ADDENDUM
PORTLAND CIVIC INDEX PROJECT
PORTLAND - CITY AT A CROSSROADS
"CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGE"
JUNE 1989 - MAY 1990
ADDENDUM
Civic Index Committee Reports
Civic Education Page 1
Community Information Sharing Page 19
Citizen Participation Page 27
Community Leadership Page 41
Volunteerism and Philanthropy Page 50
Cooperation and Consensus Building Page 69
Government Performance Page 76
Community Vision and Pride Page 130
Regional Cooperation Page 143
Intergroup Relations Page 179
Civic Index Survey Page 194
CIVIC INDEX/CIVIC EDUCATION COMMITTEE REPORT
Definition and Focus The Civic Education subcommittee defines its component topic: Civic Education is the way in which we learn the lessons or modes of behavior that enable us to be part of the culture in which we live. Ideally, civic education must include an attachment to justice, a willingness to serve the community beyond self interest, and an openness to all those who share the rank of citizen. The committee's definition of civic education has two parts. The first is governance, that is, the knowledge of how local, state and federal government functions. This knowledge is essential to provide young people with the skills necessary to participate in a democracy. The second part of civic education involves community values. Values such as justice and community service are fundamental to the future health of the community as a whole. The committee's focus is upon education through the public and private school systems. The committee also considered the participation of business and volunteer community organizations with the schools. The committee's task is to evaluate the state of civic education, to describe a vision for the future of civic education, and to recommend the means of accomplishing that vision. Questions Used to Evaluate Civic Education The state of civic education was assessed using the following questions: How do the schools teach governance? Does the curriculum address state and local government? Do the schools teach citizenship skills? Do the schools promote community service? To what extent are community service organizations and businesses participating in education? Are students receptive to programs teaching citizenship skills and community values? Do the schools address community problem solving? Assessing of Civic Education The committee investigated the current status of civic education by interviewing educators, legislators, and business and community leaders. The committee felt that it was important to include a student viewpoint and organized a student focus group for that purpose. The focus group was made up of students in public and private schools ranging in age from 13 - 18. All were members of Youth Today. Student comments from the focus group are appended. The comments are summarized within this report under the heading "Youth Perspective." The Committee's Conclusions Portland is making a commendable effort in the area of civic education. However, the effort falls short of satisfying the needs of young people in our community and, by extension, falls short of meeting the needs of the community as a whole. Our failure to provide necessary educational experiences for these young people, who face an increasingly complex, even dangerous, world, is diminishing the probability that our community will deal with future problems in a manner acceptable to today's adults. Portland's schools do teach governance, though more emphasis on state and local government is desirable. So, too, do they teach citizenship skills and inconsistently promote community services. Community service organizations do participate in promoting civic education. There are some very commendable efforts underway in our city. The current efforts fall short of what is needed in the opinion of the consumers of these educational experiences. Youth leaders are very receptive to additional educational opportunities and have some creative thoughts regarding what should be included in Civic Education. It makes sense for adults to consult these consumers and to invest in providing them with the tools they require to learn the skills and values necessary for effective civic participation as adults. The Committee's Findings The following summary of current programs is representative, not exhai otive. Summary of Current Curriculum and Programs A. Governance 1. Curriculum Both the State Department of Education and The Portland Public School District (PPS) are preparing new curriculum guidelines. Historically, the local districts have had great autonomy in setting their own programs. The State social studies curriculum goals are scheduled be completed, approved, and distributed in the Fall of 1990. The districts will continue to set their own programs, but will be required to meet the broad state guidelines.
The state social studies curriculum includes two strands that directly relate to civic education: "Constitutional, Democratic Heritage" and "Civic Values and Responsibilities." The state draft guidelines will require districts to teach local governance. For example, one common curriculum goal is to "explain the structures and functions of the government on the U.S. at all levels." By third grade, students should know the name of the chief executive of the local, state and national government. By fifth grade, students should recognize and name government units at the local level (e.g. cities, counties, school districts), state level, and national level. By the end of the eighth grade, students should be able to describe the electoral process at all levels. High school juniors and seniors, given an issue of personal concern, should be able to identify appropriate government agencies and access strategies to use in seeking information or a solution.
PPS includes "political understandings" as a part of the proposed social studies curriculum from Kindergarten through High School (K-12). At the K-2 level, the emphasis of political understandings is on democracy in the classroom, which involves young children in forming classroom rules, solving problems, and sharing leadership roles. At grades 3-5, the emphasis begins to shift from classroom process to a study of laws, leaders and authority, citizenship, government and basic nation/state concepts. Grades 6-8 introduce comparative government and international conflict and cooperation. High school graduation in the District requires completion of a course in U.S. Government. Course topics include the U.S. Constitution, federalism, the three branches of government, elections and political participation, state and local government, foreign policy, and career education. The course overview requires the teacher to integrate the theme of the roles and responsibilities of citizens in a democratic society. 2. Enhancement In addition to basic curriculum, there are a number of special programs addressing many aspects of civic education. The Oregon Law Related Education Project (OLREP) organizes a state wide mock trial competition for high school students which highlights constitutional issues. The underlying goal of Law Related Education is to help students develop a more positive attitude toward the role of law in society. OLREP also sponsors Street Law classes in the high schools. OLREP, with support from the Multnomah County Court Administrator, sponsors tours of the Multnomah County Court House in Portland. In 1988, more than 2,000 students from grades 5-12 toured the Courthouse.
OLREP provides workshops for teachers and develops and disseminates legally related course materials for all grades. Such courses and materials currently include "Juvenile Responsibilities and the Law" and "Juvenile Justice," for high school and middle school, and "Living Together Under the Law" for elementary school. OLREP also provides a course called "We the People," which is training on the use of the new curriculum to teach about the constitution in the fifth and eighth grade classroom. The Close-Up Foundation sends high school students to Washington, D.C. to learn how the federal government operates. Another program sponsored by the Close-Up Foundation is the "Citizen Bee" competition. The format is similar to a spelling bee, but the students are asked questions covering American History, Government, Geography, Economics, Current Events and American Culture. Winners of the statewide competition participate in the National competition held in Washington, D.C. The League of Women Voters sponsors mock presidential elections in the high schools at the time of the national elections. The League's goal is to familiarize the students with voting in order to encourage voter participation as adults. Youth Today is a private non-profit organization which teaches social and political skills to young people in the Portland area. Youth Today evolved from the Metropolitan Youth Commission, which was funded by the City of Portland. When funding was eliminated, Youth Today was created with a board of business and community leaders. Youth Today coordinates publicat/on of Youth Today, a city wide newspaper produced by 50 culturally diverse middle school and high school students. The students write, edit, and paste up the paper, which is distributed four times a year to 30,000 students. The paper is sponsored by the Oregonian. Youth Today sponsors the annual Youth Leadership Conference in which 200 young people examine ways to reduce interracial misunderstanding and violence and recommend solutions to civic and government groups. Another project is the Youth Planning Project, which is production of a videotape promoting interracial and intercultural understanding for use by schools, businesses, and civic groups. The video is produced by the students with the assistance of Channel 8 and Jefferson High School. Finally, Youth Today sponsors Youth Week in which young people become counterparts to Portland school and government officials and spend brief internships with elected officials to see how these jobs are performed.
B. Community Values 1. School Based Youth Service Programs The District does not require community service, but schools may develop programs on their own. The Oregon Legislature recently passed H.B. 3293, which requires the State to draft model Youth Service Learning program guides and curriculum models that the districts may use in setting up their own programs. The draft is scheduled to be disseminated in April 1990. The Sellwood Middle School, in conjunction with Southeast Uplift Neighborhood Program, developed a pilot project centered around community service. The sixth, seventh, and eighth graders helped seniors with home maintenance and cleaned up graffiti and litter from the neighborhood. Catlin Gabel School, a private school (K-12), has a long tradition of community service. The middle school students last year volunteered once a month in a variety of half-day jobs working with children and seniors. Services included writing letters for and playing checkers with residents at two retirement homes and collecting 1,500 cans of food for distribution at Thanksgiving to low income families. The lower school children, aged 8-11, spent a day in the fields picking crops which were distributed through the Washington County Food Bank. Each year the high school freshmen perform 10 hours of service, usually in an environmental improvement project. Since 1976, Catlin Gabel's graduating class has finished their senior year with a five-day community service trip. Recent classes have built or rebuilt trails in national parks and forests. Another project was riparian stabilization which involved restoring fish passage, anchoring logs, planting cotton woods, and fencing off riparian areas. One participant commented: "We have been pretty cynical and thought that there was nothing we could do about the great problems of the world. Now we know we can do something about them, because we have done it." Jesuit High School, a private Catholic boys' school, requires 80 hours of community service for graduation. The boys are matched with social service organizations serving the disadvantaged. Central Catholic School and Oregon Episcopal School, both private denominational schools, also require community service. 2. Programs Outside the School The 1989 Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1109, which establishes VISTO, Volunteers in Service to Oregon. The program is open to Oregon residents, 16-19 years old. The purpose of the Bill is to promote community service volunteerism among Oregon's youth by allowing young people to earn vouchers good toward college tuition while working with social service agencies. Qualified service includes working in literacy education, family counseling, victim advocacy and assistance, emergency hotline services, and assistance in the Head Start program. The companion funding bill was not passed. In June 1987, Governor Goldschmidt signed Senate Bill 731, which created the Oregon Youth Conservation Corp (OYCC). OYCC is modeled upon the Civilian Conservation Corp created by President Franklin Roosevelt. The program is both state and privately funded. The OYCC operates in the Summers, putting young people to work clearing stream banks, restoring fish habitats, and fighting forest fires. Training was designed by Department of Education and the Employment Division. OYCC works with the Fish and Wildlife Department and the Parks Department. A team of government, education, youth services, business and community leaders headed by Multnomah County proposed development of the Columbia Conservation Corps (CCC). The program would employ youth to perform community service projects such as low income or elderly property maintenance or rehabilitation, peer tutoring for literacy, neighborhood clean- up, graffiti removal, and other environmental enhancement projects. The Neighborhood Revitalization Management Panel, chaired by Mayor Bud Clark, endorsed the proposal. The proposal and grant application are currently before the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps and Public/Private Ventures of Philadelphia. 3. Business Participation Businesses are active in many of the schools in Portland and the Tri-County Area. Oregon businesses fund a program titled "Oregon Business Week" for high school students each Summer. The one-week program includes discussions of social responsibility in business. Business persons and educators work together in the Beaverton School District by entering into "Business/Education Compact Partnership Agreements." The focus of the program is economic development through educational excellence. Businesses team up with schools for field trips, classroom presentation, and mentorship programs. Similar partnerships exist in the Portland Public Schools through the Portland Investment Plan. The Portland Investment Plan was prepared by the Portland Leader's Roundtable. One Portland partnership matches U.S. West Communications with the Boise-Eliot Elementary School. Thirty U.S. West employees volunteer for an hour each week helping the students with basic skills. Businesses interact with the most promising students in a program called Saturday Academy. Saturday Academy coordinates classes for sixth to twelfth grade students in the sciences, computing, engineering, math, and other topics. The program is administered through the Oregon Graduate Center and funded by tuition, and business and community donations of services, facilities, and funds. Low income students receive scholarships. C. Youth Perspective Students believe that both knowledge of the form and functions of local government and civic values are important. There is a recognition that no one can succeed individually. There is a need to improve the level of knowledge about access to local government and to enhance the values of community sharing. The students noted some good programs such as the Street Law classes and mock trials sponsored by OLREP and the programs sponsored by the Close-up Foundation. However, the overall assessment is that there is not enough attention given to the subject. One student characterized the available programs as "ten points of light." Student comments specific to each component are discussed below. 1. Governance Currently, programs and materials focus upon the national government to the exclusion of state and local government. There is no constructive approach to civic education. With other curriculum requirements, there is little time. The civic education curriculum should include critical thinking, expression, and effective argument and compromise. The programs should be both classroom and hands-on. Students want to know how to effect change in their communities. 2. Community Values The private denominational and nondenominational schools generally require community service. Some of the students supported required service; others opposed it. The students favoring required service felt that kids would learn values and may even find they like it. Those opposing felt that requiring community service would take the volunteerism out of it. In addition, a student who did not want to participate may do a bad job. A third view was to set up programs as optional, but for credit. When asked why students do community service, answers included "to give back to the community," "to learn responsibility," and "because adults do not want to do the work, like picking up garbage." In all, the students favored optional, for credit, community service programs. The focus group members noted that many students are "gliders," doing the minimum to get through school. They felt that it would be unlikely that the gliders would respond to community service programs. The focus group was made up of youth from diverse economic and educational backgrounds. However, they admitted that as participants in Youth Today, they tended to be leaders, not gliders. Strengths and Weaknesses of Current Civic Education As students progress, the emphasis seems to shift from local government and community problem solving to national and international government. This trend is addressed to some extent in the proposed state guidelines, but not in the District's proposed curriculum. The committee learned that subject matter is, in part, a function of the materials that are available. There will always be a bias in favor of national topics because of the economic incentive for the publishing houses to prepare books for the largest market. Issues pertaining to local government and community problem solving should be an important part of the high school curriculum because ynowledge of local government is fundamental to effective particip* tion as an adult. The student focus group felt strongly that knowledge as well as communication skills are important to express a view and effect change. Programs such as OLREP, Close-up Foundation, and Youth Today have done an excellent job. The student focus group commended these quality programs. The consensus, however, is that civic education does not receive the attention the subject deserves. Business participation in education is to be encouraged. The exchange fosters a sense of community involvement in the business participants and provides programs to the schools without state or federal funding. The programs should, however, include an element of social and community responsibility and business ethics. The student focus group warned against preparing youth for the work force, but not preparing youth for membership in a community. The District is under tremendous pressure to produce graduates with basic skills - reading, language usage, and mathematics. The schools are increasingly called upon to provide guidance once provided by the family. The committee, as well as the student focus group, believe that everyone in the community is responsible for teaching civic education, including parents, teachers, and community and business leaders. Community service programs are one way to teach civic responsibility and participation. Although community service programs are not actively discouraged in the public schools, they are difficult to realize because of the continual pressure to teach the required curriculum within the limited school hours. In addition to competitive pressure for time, there is increasing competition for funds. The programs such as Youth Today, OLREP, and Close-Up Foundation are all privately funded. The legislature passed the bill establishing VISTO, but not its funding component. There is no dearth of ideas, only a dearth of funds to implement them. Vision for the Future of Civic Education a. Governance Verne Duncan, former State Superintendent of Public Instruction, noted that "It is perhaps true that average Oregon citizens today know far more about the national government, whose headquarters is 2,500 miles away, than they do about government serving them on the local level." Foreword to Government in Oregon, A Resource on State and Local Government, Revised Ed. 1976. Educators interviewed noted the emphasis on national government was driven in part by the lack of course materials on state and local government. The State attempted to remedy that situation with the publication of "Government in Oregon," a source book made available to the public schools. That book however, was last revised in 1976, and there is no equivalent source book on county and city government. In order to have an informed citizenry, it is important to include local governance in the social studies curriculum. To that end, the committee recommends that the Portland Public Schools commission a source book and lesson plans covering local governance. The League of Women Voters is preparing a study of City Government which includes the history of Portland City Government and a description of how local government functions. The Fred Meyer Trust will publish the study in May, 1990. The Committee recommends that the District work with the League to prepare course materials to use with the League's study. Enhancement programs may be coordinated around a local governance course. Such programs could include mentorships with city, and county public employees and officials, working with the League of Women Voters to put on mock local elections, debate on local and state ballot measures, mock trials centered upon civil rights issues under the Oregon Constitution, and targeting a local issue to follow in the media.
10 b. Community Values Dr. Matthew Prophet, Superintendent of Portland Public Schools, noted: Responsible citizenship is as important as the basic skills of reading, writing and mathematics. Welcome to Conferees, "Learning Through Youth Community Service."
Despite Dr. Prophet's acknowledgment of the importance of involving Portland's youth in positive community service, there is no District policy for implementing community service as an element of the public school curriculum. The committee recommends that the District work with service organizations and government officials to devise model programs in addition to the model programs that are being drafted by the State.
Key barriers to implementing programs for community service will continue to be lack of funding and resistance on the part of teachers to adding additional requirements to the full plate mandated now. Creative methods of financing the programs must be found if funding is required (for example, combining vocational training with community service and soliciting funding and participation from service businesses). Further, community service must be integrated with other requirements to alleviate the competition for in-school time.
It is beyond the purview of this committee to assess the current system for funding the public schools in Oregon. However, it is fatuous to ignore the impact of funding upon the future of civic education. School funding is based upon property tax assessments in the particular district. Portland, as a relatively wealthy district, has fared far better than other districts statewide. Portland's economic and social future will be determined in large part by the students educated in the public schools. We sell short our future by underfunding the schools today.
The committee also wishes to stress the role of parents in the future health of the community. Schools were designed to teach academics. Students primarily "learned the modes of behavior enabling them to be part of the culture in which they live" at home. Doubtless, the family is changing. With that change has come at least a perceived abdication of parental responsibility and the concomitant pressure on the schools to fill the gap. The schools must continue their efforts to reach parents and to incorporate parent volunteers into their programs. By doing so, the parents may appreciate their part in the community and their children may learn by example.
11 Submitted by Committee Members: Patrick 1orunda Neil B. Davidson Betty Gega Tony Gerlicz Kim Jefferies Leeanne MacColl Steve Rudman
The Committee wishes to recognize the invaluable contributions to this report made by Committee Member Jack Ryan before his untimely death. Jack was a well respected teacher at Franklin High School and coordinated the Close-Up Foundation project for that school.
Student Focus Group
Radha Webley Oregon Episcopal Katie Paulson Voc. Village Sherry Wilmoth Voc. Village Todd Crawford Oregon Episcopal David Stanke Oregon Episcopal Catherine Lloyd Franklin Shreeyash Palshikar Benson Daniel Dorn Franklin Myrna Bonar Benson Orion Protonentis Lincoln Christy Smith Central Catholic Kali Scolnick M.L.C. Mashinda Hedgmon Lincoln
Resources;
Interviews: Mike Bednarek, Executive Asst, to State Superintendent, Oregon Department of Education Karen Belsey, Project Coordinator, "Learning Through Youth Community Service" Currently, Asst. to Multnomah County Commissioner, Rick Bauman Dave Corkran, History Teacher, Catlin Gabel School Marilyn Cover, Director, OLREP Rick Greibel, Oregon State Bar Jeanette Hamby, State Senator Eleanor Hardt, Social Studies Curriculum Director (PPS) Mike Hughes, Christian Service Director, Jesuit High School Mary Jean Katz, Social Studies Specialist, Oregon Department of Education
12 Phil Keisling, State Representative Michael Ann Orloff, Vice Principal, Sellwood Middle School Steve Rudman, former Executive Director, Southeast Uplift Neighborhood Project Alice Simpson, Director, Youth Today Inc. Carol Turner, School Board member Written Materials: Report Card, (PPS) Senate Bill 1109 (VISTO) Draft Curriculum Goals, Oregon Department of Education Proposed Political Understandings Curriculum, (PPS) Business Education Compact of Washington County Lexpress Newsletter, Oregon Law Related Education Project "Learning Through Youth Community Service" Conference Materials Government in Oregon, A Resource on State and Local Government, Published by Oregon Department of Education
CEC.01/KJ21
13 CIVIC EDUCATION STUDENT FOCUS GROUP
Alice Simpson, Director of Youth Today, Inc., assisted the committee: in forming a Student: Focus Group to obtain a youth perspective on civic education. The group consisted of thirteen students ranging in age from 13 to 18. The students were from diverse backgrounds and public and private schools. They all participate in some manner with Youth Today, Inc. The participants and their high school affiliations were: Radha Webley Oregon Episcopal School Katie Paulson Vocational Village Sherry Wilmoth Vocational Village Todd Crawford Oregon Episcopal School David Stanke Oregon Episcopal School Catherine Lloyd Franklin High School Shreeyash Palshxkar Benson High School Daniel Dorn Franklin High School Myrna Bonar Benson High School Orion Protonentis Lincoln High School Christy Smith Central Catholic High School Kali Scolnick Metropolitan Learning Center Mashmda Hedgmon Lincoln High School The focus group met on January 7, from 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. at the Oregonian offices. Committee member Patrick Borunda acted as facilitator. The group discussed the two components of civic education (that is, how local government functions and learning civic values). After a number of students commented on particular questions, Patrick summarized the consensus, which was then approved for accuracy by the student participants. The questions and comments appear below. 1. Is civic education important? Yes, civic education is important to a general education. The curriculum now has no positive connection to the community. Civic education is not emphasized enough and it could be done better. Civic education is important. It gives skills to students to constructively present a case for change. It enables students to present one side of an issue to get the point across. It is a tool. Civic education is important. The community needs to work together. He need a positive attitude to work together and not compete. He need to understand each other. Civic education relates to all subjects in school.
14 Civic education is important. Every student could use education in community. It is useful and more directly related to life. The Close-up Foundation teaches the functioning of national, but not local government. We don't talk about things on the local level in school. - The schools emphasize turning out a work force, not community members. People learn skills, but not community commitment. - There is no civic education now. There is no training regarding getting along with other viewpoints. There are special programs associated with vocational training that teach getting along with other viewpoints. - M.L.C., in contrast to other schools, focuses on working together. He learn respect for different points of view. The school integrates K-12. Community service is required for graduation. We barely get required subjects done now. There is no time for extra projects. The excuse of the school system for not integrating civic education is there is no time. The school district needs to xnclude civic education in an interdisciplinary approach. What should be included in civic education? Debate and critical thinking should be included. - Students should learn to present facts, discuss opinions, and learn compromise. - Good citizenship should be included and political issues and voting on local issues. - Mock elections are an effective teaching tool for local and national political issues. There are a large number of ignorant adults concerning civic issues. Knowledge of community should be included in civic education curriculum.
- 2 -
15 Adults should realize that some students can't be taught in schools. The best they can do is to learn survival skills. Students learn well by experience. Mock conventions have been an effective tool in teaching national political issues. One problem in teaching civic education is that, some school students don't care about their communities. Schools can teach community service and caring, but some students will be unreceptive. Civic education should be taught early. Civic education is more of a family issue. Values and caring come from families. Civic education is important because you need skills to find answers. Many parents shut down inguisitiveness. Who should teach civic education? Parents should teach civic education. Teachers should teach civic education. Everyone in the community should teach civic education. Community service: Should it be required? No. Students would resist if forced to do it. - Some choice must be involved. Making it a required subject takes the volunteerism out of it. Yes. Community service should be required, but students should have a choice of the program. Some students will get satisfaction from community service even if they don't want to do it. Yes. Community service should be required. I was forced into it by my family and I have enjoyed it but it won't work for everyone. Community service should not be required. My sister was forced into serving as a candy striper when she does not want to do it and she does not do a good job. Her attitude endangers other people. Community service should be for optional credit, as an incentive but not required. - 3 -
16 5. How do we define community service? The students should be able to devise their own programs, which could be reviewed by the administration. Community service is non-paid volunteer activity that benefits others. The motive should determine whether particular activities qualify as community service. If the motive is not volunteerism, the actxvity should not qualify. 6. Why should students do community service? To give back to the community. - To gain a sense of responsibility. Students are required to do community service because the jobs are those adults do not want to do, like picking up garbage. The community is not what it could be. To change the community and take personal initiative in making changes. The community needs both leaders and followers. There is always something to do. Summary and Consensus Is civic education important? Civic education is important because no person can succeed individually. We need to improve the level of community sharing. Civic education is not being implemented. There is no constructive approach. There is no time because of other curriculum requirements. What should be included in civic education? Civic education should include critical thinking, expression and effective argument, and compromise. Learning should be both in the classroom and through experience. Who is responsible for civic education? Parents, teachers, civic leaders, everyone in the community.
- 4 - 17 Should community service be required? No, because those who don't want to do it will do a bad job. Ye; , because even students that do not wish.to do community seivice learn values and may later learn that they like it. A third view is to set it up as an option for credit, but not make it a graduation requirement.
Why should we do community service?
Community service instills a sense of responsibility. Volunteerism comes from the heart. Community service is an element of "stewardship" and investment in the community.
Is civic education currently being taught well? Civic education is now a very small element of the school program. There are some quality programs such as the mock trials and street law classes put on by the Oregon Legal Related Education Project, but the programs are few. The current status of civic education programs was characterized as "ten points of light."
