Public Involvement Advisory Council

Community Empowerment – Small Group Session

Meeting Notes
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

Members Present: Mandy Putney, Damon Isiah Turner, Stephanie Blackman, Alisa Cour, Midge
Purcell, Sonny Tan, Colleen Keyes

Facilitated by Mandy Putney

Notes taken by Ruth Rondema

Agenda
A. Introductions
B. Getting to know the recommendations in our grouping
C. New ideas- what’s missing?
D. Dot exercise: what are you excited about working on?
E. Discuss and define next steps and priorities for our group

A. Icebreaker: Why did you join this small group? What are you most excited to achieve here?

 Mandy: I do a lot of consulting for public agencies that seek public input. I’m interested
in the empowerment perspective. Empowerment should be driven by the community
rather than the agency that’s community initiated. The agency then has the ability to use
that information
 Stephanie: It’s why I’m interested in this council. I’m interested in how you empower
people to work towards issues that affect us.
 Colleen: Excited about community aspect of PIAC’s work. Want to grab hold and make
some headway.
 Sonny: I know very little about the policy and process. Community tends to be scared of
the Council. Start from ground zero. Excited to be part of this to share information
between the community and the city.
 Damon: Find ways that the city can partner with other stake holders including businesses
and community groups. Identify ways to work with community on specific areas and
issues instead of one party always being the most responsible. Leverage resources.

B. Review recommendations

#1: Adequately fund and expand citizen education and training in City processes and advocacy
skills. Draw on the principles and procedures of the “popular education” model and the resources
of the Neighborhood Association system, diverse community-based organizations, and existing
institutional training programs.
 Afifa: There has been a proposal developed for a civics academy, but it wasn’t prioritized
in the ONI budget.
 Colleen: Perhaps this needs to be reintroduced into the budget process?
Group decided to look at recommendations in groupings based on most similar Intent.

Group of Recommendations that has the intent to Increase Community Capacity includes
recommendations 1, 4, 6, and 8.
#1 Civics Academy
#4 Build networks between community groups
#6 Invest in local organizations
#8 Collaboration between community groups

 #1 and 8 are funding based.

 #1 is distinct with an education component.
 Group decides to merge #6 and #8.
 #4 has to do with communication between community members.

Group of Recommendations that has the intent to Increase community’s ability to impact
public decisions include # 2, 7, and 10.
#2 Community Needs Process
#7 Resource for City bureaus to access community input
#10 Process for bureaus to take project ideas initiated by public

 #2 may be difficult due to current budget, and also how would it work together with
community and bureaus. Both budget and process are barriers.
 Sonny and Afifa spoke of barriers to community involvement: historically there is a lack
of trust that even if the community follows the process, nothing may materialize in
implementation.
 Stephanie: We need to manage expectations and have achievable goals.
 Ruth: Trust is vital for any program implementation, especially with historical references.
 Sonny: Spoke of multicultural community center how the community came up with a
proposal that was never acknowledged.
 #7. May be more process oriented.
 #10 is mainly process, but the feedback needs to be chosen by community and “bought
in” by them.
 Damon: What data collection is here on the City working with community directly and
works?
 Afifa: The Auditor’s office has online survey results by neighborhood about what each
area’s priorities and needs are.
 Damon: What bureau is on top of this?
 Alisa: At the Bureau of Development Services: quarterly check in with leaders in
community. The director regularly hears community input to see how bureaus is doing.
 Damon: What comes out of these meetings on the feedback received? Staff is then
responsible for implementing the suggests community has?
 Colleen: Are those groups specifically speaking to Development Services?
 Mandy: Is there a formalized process for community members?
  Alisa: When we have regular feedback meeting, I compile a list of all suggestions, this
impacts priorities for the budget. Ones we can currently implement will be put into work
plans.
 Mandy: Shall we let go of #7?
 Midge: We can keep #7 if the “resource” is the community. There are many resources
that already exist in the community.
 Recommend that #7 is also shared by Process.
 Damon: We should hold onto #10 and add to it. Accountability and feedback are key to
this point.
 Damon: #3 Develop community liaisons.

