MCCI RETREAT NOTES
Saturday, September 8, 2001
Present:
Norm Andreen, Councilor Rex Burkholder, Kay Durtschi, Dennis Ganoe, Kathy Henton, Dick Jones, Ted Kyle, Bob Pung, Pat Russell, Scott Seibert, Ray Sherwood, Meyer Siegel. Cary Stacey, MCCI Staff, was also present.
Icebreaker: Why did you first join MCCI?
Ted Kyle: Joined MCCI because Aleta Woodruff recruited him, and because he wanted to see what Metro was doing for citizen involvement. Has learned from being a member.
Meyer Siegel: Saw the Oregonian ad, was looking to do something more, do something good for the community.
Pat Russell: Has a planning background, was involved in his community regarding a poorly planned neighborhood project. Also was involved with city. Joined to find out what Metro’s doing, push for citizen involvement.
Kay Durtschi: Was appointed by her county’s CIC.
Kathy Henton: Wasn’t happy with infill development in Gresham, got involved in her city’s citizen involvement group. The city asked her to join MCCI to make a link between the two groups.
Ray Sherwood: Grew concerned with issues in the state, etc. Recognized Metro’s importance, but didn’t like piecemeal information. Thought MCCI would be a better way to find coherent information and then be able to act on it. Believes it’s important for citizens to have a way to act.
Scott Seibert: Has worked with citizen involvement for 20 years. His staff told him that Metro would be very influential in this area in coming years.
Dennis Ganoe: To further marital bliss – his wife is very involved. Gets to see what’s going on, learn what Metro does and how it works.
Bob Pung: Was an activist for the disabled, and is trying to further that cause through MCCI.
Dick Jones: Knew a lot about Metro before he got involved. Silence implies consent; if you disagree, you need to speak.
Norm Andreen: Has a degree in public administration. Didn’t get involved until his home area became a focus of controversy. Became involved in CPO, then with his city. Wanted to get citizens more involved.
Rex Burkholder: Interested in citizen involvement – a lot of previously mentioned issues explain why he ran for Council. He felt like he wasn’t listened to, wanted to make sure the process is there.
Cary Stacey: Anecdotal experiences with Metro were positive, wanted to work for an entity that was looking to improve community.
Suggested Ground Rules
Assume others have good motives
Disagree without being disagreeable
Stay on task/time
Be crisp, share the air
Verify assumptions
Put your stake in the ground, but be willing to move it
Use the “bin”
[Turn off phones/pagers]
Councilor Survey Results
Ted Kyle
How do you get information? What input from citizens do you use in making Metro decisions?
Personal contact (5 mentions)
CPO’s and Neighborhood Associations (3 mentions)
Email (2 mentions)
Reading and discussion with colleagues
Public hearings
Make the rounds to organizations (speaking engagements)
Hear from special interests
Wants an annual newsletter to all constituents
Have a person answer all phone calls
Staff reports influenced by citizen involvement
Local officials
Hearings are too late
Talk to affected parties
Take calls at home
What has MCCI done that helps?
Nothing/not much (3 mentions)
Comforting to know we’re here (2 mentions)
Don’t make a significant difference on Council activities
Our review work with staff
Our reports
Being on watch
What has MCCI done that causes problems?
Nothing (2 mentions)
Attitude, using fighting, inflammatory words (2 mentions)
Lack of clarity of the committee
Is there meaningful work?
Redistricting – misuse of the process
What would wildly successful citizen involvement look like?
More buzz in the media
More people in the building
More contact and letters
More direct contact
Know it when I see it
General agreement
High level of involvement
Whole Group Discussion
How Do We Make A Difference?
• Make known citizen involvement
• Hard to measure – acceptance level of programs
• More citizen involvement in process easier to implement
• Study the issues
• People need to start trusting government
• Increasing involvement and cross-pollination, serve as a resource staff and community groups, therefore expectations for involvement create partnerships – policy makers and citizens
• Reminder to staff/council that citizens must be involved in their commitment to citizens
• Early reality check
• We’re a litmus test for if the word is getting out
• Still designing ourselves
How Do We Know We’ve Made A Difference?
• Let MCCI candidates know we’re process-oriented
• Made sure citizens know their suggestions were taken
• As we break down barriers
• Hard to know we’ve made a difference
• Decision-makers realize what citizens are saying is true
• Able to make a list of changes due to citizen involvement
• Lead agencies involve citizens before things are listed
• Watching the actions Metro takes
• Doing a yearly survey
WHAT COULD WE DO? -- BREAKOUT GROUPS
(Voting Process: Members put dots on what they thought were the priorities for how MCCI could be most effective.)