CEC.02/KJ21
- 5 - 18 CIVIC INDEX REPORT COMMUNITY INFORMATION SHARING January 23, 1990
Committee Members: Loretta Young, Chairperson; Rachel Jacky, Susan Monti
It is the intent of this committee to discuss and review the methods and manner in which information is shared by Portland's government and its citizens. Awareness of community acticn is the very spark which ignites citizen participation. It is a root of the democratic process. How our citizens perceive the City is based upon the information they receive from the media, their neighbors, and the government itself. How well the City is wcrl ing for its citizens is directly related to the amount cf information citizens can direct to their government. Communication is a two- way dialogue of information sharing.
This report is based upon the following resources:
1) A survey conducted by the Community Information
Sharing Committee in September of 1989. 75 people representing areas of interest throughout the city (i.e., churches, neighborhood associations, charitable institutions, minority groups, and the community-at-1arge ) were mailed a survey seeking information about
19 their methods of receiving and transmitting information to and from their government. It also asked their performance rating of these sources. 25 surveys were completed and returned to the committee.
2) A 1987 survey taken by City Auditor Barbara Clark cf the City of Portland Bureau Directors on their public notification procedures.
3) A discussion with Boyd Leavitt of KXXXX Televisicn regarding broadcast media attitude surveys.
4) And, data obtained from the bench marl; C i'. i c Inde> telephone survey conducted by Julie A. Williamson in November cc
1989 using a random dialing system of 400 city residents.
Using information gathered from the above mentioned sources, the committee attempts to answer the following questions:
1) How does the public gather information about government?
2) Does the public find information to be balanced and accurate?
3) Does government make information available in an effective way?
4) Is the public aware of channels for information sharing?
HOW DOES THE PUBLIC FIND INFORMATION ABOUT GOVERNMENT?
Our own survey points to the daily Oregonian newspaper as the
20 main source of information concerning local government activities. Boyd Leavitt disagreed citing network rating polls which indicate that most people rely on the broadcast media for much of their general information and most of their political election information. Although some people surveyed mentioned government publications or neighborhood newspapers as supplementary sources, by and large the public relies on the mass media for its news.
DOES THE PUBLIC FIND INFORMATION BALANCED AND ACCURATE?
It was discussed by this committee that the Oregoni an as well as other newspapers may be influenced by the advertising they must sell. The broadcast medium may be influenced by not only its advertisers but also its scheduled broadcast time.
Does TV news have enough time to tell about the local news0 Neighborhood meetings? Citizens concerns? Do advertisers influence reporting? Are both sides of an issue presented by the press? According to the bench mark survey of Julie Williamson, only 46% of the community feels the media is doing a good or better job at representing all sides of an issue while 53% feel coverage was fair or worse.
Many citizens, from many sources, state a need for mere "problem solving avenues": more information from the media to allow citizens to deal with problems. Several respondents called for more neighborhood newspapers or periodic newsletters from City Hall . DOES GOVERNMENT MAKE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY?
The government does not rely solely on t.he media for
information dissemination although twelve areas of City government from the Mayor's office to the department of Urban Services employ specialists to deal primarily with the media. Many areas of City government including the Mayor's office and Commissioner's offices rely additionally on other methods cf communication: telephone calls, correspondence, brochures, public speaking, and slide shews.
It is the feeling of many public officials that there must be an ongoing effort to improve communication with the public. "We are constantly working to improve tracking of constituent request..." says Commissioner Blumenauer. Mayor Bud Clark said he "would like more proactive informational publications."
It may be interesting to note here that although a number of information sources other than the media were mentioned by both citizens and government agencies, no one mentioned the "Blue Pages" of the telephone book as a helpful resource. The only comment about the "Blue Pages" came in a discussion ameng committee members. The consensus being that the "Blue Pages" were more confusing than helpful.
Newcomers to the City have the hardest time discerning where to go for help and how to understand the workings of local government. Welcome Wagon distributes the City's Urban Services pamphlet to newcomers although it is not always timely, nor does
Welcome Wagon reach every new resident.
22 City Auditor Barbara Clark expressed an interest in getting information to new residents about available services as well as opportunifes to get involved with local government. The City of
Portland has a City/School Liaison and it has been suggested that that position should be utilized to improve government communication through the schools.
IS THE PUBLIC AWARE OF CHANNELS FOR INFORMATION SHARING?
Respondents to this committee's survey showed a wide range of experience in dealing with the City to solve problems. Although some individuals showed more sophistication about such processes than others, all involved one and usually mere of ther,c players in getting the City to take action: City Council, the appropriate
Commissioner, the appropriate bureau, neighborhood associations and the media. Most people would start by contacting their neighborhood association, some would start with the Commissioner- in-charge, a smaller number would begin with the appropriate bureau.
It is interesting to note that, in general, people would contact a Commissioner before contacting the appropriate bureau. This may be due to the fact that locating a responsible person in the bureaucracy is much harder than contacting the Commissioner- in-charge. Several responses commented on the difficulty of dealing with the bureaucracy at the City.
Our own survey indicates that the public has little knowledge
23 of channels which exist for citizen input to government. One respondent said "Without a doubt the most significant improvement which couV1 be made relates to how the community interacts with city agencies/services. Efforts to attain information, give information or requests of assistance are all tec often not adequately addressed by city government. Finding someone to assume responsibility is nearly impossible."
The goal of information sharing as an effective dialogue between government and citizens remains that: a gcal. In the next decade this committee would like to see improvement in the way the community gathers information; improvement in the balance and accuracy of the news media; improvement in the amount of information disseminated by the government; and improvement in the public's ability to share information with its government.
It would be ideal to have the process of gove>~nmer,t--not just the policy of government—reported by the media. This in itself would encourage citizen input at the planning level.
Our vision for the future would include enough sources for information within the community so that each side of an issue would be given a forum to be fairly and accurately reported. We would like to see an government which responds responsibly to citizen's problems and a government which facilitates two-way communication.
How will it happen? It was asked in the bench mnrl. survey:
24 "There has been some discussion of the need for an office of information for the City of Portland. Some people say it would be extremely useful to have one number to call for help, while others say it would be a waste of tax dollars. Do you believe that a city information office would be helpful, or a waste of money?"
The results indicate that 60% felt such an office would be useful. This committee believes it is too early to see such an office as the only solution to the problems of information sharing.
We believe it is an interesting idea and one worth pursuing. From our own survey one respondent suggested: "Streamlining methods of communication within the city/county governrnents--possi bl y a group who are solely involved with public information, [an office] to be held accountable without having to go to a Commissioner. In essence, I'm suggesting a "public" form of a customer service department."
As to the sources of information; Will Portland have a competing daily newspaper in the near future? Will cable TV bring the political process into the grasp of John 0. Public? It is more probable that Portland will remain a "one paper town" throughout the decade and that the process of government is too tedious to be competitive in light of network programming. However, it is possible that the process of government finds itself on the nightly news encapsulated into intriguing bites of information, encouraging citizen involvement. News reporting by the media may grow more fair and accurate as more and more citizens become involved with that process of government.
The areas where respondents gave the media its lowest ratings were in providing information to allow citizens to deal with
25 problems, and in news about neighborhood and community activities. These are areas the media must target for the future.
Goals for improved information sharing can be accomplished with an emphasis on community awareness and participation from both the media and the government. With fcilew-through to track and report on progress made (or obstacles encountered) to accomplish this end this committee recommends one or more of the following should be employed:
1) a public office or specific personnel tc give and to receive information and to request assistance,
2) a citizen supported non-profit organisation tc simplify and provide information,
3) an increased number of neighborhood newspapers and newsletters,
4) improved media coverage of neighborhood ard community activities by TV, radio, the Cregonian. and neighborhood newspapers,
4) improved press releases by elected officials, and
5) improved systems already in place (eg., the
City/School Liaison and the "Blue Pages" of the phone loci;.)
The committee urges that the City of Portland, elected officials, and the media move ahead to explore the implementation of these recommendations.
8
26 Portland Civic Index: Citizen Participation
A. Definition of component topic
Citizen Participation is asking questions, communicating issues, and involving oneself in working towards solutions with other citizens in the affairs of a community.
Citizen participation includes voting in local elections, serving on government boards, commissions, and advisory groups;attending public hearings and giving testimony;and being active in neighborhood, civic.service and social concern organizations.
B. Mission statement
Assess the effectiveness of the Metropolitan Portland area s citizen participation structure and processes. Determine ways to enhance and broaden opportunities for citizens to participate in civic life. Envision citizen participation working at its best.
C. Description of evaluation process
The committee chose to use four different methods to examine citizen participation:
1. Citizen participation opportunities were divided into three groups. a) mandated b) neighborhood level c) social/civic *a list is attached
2. Interviews with several agencies were conducted using the following questions: 1. Does your organization have a citizen participation policy? 2. How do you involve new participants in your organization? How do you communicate with your constituencies? 3. Estimate how many public meetings you have held in the last year? 4. What are the barriers to citizen involvement in your organization? 5. What is your mission statement? 6. How effective are you in implementing citizen participation? •results of interviews attached
27 3. Barriers to citizen participation were identified. *a list is attached
4. A survey to further identify barriers to citizen participation and the public's definition of participation was developed but never fielded. 'survey is attached
D. Findings and conclusions
While agencies generally felt they were doing an effective citizen participation job, in actual fact most seemed limited in their performance. If no public protest occured, they assumed all was well.
Further, many felt that citizen participation meant solely participation as a member of a board or committee. The concept of reaching out for improved citizen input was not of paramount importance; at the same time lack of financial committment was a barrier.
Many agencies expressed a sentiment that most citizens really weren t interested and did not understand the whole idea of citizen participation.
There was a wide differentiation in availability and quality of policy statements regarding citizen participation. Many agencies felt that Oregon's open meeting law was all that citizen participation meant.
Many agencies relied heavily on media alone as a means of communication.
E. Recommendations
1. Provide training on citizen participation for agency staff and citizens 2. Improve marketing of citizen participation 3. Provide adequate funding earmarked for citzen participation 4. Encourage media to focus on citizen participation in as many agencies as possible.
28 Committee Members
Nancy Biasi Pauline Bradford Michael Dolan Bob Magid Kim Manley Mary Palmer Steven Rogers Wendy Smith Bob Weil -
29 Citizen participation opportunities
A. Mandated
Citizen Advisory Board (city, county, state and metro) Tax Supervising Committee Planning Commission Metropolitan Human Relations Commission Office of Neighborhood Associations Portland Development Commission Youth Commission Police Internal Investigation Auditing Committee Citizen Involvement Commission Office of Citizen Involvement Library Association of Portland Department of Human Services LCDC LUBA Citizens Utility Board Community Colleges Policy Commissions Department of Environmental Quality JPACT Tri Met Citizen Advisory Committee Port of Portland
30 SUMMARY OF CIVIC INDEX INTERVIEWS (ORGANIZATIONS)
Organization Pol icy, Copy, New Participants, # of public Barriers Mission statement Effective Mandated Communication Meetings copy Citizen Parti- cipation
Metro Human Yes, included in By ma iIi ngs, press 23-24 1 Yes Agency feels Re 1 at ions mission statement releases, announce- we 11 done Commiss ion mandated by Mu1t. ments, annual County Ordinance reports, news letters.
Mult. County Yes, not included* Through public Presentations Mi sunderstooc Ava i1 able but not Limited to those Department of mandated by Mult. information camp- as required poli cies, enclosed directly involvec Human Serv ices County Ordinance ai gns to County Com- gu idel ines, •Not readily avai1 ni ss ioners not widely able to publ ic rare general available oubl ic meet- ; ngs
PI ann i ng Comm- Yes, Not included Publ ic notices, '30 + Knowledge To be se^ We 11 done i ss i on Ci ty mandated by LCDC di rect ma iI, ONA requ ired. of Portland Goal #1 Lack of i nterest
r Lack of To 05 s-5"" .ery, thrc:- PIann i na Yes. To be sent. ONA & othe groups noti f ied, wc~d of commun i cati on DJO! ic hea~'' zs Comn i ss i en By state lav/ geograph ica1 4 Ku! -. County 1 i m'tat'ons SUMMARY OF CIVIC INDEX INTERVIEWS (ORGANIZATIONS)
Organization Pol icy. Copy, New Participants, # of public Barriers Mission statemeni, Effective Mandated Communication Meetings copy Ci ti zen Part i- c i pation Mult. County No. Follow open Branch notices, 12-50 Lack of *jnds To be seri Ve^v effective Library Assn. meetings law speakes, Oregonian. oe^- '_ . brary Ass- . Branch "say it" boards.
Tri-Met No. Foilow open Media, motnhly memos 50 No. of invol- Very i nforna1. Not Exce11ent on meetings law, Fed. use of comm. invol- ved partic- i nc1uded West side. CEC rules on grants vement staff, dired ipants Iimite mee+iigs. mai1, district CIC
ONA Yes. Included, Cit* Bureau Advisory 15 + Distrust of 1n ord i nance en- Ex~~e~e1y . Ord i nance Committee, ad hoc others. Per- c1osed. V a - ' e s wi^h ''-_',-_ ceived inner Citizens' Comm., circles. Lack newsletters, annual of understand needs assessments ing of Cit- Publ ic train ing izen Partic- sess ions ipation syste
i i Mult. County Yes. Mandates DV Annual conference, •2 Yes-. Er c , -sec _i C i t i zen 1 n vo 1-LDC. No1- enc 1 osed " newsletter, visions vprnent Corrm. conference. 1 i page 2 o* 4 SUMMARY OF CIVIC INDEX INTERVIEWS (ORGANIZATIONS)
Organization Policy, Copy, New Participants, # of public Barriers Mission statement, Effective Mandated Communication Meetings copy Citizen Parti- cipation
Pol ice Inter- Yes wirh regard to Limi ted ma i1i ngs & 10-12 Lack of Cred- Yes (Ordinance Only Response to nal Investigat • meeti ngs. By city announcements ib i1ity. In Enclosed Ordinance limi ted comp- ions Auditing code. transi tion laints Comm. period
Port 1 and Yes. Fed. but no "Communities" pub- 25 Limited pub- Yes. Enclosed Board & Ci ti zen Communi ty state law. See 1ication. Self 1 ic interest. part ic i oat ion College mission statement perpetuating pro- Older stu- fessional committee; dents with limi ted goa1.
Mult. County Not written. Gov. appoints comm. 40-50 Not visible No. Only State law. No O'jb i i c pre- Tax Supervisin Only state law. Public notices, budgets not test & Conservation annual report of general Comm i ss ion interest.
Mult. County Yes. Nc Copy Comr^un i ca+ i on in- Numerous Lack of funds Yes. No cooy sen-1-. 11 = ,:: .—- Youth Services nandated by Comm-. adequate. Citizens • conmun i cat i on un i ty juven! 1e 3CT i. +c Zcunty faHur-e tc to Services Axt. Cor,-"; ss i oners involve vouth CO "*"c ^ervo c ~ var!Ouc
Page 3 of SUMMARY OF CIVIC INDEX INTERVIEWS (ORGANIZATIONS)
Organization Pol icy. Copy, New Participants, I # of public Barriers Mission statement Ef fective Mandated Communication Meetings copy Citizen Parti- cipation Multnomah Co. Continued advisory boards & in program i Youth Services Youth Services Comm leadersh i p (Continued) iss ion
i
j i 1
• ,—-—,—\~ zaae 4 Citizen Participation — 3 July 18, 1989
II. Report from the Barriers to Participation Subcommittee Questions about this process. Outcomes (Are we a task force of City, County, Metro?) Target Audience Scope Life Expectancy Players before, now and later Timing (still four meetings?) Working definition - defining barriers to citizen participation
We participate as citizens through financial contributions: Paying taxes, utility franchise fees, bonds, corporate 8c individual
VotinV ^ M *. - J.- M. t gr Volunteers (service groups, churches) Activists (general purpose or issue related) Testifying Committee work Community organizing Special interest groups (PACS, lobbyists, etc.) Voting Enhancements Direct personal payoff Jobs Involvement in a campaign direct/individual Barriers Lack of time Ease of access Inconvenient Time consuming Not understanding the issues Lack of information Perceived lack of input Personal efficacy Cynicism "Rotten Politicians" It doesn't concern me Overcome Vote by Mail Positive page three
35 Citizen Participation --4 July 18, 1989 Barriers Subcommittee continued Volunteering Enhancements Opportunity to perform Creative Fulfilling Pertinent work Fun Barriers Lack of Time Too few doing it Materialistic attitude Perceived lack of impact Negative role models Inadequate payoff Skill development Networking Strokes Inadequate resource base to meet need: using volunteers or staff where needed Inadequate support: staff, supplies, reimbursement for transportation and child care Basic access: space, location, child care, transportation Overcome Part-time employment with benefits at all levels not just clerical or first line employees Enhance payoffs Change from material to moral incentives utilizing education system and media and policy makers Provide adequate support so that these things happen (skill development, networking and strokes) Shift in federal resource allocation and priorities Also state Also local Increased allocations and more money Special Interest Groups/Activists Enhancements Chance to educate, inform Feeling of individual and group accomplishment such as effectiveness, fulfillment, creativity, fun and excitement Public policy impact Develops group consciousness Corporate loans of staff page four
36 Citizen Participation --5 July 18, 1989 Barriers Neighborhood associations perceived as "government" are often advisory groups Perception that the more money the more impact What good will it do? Important, ineffectual to control impact government Time is short Feeling inadequate Internalized oppression institutionalized by such things as feeling inarticulate, feeling left out, feeling ignorant, feeling personally put down and racism, sexism and classism "poor is bad" Perception they are conflict oriented Agism, homophobia Accessibility (location, transportation, child care) Ignorance of letters Overcome Teach in schools: volunteer curriculum in Portland Public Schools and other schools in the county Specific, measurable charitable goals Monitor changes Develop long-term perspective Increase sensitivity by groups/Articulate, monitor, evaluate and no jargon Making individual and collective efforts to overcome bigotry and prejudice Other barriers to citizen participation and how they can be overcome Barriers Lack of commitment by policymakers to have citizen input at a decision making level rather than a rubber stamp level Solution: change elected officials perception of "the public will" Lack of coherent, integrated citizen participation network between and among jurisdictions Solution: networking of citizen participation support staff and by volunteers/community leaders Need "market" rather than "product" orientation (definition: focusing on what people do want rather than what an organization wants to give them) Need more new blood, increase number of active volunteers Concentration of power, effort, competency Guilt Territoriality Solutions: share, share, share, don't overload volunteers page five
37 1. How long have you lived in Portland? 2. What is your Zip Code? 3. What neighborhood do you live in? (Record exact statement.)
4. Did you vote in the Presidential election last November? YES NO Did you vote in the run-off election for Mayor last September? YES NO During the past 2 years, have you voted by mail? YES NO
5. Now we would like to know something about the groups and organizations to which individuals belong. Could you tell me whether or not you are a member of each type of group?
What about Labor Unions, do you belong to any unions? YES NO (If Yes: Are you an officer or leader in any of these groups?) YES NO Service clubs and fraternal groups? YES NO (If Yes: Are you an officer or leader in any of these groups?) YES NO Veterans organizations? YES NO (If Yes: Are you an officer or leader in any of these groups?) YES NO Political Clubs and Organizations? YES NO (If Yes: Are you an officer or leader in any of these groups?) YES NO Youth groups? YES NO (If Yes: Are you an officer or leader in any of these groups?) YES NO School service groups? YES NO (If Yes: Are you an officer or leader in any of these groups?) YES NO Nationality or ethnic groups? YES NO (If Yes: Are you an officer or leader in any of these groups?) YES NO Professional societies or groups? YES NO (If Yes: Are you an officer or leader in any of these groups?) YES NO Church-affiliated groups? YES NO (If Yes: Are you an officer or leader in any of these groups?) YES NO Special Interest Groups? YES NO (If Yes: Are you an officer or leader in any of these groups?) YES NO Environmental Groups? YES NO (If Yes: Are you an officer or leader in any of these groups?) YES NO Any other groups? YES NO (If Yes: Are you an officer or leader in any of these groups?) YES NO (If Yes: Which 1 or 2 other groups are you most active in?)
38 Now I have some questions where I am going to read you 4 possible answers and I want you to select the answer that best matches your own opinion.
6. How much influence do you think people like you have over localgovernment decisions — A lot, a moderate amount, a little, or none at all? A lot A moderate amount A little None at all (Don't Know)
7. How easy is it for people like you to get involved in community affairs — Very easy, somewhat easy, somewhat hard, or very hard? Very easy Somewhat easy Somewhat hard Very hard (Don't Know)
8. One way that some people get involved in local politics is through neighborhood associations. How effective would you say that neighborhood associations are here in Portland — Very effective, moderately effective, a little effective, or not at all effective? Very effective Moderately effective A little effective Not at all effective (Don't Know)
9. During the past year, have you attended any meetings or hearings involving your neighborhood association? YES NO Have you had any other contact with your neighborhood association? YES NO (If yes: Could you tell me what that was?)
10. Have you ever worked with others in this community to try to solve some community problems? YES NO (If yes: Have you done anything like that during the past year?) YES NO (If Yes to either part: Could you tell me what problems you worked on and what groups you worked with?)
39 Now we have just a few questions about your background and we're done.
11. What about your education, what is the highest year of school that you completed?
12. Are you currently married? YES NO
13. Do you have any school-age or younger children living with you? YES NO
14. What about your age group — are you in your 20's, 30's, 40's...
15. How would you describe your ethnic background?
16. (Gender: interviewer to record) M F
40 NATIONAL CIVIC INDEX: COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP
Community Leadership The lack of leadership is often lamented in both the press and in daily conversations and yet there is not agreement on what constitutes leadership. Noted author on leadership issues John Gardner has stated that the "nature of leadership in our society is very imperfectly understood, and many of the public statements about it are utter nonsense." However, there is consensus that leadership, while difficult to define, is easily recognized. Leadership qualities and characteristics vary depencing on the dynamics of the community and the needs, the hopes and the dreams of the people within the community. The effectiveness of community leaders is tested by the achievement of goals established to achieve real and intended change in one's community. In studying community leadership one. should differentiate leadership from the mere domination of events and ideas by an individual. Leadership may encompass both ideological and charismatic qualities, sensitivity and a willingness to listen to others, acceptance of responsibility for establishing and meeting goals that address the values and needs of the community. Community leaders are able to focus and channel the energies of many for the accomplishment of policies and programs that advance common goals and objectives.
Where Is Portland Today ? Information on Community Leadership in Portland today was garnered through (1) Leadership Component Group discussions and study sessions; (2) a base line survey conducted by JW Research ("CIVIC INDEX SURVEY, NOVEMBER 1989," Julie A. Williamson); and (3) an independent survey of community leaders by the Leadership Component Group. Responses to questions related to leadership in the "Civic Index Survey" indicated that the majority of the persons polled believed that our community leaders have a weak vision for the City (52%) or no vision at all (8%). In terms of solving the problems of the City of Portland the preponderance of respondents believed that Portland's leadership was doing no better than a fair (49%) to poor (31%) job. The process for community problem solving was rated as fair (44%) to poor (31%) with less than a third rating the process as good (29%) to excellent (3%). Results of the component group survey and related research will be presented in detail on February 6.
Vision for the Future The challenge is to find and develop leaders who transform the 41 needs of the community into goals. Leadership in this manner is dynamic and interactive. Leaders and followers alike play a role in the process of refining community goals. The challenge is to transform spectators into participants. To do this: (1) Access must be provided to the political and social decision making process; (2) Leadership skill building programs accessible to the general public must be established; (3) Civic Forums and Town Meetings must be accessible and conducted on a regular basis; (4) Young people must be encouraged to address and participate in community affairs. The challenge is how to use what exists effectively. Barriers that prevent leaders from emerging must be removed and processes that facilitate leadership development must be established. Further discussion of barriers and processes is contained in the analysis of survey and research data.
41 THE PORTLAND CIVIC INDEX PROJECT
Community Leadership Survey
The definition of leadership below has been used to frame the following questions: "An effective leader must: * have a compelling vision (that brings others to a place they have not been before) * communicates the vision to others (and aligns people with the dream) * develops a climate of trust (by exhibiting constancy and focus) * inspires and empowers others to take action * be able to manage themselves (by knowing their own skills and using them effectively)" Warren Bennis "Why Leaders Can't Lead" 1989
1. Do you agree or disagree with the above description of leadership?
Agree Disagree 38 4
Agree conditionally 4
2. What elements of the definition do you like?
NO COMMENT 4 ALL 10 The elements of the definition that found greatest acceptance by the respondents were vision (53.1%), trust (46.8%), inspire (43.8%), empower (37.5%), communicate (34.4%).
3. What elements of the definition do you dislike?
NONE 14 NO COMMENT 11 N/A 2 There was less consensus regarding elements disliked in the definition. The overall theme of the respondents was that there were other elements that they felt should be added and that the definition was, perhaps, too limited in scope.
