the new CPP model to the public on Saturday, our discussions do not stop there. We plan to have the final draft completed by late May 2009. Now we need to refocus our Action Team discussions around the proposed structure we created. We will continue meetings with the Organizational Structure team that will continue working on the structure and policy of the CPP.
In addition, in the next few days we will be sending out meeting dates to restart the discussion began in 2008 with other Action Teams such as;
1. Financing a CPP
2. Public Access to Information and Data
3. Race, Gender and Class perspectives of Citizen Participation
4. Scope of Activities
5. Civic Education and Capacity Building
6.Outreach and Inclusion
In addition to these familiar topics, we are creating a new Team to help us specifically address the inclusion and creation of Community of Interest Councils in the CPP system. Questions on the proper structure, rules of engagement, accountability and others will be of major concern as that group’s discussion moves forward.
We hope that you will work with us and build on the great energy we experienced on Saturday to complete the CPP model by May 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)