Neighborhood Governance: Strengthening Democratic Practices for Effective Community Engagement

2. 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?

3. 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

4. Cities presenting • Portland, OR • Minneapolis, MN • Los Angeles, CA

5. Strengths: Official authority Independent voices Generators of “public work” In some cases, “Bob’s Rules” Connections with policymakers Weaknesses: “mini-City Councils” Not inclusive Not interactive, democratic In most cases, “Robert’s Rules” Unclear expectations of policymakers

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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”

9. 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

10. 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”

11. 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 decision-making)