4. Are there additional elements which you would include in a definition of leadership?
NO COMMENT 7 NO 2
When asked this question respondents came up with a variety of answers. Significant element were the ability to listen, to be open and accessible, to be honorable, and able to learn. The need for patience, commitment, and fortitude were also important. A listing of attributes follows: The ability to evaluate others-co-workers, subordinates, other "leaders" and be guided by these judgments.
42
A Democratic leader is devoted to the groups best long term interest even when it is not politically popular. Willingness to give of time, effort, experience and material goods. A leader needs to understand and have the ability to take the "vision" from thought to reality - implement fact. Many people have subjective vision but they aren't able to plan strategies and define the tasks to carry their idea to reality. Also, a leader profits greatly from knowing her limitations as well as skills. Leads by example. Fortitude - the quality of doing, what you know is right in spite of the pressures brought to bear against your efforts. It is social power. A facilitator - High values - Excellent human relations skills - Consensus builder - Seeks knowledge - A learner - Results oriented. Has the patience to allow a process bring a result that has been bought into. Has the understanding that altering his compelling vision once each month is too often. Leaders must be actually accessible. The leader must make the follow-up effort to maintain commitment in others, and provide support, not simply be supported. Effectiveness and objectivity. High moral and ethical standards constantly. A leader must love, i.e., must learn; become, and perform according their calling from God and require others to do the same. Not as much communication to others but include the ability to be open for the community to communicate to them. Democratic ideals - making the vision reflect the collective visions of everyone in a city or society. Thinking about the whole group (whatever it is) and how it can move forward. Ability to really listen. A willingness to listen. A concern for citizen involvement. Although it is implied, I think that a statement about setting priorities should be included. Being able to action when needed. Be knowledgeable about the whole they are involved with. To know your skills and teach others to take your place. Ability to help a group of "followers" focus on their concern. Not necessarily - amplification of each of them would be useful. It is not hero worship. Recruitment of good help. Creative solutions to problems. Leader - is concerned with the people performing a task - with their needs, their morals, their growth. Two way communication important. Leaders need to pick up the signals coming from their constituents. Confess to fallibility - ready to learn from mistakes. "Develop climate of trust" and confidence. Leadership is an art, it has to be developed and perfected over time. Although it includes a good definition of leadership it doesn't necessarily mean a good community leader who should also have an ability to comprehend and translate the common good for the community. Ability to facilitate the group. Willingness to serve the group. Awareness of and (Servant, Leadership) acceptance of a "Higher Power" - than one's self. Treats those who see the world differently with respect - listens to all points of view. Ability to fully hear both sides of an issue. The elements of listening to and responding to those who are being led - the constituents. Be able to simplify; leaders must be able to state complex issues in simple, understandable terms. Staffing: leaders must get top quality people to work for them and for the articulated vision and its parts. Passion, integrity, daring leaders must be personally (emotionally) involved, trustworthy and willing to take risks. Honesty; ability to listen; ability to follow through-perseverance; courage; does not give up easily. Respects other opinions, abilities, and diversity. The leader needs to be an effective listener as well as a communicator. Most leaders don't listen properly and therefore ill-serve the publics' needs. 5. How do you define community?
NO COMMENT 4 Out of all the respondents only four saw "community" solely as a geographic location. The critical element described by all others was a group of people bound together for a variety of reasons.
6. How would you rank leadership in this community?
Of the individuals responding, on a scale of one to five, 7.1% gave leadership the lowest possible ranking and 28.6% ranked leadership below the midpoint. Significantly only 23.8% ranked leadership in what may be considered the "good" range and no respondent gave leadership in this community the highest ranking of 5.
Bad 1 2 3 4 5 Good 2 12 17 1Q 7.1% 28.6% 40.5% 23.8% One person made no comment and three respondents elaborated as follows: Some of each. Leadership in this community is multiple, not singular. "It" cannot be rated on a scale. Ambiguous question. Do you mean is there leadership or is absent?
7. Who do you look to for leadership in this community? Please name 6 people.
The two individuals cited the most frequently were Mayor Bud Clark and Ron Herndon. Almost one-third referred to Mayor Clark (32.6%) about one quarter mentioned Herndon (23.8%). In many cases individuals were not mentioned, but specific institutions or organizations were. Perhaps the mantle of leadership falls upon individuals representing those institutions or organizations by reason of their positions.
Persons and/or organizations are listed in order of frequency.
Bud Clark--15 Ron Hemdon--10 Gretchen Kafoury-9 Bill Naito--6 Blumenauer--5 Don Frisbee--5 Gladys Me Coy-5 Bob Ridgley-5 Don Clark--4 Matt Prophet~4 Ron Wyden~4 Pauline Anderson--3 Dick Bogle-3 Margaret Carter-3 Jean Demaster--3 Goldschmidt--3 Charles Jordan--3 Bob Koch-3 Lindberg--3 Arlene Schnitzer-3 Roger Breezley~2 Vera Katz-2 Kimbark Mac Coll-2 Vern Ryles~2 Mike Schrunk--2 Rabbi Joshua Stampfer~2 Bruce Willison~2
City Commissioners/City Council-5 County Commissioners--3
Michele I. Albert Karen Alvarado Uoyd Anderson Steve Anderson (Parkrose Bus. Assoc.) Les Aucoin Jacques Auschalomov Bob Bailey Jane Baker Judy Bauman Rick Bauman James Berry (self) Ed Blackburn Ken Bement Alice Blatt Roger Bleckley Cathy Briggs Sam Brooks Roger Brugly Mike Burton Clark Barbara Clark Joe Condon (out of this community) James De Priest Bishop William Dew John Elorriaga Jack Faust Grace Fitzgerald Halim Dr. Joe Hardie Diane Harr Erma Hepburn Kathleen Herron Ky Holland Mike Houck Mary Huttery Wayne Inman James Jura Kafoury Steve Kafoury Sharon Kelly Don Kielblock Raleigh Lewis Rev. James Martin McCoy Bill McCoy Rep. John Minnis Hardy Myers Tim Nashif Rodney Paige David Paradine Jim Raisch Henry Richmond Barbara Roberts Emanuel Rose Jeanne Roy Steve Rudman 44 Mildred Schwab Bill Scott Frank Shields Cornetta Smith Dorothy Smith Joan Smith Dan Stephie Kay Stepp Fred Stickel/Fred Stickel Paddy Tillett Bishop A. Wells Rev James Wenger-Monroe Nancy Wilgenbush Harold Williams - Many, Many, More!
GOD !!!
(A.P.P.) Assoc. for Port. Prog Chamber of Commerce City Club Metro Neighborhood Association Board (neighborhood leaders) Office of the Mayor - (Generic) Oregonian Portland ORG. Project Some Council members Southeast Uplift Board
Associations Boss Business Major Business Small Business Business leaders City Hall Commissioners Community Activists Corporate Executives County Gov"t Education Family Friends Govt Leading business personalities Media Not for Profits Pastor
There is no Leadership in Portland by the above definition. Inappropriate question. This is difficult for community wide leadership.
8. Do all groups in our community have adequate representation or leadership?
Yes No If no, which groups do not 3 33 NO COMMENT 10
Only three respondents felt that all groups in our community have adequate representation or
45 leadership. The group most frequently cited as not having adequate representation or leadership was minorities. The following list represents the groups most frequently cited by their percentage representation.
Minorities 72.2% Youth and Children 30.6% Homeless 27.8% Poor 25.0% Women 19.4% Elderly 16.7% Neighborhoods 16.7% Business 13.9% Disabled (physical or mental) 11.1% Gay/lesbian 5.6%
9. What do you think are some barriers to effective leadership in our community?
A major theme running through the comments on barriers to effective leadership in our community is the lack of well-thought-out plans to really achieve a solid base of community leadership.
A summary ofthe most frequently mentioned barriers follows: Poor process/access/citizen involvement Lack of communication/information/media Lack of trust/incompetence Lack of money/economics Lack of vision Racism/sexism Lack of education/training
10. Do you feel that community leaders have a common vision? Yes No 9 38
11. Do you feel that community leaders should share a common vision?
Yes No 31 15 Many respondents felt that it is inappropriate to have a "common" vision in a society of diversity.
12. Do community leaders foster an environment in which citizens feel empowered to address issues and concerns?
Yes No 21 13
13. Do you see yourself as a community leader?
Yes No 32 12 NO COMMENT 1
If not, why not?
Lacking the qualities of the definition. I do not seek out opportunities to influence others. Have not been effectively involved in Port. Metro Comm. 46 I don't have the stature or influence in the community that a leader needs nor am I in an independent or accommodating work situation. I must serve the groups I join - my personal vision takes a back seat. Lack of communication and cooperation between organizations Who listens to me? I talk to others, educate them. Although I have certainly led groups, I don't have the patience with the process, for community ieadership.
14. How did you first become involved in community events?
Volunteer 23
7. No Comment Political 15
School 10
Neighborhood 10
15. Are you aware of any community leadership development programs in our area? Please identify
NO/NONE 7 NO COMMENT 4
Those responding mentioned 30 different programs.
16. Do you feel that community leadership development programs are accessible to citizens from all sectors of our community?
Yes No If not, why not? 7 31 NO COMMENT 8 For respondents who felt that community leadership programs were not accessible to all citizens four barriers assumed major importance. These barriers are: lack of publicity, social segregation, lack of money, and lack of time.
17. What can be done in the next twelve (12) months to improve community leadership?
Only six respondents did not come up with ideas to improve community leadership. The ideas that the other forty respondents contributed are listed below:
Problems to work on must be formulated and shown as urgent. City challenge various institutions to take on specific issues and devote resources scheduling specific people to cause. Develop leadership programs in neighborhoods. Develop Leadership programs in Community Colleges. Access to elected Officials. Greater Citizen involvement. Meaningful opportunities to be heard - not token appearance before city officials.
47 Seek representation from minorities etc. on city committees. Sponsor local "leadership" meetings (with babysitting?) Seek better connection w/schools to educate (civically) both adults and children. Get more community involvement. Get elected officers to respond to community's needs. Gather People. Facilitate Process. Meet. Create a Plan. Encourage Oregonian, Gresham Outlook and other local media to be more balanced in the reporting, columnists and editorials. Encourage local radio stations to have more balance in their talk show hosts. Have a good discussion of issues through local elections (it never happens). More surveys, town meetings, and educational activities. Use resources to help socialize small geog. communities. Throw the rascals out. Community leaders with substantive accomplishments should be identified in the media, and applauded for benefits to their community. Recognition is a great motivator. Lets find leader role models who aren't politicians. Tap untraditional people. Leaders should be qualified and capable. Develop leadership programs. Get vision at City Hall, County gov't and higher education. Develop Goals and Vision. Outreach. Inclusion. More Participation. Everybody's a leader. Communications. Open Town Hall type meetings. Fund Crime Prevention Units. Look to other Social Service Agencies for leadership. Stop selling political decisions to the highest bidder involve more diverse people in decisions (EG) Morford provide more leadership opportunities. KGON Tower). Longer term project. Identify potential leaders, offer support and training, share models of the new leadership of inclusiveness. Offer development programs. Develop presentations for K-12 and colleges. Bring current leaders together to work on common visions. Look beyond the City Club, the Mac Club and the Golf Clubs. Look beyond the present economic/social structure to the minority, and women. We need a Vision for the future w/a strategic plan to carry it out. More citizen involvement teaching in schools. Consult leadership develop Programs. Solicit a sponsor for the program. Send out invite to known leaders. Follow up on names listed in this survey. To come together; To Agree; To keep promises; To listen; To put self out of the way. More information. Training. Prepare a master matrix of all the various groups who are trying to enhance and improve our community. Restructure city government - early planning. Stop the "raid" on PDC Develop an area-wide newsletter with local editions to help leaders get the word out. (Oregonian tends to not publish critical stories that may make a big difference in turn-out, credibility, exposure, etc. Public - Town Meetings. Greater Media attention. Decide on what kind of goals for new community leadership. Training Conference. Identify common goals and visions for the community and work at cooperatively setting up plans and solutions to problems. "Jump start" revitalization. Speed up responses to Neighborhood Needs Assessments. Develop proactive platform for Progress for Portland. Forum on Leadership. Publicize need for leaders. Forum for government leaders to develop some consensus on priorities and vision for future. A city wide promotion to recruit involvement by canvassing neighborhood and school assn. Advertise (People in our area don't really understand neighborhood groups). Communicate classes earlier, so people have time to arrange their schedules. The city in particular needs to actively respond to the smaller communities - not just listen and do nothing. Develop coalitions between interest groups, state and local government to present workshops. Set up a central clearing house for all citizen board, commissions, special project opportunities. Create a system whereby the citizenry is fulling informed that opportunities are available and show them how to access those opportunities. Be sure that evry advisory committee, board, and/or commission at the local level is representative of the mix in the population. Be sure that the demographics of the population are represented in appointments. Be aggressive in outreach and provide training programs for novice appointees if needed. Have real citizen input to the City of Portland strategic planning process ($400,000 project) now in progress. Elicit media support to do stories on volunteer leaders and successful projects Especially on the neighborhood level. Show people that our problems aren't hopeless. Gather small groups of community leaders together and chart a strategic plan or vision for the future. Answer questions regarding the future of the area-land use, transportation. Where do we want to be 5, 10, 15 years from now, etc.
49 PORTLAND CIVIC INDEX
VOLUNTEERISM AND PHILANTHROPY COMPONENT
REPORT OF FINDINGS - JANUARY 10, 1990
CONTENTS page number I. Definition of Component 1 II. Questions Reviewed 1 - 2
III. Process 2
IV. Vision Statement & Profiles 3 - 5
V. Volunteerism 6 - 7
A. Goals/Objectives
B. Barriers
C. Strategies
VI. Philanthropy 7 - 8
A. Goals/Objectives
B. Barriers C. Strategies
VII. Bibliography 9 - 10
VIII. Research 11 - 23
A. Trend information/research
B. Survey Results
1. JW Research Survey 2. Vol/Phil Committee corporate survey 3. Oregonian: Griggs-Anderson Survey
IX. Committee Budget & Contributions 24
X. Participants 25-26
50 Portland Civic Index Volunteerism/Philanthropy
I. Component Definition - Volunteerism and Philanthropy
Volunteerism and philanthropy are active demonstrations of the spirit of sharing and caring which positively affect the quality of life in our community.
The demonstration of these values through individual and group contributions supplements and compliments the efforts of the private, government and non-profit sectors to enhance livability in our community.
II. Questions Reviewed June, 1989 to December, 1989
1. What is our vision for the year 2000? 2. What strategies can we suggest to create an environment for giving c-nd sharing in our community? 3. What kind of community planning and goal setting needs to occur between private, government and non-profit sectors?
4. How will we recruit/attract new contributors and volunteers?
5. Who will be the volunteers of the future? Who will be the
givers?
6. Whrxt are the barriers to volunteering and giving in the pri-
vate, government and non-profit sectors?
PAGE 1 51 Pdx. Civic Index Vol. & Phil.
7. What kinds of training are needed to retain volunteers? 8. What kinds of increased public relations (media) are needed to promote and recognize volunteer and philanthropic giving? 9. Should our community set a goal for giving and sharing? (ie: a "Give 5" campaign).
III. Process
Beginning in June, 1989 four large group meetings were held to define the scope and outline of the process of assessment as well as to complete the assessment itself. After the first meeting in
June additional community members were invited to attend the followup meetings in an effort to broaden the component partici- pation base geographically, racially, ethnically, and organiza- tionally. An invitational mailing was sent to 250 individuals and organizations in the non-profit, private, government and foun- dation sectors, from this group approximately 6 0 individuals or representatives followed through with the process. Participants:
* reviewed relevant books and articles, * researched national and local trends,
* developed a corporate survey and mailed it to 600 businesses,
* developed questions for a cooperative Civic Index survey
fielded by Julie Williamson Research, Inc.,
* brainstormed as a group goals and objectives for the year 2000,
* identified barriers that must be surpassed to achieve goals,
* formed a steering committee to analyze all information and
to complete the final component report, and, * shared final report draft with process and survey participants.
page 2 Pdx. Civic Index Vol. & Phil.
TV. Vision Statement
Our vision for the future is to create an environment where opportunities for volunteerism and philanthropy are encouraged and thus rewarded by a higher quality of life and a strong sense of community success.
53 page 3 Profile of individual giver:
: AS (25-54)
Education• some graduate school or previous volunteer Address t lives between River avui east 39* C*5?0 or livfes i* AOHVI Fbvtlavd Length of f*artlav\rf rastd^ncy: y«srs or wvore volunteered: At least OAot per 1-&* Hours O*-'/.) SI ?w contribute AnAuallyt To owe °* **\ore , cKurcVi etc. 73 ?C
54
page 4 Portland Corporate FVofile
* 43 years in business O-100 employees Give annually to agencies or causes Gt've m-ktnd Contribution* * Have no specKic charitable sivirvg guidelines (increased cfcaritsble buctget in past 5 years Top management supports y d*ter«Mn*r phHdhtiiropic
Does net belong to region*! or national philanthropic networks/forums Pdx. Civic Index Vol. & Phil.
V. Volunteerism A. Goal: Broaden the base of community volunteers: 1. increase awareness of benefits derived from volunteerism by individuals and the community, 2. provide volunteer/leadership training for all ages, 3. publicize volunteer opportunities to all sectors of the community and expand existing services, (ie: Volunteer Bureau of Greater Portland, and Retired Senior Volunteer Programs), 4. publicize results and accomplishments of volunteer contributions in the community as they occur,
5. promote volunteer networks to assure a continued response to volunteer opportunities.
B. Barriers: 1. the failure to understand the true definition of volunteerism (informal as well as formal) and its value to the community, 2. time availability and loss of the traditional volunteer, 3. lack of trained volunteer managers, 4. lack of training programs for the volunteer and inclusion in school curriculums.
C. Strategies: 1. adopt a "give 5" community campaign and promote the value that every citizen who is able should volunteer "x" number of hours per week,
page 6 56 Pdx. Civic Index Vol. & Phil.
2. all organizations (private, government and non- profit sectors), should promote and support volun- teerism. a. encourage professional volunteer management for more efficient volunteer recruitment, training and placement, b. provide options for employees to volunteer (ie: corporate release time, loaned executive programs, subsidized volunteer expenses, credit and/or status for work experience done as a volunteer),
3. promote the value and inclusion of volunteer curriculums in schools,
a. give students course credit for volunteer work, b. recognize youth volunteer achievements (awards, media coverage, etc.) c. publicize youth volunteer opportunities in schools.
VI. Philanthropy A. Goal: Broaden the base of philanthropic giving: 1. develop community philanthropic guidelines (ie: "give 5" campaign tailored to Portland community),
2. educate the community about guidelines through an extensive media campaign,
page 7 *"' Pdx. Civic Index Vol. & Phil.
3. develop philanthropic networks/forums to assist individuaIs/corporations/foundations in achieving community goals and to keep them informed of community needs. B. Barriers: 1. changing demographics (ie: individual and corporate), 2. change in funding priorities at federal/state/ local/corporate levels, 3. lack of information regarding how to give, 4. IRS/government regulations (ie: short form givers eliminated for tax deductions), 5. easier to say no to all requests. C. Strategies: 1. Provide specific information on how an individual or organization can give and on what information forums are available, 2. develop corporate/individual/foundation giving programs (ie: corporate match, in-kind giving of goods/services, etc.), 3. encourage corporations to include community involve- ment in corporate objectives, 4. encourage small businesses to form coalitions to address a community need or issue, 5. broaden decision making base for charitable giving to include employee imput, 6. provide effective media coverage of corporation/ individual giving and its positive effects to encour- age and enable others to give.
page 8 58 Pdx. Cixic Index Vol. & Phil.
VII. Bibliography (in part)
Giving USA - The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 1988 A Publication of the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy 25 West 43rd St. New York, New York 10036 Giving and Volunteering in the United States Summary of Findings Independent Sector 1828 L. Street Washington, D.C. 20036 Volunteer 2000 Study American Red Cross December, 1988 Volunteerism in the Eighties Fundamental Issues in Voluntary Action Edited by John D. Harmon, St. John Fisher College Produced by Joint Action in Community Service University Press of America Magazines Fundraising Management (Issues used: May, '89, June, '89 Hoke Communications Inc. July, '89 s> Nov. '88) 224 Seventh Street Garden City, L.I. New York Foundation News Council on Foundations 1828 L. Street NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Chronicle of Philanthropy Oct. 1988 Issue Chronicle of Higher Education Feb., 1988 Issue Corporate Giving Watch Feb., 1988 Issue Newsweek- "The New Volunteers" July, 1989 Issue Reports; Volunteer Retention at the Old Kerr Nursery A Project Report Presented to the Faculty of George Fox College by Lynda Hurt Zavin, 198 8
page 9 59 Pdx. Civic Index Vol. & Phil.
Metropolitan Human Relations Commission Annual Report July, 1988- June, 1989 1120 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, Or. 97204
Volunteer Bureau of Greater Portland Report to United Way Philanthropy and Volunteerism Committee June 7, 1989 718 West Burnside Portland, Or. 97209 Directories:
Foundations and Grants Sources of information in the Multnomah County Library Organizations of the Portland Metropolitan Area, 1989 Portland Chamber of Commerce
Portland Coming Up Roses 1989-90 The Oregonian 1320 SW Broadway Portland, Or. 97201
Portland, Oregon; A Profile Portland Chamber of Commerce 1988 221 NW Second Avenue Portland, Or. 97209
The Business Journel Top 25 Lists 1988-89 10 NW 10th Portland, Or. 97209
page 10 60 Civic Index Vol. & Phil. VIII. Research
B. TRENDS
* U.S. population growth is slowing * U.S. population is aging (Baby boomers are the seniors in the year 2000!) * fewer traditional volunteers - women have returned to work place to stay, this includes women with young children * increase in volunteer requests for evening/weekend/flex- ible volunteer jobs and/or board positions * increase in volunteer involvement with fundraising to pay for necessary daytime agency staff
* overall requests for volunteers from agencies/organizations is up * government is continuing to reduce social service monies and education funding bringing the burden to communities * the number of issue orientated groups is increasing * more service groups are undertaking short-term one shot projects * by the year 2000, 1 in 3 people in U.S. will be a member of a racial or ethnic minority; most will have immigrated * geographic population shifts will continue - most growth will be in the south and west in the United States * "Healthy Seniors" have more activity options that compete with volunteering * corporate volunteer programs increasing as part of corp- orate marketing thrust (P.R.)
61
page 11 VOLUNTARISM
Three major categories of voluntarism:
1. policy making
2. administration
3. advocacy direct service - most groups agree that advocacy is direct service
* 80 million Americans (45% of adult population) give an average of 4.7 hours per week totalling 19.5 billion hours. (of this 14.9 billion hours are of formal volunteering to organizations for specific time commitments; 4.7 billion hours are informal ie.. helping others ad hoc.)
* Using an assigned value of $10.06 per hour, the 14.9 billion hours of formal volunteering are calculated as worth $150 billion for 1988.
page 12 WHY DO PEOPLE VOLUNTEER
1) personal invitation from friend
2) personal contact from agency
3) receiving service from agency
4) having friend or family member receive service
5) media promotion about needs for volunteer and who to contact 6) needs aren't being met by anyone else-believe they have a problem no one else will solve 7) specific issue-ie..stop light at crosswalk at his childs school crossing needed 8) want to gain knowledge of their city or community 9) looking for networking skills etc. for personal growth career development 10) enjoy the type of work 11) "required" community service ie school requirement 12) business and/or social reasons
WHY DO VOLUNTEERS STAY COMMITTED
1) agency is welcoming - good climate
2) job to be done is good match for volunteers skills
3) volunteer feels good about helping and feels needed
4) volunteer sees value of work
5) volunteer is part of agency
6) volunteers work is formally recognized
63 Why do volunteers stay committed cont.
7) volunteer has an opportunity to learn
8) volunteer is having fun, socializing good experience
9) a lot of people stay with volunteering for the same reasons they started volunteering
RECRUITMENT Referral and Placement
* Volunteer Bureau doesn't place volunteers-only connects them with agency they are interested in. Agency and volunteer work together about placement.
* On going media campaigns are successful—local examples:
KOIN TV-volunteer connection KPTV "time to care" Oregonian weekly listings of Volunteer Bureau Agencies TV and radio public service announcements (PSA'S)
Other recruitment tools
* family model of voluntarism/project * school curriculum's for civic voluntarism * school credit for civic service * tuition break for formal community service * youth group service projects-church,scouts, school groups etc. * incentive for volunteering ie. T-shirt, tickets to specific event, meal etc. * friend to friend * neighborhood based organizations
page 14 PHILANTHROPY
1988 charitable contributions are up an estimate .of 6.7% from 1987's total of $97.82 billion. In 1988, charitable contributions were $104.37 billion.