Discussion on remaining recommendations:

#3 Liaisons from City to community
#5 Broaden formal recognition of community groups beyond geographic
#9 Decentralized implementation for ONI and plan to increase community involvement
#11 Expand language translation and interpretation accessibility for City info
#12 Engaging youth and service learning

#3 Liaisons from City to community

 Midge: Like what Alisa’s bureau does!
 Alisa: Good to have a city wide liaison.
 Mandy: In the City of Vancouver each person from the city goes to the community
meeting. Same person goes to the meeting every time
 Colleen: and then reports back to the City as a whole? PPR attends meetings a lot, but
there’s no formal process to hear the input.
 Stephanie: Have the Liaison be consistent with the community rather than being
consistent to the bureau.
 Colleen: There’s a history with the city that when they try to centralize services, it doesn’t
work.
 Damon: I think NY City has a Public Advocate position.
 Alisa: Commission are seem to have public advocates, but at the bureau level there’s not
such a system.
 Midge: You would have to explore the effectiveness of a city wide system. Processes
would be different for different bureaus. Some have traditionally better capability
interacting with the community.
 Alisa: There are bureaus under each commissioner. There could be a structure for a
community liaison.

#5 Broaden formal recognition of community groups beyond geographic

 Stephanie: We could help identify who these additional communities may be
 Midge: Let’s build on what’s already been done. This concept is embodied in the Urban
League. This is a successful model in engaging communities that haven’t traditionally
engaged in processes. This helps in community building. In principle, these programs
should be supported and expanded. There are four Diversity and Civic Leadership (DCL)
 programs now, and 20 more would be that much more effective. There’s a leadership
component to DCL that should be implemented.
 Damon: Also the Our United Villages group models helping people see their community
beyond geographic locations. Bright Neighbor website that networks people based on
their neighborhoods. Great networking tool that uses current websites. Broadens how
we think about community.
 Mandy: Technology is important

#9 Decentralized implementation for ONI and plan to increase community involvement

 Mandy: Have a broader way for people to enter the system.
 Afifa: How to make decision making power in the hands of the community. The
implementation should be embedded in the community.
 Mandy: This one is very big picture and long term.

#11 Expand language translation and interpretation accessibility for City info
 Afifa: There is newly a citywide contract available on translation and interpretation so
that City bureaus can more quickly access services.
 Stephanie: Does the community know that this is available?
 Damon: There’s technology to help with this, but people don’t know about it.
 Mandy: Do the City bureaus know that this is available? What do they do with their
translated materials
 Stephanie: This could be a low hanging fruit.
 Afifa: the City has three pre approved providers to improve the speed at which the City
can be responsive to translation/interpretation needs. Bureaus still have to pay for the
services, this just speeds up the process.
 Alisa: Our bureau has translation service for our handouts. Once we had core documents
translated. After the primary documents are translated, we have seen less demand for
ongoing translation. How do the customers know we have these services available? Work
with out customers know how to ask what they need?
 Midge: We could expand what’s available and then also as a resource for communities to
use in public processes. Then find out how much it increased public involvement.
 Stephanie: Then we would need to know how to assess.
 Mandy: Assessment will always be part of our filter and all parts will have assessment
component.

#12 Engaging youth and service learning

 Alisa: There’s a youth corps with a city wide internship program. 35 students or more
who are connected with City bureaus to help increase student involvement in the City.
 Midge: I’d like to see a liaison with internships and community based liaisons placed in
community organizations to help develop a civic engagement profile. Portland Public
Schools would also be a good partner.
 Fundamental overlay of everything: How a citizen works with the City; has to learn how
to navigate in each bureau.
 D. Dot exercise: what are you excited about working on?

#12 – 6 dots Engage youth and young adults in civic activities through community-based service
learning
#11 – 4 dots Expand language translation and interpretation accessibility of City information.
#10 – 3 dots Develop a process for bureaus to address projects and needs identified by the
public.
#5 – 3 dots Broaden Portland’s community involvement system to better include the City’s
diverse communities, with a recognition that Portlanders identify their “community” in more
ways than just geographic (i.e. neighborhood-based). (ONI)
#1 – 2 dots Adequately fund and expand citizen education and training in City processes and
advocacy skills. Draw on the principles and procedures of the “popular education” model and the
resources of the Neighborhood Association system, diverse community-based organizations, and
existing institutional training programs