Answers to Questions from Code Change 3.96 Community Engagement Forum (hosted by Brentwood-Darlington Neighborhood Association September 24, 2019, 6:00-8:00PM). Questions were sent to Office of Community and Civic Life on September 25, 2019 by Board Chair, Chelsea Powers. Answers were received from Sabrina Wilson, Code Change Project Manager at Office of Community & Civic Life, on October 25, 2019.
Updated with additional answers received from Civic Life on 10/28/19.
Question #1:
- What steps has Civic Life taken, or does it plan to take, to support NA’s in
reaching and involving underrepresented populations within their boundaries?
Answer from Civic Life: Addressed at BDNA Code Change 3.96 Community Engagement Forum - How might you include more underrepresented voices into public and neighborhood discussions without threatening the work and insights that neighborhood associations provide; can you still inform neighborhood associations at the current level and on top of that include other community groups?
Answer from Civic Life: Addressed at BDNA Code Change 3.96 Community Engagement Forum
Community Input Overview: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/78519
Question #2:
- How will groups be vetted before being recognized by Civic Life? Will there be a
transparent public process, and who will decide which groups are part of civic governance and which are not? Will there be a way of reviewing groups periodically to ensure that they still fit within the mission of Civic Life?
Answer from Civic Life: Addressed at BDNA Code Change 3.96 Community Engagement Forum - Why does Civic Life not require that identity-based groups have elected leadership and hold public meetings, use Robert’s Rules, etc?
Answer from Civic Life: Addressed at BDNA Code Change 3.96 Community Engagement Forum
See FAQ: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#what-are-public-meeting-laws - Will you require identity-based groups to have the same responsibilities that neighborhood associations have, such as open meetings and public minutes? If no, why not?
Answer from Civic Life: Addressed at BDNA Code Change 3.96 Community Engagement Forum
See FAQ: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#what-are-public-meeting-laws - How will Civic Life ensure that a small number of citizens don’t have undue
influence in city governance by holding leadership positions in multiple identity-, faith-based or geographical civic interest groups?
Answer from Civic Life: Addressed at BDNA Code Change 3.96 Community Engagement Forum
See FAQ: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#why-not-name-NAs
Question #3:
- How will the code change maintain statutory requirements for community
engagement while making more funding available to community-based groups?
Answer from Civic Life: Addressed at BDNA Code Change 3.96 Community Engagement Forum
See FAQ: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#will-this-defund-nas - Civic Life wants to get rid of the Standards governing neighborhood associations, coalitions, and Civic Life, why didn’t Civic Life ever ask NAs (1) whether they want to keep the Standards and the Open Meetings rules therein and (2) how the the Standards could be improved such as the Open meetings rules and Grievance process?
Answer from Civic Life: Addressed at BDNA Code Change 3.96 Community Engagement Forum
See FAQ: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#what-are-public- meeting-laws
If a neighborhood association want to keep Standards for their practice, they can. - The proposal will eliminate the Standards which, with the Open Meetings rules,
ensure non-discrimination, inclusion, open and transparent process and accountability, why were neighborhood associations never consulted whether they want the Standards to be retained or how the Standards could be improved?
Answer from Civic Life: Addressed at BDNA Code Change 3.96 Community Engagement Forum
See FAQ: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#what-are-public-meeting-laws - If NAs want the city to retain the Standards, why can’t the city retain them and work with the NAs to improve and update them?
Answer from Civic Life: If a neighborhood association want to keep Standards for their practice, they can.
Question #4:
- If the contract with Southeast Uplift Neighborhood Coalition (SEUL) is renewed,
how will you ensure (1) that SEUL meets all of its contractual obligations, and (2) that the contract, including salaries as well as obligations, is made public knowledge from the time the contract is signed? - What will be the role of the district coalitions under the new code and what
authority does Civic Life have to hold them accountable? (for example, if the coalition mismanages funds)
Answer from Civic Life: Considering the code is not a budget document nor a contract, the specific Coalition contract language is not under the scope of updating the code that defines the functions of Civic Life. The proposed code update 3.96 reflects the purpose of Title 3 Administration, defining the bureau’s organization and function. For examples of how other bureaus have defined their functions, see Chapter 3.16 for the City Budget Office; Chapter 3.36 for the Portland House Bureau; Chapter 3.33 for the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, and so on. FAQ: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#what-is-city-code
WAITING ON ANSWER FROM CIVIC LIFE
Question #5:
At its September 5th Board meeting, the BDNA board unanimously endorsed the grave concerns expressed by the Rose City Park Neighborhood Association as set forth in its letter to the City Council dated September 4, 2019. Specifically, the RCPNA board stated that the actions of Commissioner Chloe Eudaly and a member of her staff Suk Rhee violated the City’s Code of Ethics (Chapter 1.03) due to numerous and repeated violations throughout the 3.96 Code Change Project of current City Code including:
- failure to notify neighborhood associations and neighborhood coalitions of the intent to form the Code Change Committee and the application process for appointment to the Committee
- hand-picking the Committee members without a public process
- failure to publish Committee meetings as required in the Citywide Web-Based Calendar, failure to include Committee documents in the Committee minutes, failure to include dissenting comments by at least one Committee member in the official Committee minutes, and failure to publish notice of Committee meetings including meeting location at least 7 days prior to the Committee meetings as required by current City Code 3.96. These violations of the City’s Public Involvement Principles are also deemed violations of the City’s Code of Ethics in relevant part because City officials are required to:
- avoid bias or favoritism
- exercise their authority with open meetings and public records
- obey all laws and regulations (including current City code with respect to Public Involvement Principles)
- to not exploit loopholes
- facilitate rather than block open discussion. As one of the officials cited in the letter, would you care to comment? Are the allegations true and if so, how do you justify your actions with respect to the 3.96 Code Change Project
Answer from Civic Life:
See FAQ: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#how-was-community-engaged
Committee meeting information: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/78088
Question #6
In your quest to end the formal recognition of neighborhood associations (NAs) that has existed for decades, you must have envisioned how NAs should have (in your opinion) looked and carried out their affairs. Specifically, what is that vision? What should NAs have done to avoid losing formal recognition? Why did you decide against trying to achieve the vision within the existing structure?