Individuals made the greatest contributions of $86.7 billion. (If you add the category of "bequests" to the individual giving - the total would be $93.49 billion or 89% of all contribu- tions . )
Other contributors: Foundations: $6.13 billion (5.9%) Corporations: $4.75 billion (4.6%)
Who received the money?
Religion $48.21 billion Education 9.78 billion Human Services 10.49 billion Health (incl hospitals) 9.52 billion Arts, Culture & Humanities 6.82 billion Public/Society benefits 3.02 billion Other 16.53 billion
(It would be interesting to know how much of the $48.21 billion given to churches is put back into the community in human services.)
65 page 15 GIVING U.S.A. Study for 1988 shows:
* the average contribution for the 91 million households in the United States was $562.00 or 1.5% of their income,
* incidence of voluntarism has a direct relationship to the amount of contributions given.
* Gallup Poll respondents who do not volunteer give less than 1% of their income. Those who volunteer more than 3 hours per week gave 2.5% of their income. Those who volunteer more than 6 hours per week gave 3% of their income.
"Money follows the volunteer."
The five indicators for all respondents who gave 2% or more of household income were: 1) attending religious services weekly 2) being very active in civic, social and other charitable activities 3) believing that making contributions were abso- lutely essential 4) spending more time volunteering at this time than spent 3 years previously 5) believing that making a strong commitment to religious life was absolutely essential
66 page 16 Giving U.S.A. STUDY CONT. Why people give - generally:
1) charity serves a worthy cause - congruent with my values 2) charity helps poor and needy
3) charity organization did good work and/or had high quality of programs organization trusted 4) support charity for religious reasons 5) they were asked
How does current giving compare with past giving (individuals)
1) 63% giving same amount 2) 19% giving more 3) 14% giving less
•Nearly 7 out of 10 respondents said that they were more likely to give a donation when asked by someone they knew.
page 17 67 Philanthropic Trends
-capacity to give-
There is an enormous capacity to increase giving in the United States. * of the 3/4 of respondents who believe they should help others, 50% did not volunteer in the past year * it appears that many Americans are not being asked to give or volunteer. 3/4 reported they had not refused when asked, yet only 45% reported volunteering. * of the 75% of respondents who believe that it is an individuals responsibility to give what he can to charity - 27% did not contribute. * 36% who contributed to religious organizations and 32% who contributed to other charities thought that they did not give enough * when asked what percentage of income they would like to give to charity - 51% responded that they had no answer 25% thought they should strive to give 5% or more however only 9% of households give 5% or more * 87% of respondents believe that charity organizations play a significant role in American society * 71% believe that charities are needed more today than five years ago *48% thought that charities were more effective than five years ago; 24% thought they were not as effective and 27% were not sure * 45% thought charities spent money wisely, 33% thought they did not and 22% were not sure * 87% believe that people who gave should be able to take a deduction from their income taxes. 70% believe they should be able to take a charitable deduction whether or not they itemize their income taxes.
page 18 68
Portland Civic Index: Cooperation and Consensus Building
A. Definition of component topic
The Portland community continues to struggle with critical issues of policy and funding. Increasing demands for shrinking resources are confronting the public, business and non-profit sectors of our region. The news media daily report of conflict and discord between and among the varied constituencies of our community.
If Portland is expected to grow, it must be able to improve community life. It must resolve its conflicts more efficiently to do so. The committee developed the following mission: to assess the capacity within the greater Portland region for both the inclination and the systems necessary to present and resolve community issues through cooperation and consensus.
B. Description of evaluation process
The committee focused its efforts and investigation on the concept of capacity. This process, limited by time (and therefore, scope), sought to assess past and current examples of issues in conflict in order to understand how well the Portland region will deal with critical issues in the future.
Three areas of research were identified:
1. Identify examples of representative issues in conflict to be studied. Criteria for qualification included topical diversity, size, topic, complexity, and timeliness of issue. Four topics were selected:
* Life Flight helicopter/Emanuel Hospital
* Creation of Pioneer Square
* Parkrose/Multnomah County teen clinics
* Jackson School closure
69 2. Develop questions and criteria to apply to each issue to assess how successfully the issues were addressed and capacity evidenced: * Were all the stakeholders involved? * Was there agreement about the issue? * Was there a willingness1 to define the issue? * Did opposing interests bargain from positions or interests? * Was there leadership present? How did it operate? * Were resources adequate to the need? * Was there a process or forum available for resolving the issue? * What was the nature of the process? Was it open and considerate of divergent views? Were alternatives examined? Was there a timeline and a conclusion? * Was enough information available? * Were values in conflict? If so, was that acknowledged? * Did neutral dispute resolution mechanisms exist?
* Did stakeholders believe the issue could be resolved? * Did civic competency (understanding of process, ability to work in groups) exist to resolve issues? * Was there tolerance for ambiguity? * Were participants willing to accept results of the process? * Was the issue reactive or pro- active?
70 3. Inventory extant systems for resolving community conflict, which are formal or informal and transcend a single institution. Categories of services to include:
* religious
* educational
* ad hoc
* legislative
* legal
* private
* public
A comprehensive dispute resolution directory is attached to this report.
C. Findings and conclusions
A summary of each of the four issues studied and the application of questions to each is attached. While the topics were varied and the issues a mixture of reactive and pro-active situations, it was apparent that the success or failure of each was dependent upon the combined presence of four factors:
* Clearly defined issue/vision
* Timing
* Resources
* Leadership
Additionally, the following observations were made:
* Capacity is in part dependent on voluntary good will.
71 There is sporadic success in consensus building by luck and chance. Conflict is not necessarily bad nor unwanted in consensus building.
There is a difference between pro-active and reactive capacity.
There is no uniform understanding of the four success ingredients listed above by those put into positions of cooperation and consensus building.
There is no institutionalized capacity for consensus building in the greater Portland region.
D. Recommendations
Portland's current public policy resolution process is usually in public hearing form. Public hearings involve interested parties too late. A public involvement mechanism should be sought, pulling the emphasis away from a venting process and towards consensus. For this to happen, originators must be willing first to develop the "four factors for success" listed above. The questions this committee applied to its research examples need to be used as a tool in cooperative endeavors.
An educational component is missing from the training received by people in leadership positions. Elected officials, business leaders, and community members need the tools for understanding consensus building values in order to effectively build a better community.
There needs to be a central resource of these tools, as well as an archive of historical information and resources. Such an office could inventory and assess community problem solving in an ongoing basis, providing a resource to the entire community. This office could exist as a community ombudsperson function, incorporating dispute resolution opportunities. Admittedly, the City's Office of Neighborhood Associations does provide a neighborhood mediation center, but its jurisdiction is limited and it is reactive rather than pro-active and educational. This ombudsperson office could work with the School District, local governments, and the Chamber of Commerce to begin to institutionalize consensus building values. Government, grant, and private funding could possibly finance its operation.
72 This office should coordinate its efforts with the statewide Office of Mediation in Oregon, known as the Public Policy Dispute Resolution Program. This program is oriented towards alternative dispute resolution for community-based disputes. Its focus is not directly concerned with pro-active public policy consensus building, nor increasing Portland's capacity for cooperation.
Finally, there is a small leadership development program that could be used to help institutionalize consensus building values and goals. The American Leadership Forum program could be explored for assistance in reaching public, business, and community leaders in a constructive way.
In summary, the committee recommends:
* Change the public hearing process to reflect a more pro-active, consensus-oriented process.
* Create an ombudsperson office to be a resource for cooperation among divergent groups in the Portland community.
* Involve the Chamber of Commerce in both educational and implementation efforts.
* Involve the American Leadership Forum as described above.
* Widely publicize the Public Policy Dispute Resolution Program as an avenue for dispute resolution.
lsh January 1990
73 Committee Members
Mr. Scott Lieuallen, Chair
Mr. Channing Briggs
Ms. Lisa Hall
Mr. Sidney Lezak Ms. Pat Schmuck Ms. Cindy Stadel
Mr. Steve Telfer
Organizations Contacted
National Civic Index League Office of Neighborhood Associations Multnomah Bar Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee
People Interviewed
Deanne Butterfield, National Civic League Pat Dooley, Jackson High School closure committee Chris Gates, National Civic League Lisa Hall, former Manager of Community Relations, Emanuel Hospital Kim MacColl. Portland historian Cindy Stadel, Parkrose School District
Publications Reviewed
Getting to Yes Breaking the Impasse, Susskind and Cruikshank Charlotte, N.C. Civic Index Report Phoenix, Ariz. Civic Index Report Excerpts from the National Civic Review, Nov.-Dec. 1987
74 CIVIC INDEX
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
February 28, 1990
Committee Members:
Cindy Banzer Corrine Paulson Sonny Condor Dennis Osterlund Valerie DeGroot Susan Schneider Ron Goodman Blanche Schroeder Richard Gray Michael J. Silver, Chair Lindsay McGrath Dick Tracy
76 TO: Civic Index-Synthesis Committee FROM: Government Performance Subcommittee
The Government Performance Subcommittee was formed to review and evaluate various aspects surrounding the performance of the City of Portland. In reviewing our task, we focused on three primarv areas relating to performance: 1. What is the government supposed to do? What are the legal and perceived roles of the government? This included a review of the City Charter. 2. How does the City determine if it is doing its job? How does it measure citizen satisfaction? Does the City routinely examine alternative methods of ser- vice? 3. How does the form of government inter-relate with its performance? Is the City accomplishing the issues listed in number two? If not, why? How can it accomplish its job and be more responsive?
To evaluate each of these areas, subcommittees were formed. These subcommittees dealt with: Role of Government, Internal Measurement, and Governmental Structure. The following is a summary of the findings and recommendations of each of these subcommittees. A. Role of Government 1. Finding: Portland's charter contains much more than necessary. It seems to be drafted as a "combination" charter and an ordinance document as it contains a wide variety of very specific laws with definitive language, in addition to what is generally contained in city and county charters.
Recommendation: To conduct a public review of the City Charter, with a time frame for bringing proposals for change, if any, to the voters. 2. Finding: Because of lack of time, no finding was made as to the citizens of Portland's perceived role of the City.
Recommendation: To survey City of Portland residents to find out what they "believe" City services are, how well they think those services are being delivered, and which ones should be reduced/expanded/cut/added within available resources and/or willingness to support added services by tax increases, fees, or other means. Government Performance Subcommittee Page Two
B. Internal Measurement 1. Finding: The City has had in place a number of per- formance measurement guides; however, these are not generally used to compare the results from other similar jurisdictions. Recommendat ion: Continue to maintain and use these systems and work to establish a better comparison with other comparable jurisdictions. 2. Finding: Managers in the City are cognizant of and use measurement standards. However, there was no evidence they play a meaningful role in either the policy or budget processes.
Recommendation; The City needs to be more serious in the use of the measurement tools it has. This applies in two ways. First, to make real use of the existing measurement tools, and second, to challenge whether the specific measurement tools being used are always rele- vant to the purposes intended. 3. Finding: In a number of cases, interdepartmental bud- geting provides cost data for services and goods; how- ever, in many instances there is no opportunity for the department to, in fact, contract outside the City for such goods and/or services.
Recommendat ion: Departments must have the ability to contract for more goods and services when warranted. There should also be put in place an incentive system for managers to contract outside the City for goods and/ or services where appropriate.
4. Finding; Although there appears to be an awareness of the importance of and need for measuring government performance within the City government as a whole, the level of commitment to utilizing government performance tools within individual City bureaus may depend, in a large part, upon the management style and priorities of the Commissioner-in-Charge. In other words, if the Commissioner-in-Charge does not deem it important to utilize performance measurement tools in evaluating the effectiveness of its programs and policies, and if the Commissioner-in-Charge does not require his bureaus to routinely examine alternative methods of service Government Performance Subcommittee Page Three
delivery, there is a question as to whether such efforts would be undertaken, as there is no incentive for doing so within the current structure. Recommendat ion: The City should develop an independent, formalized method of measuring qovernment performance which takes into consideration issues relating to pro- gram effectiveness, cost, feasibility for contracting out, and surveying the citizenry to determine appropri- ate service levels. There should be built-in incentives within the budget process for bureau heads to develop innovative and cost-effective solutions to delivering services.
C. Governmental Structure 1. Find ing: In spite of what appear to be many obstacles to performance, the City is generally perceived to be delivering very high-quality services. There is a great deal of pride in this at all levels of City government. Recommendat ion; Recognize this good service.
2. Finding: Portland's commission form of government is widely perceived by those in and outside City government to result in a very inefficient organization. There is no one person in charge of the executive functions. This results in time-consuming, multi-party negotiations at both the City Council and bureau levels for all sorts of decisions. The commission form also seems to promote duplication of services between commissioners' staffs and bureaus and between bureaus.
Recommendation: Further study should be done to attempt to estimate the costs of the perceived inefficiency. 3. Finding: Portland's form of government permits indivi- dual commissioners to put forth and effectively drive a personal agenda for the City, a "lone ranger" phenome- non. Commissioners generally enjoy great deference from the rest of the City Council for actions perceived to be within that commissioner's portfolio of assigned bureaus.
79 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Four
Recommendation: Further examination should be made to see whether the creativity fostered by the "lone ranger" phenomenon outweighs the risks involved.
4. Finding: Major public policy decisions which affect only the bureaus within one commissioner's portfolio will not necessarily receive the public scrutiny and debate that they deserve. The implications of these decisions may not come into the public eye until years later.
Recommendation: Further study should be done to look at past practices and the likelihood of problems in the future. 5. Finding; Access to City commissioners by individuals on single issues is widely-perceived to be excellent. Along with that goes a strong sense that the commission form of government in Portland is extremely-responsive to citizens. On the other hand, accountability for public priorities which are not the responsibility of a single bureau assigned to a commissioner is very poor.
Recommendation: The form of government and its affect on the City's performance seem to be subjects of great interest to those most familiar with Portland City government, and deserve further examination. As a part of that examination, some assessment of the costs of change should be made.
80 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Five
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
A. LEGAL: In 1903, the State of Oregon granted a new charter to the City of Portland. An extensive revision to that charter, which established our commission form of government, was approved by the voters in 1913.
Since 1917 at least 14 organized efforts have been directed towards changing Portland's charter and governmental structure. Seven of these actually made it to the polls. However, all were defeated in low voter turnouts. The May 1966 charter change, which would have established a strong Mayor form of government, and the City-County Consolidation measure in 1977 were the two latest efforts.
We were surprised to find how much the Portland City Charter differs from those of other chartered cities in the state of Oregon, and from most other cities of its size. Most city and county charters are short. They generally only contain "a general qrant of powers" and their form of governance. The "general grant of powers" gives a governing body broad discre- tionary powers to act in the interest of their constituency as long as it is not specifically outlawed by higher authority. Portland's charter contains much more than this. It seems to be drafted as a "combination" charter and an ordinance document as it contains a wide variety of very specific laws with definitive language, in addition to what is generally contained in city and county charters.
The result of having these laws spelled out in the charter is that no action can be taken to change these laws without a vote by the people. Although this set-up does assure that the citzenry will be involved in details of city functions, it is not without a cost. Not only does this charter form limit the flexibility of council actions, the election process is time- consuming and costly for taxpayers as well. The charter has been amended in bits and pieces over the years. The latest revision was of Chapter 5, the Fire and Police Disa- bility, Retirement and Death Benefit Plan, which was adopted by the voters in November 1989. And to "clean up" the document, a charter amendment was approved by the voters in 1962 which allows the City Auditor to delete administratively, with Council approval, "charter provisions which have become inoperative or any provision ruled invalid by a court of competent -jurisdic- tion."
81 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Six
But substantive changes still cannot be made without a general vote. We found some charter provisions, such as the one "to appropriate annually to the Mayor $2,000 as and for a secret service fund for which the Mayor need furnish no vouchers..." which are curious, and perhaps some others that need to be updated.
RECOMMENDATION; To conduct a public review of the City Charter, with a time frame for bringing proposals for change, if any, to the voters.
B. PERCEIVED ROLE;
How valuable to its community are the services the City of Portland provides? How well does the City deliver these services? Do the City's priorities match those of its residents?
Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain the answers to these questions. The survey section which was done on City services was not pertinent to our need. It did not ask the respondents what services they "thought" were provided by the City, nor did it ask what services should be cut if we did not have enough money to fund all of them, nor did it ask about the level of satisfaction with the delivery of services. Indeed, we were quite surprised that anyone would voluntarily respond "yes" to a survey question that asks if "any City services should be cut."
RECOMMENDATION;
To survey City of Portland residents to find out what they "believe" City services are, how well they think those services are being delivered, and which ones should be reduced/expanded/ cut/added within available resources and/or willingness to support added services by tax increases, fees, or other means.
82 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Seven
INTERNAL MEASUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
A. PORTLAND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PROJECTS HISTORY 1974 - 1989
The following narrative has been organized in four ways. These are City of Portland internal performance measurement and external measurement programs. These two main categories are then subdivided into intensive and extensive. "Internal" indi- cates those programs whereby City of Portland staff attempt to systematically measure the performance of various City programs. "External" indicates those programs whereby the City attempts to assess or measure citizen satisfaction with service delivery and assess the need for additional services or change in the service mix.
The above two categories can be further divided into intensive and extensive efforts. Intensive efforts are focused on one service or one aspect of City government performance and are of limited duration but go into a great deal of operational depth with respect to a particular service or City bureau. Extensive efforts are intended to have broad and continuous coverage over time with respect to many or all of the City's bureaus and services.
Internal Performance Measurement
Intensive:
In the 1970's the first attempt to intensively measure the performance of individual City programs and bureaus started in 1973 as an adjunct to the budget shop, called the Management Analysis and Review Section (MARS). The Section, headed by Mike Kael (now with Oregon State), was charged with evaluating and improving the productivity of individual City programs. To this end the Section used an industrial engineering approach, minutely analyzing individual tasks and activities performed in producing a particular good or service. The results of the Section's program analysis efforts were sum- marized in a report to management detailing the analysis and containing recommendations on performance improvement. In this respect the Section followed the traditional GAO model of performance auditing. Significantly, and unlike the GAO, the MARS efforts were not independent of the bureau management and the policy makers they were charged with evaluating and im- proving. Consequently, the subject, scope and intensity of the performance measurement efforts depended upon the cooperation of the bureaus subject to evaluation. Government Performance Subcommittee Page Eight
The Section operated until the budget year of 1978-79. During that period it produced a number of reports on City bureaus, some of which are on file at the Internal Auditor's Office where they are found to be helpful and are held in some regard. The Section was eliminated from the 1978-79 budget. Internal correspondents present at the time indicate the ostensible rea- son was "non-performance." In the jargon of City bureaucracy, the Section simply did not have an organizational home and neither bureau head nor policy maker to protect it. It goes almost without saying that this is a fatal position for an organization charged with a necessarily adversarial role.
At least a part of the MARS role was assigned to such bureau oversight organizations as the Office of Planning and Develop- ment and the Office of the Public Works Administrator. Work performed there on the basis of very limited evidence consisted of "operations research" type analysis, such as a cost/benefit study on reestablishing a City-run asphalt plant. After 1980, the oversight organizations were eliminated (OPD) or eviscerated (OPW) and the 1970"s cycle of intensive program evaluation came to a halt.
In 1984, with the election of former Multnomah County Auditor, Jewell Lansing, to the City Auditor position, intensive per- formance measurement and evaluation was reinstituted at the City. Unlike the previous effort at intensive performance measurement, the internal audit function was, and remains, independent of the organizations it audits. Between 1984 and 1988 the Division completed 37 audits of various City bureaus and functions. A summary report prepared by the Division, en- titled Internal Audit Division Activities and Accomplishments (September 1988) provides samples of audit results, lists audits, and details recommendations and the status of audit recommendations for the individual audits.
Presently, the internal Audit Division has a staff of ten audi- tors and continues to perform a full range of audits at the direction of City Auditor Barbara Clark and Audit Division Manager, Richard Tracy. Various audit documents are available at the Internal Audit Division, first floor of City Hall.
Extensive:
Extensive efforts since roughly 1972 have involved a number of attempts to incorporate an increased level of numerical and
84 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Nine
"program" information into the annual budgeting process and the resultant document, the adopted budget. Parallel with these efforts has been a continuing evolution and adaptation of the accounting system to provide financial and service information consistent with the measurement efforts.
This effort has evolved through several cycles. In 1972 two Big Eight consulting firms were hired to produce a joint City/County budgeting and financial reporting system with a view ahead to eventual City/County consolidation. On the budgeting side of the effort, the outcome was the production of a budget styled after the then-fashionable federal PPBS approach. On the financial information side, the effort resulted in the initial implementation of the FMS system, which the City is just pre- sently phasing out.
From the joint perspectives of useful information and orderly process, both the program budgeting and FMS implementation were unsuccessful in the County and City. The "program" content of both budgets amounted to an exercise in renaming rather than substantive measurement with the consequence that historical continuity and even arithmetical accuracy were destroyed. For both 1972-73 and 1973-74 compliance with State Budget Law was problematical. By 1974-75 both the City and County had returned to the traditional line-item budget and the more traditional historical-perspective method of evaluating requested appro- priations.
Implementation of the FMS system into an accounting framework that was decentralized and manual, proved to be a substantial learning experience for all involved. The change over was not completed until late 1974-75 with several changes of staff and consultants. In the meantime all financial records had to be reconciled manually and for 1973-74 the City had to completely restate its financial balances to obtain outside audit approval. Rather than improve government performance information, the effort resulted in two years of chaos and no information or, for that matter, legal compliance with financial reporting and bud- get law.
Beginning in 1977-78, after the City had finally transitioned into FMS, the City initiated a performance-measurement system as part of its budget process. In 1977-78, 14 City bureaus participated, and in 1978-79, ten additional bureaus partici- pated. Essentially, each participating bureau established its goals, objectives and performance measures with the intent they be combined into the annual budget process. An outline of the approach taken was published in the 2nd Edition of the Perform- ance Measurement Manual.
85 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Ten
In conjunction with the performance-measurement system, the line-item budget was modified for each bureau to emulate a "zero-base" approach. This modification involved breaking down the budget submission into a set of discrete packages of service which provided more detail about what the budget appropriation was purchasing. The "zero-base" approach was taken further in that the Bureau of Buildings submitted a full zero-base budget in 1978-79. Significant in this cycle is that the package approach to budget submission continues to be used in the City of Portland.
In 1979-80, the City dropped the performance-measurement system. Historical sources report that the data being reported on a quarterly basis were voluminous, time-consuming to assemble, often times without meaning and most always ignored from the staff through the policy level. Commencing in 1988-89, the City reinstituted performance measurement in conjunction with the annual budget process. This effort continues to evolve. Additional information can be obtained in the 1988-89 and 1989-90 budget and budget manuals.
External Performance Measurement
Intensive:
Somewhat paradoxically perhaps, looking to citizens for inten- sive evaluation of City bureau performance has the longest and most continuous tradition among the City's performance measure- ment efforts. Initiated in the early 1970's (approximately 1974 or 1975), the City established citizen budget committees for a number of its bureaus. These committees meet with bureau representatives on almost a year-around basis, evaluation performance and assessing budget submissions that the bureaus develop. Though some smaller bureaus have been without budget committees, all major service bureaus have had them, more or less continuously, since the mid-1970's. Beginning in the budget short-fall years after 1982, the City has made several attempts to use the Citizen Budget Committee approach to obtain direction on overall City funding priorities. This has led to the establishment of Budget Advisory Coordi- nating Committees composed of representatives of the individual budget committees. The intent is that, given budget cutbacks, the most useable advise can be gained from a citizen committee with overall budget perspective rather than several groups whose perspective is limited to but one bureau.
86 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Eleven
Beyond BAC and the BACC (current City nomenclature) the City has for a number of years used the Office of Neighborhood Associa- tions to gather data on neighborhood needs. This information submitted to the responsible bureaus then becomes part of the budget process whereby neighborhood organizations and individual BAC's can follow the budgetary progress or oblivion of a par- ticular neighborhood need request.
Extensive: Beginning in 1978, the City began to gather and publish on an annual basis, a large volume of data portraying a wide array of conditions in individual city neighborhoods. These data included socio-economic information commonly found in the U.S. Census, such as population, income, housing, and racial charac- teristics. It also includes data derived from individual bureau operations, such as building permit volume and value, business licenses, crime statistics, street conditions, number and acreage of parks, acres zoned for residential, commercial, industrial, etc.
In addition, it included a random survey of City residents who responded to a set of questions submitted by individual bureaus and administered by the Services Research Section within the Office of Fiscal Administration. Many of these questions were intended to gain responses from city citizens as to their satisfaction with specific City services, such as street cleaning, street lighting, 911, etc. Unfortunately, few ques- tions were asked consistently during the time the survey was conducted.
Due to continued budget cutbacks the Neighborhood Profiles publication was eliminated from the OFA budget in 1988-89. The survey questions and responses for the years 1979-84 and 1986 have been compiled and are on file in the Budget Division of OFA, and can be purchased at $25.00 per copy.
Summary;
Over the last 15 years the City of Portland has initiated a number of attempts to measure government performance both at a technical level within the bureaucracy and at a "market satis- faction" level from citizen surveys. Some of these efforts have been abandoned and resurrected; others have been abandoned and not yet resurrected; while others have been retained and allowed to evolve with the changing financial situation of the City.
87 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Twelve
While one cannot reach a conclusion on whether this constitutes a poor, fair, good or excellent effort, the record certainly indicates the City has been continuously aware of the various components of government performance and has attempted to address them.
B. INTERNAL MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE FINDINGS
The Internal Measurement Committee was established with the objectives of documenting two aspects of City of Portland government performance. The first aspect was to determine what systems and procedures the City of Portland currently has and has had over the last 15 years to systematically measure its performance, assess citizen satisfaction and service demand, and incorporate that information into City budget decisions. The second aspect was to determine, apart from the material exis- tence of various measurement and evaluation systems, how such information was actually being used or not being used.
The answer to the first question was researched and documented in Part A. Findings indicated that the City of Portland has developed and maintained over the last 15 years a number of systems which measure performance, assess service delivery and attempt to incorporate such data into the budget process. This has included the use of the Internal Audit function (ongoing) and prior to that, the MARS team to perform independent per- formance evaluations. It has included several rounds of implementing a performance budgeting system complete with quar- terly monitoring of various output indicators. On the citizen side, it has included continuous use of Citizen Budget Commit- tees and use of such programs as the Neighborhood Profiles to survey citizen opinion and relate it to City of Portland performance.
The existence of such tools does not necessarily mean they have an affect on government performance. More cogent perhaps was obtaining information on the affect, if any, that such per- formance measurement tools had on actual City of Portland deci- sion making.
To obtain at least a general impression of the impact of the various performance measurement efforts, eight City of Portland managers were interviewed. These managers were familiar with and well-qualified to assess the impact of the City's perfor- mance measurement efforts.
88 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Thirteen
In line with the emphasis on collecting presumptively-factual data and minimizing opinion (we have no way of verifying opinion), four relatively "yes or no" questions, and one opinion question were asked. In all cases the respondents elaborated considerably in their answers.
The questions asked included the following: 1. If audits have been done for the Bureau, how well have recommendations been followed? 2. Does the Bureau internally examine its activities and services on a periodic basis to determine their feasibility for contracting out to private enter- prise?
3. Does the Bureau enumerate the services it provides and does it know the cost per unit of the services? Does it compare those costs to private providers and other city and local governments? 4. Does the Bureau periodically survey the citizenry to determine if too much or too little of the ser- vice is being delivered? 5. Optimally, how do the Bureau heads see their roles in the budget process (i.e., as competing against other Bureaus for scare resources? As attempting to arrive at the appropriate mix of all City ser- vices at the least cost? As a Bureau advocate? As an advocate for the Commissioner in charge? etc.).
The following table summarizes the responses to the first four questions:
89 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Fourteen
Responses to Interview Questions
Percentage Question Yes No Yes
1. Audits/recomm? 6 2 0.75 2. Contract out? 6 2 0.75 3. Unit cost comparison? 6 2 0.75 4. Citizen survey 5 3 0.625
Data Source: Survey of City Managers January 12 to February 9, 1990
The answers are predominately "yes," meaning that, at least at the bureau level, the City's performance measurement efforts are having an impact. Moreover, the bulk of the "no" responses really mean the question was not applicable for a variety of legal and functional reasons (i.e., internal service bureaus cannot use citizen satisfaction surveys). Below is a summary of the responses to the first four questions. Since question five involves exclusively an opinion response, that will be dealt with in a separate section. Question No. 1: Have audits been done and how well have recom- mendations been followed? Audits of varying scope have been done for six of the seven bureaus legally subject to audit. Respondents noted that recommendations are almost always followed. In cases where they were not, there has generally been negotiation with the audit team and a consensus achieved as to a workable response. In some cases recommendations are yet to be com- pletely implemented some time after the audit had been com- pleted.
90 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Fifteen
Respondents expressed a general level of satisfaction with the audit recommendations and indeed noted that the audits expressed their own findings and confirmed, changes the bureaus wanted to implement anyway. These bureaus felt the audit function helped them politically, basically expressing a "second opinion" on management changes to the City Coun- cil.
One respondent, thoroughly familiar with audits, City bud- geting and City decision making, suggested that the major issues the City faces are inter-bureau not intra-bureau and that the Auditor should be focusing on those issues.
Question No. 2: Does the bureau periodically review services and activities to determine feasibility for contracting out? All bureaus (with the exception of one that handles the City's cash) contract out at least part of their services or supporting activities and most examine all or part of their operations to look for more opportunities. Impediments to more contracting out were as follows:
The City labor agreement makes it difficult to realize max- imum cost saving or to contract out at all in many instances. The major cost saving could occur by contracting out internal services, such as fleet maintenance, but bureaus are prohibited from doing so except for the print shop (almost all respondents mentioned fleet maintenance as a major cost-saving area). The City cannot delegate away its liability if a contractor fails to perform a service in a safe and satisfactory man- ner . Only one bureau considered themselves to be a "service broker" and not a direct provider. This bureau considers their role to be almost exclusively administrative, with most direct services provided via contract.
Questioitionn No. 3: Does the bureau count the services it provides and compare costs to other governments and private providers? Most respondents said "yes" to all or part of the services. Respondents in utility-like bureaus had the most thorough counts and comparisons. Bureaus offering predominately
91 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Sixteen
general government "collective goods" had the most diffi- culty counting and comparing. Comparison to other providers was felt to be particularly important and very difficult to achieve on a meaningful basis. Establishing a set of reli- able comparators in terms of service units and comparable jurisdictions was mentioned as very important (the under- standing is that the Auditor is working on this problem for some bureaus).
Question No. 4: Does the bureau periodically survey the citi- zenry to determine appropriate service levels? The majority of the bureaus are already doing this to some extent. with the exception of an internal service bureau, all bureaus have plans to do it as part of their ongoing service planning process. Most bureaus use both citizen budget advisory committees and citizen surveys as part of the survey process.
In regard to the first four questions, there is material evi- dence (per the respondents' answers) that City managers are cognizant of and using to some degree the results of various performance-measurement systems in place. By the same token, we were left with the impression that some, perhaps many, ser- vice and efficiency opportunities were falling through the cracks. Certainly fleet maintenance was mentioned as such and we wondered about the nonexistence of proposals to broker out entire City service delivery systems or to privatize various utility functions. In one instance, the justification for not proceeding on a particular significant cost-saving opportunity seemed quite inadequate as explained. Moreover, we wondered whether City managers had any confidence that their initiative and cost-saving efforts would be in any way rewarded at budget time.
Accordingly, we asked a fifth question which required an opinion on what role a bureau head could take that worked best in the City's budget process. Suggested roles varied from attempting to arrive at the best mix of City services based upon the available data, to competing for bureau market share, to being an advocate for the commissioner in charge, etc.
Respondents were roughly split on the roles they emphasized as most important, though significantly all respondents acknow- ledged the need to play various roles in different situations. Most all respondents emphasized the need to retain credibility with the City Council as part of the budget process. Excessive
92 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Seventeen
exaggeration of budgetary importance ("crispy critter approaches") had proven counterproductive in the past and should not be repeated. Respondents felt that effective bureau heads demonstrated a sensitivity to overall City needs, while at the same time arguing the bureau's priorities. Six out of the eight respondents acknowledged the competitive nature of the City's general funds budgeting process, particu- larly in cutback situations. In this instance, respondents questioned the usefulness of measurement and indicators, given the political strength of some bureaus versus others. City managers seemed unconvinced that all bureaus were measured with the same yardstick and subjected to the same scrutiny at budget time. Issues of "fairness" were mentioned. Not insignifi- cantly, the levels of nervousness increased as the interviews moved closer to the time of budget submission and consideration.
In regard to question five, we conclude that most respondents acknowledge that the City budget process is an adversarial one, wherein the resources allocated to a particular program may have little to do with the program's performance measures or need. In that context, we question whether there exists any substan- tial incentive for City managers to take the risk and use the initiative to substantially increase output and reduce program costs.
Recommendat ions:
1. Continue to maintain and use these systems and work to establish a better comparison with other comparable juris- dictions.
2. The City needs to be more serious in the use of the measurement tools it has. This applies in two ways. First, to make real use of the existing measurement tools, and second, to challenge whether the measurement tools are relevant to the purposes intended. 3. Departments must have the ability to contract for more goods and services when warranted. There should also be put in place an incentive system for managers to contract outside the City for goods and/or services where appropriate.
93 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Eighteen
The City should develop an independent, formalized method of measuring government performance which takes into con- sideration issues relating to program effectiveness, cost, feasibility for contracting out, and surveying the citizenry to determine appropriate service levels. There should be built-in incentives within the budget process for bureau heads to develop innovative and cost-effective solutions to delivering services.
94 Government Performance Subcommittee Page Nineteen
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE
(Under separate cover.)
95 Government Performance Page Nineteen SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
A. HISTORY OF PORTLAND'S FORM OF GOVERNMENT There are three basic forms of local government in the United States: mayor-council, council-manager, and commission. In the mayor-council form, there are two alternate ways to organize power: strong-mayor and weak-mayor. In the strong-mayor form, the council and the mayor exercise legislative and policy making powers, but the mayor may have near total administrative powers. This form is very common today in large and medium sized cities. The weak-mayor form was designed for a simpler era when government was smaller; thus it is more common in smaller cities than the strong mayor form. In the weak-mayor system, the council as a whole exercises administrative control as well as policy making authority. In the council-manager form, the council exercises all legislative and policy making powers and appoints a professional city manager. The city manager is responsible for all administrative functions and acts as a buffer between elected officials and administrative staff. This form is based on the difficult task of defining and separating policy and administrative functions. The first implementation of a commission form of government was as a response to a major hurricane and tidal wave in Galveston, Texas in 1900. In an effort to act quickly to rebuild storm ravaged Galveston, the Texas legislature appointed a group of five businessmen to run the city's affairs. Later this form of government was adopted by the voters as a new charter. The commission form of government, the form used in Portland, was a favorite of the reform movement, an effort by "good government" activists and, frequently, self-interested business leaders to get rid of party boss-oriented corrupt governments and institute professional, nonpartisan government. It was regarded as a business- like approach to government. This was a popular form of government, mostly in the South, until the council-manager form caught on with reformers. By 1987 only about three percent of cities over 5,000 population used the form. In 1990, only two cities over 100,000 population, Portland and Chattanooga, Tennessee, use the commission form.
Prior to Portland's adoption of the commission form, the city had a fifteen member city council with ten members elected by wards and five elected at large, all on a partisan basis. This form was adopted during a period of tremendous growth and pressure on the city and many prominent business people were concerned that the city had an antiquated and inefficient system incapable of responding "in a business-like fashion." City Council President George Baker
96 Government Performance Page Twenty favored reform and said that the existing system was so fragmented that it took "30 men to kill a fly." A committee of prominent citizens formed a research organization to look at the form of government. They contracted with a similar organization in New York to survey the governmental organization and business methods. The report, issued in April 1913, showed that Portland was "operating by the seat of its pants" and was managed the same way as it was when the city was a one-quarter the size 22 years earlier. The proposed solution was the commission form of government with five members elected at large on a nonpartisan basis, one of which would be the mayor. The debate was heated, but The Oreqonian was lukewarm, the editor saying, "beware of creating a fetish over governmental forms." In May 1913, with a low turnout, the vote was 2,004 in favor of the new charter and 1,281 against. Portland had adopted the commission form of government. Since the adoption of the commission form there have been ongoing debate and efforts at changing the system, including several elections where the proposals failed (outlined in section on Role of Government) . In the last decade there have been at least two studies looking at change in the City's structure. Both the Chamber of Commerce and a committee of the City Club have looked at proposing changes, generating controversy. It is not likely that this question will go away. B. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The sub-committee's project was to examine the effect of the form of government on its performance. This project attempted to relate the question to specific performance. In other words, we looked for objective indicators of the effect of the form on performance. No attempt was made to look comparatively at various forms of government and their relative merits. The questions the committee asked included: Does data exist which shows the effects, good or bad, of the form of government on the quality of work, costs, decision making ability, long term planning, and responsiveness to citizens? Could data be developed to support anecdotal or perceived effects? Do recent issues (such as community policing, the light rail agenda, the Central City Plan, annexation in East Multnomah County, or the 1989 parks levy) provide indicators with which to analyze the impact of Portland's form of government?
97 Government Performance Page Twenty-One
C. METHODOLOGY OF STUDY In an effort to raise our analysis from a merely theoretical discussion of whether Portland's form of government helps, hinders or is neutral with regard to government performance, the sub- committee decided to conduct a number of interviews. Interviews were conducted with city employees and with business and community leaders, to see if people either within city government or who work with city government regularly could shed light on our topic. The list of interviewees was intended to provide a broad cross-section of business and community leaders. Additionally, city employees who have worked for other governments were included, due to their broader experience with different systems. It was more difficult than anticipated to arrange interviews with business/ community leaders, and thus our range of non-government interviewees was not as broad as planned. See below for the list of those interviewed. We would like to extend our thanks to all those who participated in the interviews. We were tremendously impressed with the depth of preparation and thought consistently evidenced throughout the interviews. Following is a list of those interviewed, and their positions: Portland Employees Title Dick Tracy Manager, Audit Services Division Melinda Peterson Director, Bureau of Personnel Ron Bergman Acting Director, Bureau of Administrative Services Margaret Mahoney Director, Bureau of Buildings Steve Bauer Director, Office of Fiscal Administration Art Alexander Assistant, Commissioner Lindberg Jeff Rogers City Attorney Chris Tobkin Exec. Assistant to Mayor Clark Business/Community Position Jeanne Robinette Former Director, Citizens for Cost Effective Government Jack Kalinoski Exec. Director, Associated General Contractors Bill Dickey President, Downtown Retail Council
Although obviously not a scientific survey, attempts were made to have as unbiased interviews as possible. Efforts were made to compose a list of questions which exhibited no bias or expectation Government Performance Page Twenty-Two to answers. The list of questions provided all interviewees in advance of the meetings is attached. Interviews were conducted by two members of the subcommittee. Each interview took approximately one hour. Assurances were given that comments with respect to the speaker would remain anonymous. Interviews took place during January and February 1990. The general purpose of the interviews was to see if recurring themes or trends could be identified. Early in our project, it became clear that definitively answering this question was beyond the scope of the Portland Civic Index project. If the question of form of government is deemed to warrant further study, we hope to provide some guidance or suggestions (based on our research) how such a study might be effectively approached. We encouraged the interviewees to think of ways these questions could be objectively analyzed. At the end of our report, we provide a list of these suggestions. D. RESULTS OF INTERVIEWS This section is a reporting of comments heard during the interviews. While there was certainly diversity of views, we did encounter recurring themes and trends of thought. 1. Finding: The City is generally perceived to be delivering very high-quality services. There is a great deal of pride in Portland, both within and without the government structure. Discussion: While a majority of people interviewed held many strong and sometimes differing opinions regarding the form of government, the clear consensus was that Portland is a "good" city. Pride in our city is strong. This pride is an important factor to keep in mind when addressing the question of form of government. Even those in city government who expressed frustration about the impact of the form of government on their ability to accomplish their jobs exhibited a great deal of pride in our city. Thus, it seems safe to assume that complaints or frustrations (discussed below) are raised in the context of wanting only to improve performance, and not out of a sense of unproductive negativity.
2. Finding: Portland's commission form of government is widely perceived to result in a very inefficient organization. This inefficiency is perceived to be due to several different reasons: (1) $uxoau—assignments mav be changed at any time at the discretionof the mayor.
99 Government Performance Page Twenty-Three
Long-term planning by each bureau is difficult due to changes in commissioners who may have differing personal agendas. Cross-bureau planning is difficult because to do so f long-term priorities must be set among the different bureaus. Learning curves are incurred every time there is a change in commissioners' bureau assignments. There is no guarantee that commissioners will possess expertise in the subject area of their assigned bureaus. There is no guarantee that commissioners will be trained or experienced in management, yet they are often assigned bureaus with hundreds of employees and multi-million dollar budgets. There is a perception that changes in bureau assignments may lead to high turnover of bureau managers as well as professional staff.
(2) Lack of executive leadership adversely influences the day to day and long-term operations of the city. There is a strong perception of lack of coordination among bureaus. There is no requirement that bureaus work together. There is no means of compelling "common ownership" of issues across portfolio lines. Resolving cross-bureau issues often requires significant negotiation and time. Procedures which require more than one bureau's approval may be very cumbersome and take a very long time to complete if priorities among bureaus are different. There is no city-wide assessment of employee perfor- mance . Non-policy issues which could conceivably be readily resolved by an administrator often receive the attention of the full Council.
100 Government Performance Page Twenty-Four
In forums with other local governments, Portland unlike other cities lacks a representative who is vested with the authority to make commitments and compel action. (3) Portland's commission form of government leads to duplication of services. There is a perception that some centralized services are duplicated in several bureaus. There is a non-unanimous perception that Portland has an overabundance of administrative staff within the commissioners' offices and at the bureau level, due to the lack of centralized administrative services. 3. Finding: Portland's form of government permits individual commissioners to put forth and effectively drive their personal agenda for the City, leading to a "lone ranger" syndrome. This phenomenon can provide an avenue for some very creative and innovative policy initiatives. Commissioners can use resources within their assigned bureaus to pursue a personal agenda for the community. Commissioners can use resources within their assigned bureaus to build constituencies for their issues, which may or may not have yet received broader support and/or approval from the Council. Commissioners enjoy a great deal of deference from their counterparts as long as they don't interfere with other commissioners1 portfolios. Politically, commissioners need to be able to point to their influence on the bureaus assigned to them. Lack of formal executive leadership allows commissioners individually to make authoritative sounding representations for the city as a whole. 4. Finding: Major public policy decisions which affect only the bureaus within one commissioner's portfolio will not necessarily receive the public scrutiny and debate that they deserve. If all the bureaus necessary to a particular decision are contained within one commissioner's portfolio, then there is no need to bring the issue forward to the council.
101 Government Performance Page Twenty-Five
The city as a whole does not necessarily get the benefit of an in-depth policy study regarding a particular area, nor does it have the opportunity to assess how a particular issue fits within city-wide long term goals. Lack of long-range, cross-bureau planning has prevented development of an overall capital improvement program that sets city-wide priorities for major investments. Capital budgets are currently set annually by each bureau, and may change with appointment of a new commissioner. Political trade-offs among the commissioners can lead to avoidance of asking hard questions relating to city- wide policies, performance, and investments with regard to one or more particular bureaus. Only the commissioner in charge of a particular bureau has ready access to in-depth information about that bureau.
Finding: Access to commissioners by individuals on single issues is widely perceived to be excellent. On the other hand, accountability for larger policy issues outside the responsIbility of a bureau is lacking. "* (1) Responsiveness to Individual Concerns There is a pervasive sense that the City and its elected commissioners are extremely responsive to individual concerns of individual citizens. There is also a sense that people call commissioners for resolution of problems with bureaus, when they do not know whom to call within the bureaus. There is a belief that Portland has a very strong history and culture of responsiveness to citizens; conflicting opinions exist about whether a change in the form of government would hinder this responsive- ness. (2) Accountability for Larger Issues There is currently limited ability for a bureau to respond to an issue if its Commissioner is not interested in that issue. The Council does not consistently set long-term policy for individual bureaus.
102 Government Performance Page Twenty-Six
Important policy decisions may be left to bureau staff. Portlanders may be denied an opportunity to discuss some major policy decisions. Policy issues which are addressed on a bureau level do not necessarily receive any discussion by the Council as a whole, therefore citizens may not have the information they need to meaningfully participate in the discussion. Bureaus are accountable to their commissioner, not to the city as a whole. Employees tend to identify with their bureau, not with the city as a whole. Effectiveness and efficiency of Portland city government as a whole is not consistently evaluated, due to the fragmentation of the system.
E. AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY The development of objective data in the examination of the effect of the form of government on city performance is extremely difficult. Very little information exists now. There are however some areas which were suggested that the committee believes deserve further study. Are bureaus quantitatively affected by the commissioners assigned to them? In other words, do budgets and staff levels rise and fall with reassignment of commissioners? Is bureau manager turnover affected? Examine the history of issues which are not contained in one bureau or assignable to one commissioner, i.e., affirmative action policy implementation, integrated capital improvement programs, and data processing coordination. General examination of the rate of turnover of managers historically and by portfolio assignment. Compare to similar sized cities. Compare management positions with other relatively comparable cities to see if there are duplicative duties and positions in commissioners' offices and bureaus. Do administrative costs of Portland exceed those of comparable cities?
103 Government Performance Page Twenty-Seven
Compare the recruitment and selection of bureau managers in Portland and similar sized cities. Look at recruitment, temporary appointments, work or subject matter experience, and ultimate hires. Identify key services and compare per unit costs (including full loading of overhead) with other comparable cities. An effort to do this appears to be underway in the Auditor's Office. Contact other cities that have considered changing their form of government. These cities have evaluated the pros and cons of how other forms of government relate to their cities. We can learn from their examples and benefit from their analysis. We can use this information to evaluate both the end product and the pain of getting there. F. CONCLUSION The impact of a city's form of government on its performance is a question which has been raised by numerous municipalities throughout the nation, over time. The question has been raised in Portland numerous times. It is clear from our interviews that city employees and citizens have given the question much thought. City employees perhaps feel and observe the effects of our form of government most acutely. Their thoughts deserve attention. Respondents felt a sense of frustration with the structure's inherent inefficiency and expense. It is clear that the cumbersome structure requires much more time and effort to maintain itself than it should. Some respondents felt that the positive aspects of the form are the direct access citizens have to commissioners and the opportunity commissioners have to be creative. Whether or not the City of Portland will decide to analyze its form of government remains to be seen. Our sub-committee suggests that if such a study is undertaken, it be done so with broad participation. The opportunity exists to develop meaningful and objective data for studying the issue. Resources exist to make such a study effective and definitive. We encourage full utilization of available data and resources. G. ATTACHMENTS A. List of questions asked in interviews. B. Issue Briefr "Choices of the Citizenry: Forms of Municipal Government in the United States," National League of Cities, May 1989.
104 EXHIBIT A SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
CIVIC INDEX
Interview Questions:
1. How do you think the form of government affects the City's work?
2. Do you think the cost of City of Portland services is affected by the form of government? If so how does it affect cost? J
3. Do you think the form of government affects the City's ability to make decisions? If so, how?
4. Do you think the form of government affects the City's ability to anticipate issues, plan for the future? If so, how?
5. Do you think the form of government affects the City's ability to be responsive to citizens?
6. Do you know if there is a way to quantify your perceptions of the effects of the form of government?
7. Do you think the form of government affected any or all of the following decisions:
a. Community Policing b. Light Rail Agenda c. Central City Plan d. Annexation in East Multnomah County e. 1989 Parks Levy f. Styrofoam Ban g. Garbage Franchise
8. If you have worked with another local government, how does your experience with Portland's form of government compare?
105 EXHIBIT B
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
Issue Brief
Choices of the Citizenry: Forms of Municipal Government in the United States
Municipal Reference Service Office of Membership Services National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202)626-3130
May, 1989
106 INTRODUCTION The structure of municipal government—how it is organized— refers to the way in which the powers and responsibilities of the government are divided among the elected and the appointed city officials. The manner in which a local government is structured is important, as the operation of local government is directly affected by its organizational structure. There are currently four basic forms of municipal government in the United States: Mayor-Council, Council-Manager, Commission, and Town Meeting. This Issue Brief will describe each of the four forms of government, trace the history of each, present the perceived advantages and disadvantages of each form, and illustrate the division of responsibilities characteristic to each form. This paper then discusses usage trends and illustrates the proportions of American cities operating under each form in selected years from 1950 to present. Appendix I presents a thumbnail guide to the pros and cons of each form. Appendix II offers brief case studies of some major cities that have, in recent years, changed their form of government; these case studies look at the reasons behind the decision to adopt a different form. Finally, a bibliography of sources for further reading is provided.
