Monday, March 23, 2009

Notes from Communities of Interest Meeting, March 12th, 2009

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?

No comments: