|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City proposes neighborhood association rule changes Open meetings, boundaries, and grievance changes proposed LEE PERLMAN THE MIDCOUNTY MEMO In what is known by unintentional irony as the GREAT process, a citizen-staff committee has proposed new rules for Portland neighborhood associations and district offices. The Guidelines Review Empowerment and Assessment Task Force (GREAT) was intended to be a nine-month review of the rules, which neighborhood associations must adhere to in order to be officially recognized and receive city services. In fact, a committee composed of representatives of district office volunteers and staff took three years. The fruits of their labors are now being distributed to neighborhood associations and others for comment before being taken to City Council. Committee members are pledged to attend the meeting and lead the discussion of any group so requesting it. Changes are an attempt to address past problems that, at their worst, resulted in lawsuits and consumed a huge amount of time for staff and volunteers. Below are some examples. Boundary, changing coalition rules changed OVERLAPPING BOUNDARIES A large number of rules concern where imaginary lines on maps are drawn. Although the city discourages it, some neighborhood associations do share territory. For the most part, it has not been a problem. When problems have occurred, however, they have been immense. There was a bitter dispute involving Hazelwood and Mill Park that lasted more than a year. Currently, the Southwest Hills Residential League (SWHRL) is threatening to sue the city over a dispute with three other groups. The new rules say that changes in boundaries, or overlapping boundaries are OK if both associations agree to them in writing. If they cannot agree, the matter goes to the director of the Portland Office of Neighborhood Involvement. His word, in theory, is final. In practice, the seriously disgruntled can, like SWHRL, follow the great American pastime and sue. CHANGING COALITIONS OR MAKING NEW ONES With a few exceptions, neighborhood associations are affiliated with district offices, and from these, by way of ONI, they receive staff support, funding for newsletters, flyers and other services. On occasion neighborhoods have moved from one coalition to another for various reasons; Lents and Pleasant Valley both changed their affiliation from Southeast Uplift to East Portland several years ago. As is the case now, each district office must approve the changes. A new wrinkle, one opposed by some downtown staff, allows for the formation of new district offices or the realignment of the seven now in existence. The end result must be coalitions that consist of at least six associations, all with contiguous (touching) boundaries, all of whose membership approved the change by at least two-thirds of those voting at a general meeting. For the first time, also, a minimum size for a neighborhood association has been set at 100 acres and 200 households, with a grandfather clause for any groups now in existence. DISTRICT OFFICES Five of the citys seven district neighborhood offices are run by coalitions, nonprofit corporations that contract with the city to perform these services governed by volunteer boards composed of representatives from the neighborhoods served. The other two - North and Northeast - have been run directly by the city since their coalitions fell apart. For the first time, the new guidelines set rules for such alternative systems. They have always had advisory committees composed of representatives of the neighborhood associations served, but this is now a formal requirement. If neighborhoods served by a city-run office want to change to a district coalition model, or vice versa, they can do so if at least three-quarters of the associations served vote for the change. Conflict resolution GRIEVANCES Another source of extreme frustration, these formal complaints tend to be done a lot by a relatively few people. The city demands that associations have rules to handle such complaints but, for the most part, have left it to individual groups to determine what the rules should be. Now a few universal rules have been added: Grievances can only pertain to violations of the groups own bylaws or the citys guidelines. They must be filed in writing within 14 days of the alleged violation. If the grievance filer is dissatisfied with the results of the associations process, they can appeal to their coalition (if they have one), and then to the ONI director, with the same 14 day deadline for filing. POLITICS When the city began its program for support of neighborhood associations some, such as the late Connie McCready, feared Council would be funding the revolution. At first, in response to such fears, there was a strict separation between neighborhood association activities and electoral politics. This has gradually broken down over time, in part because there is such a large overlap between neighborhood board members and those involved in politics. At present the guidelines forbid newsletters receiving city funds from printing statements for or against electoral candidates or ballot measures. There is no explicit prohibition on taking positions on ballot issues, and several groups have done so. The new rules remove all prohibitions on ballot measures, while stating explicitly that neither associations nor coalitions may take positions on candidates. Meeting rules both more and less strict OPEN MEETINGS Since 1984, neighborhood associations have been subject to the state Open Meetings Law - not because state law requires it, but because City Council chooses for it to be so. The law, written for legislative committees, is not a good fit for volunteer groups. While preserving the general intent of the law, the GREAT Committee has recommended some modifications. Some requirements would actually be a little stricter. For any general, board or committee meeting, associations would have to send notices via mail, e-mail or hand delivery to board or committee members. Anyone who had requested such notice or applicants in land use cases; such notices would have to give the agenda for the meeting and arrive at least a day in advance. Meetings via Internet or conference calls would be forbidden in most cases. All meeting places must be handicapped accessible. They must be held in places where protected classes of people would not encounter discrimination. It would be O.K. to meet in a church that doesnt condone homosexuality as long as gay people were not subjected to abusive behavior when they came. On the other hand, a prohibition on holding meetings outside the neighborhoods boundaries has been softened, since some neighborhoods do not have suitable meeting spaces available to them. Also, closed-door executive sessions can now be held under three new situations: when preparing for a land use appeal hearing, when consulting with an attorney, or when discussing (but not voting on) a grievance. In the first two cases, this means you can discuss strategy without your opponent listening to every word. In the third, you can openly discuss individuals involved in a dispute without besmirching their reputations or giving them a chance to sue you. Finally, the new rules state that you can remove a disruptive person from the meeting. OTHER CHANGES Associations have always been required to admit all residents and property owners within their boundaries as members; they are now required to admit business license owners. Associations must have quorums that are either a certain number of people or a formula such as half their sitting board members; they can not do business with whoever shows up. Proxy voting by absentee ballot, a source of fraud and corruption when it has been used, is now forbidden. For more information about the new rules, call Brian Hoop at ONI at 503-823-3075. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home |