Notes, CPP Meeting, 1.5.09

Notes, CPP Meeting, 1/5/09

The meeting was called to discuss a list of questions/points that needed to be resolved in order to move forward with rewriting a new draft CPP.

It was noted at the beginning of the meeting that it needs to be made clear that the CPP is neither a challenge to nor an intrusion into our role or function of our elected representatives.

The role of the CPP is to organize the process of communication between city leaders and residents. Residents need to have more clarity and structure to the process of citizen engagement in public discussions and the decisions that impact them. A structure that provides some standards for the incorporation of resident input and accountability when decisions are made contrary to the expressed views of the impacted community.

City officials need to be confident that when they request input from residents on important decisions, that input reflects and is the result of a legitimate process of dialogue.

CPP is ultimately a process of information sharing and a way for communities to impact the “pathway to decision-making”. CPP will not produce statements such as “this is what the CPP says/wants/endorses” but instead be a tool to gauge opinions, ideas, and desires of communities to enhance decisions that the city takes.

First question discussed:
Currently the CPP was originally proposed working off of a three-tiered system model, which rises from Neighborhood Councils, District Councils (planning district), and a Citizens Voice Council at the city-wide level. Is this a good system to work from, or should it be revisited?

- Original draft that we agreed to use was based upon these 3 tiers
- 3 tiers represent the different levels of analysis for the issues
- The tiers enable the organization of participation around specific issues.
- Question: How will differences in population impact the tier structure?
- Question/Comment: In order to determine the right structure, more discussion on the actual role or function of each structure needs to be addressed.

Neighborhood Council level-
- Example: Carrollton Area Network; CAN is not just the neighborhoods but also businesses and nonprofits in the area
- CAN does not control or supersede the neighborhoods within it; Neighborhoods do not have to all agree on an issue to be a part of the council.
- Used for informational, networking, and development purposes
- Question: Does the council system effectively add a fourth layer to the tiered structure?

District Council level-
- Question: Should districts be comprised of the planning districts (geographic-based), or to the council districts (politically-based)?
- Geographic organization of the middle tier might be best due to the amount of collaboration already occurring geographically.
- Political districts might be good because it would be a way of applying pressure to the political system/deal with the political reality of the city.
- Question: Could district coordinators be hired to manage input at the council and district levels?


General Comments on Structure
- Some participants stressed that participation should be “organic” and open to all; should not try to re-organize groups that are already organized.
- However, others felt there should be some type of organizational structure in order to ensure that their standards and rules of access and participation both for organizations claiming to represent geographies and community based constituencies as well as rules for engagement and participation in public discussions.
- Keeping an ‘organic’ structure might privilege those groups with greater resources and better organization to control the participation process.


Next meeting, 12 January 2009, 5:30

The next meeting will continue the ongoing discussion about structure and the effective role of the various groups and tiers in the process.

We will begin a discussion on the potential budget and how to finance a CPP which will be carried over to a full discussion at the third group meeting on 15 January 2009.