FORMS OP LOCAL GOVERNANCE
MAYOR-COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT The use of the mayor-council form of government was imported from England during the colonial period. At that time, the colonial council was all powerful and the mayor was appointed by the colonial governor. The functions of city government were few and the citizens of the newly-formed states, having overthrown the British king, were afraid to give powers to a single executive. The popular feeling prevailed that an official with few powers could do relatively little damage. Under this "weak mayor" form, the mayor's administrative powers were very limited in proportion to the powers of the council, especially in the areas of budget-making and the appointment and removal of subordinate officers and employees; the mayor was chief executive in name only.
107 As time passed, American city government underwent many changes: general control over cities became the responsibility of state legislatures; popular election of city councils was established, though with a restricted electorate; and bicameral councils became a common characteristic of city government that continued into the 2 0th century. During this time, the mayor was not an independent official elected by the people, but rather he was selected by the council for a one-year term of largely ceremonial duties. In 1797, Baltimore, Maryland, became the first major city to give its mayor the power to veto council ordinances. In 1822, Boston, Massachusetts, adopted direct election of the mayor by the people. In 1830, New York's mayor received an absolute veto power. By 1850, the mayor had become the chief administrative officer in many American municipalities. Despite these tendencies to strengthen the mayor, 19th century local government was dominated by the council and the weak mayor form of government was the almost universal system of local government in the United States.
Weak Mayor Form of Government Characteristics The weak mayor form of government is characterized by a powerful, relatively large council which carries out administrative functions such as budget preparation, makes all major appointments, and approves the hiring and dismissal of lower level employees. Under this form, there are many council committees, administrative boards, and commissions which exist and operate with considerable independence of the regular city government. These boards are generally created either to remove a particular municipal function from the political setting or because there is little confidence that city government can administer the service in a business-like way.
In addition to the position of mayor, there are many elective offices, including some department heads. The mayor has very restricted powers: limited or no veto power, limited or no appointment and removal power, and no important administrative functions.
108 Advantages and Disadvantages Those favoring the weak mayor form argue that this is the original approach to municipal government and that there is a long historical tradition and much experience upon which to build. It has worked well in many small communities, particularly in rural areas. Proponents conclude that this form's representative council, with maximum authority, has a real potential to meet the needs of its constituents. The City of Minneapolis is an example of the weak mayor form of municipal government.
Opponents of the weak mayor form argue that under this plan responsibility, as well as power, are diffused. There is a lack of strong leadership, and the form makes no provision for professional administration. Particularly in larger cities, the political vaccuum caused by adherence to this form invites "machine" politics, and various types of political manipulation. Cooperative working agreements are of great importance in the weak mayor form of government; if these informal agreements break down, the local government is unable to accomplish its tasks.
Strong Mayor Form of Government In the latter part of the 19th century, larger American cities sought to simplify their organizational structure, to strengthen the office of the mayor, and to eliminate some or all of the separately elected municipal officials. Thus, the "strong mayor" form of municipal government emerged. In 1880, the city of Brooklyn, New York, adopted the strong mayor form, and in 1898, New York City followed. The citizens of large cities looked to embrace a strong and honest administration. The strong mayor, a responsible leader politically accountable to all the people, could act in many cases as a foil to the "machine." Characteristics The strong mayor plan takes the executive power away from the council and vests it in the mayor. It rejects the widespread scattering of administrative responsibilities, provides for an executive budget, and enables the mayor to assume direction of an integrated and administrative structure. The strong mayor does not hold membership in the council but does exercise veto power over council actions. As chief executive of the city, the strong mayor is granted authority to appoint and to remove department heads and other officials. The city council is charged with legislative functions and the plethora of boards and commissions found under the weak mayor form is often absent in the strong mayor structure.
109 Advantages and Disadvantages Proponents of the strong mayor form contend that it provides strong political and administrative leadership for the city. it does away with the broad division of responsibilities which is one perceived defect of the weak mayor system. The strong mayor has both the responsibility for running the city and the authority necessary to carry out this task. Policy formulation and implementation are often facilitated by this form. The council, relieved of day-to-day administrative tasks, can focus on the major public needs of the city. Opponents of the strong mayor plan contend that one person is handling both political and administrative functions and that there is no assurance that the mayor will have professional administrative capabilities. Many cities, particularly larger ones, have overcome this argument by permitting the mayor to appoint a professional administrator. The mayor remains the center of government leadership and public responsibility.
COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT The council-manager plan traces its roots to Staunton, Virginia where, in 1908, the bicameral city council enacted an ordinance creating the office of "general manager." Dayton, Ohio was the first relatively large city to put the manager form into operation; In 1914, a commission-manager form was installed to help the city cope with damages caused by a major flood. in the 20th century, the council-manager form of municipal government has been the fastest growing form.
Characteristics The council-manager form is similar in structure to a private corporation, with the voters, council, and manager being organizationally similar to the stockholders, board of directors, and corporate general manager. There are few elective officers—usually only the council—with the mayor generally selected by and from the council to serve as a titular and ceremonial leader and to preside at council meetings. The policy-making legislative body is the council. The manager is a full-time professional executive charged with the administration of municipal affairs,- appointed by, responsible to, and subject to dismissal by the council. The manager's tenure is based solely on performance.
110 Advantages and Disadvantages Proponents of the council-manager plan point, out that the presence of a professional manager in charge of the city allows the city to be run in a businesslike way. As the people's representatives, the council retains control of policy. Opponents of the plan cite the lack of strong, effective political leadership, that the manager is not directly accountable to the electorate, who have only indirect control over their council-appointed administrator. They argue that the manager may be only a transitory stranger in charge of municipal affairs, using the city only as a rung on his career ladder.
C0MMI38I0N FORM OF GOVERNMENT Between 1870 and 1891, several southern cities, such as New Orleans, Louisiana, and Mobile, Alabama, had a commission form of government, but subsequently abandoned it. In 1901, Galveston, Texas adopted the commission form with three commissioners to be appointed by the governor and two to be elected by the voters. Within three years, all five commissioners' positions were made elective by judicial decision. Galveston's successful rebuilding of its hurricane-devastated city under this new form led to its adoption in Des Moines, Iowa in 1907. Innovations were added, resulting in what became known as the Des Moines Plan, a commission form of government plus the initiative, referendum, recall petitions, non-partisan election, and civil service merit system.
Characteristics Commission government provides for the election of a small number of commissioners (typically 3, 5 or 7) who hold all legislative and executive powers of city government. Collectively, sitting as a single body, the commissioners perform the duties of the city council—pass resolutions, enact ordinances, levy taxes, and appropriate funds. Individually, each commissioner is the administrative head of a major city department, such as public works, police, fire, health, or finance. Each city activity is thus under the authority of only one commissioner.
ill In its role as city council, the commission is presided over by one of its members who is usually titled as mayor. The mayor may be elected directly by the people or selected by the commission. The mayor has no power of veto and no administrative powers beyond the city department which he oversees. This form of municipal government is currently in decline. A number of cities, including Birmingham, Alabama, Topeka, Kansas and Tulsa, Oklahoma, have all recently changed their city charters to adopt the Mayor-Council form of government. Advantages and Disadvantages Proponents of the commission form of municipal government point out that historically this plan has worked extremely well in emergency situations and that city government is simplified by the centralization of power and authority. Commission government gives to a few people the power and authority to run city government, avoiding possible abuses inherent in giving all powers to one person. The Commission plan usually includes methods for direct public intervention in government—initiative, referendum, and recall.
Opponents of the plan point out that there is both too much and too little centralization: too much in placing both the legislative and administrative powers in the same hands, and too little because the whole city administration is neatly divided into a part for each commissioner. Opponents also cite a lack of effective leadership, with no one having overall administrative responsibility and the difficulty of selecting a person who is qualified to both represent the voter's interests on the city council and be a competent professional administrator to head up a city government department.
TOWN MEETING The town meeting form of government, almost exclusively found in the New England states, is a form of local government that also has its roots in colonial America. It is the pure form of direct democracy, as every voter in the community has the opportunity to participate in the law-making process by expressing his or her own views, trying to cpnvince other citizens, and voting on public matters.
112 In New England, the town is the principal kind of rural or noncity government. The town is an area of government that includes whatever villages there may be, plus the open country. Except where a municipality has been incorporated, the town performs most of the functions a county does elsewhere. As the population of a community increases, a modification of this form may be instituted. Known as the Representative Town Meeting, this newer plan features town voters choosing a number of citizens (usually one hundred or more) to represent them at meetings. Any voter may still attend and participate in the discussions, but only the representatives may vote. In localities operating under the Representative Town Meeting, selectmen and other officers also are elected to supervise the administration of the local laws.
Characterist ics Town meeting assemblies usually choose a board of selectmen, generally consisting of three to five members, who carry on the business of the town between meetings, have charge of town property, grant licenses, supervise other town officials, and call special town meetings. A town clerk, treasurer, assessor, constable, school board, and other officers are elected by the voters or appointed by the selectmen. The town meeting participants often elect a finance committee to prepare the town budget.
Town meetings, both regular and special, must be preceded by a warrant, an official document that gives notice of the date, time, and location of the meeting, specifies the items to be discussed at the meeting, and authorizes the meeting. The preparation and issue of the warrant is primarily a duty of the selectmen. Advantages and Disadvantages Proponents of the town meeting form of government point out that this structure represents a pure form of democracy, in that all registered voters may participate fully in any meeting. Outside of the structure for annual meetings, the town meeting form of organization resembles the Weak Mayor-Council form, except there is no mayor, only a president of the council, and no one has veto power. More and more commonly, the selectmen choose a manager and assign routine administrative tasks to him/her.
113 There are also some difficulties with this form of government. It is difficult for the town government to do much long-range planning, meeting attendance is often very low because citizens cannot or will not spend the time (often more than a day) that the meeting occupies. It is also difficult to ensure that citizens understand the complex issues and have sufficient background to vote responsibly on issues placed before them. Preparation of the warrant announcing the meeting can become a laborious task, especially regarding the budget: each line item of the budget becomes a separate article of business on the agenda. Despite these difficulties, town meeting is still a viable form of local government in many municipalities. Some have overcome the challenges of this form by appointing a town manager or an administrative assistant to handle day-to-day operations of their communities.
TRENDS IN FORM USAGE The form of municipal government utilized by a locality is a tool; it makes a difference as to how a community is governed and as to which groups and interests in the municipality are most influential. Local cultural circumstances help determine the type of structure that is utilized and how the form is modified to fit the local situation. For these reasons, there is no one form of government that is appropriate to all municipalities. In the 23 very large cities with populations of 500,000 or more (based on 1986 Bureau of the Census estimates), nineteen have Mayor-Council form of government, while the remaining four have Council-Manager government. Among all 182 cities with a population of 100,000 or more, 77 (42.3%) are organized under the Mayor- Council form, 102 (56.0%) employ the Council-Manager form, and only three (1.6%) use the Commission form. None of these cities has a Town Meeting form of government. The following chart lists those cities over 100,000 with their 1986 populations, their present form of government, and their rank order by population.
114 FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN CITIES OVER 100,000 POPULATION
State, City Population* Form of Govt. Rank
ALABAMA Birmingham 277,510 M-C 55 Huntsville 163,420 M-C 97 Mobile 203,260 M-C 75 Montgomery 194,279 M-C 77 ALASKA Anchorage 235,000 M-C 67 ARIZONA Glendale 125,820 C-M 135 Mesa 251,430 C-M 60 Phoenix 894,070 C-M 10 Scottdale 111,140 C-M 155 Tempe 136,480 C-M 123 Tucson 358,850 C-M 41
ARKANSAS Little Rock 181,030 C-M 86 CALIFORNIA Anaheim 240,730 C-M 63 Bakersfield 109,150 C-M 109 Berkeley 104,110 C-M 171 Chula Vista 118,840 C-M 141 Concord 105,980 C-M 166 Fremont 153,580 C-M 108 Fresno 284,660 C-M 53 Fullerton 108,750 C-M 159 Garden Grove 134,850 C-M 126 Glendale 153,660 C-M 107 Hayward 101,520 C-M 176 Huntington Beach 183,620 C-M 83 Inglewood 102,550 C-M 172 Long Beach 396,280 C-M 33 Los Angeles 3,259,300 M-C 2 Modesto 132,940 C-M 128 Oakland 356,960 C-M 42 Ontario 114,310 C-M 148 Orange 100,740 C-M 180 Oxnard 130,800 C-M 129 Pasadena 129,900 C-M 130 Pomona 115,540 C-M 146 Riverside 196,750 C-M 76
115 Sacramento 323,550 C-M 49 San Bernardino 138,610 M-C 120 San Diego 1,015,190 C-M 7 San Francisco 749,000 M-C 12 San Jose 712,080 C-M 14 Santa Ana 236,780 C-M 65 Stockton 183,430 C-M 84 Sunnyvale 112,130 C-M 152 Torrance 135,570 C-M 125
COLORADO Aurora 217,990 C-M 71 Colorado Springs 272,000 C-M 57 Denver 505,000 M-C 23 Lakewood 122,140 C-M 137 Pueblo 101,240 C-M 177
CONNECTICUT Bridgeport 141,860 M-C 117 Hartford 137,980 C-M 121 New Haven 123,450 M-C 136 Stamford 101,080 M-C 179 Waterbury 102,300 M-C 173
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Washington 626,000 M-C 16
FLORIDA Fort Lauderdale 148,660 C-M 112 Hialeah 161,760 M-C 100 Hollywood 120,940 C-M 138 Jacksonville 610,030 M-C 17 Miami 373,940 C-M 36 Orlando 145,940 M-C 115 St. Petersburg 239,480 C-M 64 Tallahassee 119,480 C-M 140 Tampa 277,580 M-C 54
GEORGIA Atlanta 421,910 M-C 32 Columbus 180,180 C-M 87 Macon 118,420 M-C 143 Savannah 146,800 C-M 114
HAWAII Honolulu 372,330 M-C 38
116 IDAHO Boise 108,390 M-C 160 ILLINOIS Chicago 3,009,530 M-C 3 Peoria 110,290 C-M 158 Rockford 135,760 M-C 124 Springfield 100,290 M-C 182 INDIANA Evansville 129,840 M-C 131 Fort Wayne 172,900 M-C 94 Gary 136,790 M-C 122 Indianapolis 719,820 M-C 13 South Bend 107,190 M-C 164 IOWA Cedar Rapids 108,370 M-C 161 Des Moines 192,060 C-M 79 KANSAS Kansas City 162,070 C-M 99 Topeka 118,580 M-C 142 Wichita 288,070 C-M 51 KENTUCKY Lexington-Fayette 213,600 M-C 73 Louisville 287,460 M-C LOUISIANA Baton Rouge 241,130 M-C 62 New Orleans 554,500 M-C 21 Shreveport 220,380 M-C 69 MARYLAND Baltimore 752,800 M-C 11 MASSACHUSETTS Boston 573,600 M-C 19 Springfield 149,410 M-C 111 Worcester 157,770 C-M 105 MICHIGAN Ann Arbor 107,800 C-M 163 Detroit 1,086,220 M-C 6 Flint 145,590 M-C 116 Grand Rapids 186,530 C-M 80
117 Lansing 128,980 M-C 132 Livonia 100,540 M-C 181 Sterling Heights 111,960 C-M 153 Warren 149,800 M-C 110 MINNESOTA Minneapolis 356,840 M-C 43 St. Paul 263,680 M-C 50 MISSISSIPPI Jackson 208,440 M-C 74 MISSOURI Independence 112,950 C-M 150 Kansas City 441,170 C-M 29 St. Louis 426,300 M-C 31 Springfield 139,360 C-M 118
NEBRASKA Lincoln 183,050 M-C 85 Omaha 349,270 M-C 45
NEVADA Las Vegas 193,240 C-M 78 Reno 111,420 C-M 154 NEW JERSEY Elizabeth 106,560 M-C 165 Jersey City 219,480 M-C 70 Newark 316,300 M-C 50 Paterson 139,160 M-C 119
NEW MEXICO Albuquerque 366,750 M-C 40 NEW YORK Buffalo 324,820 M-C 48 New York 7,262,700 M-C 1 Rochester 235,970 C-M 66 Syracuse 160,750 M-C 102 Yonkers 186,080 C-M 82
NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte 352,070 C-M 44 Durham 113,890 C-M 149 Greensboro 176,650 C-M 90 Raleigh 180,430 C-M 87 Winston-Salem 148,080 C-M 113
118 OHIO Akron 222,060 M-C 68 Cincinnati 369,750 C-M 39 Cleveland 525,830 M-C 22 Columbus 566,030 M-C 20 Dayton 178,920 C-M 89 Toledo 340,680 C-M 46 Youngstown 104,690 M-C 169 OKLAHOMA Oklahoma City 466,120 C-M 28 Tulsa 373,750 CO 37 OREGON Eugene 105,410 C-M 167 Portland 387,870 CO 34 PENNSYLVANIA Allentovm 104,360 M-C 170 Erie 115,270 M-C 147 Philadelphia 1,642,900 M-C 5 Pittsburgh 387,490 M-C 35 RHODE ISLAND Providence 157,200 M-C 106 TENNESSEE Chattanooga 162,170 CO 98 Knoxville 173,210 M-C 93 Memphis 652,640 M-C 15 Nashville-Davidson 473,670 M-C 26 TEXAS Abilene 112,430 C-M 151 Amarillo 165,850 C-M 96 Arlington 249,770 C-M 61 Austin 466,550 C-M 27 Beaumont 119,900 C-M 139 Brownsville 102,110 C-M 174 Corpus Christi 263,900 C-M 58 Dallas 1,003,520 C-M 8 El Paso 491,800 M-C 24 Ft. Worth 429,550 C-M 30 Garland 176,510 C-M 91 Houston 1,728,910 M-C 4 Irving 128,530 C-M 133 Laredo 117,060 C-M 145
119 Lubbock 186,400 C-M 81 Odessa 101,210 C-M 178 Pasadena 118,050 M-C 144 Piano 111,030 C-M 156 San Antonio 914,350 C-M 9 Waco 105,220 C-M 168 UTAH Salt Lake City 158,440 M-C 104 VIRGINIA Alexandria 107,800 C-M 162 Chesapeake 134,400 C-M 127 Hampton 126,000 C-M 134 Newport News 161,700 C-M 101 Norfolk 274,800 C-M 56 Portsmouth 111,000 C-M 157 Richmond 217,700 C-M 72 Roanoke 101,900 C-M 175 Virginia Beach 333,400 C-M 47 WASHINGTON Seattle 486,200 M-C 25 Spokane 172,890 C-M 95 Tacoma 158,950 C-M 103 WISCONSIN Madison 175,850 M-C 92 Milwaukee 605,080 M-C 18
•Population based on 1986 Estimates from U.S. Bureau of the Census. Form of Government Key: M-C=Mayor-Council; C-M=Council-Manager; CO=Commission The percentage of large cities employing the various forms do not hold when examining cities of smaller size. A report of 4,3 60 cities with populations of 5,000 or more contained in the 1987 Municipal Yearbook finds that 2,082 (47.9%) have Mayor-Council form, 1,866 (42.8%) have Council-Manager form, 135 (3%) have Commission form, and 277 (6.3%) have Town Meeting form of municipal government. Over the past 35 years, these figures have varied somewhat due to two readily identifiable factors: 1) an increasing number of municipalities whose populations reach the 5,000 mark; and 2) municipal changes in the form, of government employed. The figure below illustrates the historical changes in forms of government used by U.S. municipalities.
120 FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN U.S. CITIES OVER 5,000 POPULATION
Year Total Mayor-Council Council-Manager Ccnnxissian Town Meeting/Km Cities No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent
1952 2,525 1,388 55.0 658 26.1 390 15.3 89 3.6
1957 2,653 1,297 48.9 834 31.4 328 12.3 94 3.5
1962 3,087 1,622 52.5 1,130 36.6 259 8.4 33 1.1
1967 3,155 1,600 50.7 1,245 39.5 243 7.7 66 2.1
1972 1,875 825 44.0 886 47.2 111 5.9 53 2.8
1977 3,881 1,803 46.4 1,704 43.9 161 4.1 213 5.4
1982 4,318 2,054 47.5 1,847 42.7 140 3.2 277 6.4
1987 4,360 2,082 47.9 1,866 42.8 135 3.0 277 6.3
Source: ICMA Municipal Yearbook for years indicated
121 APPENDIX I SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF EACH FORM OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Weak Mayor o Long historical tradition o Power and responsibility o Elected representative diffused council to meet con- o Lack of strong leadership stituents' needs o Political vaccuum may lead o Has worked well in small to "bossism" and "machine" and rural localities politics Strong Mayor o Strong leadership with o Too much responsibility centralized responsibility for one person o Facilitates policy formu- o Mayor may not be a lation and implementation professional administrator
Council-Manager
o Professional manager in charge o No strong, effective of managing city political leadership o Council retains policy control o Tendency for manager to o City run in business-like manner usurp policy functions o Manager may be a stranger to the city, seeking only to advance his/her career Commission o Has worked well in emergency o Legislative and policy situations functions held by one body o sinple organizational o No checks and balances structure o No one person with overall o Swift direct implementation administrative responsibility of policy o Difficult to elect legislators with administrative abilities
12- Town Meeting/Representative Town Meeting o "Purest" form of democracy o Difficult to do long-range o Allows all voters a say in planning how town is run o Challenging to educate all o Deep historical tradition citizens adequately o Has worked well in small o Preparing warrant may be localities cumbersome process o Annual meetings often poorly attended
123 APPENDIX II
CASE STUDY: KANSAS CITY/ KANSAS FROM COMMISSION FORM TO COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM
Kansas City, Kansas, voters adopted a new charter in August, 1982, that replaced the Commission form of government with the Council-Manager form. Citizen interest in changing to a new form surfaced in 1979 when the Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters and the Jaycees stressed the need for better government. This led the then-mayor to promise citizens an opportunity to indicate whether they favored a change. The three-member city commission placed the question on the November, 1980 ballot. By a vote of 20,452 "yes" and 12,684 "no," the citizens indicated their preference for change.
The city commission created a 15-member Commission on the Form of Government to recommend the best alternative by the end of the year. The group held 35 regular public meetings, sponsored three public forums attended by nearly 4 00 citizens, made talks at meetings of 112 civic and other groups attended by nearly 2,700 citizens, visited with officials in 10 cities, and issued 30 brief research reports on the structure of government in the 97 U.S. cities with populations of 100,000 to 200,000. The work was widely publicized by the three leading metro area newspapers.
The Commission discussed the features of government structure that would meet the needs and desires of the people. A questionnaire listing 10 features was answered by about 2,300 citizens who attended meetings or responded to an opinion poll. The features preferred by a majority of citizens were put together;
124 the result was the council-manager form of government.
The study commission readily agreed on a mayor elected at large and six council members elected for four-year overlapping terms. Several discussion sessions were devoted to the role of the mayor and the method of electing council memnbers. The commission recommended the nomination of councilmembers by district and election at large. Residence in districts is required. The two candidates receiving the most votes at the primary election in each district are to be placed on the feneral election ballot with all voters in the city participating in electing the single member from each district.
The Commission on the Form of Government, whose work was essentially completed by the end of 1981, was not dissolved until the August 3, 198 2 election. In the intervening period, study commission members accepted speaking invitation from many citizen groups to educate the public about the proposed new form. The Chamber of Commerce formed a broad-based community organization, the Civic Coalition, to work for the adoption of the proposed charter. Despite the work of a battery of volunteers who telephoned registered voters to urge them to vote, only 31 percent of the registered voters went to the polls. The new charter was adopted by a vote of 10,897 to 10,618.
125 CASE STUDY: ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO FROM COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM TO MAYOR-COUNCIL FORM
Albuquerque, New Mexico, amended its city charter in February, 1974, to replace a five-member at-large city council and city manager with a strong full-time mayor and a nine-member districted city council.
The decision to restructure Albuquerque's city government came after several years of study, public hearings, and widespread publicity and previous attempts to change the form of government, in 1971 and 1973, had failed. One of the contributing factors to the success of the 1974 passage was the performance of the city council, where power had shifted as ill-defined coalitions had formed and dissolved. The council unanimously decided to recommend a mayor-council form of government in response to severe public criticism of a dramatic shift of power that resulted in the dismissal of a popular city manager. The dismissal was based in large part on differing views of the city manager's proper function, especially in policy-making. That difficulty, of course, can be resolved by having an electred, paid, full-time mayor as the city's chief executive.
