Transcript Aug-25-2009-neighborhood-governance

Critical questions
• What kind of long-term relationship do people
want with their government?
• How can temporary organizing strategies be
incorporated in the way communities conduct
their public business?
• What have we learned from 30 years of
experimentation in neighborhood governance?
Why do neighborhoods matter?
Neighborhoods are:
• “Where the people are”
• Where conflict between residents and government
is on the rise
• Where new leaders first emerge
• Where public problems – and assets – are most
evident
• Where government “of, by, and for the people” can
actually happen, on a regular, ongoing basis
• Where politics can be reunited with community and
culture
Cities presenting
• Portland, OR
• Minneapolis, MN
• Los Angeles, CA
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
• Official authority
• Independent voices
• Generators of “public
work”
• In some cases, “Bob’s
Rules”
• Connections with
policymakers
• “mini-City Councils”
• Not inclusive
• Not interactive,
democratic
• In most cases, “Robert’s
Rules”
• Unclear expectations of
policymakers
Tension #1: “Shared governance” or
“blurred governance?”
•
•
•
•
“Getting rid of” prostitutes, drug dealers
Who is being empowered?
Racial dynamics
Delegating authority and responsibility to
groups that may not be representative or
accountable
Tension #2: The “involvers” and the
(potentially) “involved”
• “Make sure the food is visible from the
doorway”
• Whose needs are served through involvement?
Are residents being engaged or just managed?
• Making this work a broadly shared activity
rather than (merely?) a professional practice
Tension #3: Democratic leadership
in a republican system
• Newer, more facilitative forms of leadership –
out of step with, and even a threat to, existing
leaders?
• “Graduates” of neighborhood governance who
“forget what they’ve learned”
• “The structures need to reflect the practices”
Tension #4: Democracy and
community
• Failure to incorporate social and cultural
aspects
• Competition between ‘official’ councils
and more community-oriented groups
• Importance of history and language
Tension #5: ‘Top-down’
vs. ‘bottom-up’
• Top-down = legitimate but undemocratic
structures; Bottom-up = democratic but
illegitimate processes
• Need something “in between the city
council meeting and the barbershop”
Conclusions reached
• “We know how to do a lot of this stuff” (recruitment,
facilitation, action planning, leadership training, etc.)
• Work must be jointly owned and directed
• Need to ensure that democratic practices are being used
(need new mechanisms for evaluation and accountability;
more access to technical assistance; joint trainings)
• Apply lessons to governments, not just neighborhoods
(public engagement skills should be taught throughout
gov’t; need new formats for public meetings; need better
connections between neighborhood and local decisionmaking)