Answer from Civic Life:
See section 3.96.060: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/740922
See draft administrative rule: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/740832
Question #7:
In a recent WWeek article, Eudaly, stated she might be open to maybe revising the 3.96 proposal: What’s the current status on that? will the proposal be revised and if so, will the Nov 14 Council session be set over, will NAs be involved in reshaping and vetting the proposal, is there a public involvement schedule to involve NAs and the public in shaping that revision?
Answer from Civic Life: A report presentation will be on November 14th, please sign up for Civic Life Updates to get updates first.
Civic Life Update: https://us18.campaign-archive.com/?u=1eded2e8e03806e236178f625&id=02b1b38de0
BDNA Note: The above link goes to a static email. To fill out the Civic Life newsletter subscription form, click here.
Question #8:
I’m concerned that the proposed changes, in a noble attempt to be more equitable and inclusive, will actually have the opposite effect. Please imagine the following scenario and speak to how the OCCL would respond:
As shown in the proposed code, City Code 3.96 no longer requires the minimum requirements (public meetings, public records, grievance procedures, etc.) to receive formal recognition and funding through OCCL. Additionally, the safeguards outlined in current City Code 3.96.060 Section H (Failure to Meet Minimum Requirements) are eliminated.
A NA that represents a more economically privileged community with greater access to resources decides that since it’s no longer a requirement they will not have public meetings or post public records. This leads to the NA becoming MORE exclusionary and inaccessible to community members. Under proposed code, they are still eligible for funding but OCCL has no written language to revoke formal recognition.
How would OCCL respond? What’s authority would OCCL have to protect diverse voices who want to participate in those NA’s?
NA’s that represent economic and culturally diverse communities rely on the meager funding received from the city each year (for BDNA roughly $2,000) and volunteer labor to provide much needed and appreciated resources to the community. We want to be equitable and include diverse voices and therefore would continue to be transparent and open to everyone.
How will OCCL protect NA’s like ours who will now face an unequal playing field where there are no safeguards against abuse of the proposed code by wealthy or privileged NAs?
Answer from Civic Life:
See FAQ: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#will-this-defund-nas
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#why-is-who-we-name-in-code-important
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#what-are-public-meeting-laws
Question #9:
On Commissioner Eudaly’s Facebook page, she stated, “The open public meetings standard has proved challenging for NAs. Currently more than have (sic) of them are in violation of the standards.”
Why are Commissioner Eudaly and other Civic Life staff so proud of the fact that they have failed to educate, support, and hold accountable NAs to the point that over half are out of compliance with the standards?
Answer from Civic Life:
See Commissioner Eudaly’s full statement: https://us18.campaign-archive.com/?u=1eded2e8e03806e236178f625&id=02b1b38de0
See FAQ: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#what-are-public-meeting-laws
BDNA Note: You can view Commissioner Eudaly’s Facebook page by clicking here.
Question #10:
The intro to the last draft lists instructions subject to legal review. If I understand this correctly, this is a sunset clause for 3.96.060.
How do you ensure the recognition of groups and organizations after 3.96.060 is no longer part of the code?
Isn’t OCCL then again the sole decision making for recognition?
Answer from Civic Life:
See 3.96.060: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/740922
See administrative rule draft: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/740832
Question #11:
Director Rhee and Commissioner Eudaly have both stated that there is broad consensus that Portland should improve its connection with diverse Portlanders. Given that broad consensus, how do you think this became so controversial?
Answer from Civic Life:
Code change stories: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/79302
Community Conversations Report: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736690
Question #12:
- All Portlanders need representation. Why not consider district representation?
Answer from Civic Life: See FAQ: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#what-will-code-change-do - How does the new code improve communication and/or city relationship with
neighborhood associations?
Answer from Civic Life: See FAQ: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/civic/article/736140#why-not-name-NAs - How does the level of detail/specificity of the proposed code language compare
to other Bureau codes/ How about power of the director? The proposed code update 3.96 reflects the purpose of Title 3 Administration, defining the bureau’s organization and function. For examples of how other bureaus have defined their functions, see Chapter 3.16 for the City Budget Office; Chapter 3.36 for the Portland House Bureau; Chapter 3.33 for the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, and so on.
Answer from Civic Life: See Title 3 Administration: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/28168
Question #13:
List and explain “harmful” ONI standards.
Answer from Civic Life: Addressed at BDNA Code Change 3.96 Community Engagement Forum
Brentwood-Darlington Neighborhood Association 