This controversy had been linked to specific issue areas, especially growth and planning. Albuquerque had grown dramatically since the early 1950s and many citizens feared the loss of aesthetic quality if the rapid growth continued. With the assistance of the Albuquerque Urban Observatory, five separate charter amendments were proposed instead of one package change.
126 Propositions 1 and 2 (which passed overwhelmingly) establish, respectively, a Code of Ethics for city officials and an Election Code to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures in city elections. The key proposition, number 3, passed three to one; it provides for a strong mayor and a nine-member council elected by districts. Councillors are elected for four-year terms, half every two years. The mayor, elected city-wide for a four-year term, is limited to two consecutive terms. Election as mayor or councillor is by plurality, except that if no one receives 40 percent of the vote, there is a runoff.
Proposition 4, which was defeated, provided for four at-large city councillors and would have become effective only if Proposition 3 passed as well. This proposition had been added to offset fears that councillors elected by districts would not be sufficiently attuned to the welfare of the city as a whole. Its defeat was attributed to public feeling that the existing council had been too sensitive to special interests and the salary expense of additional councillors was a needless one. Proposition 5, which was also defeated, would have made city elections partisan rather than nonpartisan. Its defeat was caused by a combination of district of "policits" in city affairs, some feeling that nonpartisan elections would keep Watergate-type activities out of Albuquerque, and a fear of bossism and an urban "machine."
Although only 21 percent of the registered voters turned out to express their opinion on the new form of government, 79 percent voted "yes." The reasons for supporting the mayor-council plan fell largely under three interrelated categories. Respondents commented that under the council-manager structure, they did not know to whom to go with a problem and, more generally, did not know who was accountable for the existing problems in city government.
127 Second, many people felt that the city had grown too large to be governed by the council-manager form of government. They felt that council-manager systems are acceptable for small towns but that Albuquerque now needed a full-time mayor. Third, many people expressed a general preference for the mayor-council form because they had lived in such a city before moving to Albuquerque and liked that structure of government.
128 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adrian, Charles R. and Charles Press. Governing Urban America. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1972. "Basic Arguments over the Council-Manager Plan." The American City March, 1962 p.163, 165. Bingham, Richard D. State and Local Government in an Urban Society. New York, NY: Random House, 1986. Burns, James MacGregor, et. al. State and Local Politics: Government by the People. 3rd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981. Ferguson, John H. and Dean E. McHenry. The American System of Government. 14th edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1981. Larson, James E. How Cities are Organized. Montgomery, AL: University of Alabama, Bureau of Public Administration, 1961. Levitt, Morris J. and Eleanor G. Feldbaum. Of, By, and For the People: State and Local Government and Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980. Mayer, Robert. Forms of Municipal Government: A Handbook for Citizens and Officials. Cleveland, OH: Governmental Research Institute, 1968. McArthur, Robert E. "Mayor-Council Government." Mississippi Municipalities February, 1977 p.7-9. Schmidt, Steffen W., et. al. American Government and Politics Today. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1985. Starn, Michael. "Administrative Asst. vs. Town Manager." Maine Townsman October, 1987 p.11-14. Turner, E. Robert. "Large Cities and Council-Manager Government." Virginia Town & City April, 1974 p.14-15. University of Tennessee, Bureau of Public Administration. Forms of Municipal Government: A Staff Report of the Bureau of Public Administration for the Cities of Tennessee. Knoxville, TN: The Bureau, October, 1973.
.29 February 27, 1990
MEMORANDUM TO: Civic Index Synthesis Committee FROM: Community Vision and Pride Attached is a copy of our committee's final report. It is organized as follows: Page COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS " 1 Summary of Findings Discussion of Findings General Recommendation Specific Recommendations BACKGROUND 4 Phone Survey Mail Survey APPENDICES 7 Civic Index Checklists Phone Survey Tabulation Mail Survey Tabulation 1989 Workshop Conclusions We look forward to discussing our recommendations with you.
SD:db Attachment
130 Civic Index Project: "Community Vision and Pride" Committee Report February 26, 1990 COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS Summary of Findings The 27 "Community Vision and Pride" workshop participants used the kickoff workshop to list and discuss elements of the participants' own community visions. The dozen or so of us who attended subsequent meetings moved away from this approach, aware that the Committee was self-appointed and not broadly based and that organizations in the City might already have vision statements reflecting their perspectives. We began to evaluate the extent to which organizations in Portland undertake long range planning and how the community is involved in that process. We asked, does Portland currently provide an environment for visioning? Six of the Civic Index phone survey's questions pertained to our Committee's agenda. The results of this phone survey portray a citizenry with strong civic pride and a high opinion of their quality of life. Portlanders value their city for such qualities as friendliness, cleanliness and community feeling. Their government and civic leadership are low-profile and not strong on vision. Portland's civic problem-solving and leadership are undistinguished and reactive, its civic fairness average, and its service delivery good. Between 20% and 35% of Portlanders are disaffected, including only a small percentage who also feel uninvolved. We sent a survey to certain civic, governmental, cultural, environmental, business, professional, neighborhood and educational organizations identified by Committee members. The results of this mail survey portray a citizenry which rates Portland's quality of life as good, even excellent - about the same as five years ago, and getting better in the next five years. Portland is moving in the right direction (a substantial minority disagrees). Most organizations surveyed have articulated their own visions and adopted a plan with an action element. Those surveyed believe that elected officials are currently responsible for defining a community vision and for developing a plan for achieving it. However, those surveyed believe that our leaders have a weak vision for the future of Portland. Fitting Portland's reputation for high levels of community involvement, respondants believe that elected officials, business leaders, neighborhoods, civic groups and city planners should all be involved in defining the vision. Respondents were almost equally divided on the role of growth in achieving a community vision — only slightly more than 50% believed growth was compatible with their vision of the future. When asked to prioritize a list of elements for a community vision, they gave top rank to public safety, education and economic development/jobs. However, many disagreed with the concept of ranking. Ultimately, we also rejected ranking, as our recommendations show.
Discussion of Findings The Portland metro area has a hopeful and positive attitude about its quality of life, its economic prospects, and its ability to affect its urban environment by charting a path for its future. There is a sense of place and destiny. In both
- 1 - 131 surveys, respondents were conversant with the same vocabulary of civic policy issues and underlying values. Most residents and most organizations are accustomed to articulating their visions of the area. We have an inventory of values for which there is likely to be consensus. These values reflect characteristics of our community in which it takes pride and in terms of which it articulates its visions. There is acceptance and widespread use of planning. We have a variety of local, regional and statewide visions and planning and involvement mechanisms, and a statewide model of a framework. There are persons who are involved and ready to begin charting a path for Portland's future. We have an environment for visioning. However, this experience with visioning and planning, while affirmative and vital, has been decentralized, sporadic and issue-oriented. With all the interest and experience in visioning, people perceive Portland's public efforts as reactive rather than proactive. Most persons are probably unaware of the diverse organizational visions. While similar values are widely understood and widely discussed, nowhere are they being assembled in behalf of the whole community. We lack a commonly held vision which is articulated. We lack an agreed framework and an accepted process for community visioning, and for implementing and refining the vision. As a result, we lack the foundation for purposeful civic involvement. Creating this foundation should be the priority agenda for "statesmen," both public and private, and the media. General Recommendation Rather than suggesting a specific community vision, our committee chose to offer a process for the community to reach one. The first step to a common vision is to understand that for a community to function, all the parts need to fit together and remain in balance with each other. You can visualize what we mean by thinking of a colorful mobile hanging in a child's nursery. Each part is suspended individually in the air. When the child reaches out and grabs the shiny red piece all of the other parts move. The analogy applies to our community in the same way. The strings between the pieces are not always as apparent as those in the baby's mobile, but they are there. Pull on one piece, like public safety, and it impacts all the others. In order to participate in building a vision, each of us needs a simple, but comprehensive framework. The list of elements that make up the total must be short so that we can constantly keep all of them in mind. But enough elements must be there to address the complex interactions which inevitably need to be examined. For the purposes of discussion we suggest that a community is made of five basic parts: o Public Safety; o Education/Children; o Economic Development/Jobs; o Liveabi1ity/Environment; and, o Happiness/Culture. This list appears to us to be both comprehensive and comprehensible.
2 132 We have found that the current processes of "problem solving" are not conducive to achieving a common community vision. Planning in Portland is institutionalized -- even bureaucrat!zed — in government, private, and voluntary organizations. The legal requirements to plan, and to do so under open meeting laws for public organizations, means that literally hundreds of planning processes are underway in Portland. There are, frankly, too many places where the future is being considered for even a highly motivated person to be able to grasp the big picture. Our recommendations are designed to address these problems. Specific Recommendations 1. The Portland metro area should have a single locus and a shared process for bringing together the separate visions of its constituent organizations, opinion groups and citizens, into one community vision. 2. Opinion leaders of the public and private sectors, and the media, in the Portland metro area should help Portlanders to reach consensus upon and to articulate one commonly-held comprehensive statement of community values. They can best do this by always discussing an issue in relation to the totality and never focusing on just one piece. A commonly-held vision defines the common ground. It is the basis of the social compact whereby Portlanders come together to develop, implement and refine their path to a better future. It distils commonality from the complex process of working through specific implementation strategies. It flows from our desire to enjoy and enhance a quality of life in the present in ways which also invest in the quality of life of future generations. 3. A vision for the Portland metro area should comprise a framework of interconnecting basic community values such as the following which forms a totality that constitutes a path toward a better future:
Framework Public Education/ Economic Liveability/ Happiness Values Safety Children Development Environment Culture
Programs Community Policing
This framework is our constitution of values, our vocabulary of visionina our C f dt On F r 9 th ^T L° heSrcare i -- ° "T^ ™ ' *^> ^Por" Mdl ck, i ht K + are 1SSues whlch should •* ^dressed and resolved not in coZnTy vXs " *"" °f the ^ frameWOrk °f interconnecting basic
133 BACKGROUND The Topic "Community Vision and Pride" is one of ten components of the Civic Index of the National Civic League. The premise of the Index is that a city is working well when it makes a strong showing with respect to the components. Citizens research and analyze the strengths and weaknesses of their city in terms of the ten components, asking: "Where are we now?" "Where do we want to be in 20 years? and "How do we get there?". The Index description of the "Community Vision and Pride" component begins with the assertion that "communities that deal successfully with the challenges they face have developed a clear picture of where they want to go and also have a clear sense of their past." The term "vision" means that the community has articulated the way it wants to be in 10 or 20 years. The vision implies broad-based agreement. It is the first step of a long-range planning process in which citizens develop objectives and strategy, and professionals implement and manage public policy recommendations of the resulting plan. The term "pride" refers to the community's remembered experience of past accomplishments and also to the desired consequence of investing in the community vision. Each of the Portland component committees was instructed to "assess the effectiveness of the Portland area's 'civic infrastructure' and to envision the community working at its best" in relation to that committee's component. The Findings Phone survey The committee submitted questions for the multi-committee phone survey conducted by JW Research; six of the survey's 24 questions pertained directly to the Committee's agenda. At least half of the phone survey sample was 25 - 45 years old, lived between the Willamette and 82nd or east of 39th, lived in 2 or in 3 - 5 person households, had lived in Portland for 16 or more years, and had had either some college or finished college. These are the questions and results of the phone survey as they relate to the Committee: Ql: Do you believe that our community leaders have a strong vision for the future of Portland (34%), a weak vision for the city (52%), or no vision at all (8%)? Q2: What organization or individual is doing the best job of putting forth a vision for the city? (35% say they don't know.) Bud Clark, 11%?, no one, 10%. Q7: Would you say that Portlanders are extremely proud (44%), somewhat proud (53%), or not at all proud (3%) of their city? Pride is higher (about 50%) for those west of the Willamette and in southeast of 39th Ave. It is lower than average from 39th 5o 82nd (33%) and among those over 55 (36%). Q8: Thinking of the City of Portland, what two things about Portland make you the proudest? (friendly, community-oriented people, 23%; This view was strongest
- 4 - among non-whites (30%) and singles (29%). clean, 24%). There was also frequent mention of the beauty of the city and/or its setting (18%) and its geographic location near mountains and rivers (14%). These factors were less often cited by non-whites and residents in North Portland. Q9: If you could live anywhere you wished, would you stay in Portland (64%), or move away (35%)? Q10: How would you rank Portland's quality of life on a scale from one to ten, with one being the lowest and ten the highest? (1-4: 5% / 5-6: 22% / 7-8: 54% / 9-10: 19%). The Committee has no data from other cities with which to compare these responses. Mail Survey The committee also developed a 20-question survey (a copy is appended to this report) which was to be mailed to 37 persons representing certain civic, governmental, cultural, environmental, business, professional, neighborhood and educational organizations identified by committee members. This survey sought to determine if the Portland community has a shared vision or has a common basis for developing one, to determine how institutions, governments and private sector entities go about developing their own vision statements, and to determine their knowledge of visions adopted by others. The Committee received 17 responses. The following statements summarize the results of this mail survey. 1. Portland's quality of life is good, or even excellent. It is about the same as 5 years ago, and will get better in the next five years. The responses were 25 - 40% more optimistic than those in a recent national survey commissioned by the Washington Post and ABC News. 2. Most organizations have a long-range plan, and it has a tri-county scope, a 3 - 5 year time-frame, and an action element. 3. Most respondents thought Portland is moving in the right direction but a substantial minority disagrees. Those who through Portland was off track usually cited more intergovernmental coordination/consolidation/city leadership in the region as a solution. 4. Most respondents thought that elected officials are currently responsible for defining a community vision and for developing a plan for achieving it. Most respondents thought this responsibility should lie about equally with Portland City Council, business leaders, elected officials, neighborhood groups, civic groups and city planners. We did not ask on this survey whether respondents thought there is currently a defined community vision with a plan for achieving it; in the phone survey, a majority of respondents thought our community leaders have a weak vision for the future of Portland. 5. Most respondents thought it was "somewhat important" that the visions of different organizations be compatible with one another. Respondents were almost equally divided on the compatibility of growth with achieving a community vision.
- 5 - 135 6. Respondents prioritized a list of possible elements of a vision as follows: public safety, education, economic development/jobs, transportation, housing, social services, arts/entertainment and cultural diversity(ties), and trees/parks. In both surveys, respondents were conversant with the issues and were talking about the same values and possible fixes using the same vocabulary. Many independently raised the same issues in similar terms. Most respondents elaborated on many of their answers. There was a high level of involvement.
- 6 - 136 APPENDICES Civic Index Checklists
With respect to "Community Vision and Pride," the National Civic League's Civic Index offers a "checklist." The Committee makes the following findings in relation to this checklist, based upon its interpretation of the results of the surveys:
1. Has a vision for the community's future been articulated? NO. How? Was it developed by one group or through a community-wide process?
2. Are there mechanisms for long-range community planning? YES, BUT THERE IS NO AGREEO-UPON MECHANISM FOR BRINGING TOGETHER THE VARIOUS MECHANISMS WHICH DO EXIST.
3. Is a community needs/future vision survey built into the community planning process? NO.
4. Is there a comprehensive planning document for the community that projects a minimum of ten years into the future? NO.
5. How would most community residents rate their qualify of life? "GOOD".
6. Would most people say that things are better or worse than they were five years ago? "BETTER"
7. Are most residents in agreement or disagreement with the community's direction? AGREEMENT
At the Portland project kickoff of the Civic Index project, participants received an outline of questions all component committees should ask, and also a separate list of questions for each component committee. These were the questions on "Community Vision and Pride, " again together with our Committee's findings:
1. How has Portland addressed our community's need to create a vision and build on the past? The need to create a vision and build on the past has been addressed only in the Central City Plan and in the separate visions of local organizations. The need may be about to be addressed through the Civic Index process and the beginning of strategic planning by local government.
2. Is there a shared sense of a desired future for greater Portland? There is probably a shared desire for a vision. There is a believe that it will be difficult to achieve a shared vision in relation to issues of growth.
3. Has our community done a broad strategic plan? Most major local organizations have; the community as a whole has not.
4. Have we preserved and enhanced what is special and unique in Portland? Port landers share a strong sense of place and a pride in their community which is based upon perceptions of it relating to friendliness, cleanliness, and its beauty, setting, and natural surroundings.
- 7 - 137 COMMUNITY VISION PLANNING SURVEY
When you think about the quality of life in Portland today, would you rate it as excellent, good, fair, or poor? 1 Excellent *S 2 Good | 9L_ 3 Fair 4 Poor When you think about the quality of life in Portland five years ago, would you say is was better or worse than it is now? 1 Better ^ 2 About the same O 3 Worse g When you think about the quality of life in Portland five years from now, do you think it will be- better or worse than it is currently? 1 Better 2 About the same G 3 Worse ( Does your organization have a long range plan? 1 Yes 13 2 No [GO TO QUESTION ] <-\ How far into the future does your long range plan go? 1 1 Year 2 2-3 Years 3L 3 3-5 Years 7 4 5-10 Years Q~ 5 More than 10 Years 3 Does your long range plan include a formal action plan to help your organization achieve its goals? 1 Yes H 2 No Did/do you refer to a specific planning document in developing your long range plan? 1 Yes °[ > What is it called? 2 No LJ
138 8. Does the process you use for developing your long range plan include a Community Needs/Interest/Future-Vision component? 1 Yes 1° 2 No 3J;GO TO QUESTION li] 9. What is the "community" defined in your organization's long range plan?
1 The immediate neighborhood ^ 2 A specific sector of Portland (i.e., NW, inner SE etc.) 3 Portland 4 Multnomah County & 5 The Tri-County area | 6 Interest groups 3 7 Other p-fro. V*. (gQ 10. What do you consider to be (ourj organization' s vision?
_CV. v
n. 11. Do you think the city of Portland is moving in the right \° direction to achieve the vision you or your group holds? ^ 1 Yes °t [GO TO QUESTION 8] 2 NO G
12. What should be done to get the city back on track?
13. Who, if anyone, is currently responsible for defining a "Community Vision" for the City of Portland and developing a plan for achieving it? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 1 No one 'o 2 Business leaders 7 3 Elected officials /1 4 Neighborhood Groups S" 5 Civic Groups 7 6 Portland City Council lO 7 City Planners & 8 Other
- 15 -
139 14. Who, if anyone, should be responsible for defining and implementing a "Community Vision"? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 1 Business leaders lt> 2 Neighborhood groups lM 3 Portland City Council IS 4 Elected officials |i^
7 No one 8 15. Following is a list of elements that may be included in the city's vision for the future. Please rank them in order of their importance. (1 is most important, 10 is least important) (l) JT8. Public safety (?) 1&5 Arts and entertainment (M) 57 Transportation C?0 H6 Education js) 67 Housing (£) i£ Social Services S; (oS Trees/parks (3) SH Economic Development/jobs I°S Cultural Diversity Other ^\ ^ 16. How should the community be involved in creating a "Community Vision"? [CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY] 1 Public meetings 13 2 Mailings l3 3 Talking with people 4 Not at all 5 Other 17. It is possible for different organizations to have different visions of what our "Community" should become. How important is it that these visions be compatible with one another? 1 Very important *5 2 Somewhat important l §- 3 Not very important ° 4 Not at all important O 18. Is continued growth in Portland in harmony or conflict with efforts to achieve the "Community Vision?" 1 Harmony S 2 Conflict 7 3 Don't Know j Why? X (\o
op
- 16 -
140 19. What role should schools play in shaping and passing on our community vision to our children? 1 A major role 2 Some role ^ 3 No role at all o 20. Would you or like to continue to be involved helping us define a community vision for Portland? 1 Yes [S 2 No O
ORGANIZATION NAME PHONE
u io
141 NATIONAL CIVIC INDEX - Community Vision and Pride
CONCLUSIONS/ELEMENTS OF OUR VISION: 1. Liveability for all citizens (physical and human needs, partnership).
2. Maintain natural elements in the environment as well or better than today (clean air, parks, etc...).
3. Participatory process - reach the disenfranchised (enfranchise them).
4. Someone is accountable for the plan. It is a living document, not just a piece of paper. The importance of corporate responsibility.
5. Improve the community's ability to meet basic human needs .
6. Self reliant individuals. Empower individuals.
7. Diversity.
8. Ability to make choices.
9. Sense of ownership/personal responsibility.
10. Sense that we are in control.
11. The need to create a new heroic mythology.
12. Human scale.
13. Approachability - access to people and institutions.
14. Economic role - What are our choices and trade offs in types of businesses (homegrown, locally based, corporate responsibility, living wage, etc...).
How do the 10 civic indices interrelate? Don't they really make up our vision?
This group will meet on a Tuesday morning at 7:30 AM. Steve Dotterrer or Austin Chown will contact participants.
_ 18 . page 7 of 7
CIVIC INDEX PROJECT REGIONAL COOPERATION COMMITTEE DEFINITION The committee defined regional cooperation as public policy makers and local governments acting together to produce results in the best long term interests of the metropolitan region. OVERVIEW The poll undertaken by the Civic Index Project asked citizens what kind of job cities and counties were doing to solve problems cooperatively. Responses were 2% excellent; 28% good; 45% fair and 18% poor or 63% who believe the quality of cooperation to be only fair or poor. When asked how important it was that cities and counties work together to solve problems, 86% of respondents said "extremely important". Those results tell us that there is broad public support for regional cooperation but that cities and counties are not perceived as performing well. The best interests of the region are sometimes easy to agree upon and sometimes not. Urban and suburban problems and views may differ. Visions of our regional future differ. Inclusion of all stakeholders, citizen and governmental, in cooperately resolving problems or issues that impact the region is difficult and often divisive. The difficult part of the regional cooperation process is how to blend local control and local involvement into the regional policy and decision process and still go forward. THE REGIONAL SITUATION The Portland metropolitan area population during the 1980's grew by 68,000, a mere 5.2 percent increase. Well behind other major west coast cities.
That modest growth history is about to change dramatically. Projected population growth in the metropolitan region over the next 20 years finds that Multnomah County will grow by 66,000, Clackamas County by 115,000, and Washington County by 160,000, or some 341,000 over the tri-county area. Clark County, Washington is projected to grow by 144,000 bringing the true regional increase to some 485,000 by the year 2010. VISION - A regional community in which sub areas, cities and local communities are able to maintain and enhance their
143 individual character and identities. -Coordinated road, highway and transit systems that provide ease of travel throughout the region and ready access to places of employment, housing, and local and regional recreation and cultural amenities. -Coordinated land use planning that channels growth and maintains the regional character, livability and quality of life. -Public infrastructure, improvements and services that are delivered at reasonable cost through tax structures and cost-sharing mechanisms that equitably spread the benefit and the burden throughout the region. -Coordinated, inter-disciplinary social, human, and public safety systems that give high priority to prevention and which effectively aid those citizens who are temporarily or chronically at risk or dependent with the goal of enabling them to lead productive and rewarding lives.
COMMITTEE PROCESS The committee focused upon basic urban services that do not respect political boundaries and are best resolved through regional cooperation. Other services and functions beyond those considered may well lend themselves to regional cooperation between governments. The committee focused on major urban services that are most directly impacted by growth and development and which set the tone for how well regional governments work together to resolve urban problems. The committee did not consider the merits of governmental restructuring or consolidations that have been proposed or might be proposed. Such proposals were considered to be outside of our charge which we interpreted as assessing the existing situation, identifying strengths and weaknesses and advancing recommendations for improvement. Urban service subject areas reviewed by the committee were categorized as; Transportation, Land Use, Environmental Services, Public Safety and Criminal Justice, Human Services and Cultural. Environmental Services encompassed water supply and quality, sanitary sewers, storm water and drainage management and solid waste. Cultural was confined to parks and recreation, convention, trade and spectator facilities and libraries. 2
144 Five basic questions were applied to each subject area: 1. Is there a need for regional cooperation? 2. Are there incentives/disincentives to cooperation? 3. What kind of cooperation is needed? 4. Is there a process or forum that aids or promotes cooperation? 5. Are there examples of cooperation successes? Failures?
