All posts in the topic Mayor Rybak Statement on NRP/Community Engagement (Short link)
Summary
- There are 4 posts — by 4 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Connie Sullivan at Nov 02 20:49 UTC
This is the document that Mayor Rybak has been sharing to communicate his views
on NRP and Community Engagement in Minneapolis:
Building a Great City Takes an Engaged City
October 2007
As Mayor I have the privilege of spending most nights talking with neighborhood
and community groups in all corners of Minneapolis. I am continually impressed
that night after night there are thousands of people giving up their time to
make Minneapolis a better place.
Our neighborhood organizations have made a tremendous contribution to the City,
and some of that work has been done in partnership with the City. We should be
proud of that. However it is also time to deepen that partnership, and make
sure it is open, transparent and sustainable for years to come.
Doing this will mean we have to respond to the changing dynamics of what it
means to run a city and engage residents:
1. Changing demographics have made Minneapolis much more diverse.
2. New technologies have changed the way people get information and engage in
community.
3. Actions outside the City's control have meant that sources that
traditionally funded geographic-based community engagement have been decreased
or eliminated.
4. The growing role of community organizations is more important than ever.
Building a great City is a two-way partnership between government and its
residents. Residents need to be active participants in shaping our City's
future, and we need to better align city-wide priorities with local
neighborhood priorities - and vice versa.
In May, the City Council (through the leadership of Councilmember Lilligren)
and I adopted a three-track work plan to bring the City's community engagement
system into its next generation, including supporting what is currently working
and exploring new ideas to improve what we're doing:
*Track One is implementing improvements where a clear consensus has emerged
that the City can and should make right now to make decision-making more open,
transparent and accessible to residents. For example, we need to do a better
job of explaining how different City decisions are made and clarifying the
roles and responsibilities of official advisory groups.
*Track Two is about addressing how neighborhood groups, community organizations
and the City government can support each other to build a city that reflects
the priorities of its residents. The Community Engagement Task Force, whose
recommendations are due to the City Council and myself in just a couple weeks,
is part of this track.
*Track Three is focused on working with our NRP partners to develop a strategy
for the future of the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) beyond 2009.
As we work through this three-track plan, and especially as we tackle Track
Three, I hold to several core principles that I believe will get us to a place
where the City better engages residents and community organizations:
*Support neighborhoods. A partnership between the City and neighborhoods is
critical to a strong City, the backbone of which needs to build on and support
the ongoing community-building work of neighborhood organizations. Minneapolis
has many well-run, responsive neighborhood organizations, and we need a
sustainable funding strategy that supports high-quality, responsive
neighborhoods organizations in every part of town.
*Direct relationship between the City and neighborhoods. A resident working in
their community should be able to speak directly to their City government, and
the City government needs more direct communication with neighborhood
organizations. The current system makes that difficult by having the NRP
central administration sitting between these groups and the City. Whether the
NRP continues to have a central administration, we need to have a more direct
link between the City and the citizens it serves. This includes having the City
build and support financially community engagement staff at the City, and a
more formal in put from neighborhoods into City spending, ie. a neighborhood
role in the Capital Long Range Improvement (CLIC) Process.
*Inclusive. Our community engagement should include diverse peoples and be
open to innovative approaches that emerge around issues that may not be
geographic. Neighborhood organizations are the backbone of community
engagement, and they are always needed, but in additional to them we should be
open and supportive of other ways that residents organize themselves. We also
need to recognize that full participation means we have to use new and
alternative ways of communicating with residents beyond the traditional evening
meeting.
*Shared priorities with flexible funding. City decisions should respond to
neighborhood priorities and neighborhoods should respond to City-wide
priorities. Minneapolis should have clear, accountable ways that neighborhood
and community priorities more directly influence the City's work and allocation
of resources. One way to accomplish this is to have the City expand the use of
flexible "micro grants" to neighborhoods for City priorities such as graffiti
removal and action on climate change.
*Neighborhoods need discretionary funding. Providing neighborhoods some
funding to allocate on their own encourages the innovation that has been so
successful over the years. We have not identified a source for these funds, and
our first funding priority in this area should be direct support to
organizations, but we will explore ways to provide funds neighborhoods
themselves could control.
*Accountable and transparent governance. Taxpayers require accountable,
transparent, accessible systems of decision-making at the City-wide and
neighborhood level, especially regarding public funding. Specifically in
regards to NRP beyond 2009, the program should be governed by a combination of
neighborhood representatives, and representatives from those governmental
jurisdictions who are willing to contribute financially to the program.