GROUP 1
Internal Process
Citizen involvement as part of project design (4 votes)
• Early
• Staff responsible
• Good relationship between MCCI members and staff helps
Have staff do more of monitoring, PIP review, to free members to discuss more methods for citizen involvement (strategic) (3 votes)
MERC would include citizen involvement and sit with MCCI (1 vote)(Also under External)
Review of citizen involvement at end of project & critical milestones (0 votes)
More monthly monitoring by MCCI (0 votes)
MCCI members have strong local base (0 votes)
• Members bring expertise to the committee
External
Report back to community (5 votes)
• Resources needed: training, materials, assistance
MERC would include citizen involvement and sit with MCCI (1 vote)(Also under Internal Process)
How to apply to other jurisdictions “hammer” to make accountable. E.g. no funding for failure to do citizen involvement (0 votes)
Develop standards for citizen involvement everywhere in the region (0 votes)
Cultural
Oversight by Council (5 votes)
Performance pay for department head/admin (1 vote)
• Often enough?
Create culture/expectation from the top (1 vote)
• Citizen involvement as necessary rather than just required
Outreach Technique
School for citizens (2 votes)
• ONI, AOI, PSU classes
Personalized letters that are specific to upcoming neighborhood changes (0 votes)
• Invite them to respond
• Use of neighborhood newsletters
Targeted info (0 votes)
Focus groups on citizen involvement (0 votes)
• Getting people active
• Targeting those not involved now
Table talk – tactics to get them there (0 votes)
• Cold calls (Jim Moore)
• Presentations to other organizations – PTA, Neighborhood Associations, trail surveys, boy scouts, CPO’s, health clubs
GROUP 2
COUNCIL
Rewards good citizen involvement, penalize non-involvement (3 votes)
• Projects awaiting the hopper – MTIP, UGB changes
• Metro Council to institute requirements
Council involvement at conception (1 vote)
• PIP formulated prior to initiation of “project”, “proposal”
• If not staff-assigned, have council public outreach department initiate and complete PIP for Council to agree to
Self-certification of projects prior to federal government for compliance with citizen involvement requirements (0 votes)
• Transportation funding (i.e. Goal #1 implementation
• Publish scorecard or awards of accomplishment to individuals, departments for local projects/activities
• Establish regular criteria
• Flow of information from MCCI or Metro Council to grassroots
How does “Citizen Involvement Program” (criticism) get received in an “institutionalized” manner so that the “lost link” is taken seriously (0 votes)
Get Metro Council to say MCCI is wanted (0 votes)
• Speak with $ -- Budgeting Process
Subcommittee or MCCI comments on PIPs – follow up on “recommendations” (0 votes)
• To department staff or councilors -- which have been adopted and which haven’t
• Track them
• List MCCI personal time involved and nature
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Host a citizen involvement convention (2 votes)
• County CCI’s, CAC’s, CPO’s, Local neighborhood groups
How do you recognize what good citizen involvement is? (0 votes)
• Get good examples
• Take on issues – be more vocal at Council, i.e. attend
• As an MCCI member
• MCCI issues press releases
• Issue website statements
Identify what MCCI thinks are THE issues that need citizen involvement (0 votes)
• Response put into appropriate category
Create action items needing citizen involvement that go beyond Regular Meeting (0 votes)
• Fare box on street, zoo fees
• Significant “activities” – and active PIP, status of involvement effort
Each member of MCCI brings a problem or concern about Metro activities in a specific area that the group can “help” solve (0 votes)
• That we need to do ourselves
• That Metro needs to do
• That individual members need to do
STAFF-RELATED
Website (7 votes)
• Public Meeting packet
• staff reports go on web, minutes, agendas
• Inquiries
• Non-web contact facilitation with citizens over phone, using web info
• Organize cross-referencing links
• Capability of immediate response – contact box
• Issues: create format for feedback
• Staff assigned
• Where did source of “info” come from (inception of proposal)
Staff answers phone 8 am to 5 pm (1 vote)
• i.e. Live response to all calls
Transmit information to interested parties (0 votes)
Real Office of Citizen Involvement – more than a 6x6” sign (0 votes)
Phone # of citizen volunteers after hours -- i.e. after 6pm, a public list of MCCI and others willing to be on list (0 votes)
Add to meeting package a list of ALL “activities” projects (0 votes)
• Status, description, timeframe
• Activities or project lacking a PIP
• State MTIP list (6 year plan)
• Council should insist that staff complete PIPs
• If it doesn’t happen, a contingent of MCCI members approach council at televised meeting. Include in annual report
Add items for MCCI agenda & meeting discussion gets to follow-up list (0 votes)
• Putting “stuff” in the bin
• Preview last 12 months of minutes to identify concerns for follow-up
Retreat facilitator (0 votes)
Train new MCCI members (0 votes)
• Process
• Open Meeting Law
• Transportation funding
• Metro as clearinghouse
• Keep handbook up to date
• Identify issues like corridor initiative, Willamette livability coalition
• Mentoring (i.e. local level recruitment)
GROUP 3
Monitor and Advise (10 votes)
Checklist for each department – MCCI signs off for involvement (not positive or negative), Council considers MCCI’s endorsement (or lack thereof). Who, what, when, where, why as standard measures in the check-off.