The NRP program will change; the question is how we can set it up for success
into the future. As the program approaches its 20-year end, we have an
opportunity to take what has worked, and strengthen what hasn't, all with the
effort to build a better city - a great city - in which residents are actively
engaged in shaping the way their city looks, feels and grows. We should expect
nothing less.
Thanks to Mayor Rybak for having his aide post the text of the document where
he lists ideas on community involvement. It is not as bad as we may have
thought. Though it does demonstrate some truly profound ignorance on the part
of the Mayor about how Neighborhoods and NRP work. The Mayor admitted this in
his comments at the "Committee of the Whole". Mayor Rybak stated that when NRP
was going on he was too busy with his children to participate in the planning
process his own community engaged in. The same is probably true with involvment
with his Neighborhood organization, but his staff should certainly advise him
better on these subjects.
So perhaps Mr. Jeremy Hanson can pass along to Mayor Rybak that NRP 'central
administration' has NOTHING to do with neighborhood groups communicating
directly with the City. The Mayor says:
"Direct relationship between the City and neighborhoods. A resident working
in their community should be able to speak directly to their City government,
and the City government needs more direct communication with neighborhood
organizations. The current system makes that difficult by having the NRP
central administration sitting between these groups and the City. Whether the
NRP continues to have a central administration, we need to have a more direct
link between the City and the citizens it serves. This includes having the City
build and support financially community engagement staff at the City, and a
more formal in put from neighborhoods into City spending, i.e. a neighborhood
role in the Capital Long Range Improvement (CLIC) Process."
RT Rybak has his Bobs mixed up. He is talking about Bob Cooper, NOT Bob
Miller. Bob Cooper is the "Citizen Participation" arm of the City not NRP or
Bob Miller. Neighborhoods have "Citizen Participation" agreements through that
arm of the City. NOT through NRP.
If RT had actually participated with NRP at any level he would understand
that what he is talking about is "Citizen Participation" and the City. NOT
NRP! RT sadly does not comprehend that his suggestion, "This includes having
the City build and support financially community engagement staff at the City",
is presently being implemented through existing City "community engagement
staff". NOT NRP! Hiring more "Citizen Participation Staff" would only create
even more bureaucracy to "get between the Neighborhoods and the City".
The only place NRP might possibly get "between" the City and Neighborhoods is
that Neighborhoods have discretionary funding that THEY get to decide where it
goes, rather than the City Council and Mayor simply taking the funds to use as
their private slush fund.
The City already makes "Micro Grants" to organizations and neighborhoods. It
has always had that power. That power once also came from MCDA, but the City
dissolved that entity and made CPED, so the City has complete control of that
function. The Mayor's staff must be keeping him in the dark on that ability
that his administration created.
I choose to believe that RT Rybak is sincere in his wish to have the
Neighborhoods more heavily engaged in City decision making policy and has a
staff that has purposefully kept him ignorant of how "Citizen Participation"
and NRP function. As such I think it is important for Neighborhoods to help RT
with his stated interest in making them more specifically involved in
decision-making. As such I make the following suggestions:
Have Neighborhoods give specific input on any and all development projects,
as well as zoning and land-use decisions, then require a "super majority" of
the Council, upheld by a vote of the Mayor, to overturn such a "Neighborhood
Decision".
Decentralize "Citizen Participation". Have a minimum of hired "Citizen
Participation Staff at the City but fund Citizen Participation staff at the
neighborhood level, or "Community Planning District" level, where they are
answerable to the Neighborhoods and "Citizens" NOT the City. Otherwise they
are directing citizen participation to what their bosses want to hear, NOT what
the "Citizens" want to give as input into decision making.
Any City wide policy should be ratified by a majority of Neighborhoods or
it should not become policy.
5.
6., ---- I will leave room for others to make suggestions of how we can all
help RT to make a reality his "Commitment" to having Neighborhoods and
residents more involved in the decision making process. Having Neighborhoods
and "Citizens" more deeply involved in the decision-making about "Citizen
Participation" process is where he should start if his is sincere about this
and it is not just throwing up a smoke screen to cover another naked attempt to
kill NRP.
For now let's all just take Mayor Rybak's intentions as honorable and attempt
to help and educate him about the process. To start we need to convene
neighborhood lead planning sessions about how to include neighborhoods more
fully in the City decision-making process. That engagement should start
immediately and I invite neighborhood leaders from around the City to come
together to "plan" such a meeting. Perhaps we can get the Neighborhood staff,
and perhaps NRP staff, to assist with this activity since they are certainly
far more involved with neighborhood and community residents than any "City
staff".
I am truly glad that Mayor Rybak has opened the door to this possibility,
which can dramatically make decision-making more transparent and honest. So
Neighborhoods should look at this as an opportunity, not just another attack by
City bureaucracy.
Jim Graham,
Ventura Village
Wise sayings:
We can only be what we give ourselves the power to be A Cherokee Feast of
Days
The people are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I too would like to thank Jeremy Hanson for posting the Mayor's handout.
Even though I was at the Oct 26 Roundtable, I did not receive a copy. I
only wish there was a transcript of what he personally said.
Now, I want to ask the Mayor or anyone else in his administration to respond
specifically to the following question.
Just exactly how does Mayor Rybak feel NRP has prevented him or the City
from having a direct relationship with Minneapolis residents or
neighborhoods during the past 17 years the NRP program has been in place?
I don't recall hearing this concern from former Mayors Sharon Sayles Belton
or Don Fraser. I've never heard a City employee note this concern.
I think further explanation is required here. Examples of how barriers have
been placed would be helpful in us bettering ourselves as neighborhood staff
and volunteers.
I will venture that because of the work various departments have done to add
specific plans for community engagement to their individual "business
plans," over the last few years, the City's ability to communicate with its
residents has improved at many levels--the snow emergency automated
notifications and Small Area public planning sessions are but a few examples
that come to mind. Lacking further explanation, I see this as creating a
problem to justify the solution [a new system of centralized control].
The Mayor wrote regarding "direct communications":
> The current system makes that difficult by
> having the NRP central administration sitting between these
> groups and the City. Whether the NRP continues to have a
> central administration, we need to have a more direct link
> between the City and the citizens it serves. This includes
> having the City build and support financially community
> engagement staff at the City, and a more formal in put from
> neighborhoods into City spending, i.e. a neighborhood role in
> the Capital Long Range Improvement (CLIC) Process."
The third sentence pretty well spells it out. This is about control. Not
funding. Not residents. Not communications. Not even the systems like CLIC
that are already in place. Power through consolidation of control.
>At 1:10 PM -0500 11/2/07, Doug Walter wrote:
>
>Just exactly how does Mayor Rybak feel NRP has prevented him or the City
>from having a direct relationship with Minneapolis residents or
>neighborhoods during the past 17 years the NRP program has been in place?
>
>The Mayor wrote regarding "direct communications":
> > The current system makes that difficult by
>> having the NRP central administration sitting between these
>> groups and the City. Whether the NRP continues to have a
>> central administration, we need to have a more direct link
> > between the City and the citizens it serves. This includes
>> having the City build and support financially community
>> engagement staff at the City, and a more formal in put from
>> neighborhoods into City spending, i.e. a neighborhood role in
> > the Capital Long Range Improvement (CLIC) Process."
>
>The third sentence pretty well spells it out. This is about control. Not
>funding. Not residents. Not communications. Not even the systems like CLIC
>that are already in place. Power through consolidation of control.
>
>
Connie: It is, as Doug says, about control. But not just control of
what NRP-funded neighborhoods want and plan to do; it's also control
of the money NRP had, and eliminating the protective role the NRP
office has played in both regards, for neighborhoods. Without the NRP
office and staff standing between us and the mayor, we'd be out of
business already.
Two examples I'm aware of--you all have others, I know:
Early in the Rybak mayoralty's attack on NRP, CPED (recently created)
decided that it was going to charge each NRP neighborhood group a
certain percentage of the cost of every project the neighborhood
funded with NRP dollars. There was no rhyme or reason to the
arbitrary percentage charge, nor was it connected to any CPED role in
supervising project implementation. It was a pure money grab. (SE
Como, for example, has worked with the Center for Energy and the
Environment, and with NRP, both of which have phenomenal staffs who
guide us. We didn't need CPED on top of that.)
The NRP did, indeed, step between the mayor's/CPEd's money grab
effort and the NRP neighborhoods: We kept our contract with CEE and
haven't had to pay CPED a dime to "help" SECIA provide its housing
programs.
Same thing happened with an attempt by the mayor--this time abetted
strongly by City Council--to deny NRP neighborhoods use or control
over money returned from those housing programs in low-cost loans for
improvements. That was fought out a couple of years ago, and NRP's
office stood between the mayor and council and the neighborhoods,
defending the latter's desire to keep money they had generated from
original NRP housing loans.
It's this type of "interference" that the mayor doesn't like.
We like it thank you very much.
Connie
Como, in Southeast Minneapolis