• If citizen involvement isn’t there, Council rejects it, sends it back.
• MCCI signs off in subcommittees. Feedback doesn’t have to be positive or negative – just has to exist.
• Raise the flag in the media if Council doesn’t do their part.
• Is there charter-denoted power in the process? MPAC has it.
• Determine when citizen involvement is needed. Staff needs rules from the Council.
• Save staff time – Coffee Talks Discussion Guide as example
• Use committee members skills and education to Metro’s advantage – improve Metro’s performance and reputation.
Communicate – Improve (7 votes)
At all levels:
• Within MCCI – Email groups, use staff proxy for those not online
• With Staff – Email, PIPs
• With Council – Yearly check-in with district rep, directly address Council members via evening meetings or memos, Chair & subcommittee chairs enact the dialogue
• Directly addressing Council would ensure representation (instead of absentee liaison)
• With Citizens – Neighborhood Associations, CPO’s, etc – Require MCCI members to be involved
• Act as liaisons to members’ communities – provide more information both ways.
BREAKOUT GROUPS – DETAILING THE VOTE-WINNERS
Outline Structures, Supports, Resources and Obstacles
Monitor & Advise
Cary, Norm, Kay
STRUCTURE
• Checklist with standard measures: Who, What, Where, When, Why
• Staff Report
• (Provision for early Council notification – PIP distribution)
SUPPORT
• Cultural shift for council to hold departments/staff accountable
• Consequences for no citizen involvement = ?
RESOURCES
• Department liaison
OBSTACLES
• Existing structure
• Existing culture
• Transition as “unknown quantity”
Improve Communication With Citizens/Website
Meyer, Kathy, Ray
STRUCTURE
• Professional/secretarial support?
• Budget amended to fund.
SUPPORT
• Staff dedicated to compile/summarize info (news, website, internal), and disseminate it to Metro & citizens
• Group email, meaningful budget
• Interaction with staff & Council
• Councilors meet with reps and committees
• Conduit for information – two-way flow: info/commentary
RESOURCES
• Technology is there! Web, phone.
• Staff is there (theoretically)
• PIPs
• Metro Webmaster
• People who have talents & they care
OBSTACLES
• Lack of timely info (especially between meetings), money, funds, staff, attitude
Report Back to Community
Dennis, Pat, Rex
Program, substance.
“Project” – council reports “what” they did
“Process” – MCCI reports “how” effective (synthesis of “input”)
STRUCTURE (Council and/or MCCI)
• Policy
• “We are going to do this”
• Regulatory
• Methodology
• Press release?
• Periodic reporting
• Community meetings
• Controlling where $ goes based on CI
RESOURCES
• $
• Individuals (persons)
• PR Department (“IT” or organization)
• Local organizations (“we” of the region) – elected, appointed, volunteers, activists
• Speakers’ Bureau
• Auditor
OBSTACLES
• Lack of resources
• Apathy – too big for individual, can’t do anything about it
• Overcome inertia, change the way we do things
Oversight by the Council – a change of culture
Ted, Scott
STRUCTURES
• ? Citizen involvement on all reports
• MERC/Zoo citizen involvement component
• Citizen involvement evaluation of workplan
• Performance review criteria for department heads
• Direction to chief of staff
SUPPORTS
• MCCI supports Council in developing standards/measures/guidelines
• MCCI reports to Council when significant issues are being considered
RESOURCES
• Citizen Involvement Officer
• Professional assistance/citizen involvement peer review
OBSTACLES
• MCCI perceived value
• MCCI reputation
• Metro self-perception as a government of governments
END GOAL: Creating an environment where robust citizen involvement is sought as necessary, not just a requirement
NEXT STEPS
Rex & Ted will meet before 9/19 and will feedback info.
Ted meets with Cary to incorporate some changes and feedback info – by 9/19
Ted will share this work with the entire committee – 9/19
Come forth with concrete proposals
Dennis & Pat will look at coming forth with a proposal on Report Back to the Community (implement)
MCCI presents report to Council – October
Contact with stakeholders, Council, others – before November
Plans for implementing to Council – Scott & Ted continue to work on Oversight by the Council – November
Monitor & Advise and Improve Communication/Website, need follow-up Task Force
BIN
• No mention of MCCI [in Ted’s Councilor survey]
• Citizen requirements/desire for Council/Councilor initiatives
RETREAT EVALUATION
WHAT WAS GOOD
Facilitation – on track & time
Snacks
1st time felt like MCCI had some direction
Good staff pre-work
Great ideas got out, clear
Reflect what we’ve done over the year
We’re doing a parallel process to what Metro as a whole is doing
WHAT COULD BE IMPROVED
Get rest of members here
Weather
Language that shows up on the charts – could get reduced to cliches – capture all comments, even sharp-edged
Should be longer, to not lose the things we can really do