MAJOR FINDINGS The civic infrastructure needed over the next 20 years to serve nearly one-half million additional persons in the region will require coordinated, cooperative planning and large public capital investment. Oregon and the region have lav;s, requirements, processes and structural tools envied by most metropolitan areas that constructively guide land use planning and the provision of other basic urban services. The most effective incentive for jurisdictions to cooperate and plan together is funding that is only available through a coordinated consensus building process and agreements between participating jurisdictions. Legal mandates requirements and formal structures and processes are more effective incentives for regional cooperation than informal structures or voluntary cooperation. They stay in place even though the actors may change. Regional cooperation, if it is not driven by law or formal structures, is most likely dependent upon other factors such as crisis, public pressure, media pressure, political or community leadership or a combination thereof. The cooperative regional planning process should be the vehicle for enlarging the regional consciousness of elected officials, community leaders and the citizenry. TRANSPORTATION FINDINGS The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) is 3
145 the principal forum for regional transportation planning and is composed of public officials and agency representatives from throughout the region. Success in establishing regional priorities is attributable to JPACT's status as the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) through which federal highway funds are distributed. It is a formal structure that brings all key regional players to the table and requires that a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) be produced by consensus. The resulting plan must be approved by the Metro Council. The JPACT challenge for the future, in the face of greatly diminished federal funds, is to successfully develop state and local funding mechanisms to pay for improvements necessary to keep pace with regional transportation needs. Over the next 10 years the need is estimated at two billion dollars against estimated available funding of one billion dollars. While JPACT is the ultimate determiner of the RTP, the open process of discussion and debate regarding alternatives and jurisdictional preferences plays out at the local level and is susceptible to local pressures. JPACT deliberations are greatly aided by the presence of a highly regarded professional technical planning staff at METRO which serves JPACT. JPACT is regarded as a model vehicle for obtaining regional cooperation. JPACT's past success was aided by the large amount of federal dollars its members shared through consensus. It remains to be seen if cooperation will continue strong if and when federal dollars become less and less available. RECOMMENDATIONS -That transportation planning be better coordinated with regional land use planning, regional parks planning and the present review of the urban growth boundary. -That transportation dedicated dollars required by the region be produced by strategies, fees and taxes that are equitably borne by system users and that provide incentives to reduce one- passenger auto use, particularly during "rush" hours.
LAND USE FINDINGS Oregon and the region have land use planning tools that are tough and unique. These include, statutory requirements, state wide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), the Metropolitan Boundary Commission and the 4
146 Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) management process. State law mandates coordination, if not cooperation ,among cities and counties which are required to develop their individual comprehensive plans in consultation with other affected agencies, districts and local governments. Far less controllable because it lies beyond the jurisdiction of the region or Oregon is Clark County, Washington. With one-sixth of the region's population and a larger proportion of its developable land, Clark County has no requirement that its zoning comply with its comprehensive plan or even that it adopt a comprehensive plan. Examples of regional problems include: -The existence of a large number of single purpose special districts. -Even though the UGB is estimated to yet contain a 20 year supply of residential and industrial land, that supply is not equitably distributed among political jurisdictions within the boundary and there is conflict between the "have" and the "have not communities ". -Controversy continues over construction of denser housing Some local governments turn down developments that comply with their own land use plans. It is not uncommon for low density units to be built first and for hi density multiple unit housing plans to then be stopped by local opposition. Some areas are underbuilt compared to earlier comprehensive plan expectations.
RECOMMENDATIONS -Refinement of land use tools -Increased coordination of local land use plans to meet growing demand for employment, housing, transportation, recreation and public services and facilities fueled by anticipated regional growth. -Introduction of growth management policies in Clark County, Washington. -Tax base sharing among communities within the UGB should be explored as a way to channel growth without penalizing communities that cannot or should not sustain further development. -Improved regional housing planning and possible refinement of the Metropolitan Housing Rule.
147 -Agreement between cities in establishing their respective urban service boundaries within the UGB, notably Portland, Beaverton and Hillsboro which have competing annexation objectives. -Improved county efforts to limit low density housing sprawl outside the UGB. -Increased regional planning, including new legal and fiscal arrangements to ensure: A regional economic development strategy that preserves and prioritizes the servicing of regionally significant industrial and commercial areas. The preservation of a regional system of open space, wetlands and regional recreation areas. The protection of regional environmental resources. Forthright resolution of the question about whether city annexation, raulti purpose special districts, county service districts or some combination will be the vehicle for providing urban services to all lands within the UGB.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WATER FINDINGS Water issues encompass supply, potability (quality), waste disposal (sanitary and storm sewer) and drainage management. The high cost of implementing improvements necessary to deliver and manage water services provides strong incentive for regional cooperation. The region's water is supplied through the Bull Run Watershed and the Clackamas and Tualatin Rivers. Bull Run is the largest and most reliable, self-renewing source, has a flow approximately four times greater than presently needed, and serves as many customers outside the City of Portland as it does inside. The Tualatin River has quality problems, exacerbated by draw-down in summer months. The Clackamas River is oversubscribed. If every entity that has water rights were to exercise those rights, the flow would not be adequate. Expansion plans over the three source water basins will 6
148 necessitate a better understanding of what areas will be served by existing water suppliers. Water providers drawing from the Clackamas River basin are the least coordinated and should formalize coordinative efforts. Factors tending to encourage regional cooperation include: New federal drinking water standards under the Safe Water Drinking Act will be implemented over next few years and are expected to require extensive capital improvements for most water systems. Those costs may drive smaller providers out of business or be a catalyst for consolidations or cost sharing arrangements. The State Water Resources Department is developing new administrative rules to implement the State Water Resources Program as well as developing a series of river basin management plans. Compliance will compel improved coordination. RECOMMENDATIONS -Portland, to capture and store more of the available Bull Run . flow, must determine the size and demand of its regional customer base before investing in conduit and added storage capacity. -Clackamas River based water systems needs to be better coordinated. -Establish a formal forum for coordinating all water providers in the region. -Coordinate the review of water provider's emergency plans to better address impacts of a sudden interruption of water supply and alternative sources of supply. -The region's water providers essentially deliver on class of water—potable. As costs rise, providers should investigate supplying a lower class of water that draws directly from the source for agricultural, irrigation and industrial use.
SANITARY SEWERS FINDINGS The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) recently initiated a program to set Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for pollutant discharges for each river in the region which has been designated as "water quality limited." The result has been accelerated cooperation. Tualatin River limits have led to a cooperative planning effort among jurisdictions to clean-up the Tualatin Basin. Overall coordination of sewer services in the region is 7
149 formalized in the Regional Wastewater Management Plan (208 Plan) mandated by Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972. Al jurisdictions involved in the collection and treatment of sewage are members of an advisory board that meets at least annually to coordinate the 208 Plan which is reviewed annually and adopted by Metro. Federal funding is only granted for projects that are in compliance with the 208 Plan.' Federal funds have diminished in recent years but federal and state regulations remain in place. STORM WATER/DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT FINDINGS The only major historic provider of drainage services is Multnomah County Drainage District #1 serving the Columbia South Shore area. The United Sewerage Agency (USA) received authority from the 1989 legislature to become the surface water management authority for urban Washington County. This authority will become effective July 1, 1990. The Clean Water Act of 1987 established a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit process to reduce pollutants entering the river system from storm water systems and other sources. Metro prepared a Regional Stormwater Management Plan in 1982 which was incorporated as a component of the 208 Plan and is designated as the lead agency in planning and managing the storm water system for the region. Individual cities and counties are designated as the implementing agencies for the plan. Regional cooperation will be driven by mandated water quality standards proposed in new federal rules as storm water discharges are subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits process. RECOMMENDATIONS -There is no regional forum for cooperation and coordination of storm water and drainage management. There should be. -The Regional Stormwater Management Plan needs updating. Metro has begun the process. -Drainage management should be coordinated with planning for wetlands preservation.
8
ISO SOLID WASTE FINDINGS Regional responsibility for Solid Waste Management lies with Metro. Metro is building a waste disposal system composed of transfer and recycling centers to serve regional waste sheds, has contracted for 20 years of landfill capacity out of the region and a transport system to move waste to the landfill site. A composting plant to reduce tonnage to be transported and landfilled is also under contract. The solid waste disposal system is paid for through tipping fees charged at Metro controlled facilities.
Opposition over some ten years to any and all sites proposed by Metro or the DEQ as a replacement for the 60 year old St. Johns Landfill ultimately forced Metro to select an out-of-region site, where local government welcomed the landfill, as the clock ran out on St. Johns. Recycling, now at 26%, is targeted to increase to 52%. Cities and counties are mandated by EPA and DEQ regulations to develop recycling programs. Garbage service is provided by private haulers throughout the region which increases the difficulty of implementing recycling programs. Source separated collection of recyclables is received with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Households, and business participation remains voluntary and the market for recyclable material is not stable which further diminishes hauler incentive and impacts collection costs.
Portland haulers number approximately 100 and range from very small to large size operations. Companies compete for customers and smaller companies particularly feel vulnerable to unfair competitive practices. The difficulties described will continue as long as the present collection system continues. While haulers must now pick-up source (household) separated recyclable at the curb, Metro continues to build transfer and recycling centers that anticipate the need to separate out recyclable materials.
Local jurisdictions are involved in the siting of major solid waste facilities. To date, all sitings have been completed with the exception of a transfer and recycling center in Washington County. Washington County has opted to explore two or more medium sized facilities rather than one of larger size. RECOMMENDATIONS
-Resolution of Washington County siting of transfer and recycling station or stations to complete the regional system of solid waste transfer and recycling centers within each regional wasteshed. 9
151 -Some form of municipal or regional regulation of the waste hauling industry that is equitable, fair to private haulers, promotes the attainment of the regional recycling goal of 52% and resolves the separation of recylables problem. -Explore increase strategies to market and demand for recycled products that provide economic incentives, reduce waste and conserve resources.
-Better governmental processes for siting major, necessary public facilities that are generally considered undesirable by local communities.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Components of the Criminal Justice system include law enforcement and police dispatch, courts and courts process, corrections (jails, restitution centers, prisoner transport) and parole and probation. A change in one component can have great impact on other parts of the system.
Nationally and locally there is no agreement on the goal of the criminal justice "system". Punishment, rehabilitation, prevention and victims' rights compete for resources. The citizens view is much conditioned by perceptions of how safe their area and their streets are. LAW ENFORCEMENT FINDINGS Law enforcement remains essentially local. Cooperation among police forces is traditional where criminal activities are concerned and, for the most part, voluntary and informal. Within Multnomah County, law enforcement agencies receive central dispatch through the 911 system. Police agencies can listen to each other and conduct joint operations. Portland voters recently approved a $7.5 million bond measure for enhanced 911 which instantly registers the callers's name, address, telephone number and street map routing to the location. Clackamas County has enhanced 911 in operation. Washington County does not.
There is no coordinated regional plan for 911 emergency dispatch. Particular problems exist in the margins. Washington County residents may have Portland addresses and Multnomah County telephone prefixes.
10
152 COURTS FINDINGS
Circuit and District Courts are part of a state system, operated in Multnomah County by the state and in Washington and Clackamas Counties under the administrative control of the county. Although constrained by many state statutes and oversight by the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, each county circuit court and each county district court in general develops its own administrative rules and docketing procedures which differ.
Citizen demand for an impartial and elected judiciary and the latitude of practice that comes with that choice, produces procedural variances that are difficult to integrate and likely to continue, even though those differences may contribute to added cost, slowed processing and added confusion to the defense bar and defendants. Standardization in rules and procedures depends greatly upon voluntary cooperation between the courts of the three counties. There is no apparent public pressure for change.
CORRECTIONS FINDINGS Corrections system components are operated in each county under the jurisdiction of the county sheriffs office. Regional cooperation exists informally and voluntarily. Offenders may move between jails for security reasons. Jail commanders communicate regularly on matters of space. There is one juvenile facility in the region. It is operated by Multnomah County. Washington and Clackamas County have boarding arrangements in lieu of their own facilities. Restitution (work release) centers are operated by each county, but without cooperative space sharing arrangements. Available space is held for each county's clients. Offenders may take-up bed space in jail even though restitution beds may be unoccupied in another county.
PAROLE AND PROBATION FINDINGS
Regional cooperation within the parole and probation system is minimal. Structures in the three counties do not mesh well. Operating under option 1 of the State Community Corrections Act, Washington and Clackamas Counties supply parole and probation services to all misdemeanant and felons under the jurisdiction of a Community Corrections Director serving at the pleasure of their 11
15 3 respective county board of commissioners. Multnomah County operates under Option 2, whereby the County Community Corrections Department provides misdemeanant services while the State Department of Corrections provides services to felons. County managers tend to see their county board of commissioners and their local judges as their principle clients while state managers view Department of Corrections Administrators as their principle clients.
Procedures followed to transfer cases that live in a different county than the one in which they were adjudicated are cumbersome. RECOMMENDATIONS -Regional law enforcement agencies should jointly explore ways to improve information sharing via computerized crime incident reporting and innovative use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
-There is no coordinated regional plan for 911 emergency dispatch. Such planning should be formally initiated to include Clark County, Washington. Jurisdictional, technical, procedural questions need answer before each county's individual plans are locked-down to assure maximum compatibility between systems covering different geographic areas. -County courts should explore the feasibility and wisdom of standardization of rules and procedures. -Corrections administrators and counties should explore space sharing arrangements and other ways to maximize use of work release beds.
-County parole and probation structures and headships should be standardized or otherwise improved to promote uniform system policies and objectives within the three counties.
HUMAN SERVICES FINDINGS Human Services is a term that is generally applied to public and private organizations providing programs that attempt to identify, treat, prevent or respond to the divers needs of those who are medically indigent, mentally ill, physically disabled, under-trained, unemployed, homeless, chemically dependant, abused, or otherwise requiring assistance. Many present and potential human services clients have needs or problems that are multi-dimensional and inter-disciplinary.
12
154 Across the broad range of the many private and usually small service providers, there is no overall responsibility for results analysis and minimal ability to measure results or to form "system" priorities by which to coordinate resources. United Way is a coordinating body for its member agencies, but a proliferation of separate and competing fund drives tends to further fragmentize the planning and delivery of human services. Human services are structured differently among the three urban counties which bear governmental responsibility for delivery of health and human services. Resources are ever-scarce and the situation has worsened over the past decade as federal and state dollars have been reduced. De-emphasis on institutionalization at the state level has added to the after-care burden at the local level. Counties compete for their fair share of scarce state funding and have different priorities. Multnomah County, for example, has a higher incidence of urban problems, such as homelessness. There is no regional forum to address human services delivery. Eligibility requirements for service are not uniform or consistent among either public or private agencies. Clients with obvious need may go without service. The "system" is not well suited to serve clients with a history of erratic or violent behavior or who exhibit those tendencies. Cooperative successes are of limited scale. A three county advisory group meets to allocate homeless funding. The three counties coordinate referrals to homeless and domestic violence shelters. Technical assistance is provided primarily by Multnomah County to Washington and Clackamas County health departments and Community Action staffs work together in the three counties. Multnomah County operates a drug purchase "coop" that provides supplies at reduced cost to public and private programs. Sub system forums comprised of specific human service specialties, often professional associations, do serve as trainers, information networks and, to some degree, planners of service delivery. RECOMMENDATIONS -That human services providers, public and private, cooperate within a formal forum or framework to measure service demand and assess results as a basis for planning and setting priorities. -If the above is too difficult a task given the wide variety of human services, dividing their number into rational sub-systems 13
155 initially may be more practical. -State funding formulas and requirements for human service delivered through Multnoraah, Clackamas and Washington Counties may be inappropriate or otherwise not attuned to needs and problems of the metropolitan region and should be reviewed by a legislative committee. -Eligibility requirement should be reviewed by counties and private agencies to accommodate particularly high risk and emotionally unstable potential clients, either through admissions or referral to immediate care or attention.
PARKS AND RECREATION FINDINGS Readily accessible, well-placed and spaced, local and regional parks and open space systems enhance the metropolitan area's quality of life, add to the set of factors that attract employers to the region and enhance property values. Transportation planning, water management planning and commercial and residential development have not consistently or closely accommodated parks planning processes. Further delay in planning park needs in rapid growth portions of the region risks loss of opportunity to acquire suitable lands for local parks systems or regional parks and natural areas. Under Metro's coordinating auspices, a "Parks and Natural Areas Planning Program" involving some 60 parks professionals from throughout the region, together with state and federal agencies, interest organizations, and parks advocates have been meeting to inventory parks in the region and plan for the future. The program has resulted in an aerial photography project to which many jurisdiction contributed funds. The photo mosaic allows planners to identify lands suitable for inclusion in a regional system of natural areas, wetlands, wildlife corridors and loop trail systems. Acquisition of new parks lands in parks-poor areas within city and county local parks systems is not taking place on a consistent, planned basis. A major opportunity for cooperation lies in planning and coordinating the identification, acquisition and preservation of land parcels throughout the region that are not now under the control or protection of any governmental jurisdiction.
14
156 RECOMMENDATIONS -Completion of the 40-mile loop and the addition of appropriate natural areas, wetlands, wildlife corridors and loop trail systems into a regional plan should be high regional priorities. That effort ties logically with the region-wide review of the Urban Growth Boundary. -Funding for a coordinated regional system as described above should include a region-wide tax base and/or regional parks authority. -Comprehensive land use plans, transportation planning, water management planning and regional parks planning are intertwined and overlapping. Each of these planning areas impact the others and their processes should be coordinated. This is especially true at this time as the region conducts a review of the Urban Growth Boundary.
CONVENTION TRADE AND SPECTATOR FACILITIES FINDINGS Major convention, trade and spectator facilities across the country are rarely profit centers in and of themselves. Competition for attractions, conventions and major league teams is growing. These urban amenities enhance city and regional reputations and thereby contribute to economic health and prosperity by their power to attract visitors and local users. Use, attendance and benefits extend to the region as a whole and not just to the immediate area in which they may be located. Such facilities require a broad tax base for their operational support. Regional support for the Oregon Convention Center was demonstrated by voter support of the Metro bond measure which, together with lottery funding, paid for its construction. A Metropolitan Exposition-Recreation Commission (MERC) was established by Metro which appoints members representing Metro, the City of Portland and Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington Counties. Subsequently, negotiations between Portland and Metro resulted in an Intergovernmental Agreement that places City facilities (Memorial Coliseum, Stadium, Civic Auditorium and Performing Arts Complex) under the operational management of the MERC, a major cooperative accomplishment. A Multnomah County hotel/motel tax supports the marketing and operation of the convention center. The Metro Washington Park Zoo represents another major cooperative success that transitioned from a second class city 15
157 zoo to a first class regional tax supported attraction that serves some one million annual visitors and has achieved a national reputation. RECOMMENDATIONS -Exploration of a regional tax base to support operation of all regional convention, trade and spectator facilities. This objective is dependent upon the Metropolitan E-R Commission's ability to demonstrate its stature as a truly regional commission that effectively plans for the siting of new and replacement facilities. -Conclusion of negotiations between the City of Portland and Metro to implement phase two of facilities consolidation which goes beyond day-to-day operational management and facilitates the actual transfer of title and assets to the Metropolitan E-R Commission. -A stable funding source for the Metro Washington Park Zoo that replaces dependence upon the serial levy every three to five years. LIBRARIES FINDINGS The primary function of a public library is to select, organize and maintain collections of print and non-print materials in which the knowledge, ideas and experiences of humankind are recorded and to provide open and uniform access to that information. The quality of libraries in the region is uneven. Local city systems, such as Hillsboro and Lake Oswego, do a credible and conscientious job of serving their own citizens with traditional materials such as books and periodicals. The Multnomah County Library is the region's largest system with an imposing main library and multiple branches. In addition to books and periodicals, the main library contains extensive research materials, videos, records, tapes, art reproductions and specialty items not available from smaller systems.
Consolidation of library systems or restructuring library governance is secondary to developing workable, interacting systems and networks. New "information age" technologies, fiscal constraints and the need for public access to an exploding volume of print and non- print material are factors that make cooperation and collaboration essential. There is little apparent public awareness or pressure to improve 16 library services or to motivate library professionals to seek cooperative objectives. RECOMMENDATIONS -Chief librarians or representatives of each library jurisdiction should establish a regular forum to discuss modes of cooperation and long term agreements regarding system-wide access to library services. Such a forum should assure that technological (computer) systems that have been and will be acquired are compatible to facilitate a high degree of inter-action, materials sharing and improved public access. -Include representatives of the library resources of large business firms, colleges and universities in the process of planning for a complete and state-of-the-art regional system of library services. -Explore greater access to the collective material of the region's libraries through such innovations as placing computer- terminals in shopping malls, community centers and schools.
IN CONCLUSION The accelerating pressures of population growth upon urban services across the metropolitan region will increase the need for regional cooperation. The good news is that the region is not operating from a crisis situation. The bad news is that across the urban American landscape we see metropolitan area after metropolitan area that did not or could not shake its complacency or act in time to implement sound, cooperative planning in advance of emerging crisis. There is no guarantee that this region's political and community leaders or its citizens will not make the same mistake. Oregon and the region have developed many of the tools necessary to deal with major urban problems. Refinement to improve them should continue. Financing of the regions urban services requirements and desirable urban amenities must be equitably spread among users. Innovative taxing vehicles will be needed. The property tax is judged to have nearly reached its limit. Urban priorities must be reasonable to citizens who pay for them.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The committee is indebted to the considerable number of knowledgeable person with expertise in various subject areas who agreed to appear, present their views and openly respond to 17
159 questioning. It was apparent during this process that the need for and the acceptance of cooperative regional planning as the mechanism for finding solutions for urban problems and issues is growing and will continue as successes accumulate. The committee's work was also aided by a sub committee process that resulted in individual subject area reports which were subsequently critiqued by the committee of the whole and distilled into this report card on regional cooperation.
CORE COMMITTEE Ned Look, Chair Chris Beck Elaine Cogan Larry Conrad Kim Duncan John Gould Dan Howe Sy Kornbrodt John Lang Ted Meece Don Rocks Alfred Siddall Bob Stacey Ardis Stevenson Don Williams
18
160 ADDENDUM REGIONAL COOPERATION COMMITTEE
The attached rankings represent the committee's attempt to compare "cooperation factors", as we see them, across the subject areas we addressed. Our thought and intent was to simply identify where cooperation factors were strong, in our opinion, and where they are little evident or only marginally effective. The committee would highlight the most critical areas addressed as Transportation, Land Use, Water Management, Human Services and Justice Services (law enforcement, courts, corrections, dispatch and parole and probation). Less critical and therefore potentially less of a problem to the metropolitan region and its citizens, or at least less far reaching, we would place Solid Waste and those urban services or amenities we labelled Cultural (convention, trade & spectator facilities, parks and recreation and libraries).
FIRST TIER Transportation: Cooperation Factors are strongly in evidence and effective. Identification as critical is largely based upon the 35-38% population growth projections over the next two decades. The issues have been identified,the region is beginning to deal with local funding requirements and decisions and improvement can be reasonably expected. Land Use; Identified as of critical concern for the same set of reasons associated with Transportation. Land use plans do exist jurisdiction by jurisdiction, but they are not particularly well coordinated effectively across the region at this time.
As a region, we plan quite well. The plans, however, are only as good as the implementation strategy. More emphasis needs to be placed upon incentives that can move well laid land use plans from paper to reality.
Water: Again, Water Management across the board is also impacted by population growth. The second major factor driving water management costs are federal water quality requirements.
The community of water professionals is cognizant of the problems, has increased its cooperative momentum to resolve them and can be expected, with ongoing prodding by elected officials, to bring forth cooperative plans for managing water across the region.
Human Services: A healthy economic society carries with it the promise and the opportunity for its members to hope, to dream and
161 to achieve reasonable goals. The governmental, not for profit and charitable, structures available to provide human services are little coordinated, underfunded and inundated by people and problems associated with poverty, family disintegration, substance abuse, crime, under- education and emotional and mental disorders.
The ability to deal effectively with these and related problems that affect large numbers of our citizens is critical if those in need of help are to participate in the American dream at any productive level.
Criminal Justice System: The reality and citizen perception of the incidence and severity of crime remains high and is not diminishing. Regional cooperation exists in many day-to-day operational details between and among jurisdictions. Agency and citizen pressures have combined to increase jail beds from the state level down. That limited response, however, is not adequate to reverse the tide and crime and its social and economic consequences remain problematic and ill-addressed in any cohesive, effective fashion.
SECOND TIER Solid Waste; The regional solid waste system encompassing disposal, recycling and waste reduction has a well-functioning focal point of responsibility. Facilities adequate to the regional need for the next several decades are either in place, under construction, on the drawing board, or in the planning stage. Controversy and discussion accompanying the process will continue, but the situation is not critical in terms of the region's ability to deal effectively with solid waste associated problems.
Convention. Trade & Spectator Facilities: The principal CTS facilities within the region are now operated by a Metropolitan Exposition- Recreation Commission that will increasingly broaden its scope to encompass the entire metropolitan area.
The commission's effectiveness must yet be proven and a regional constituency must be nurtured, but the forum is in place.
Parks and Recreation: At the regional level a constituency has been recently enlarged and activated and cooperative plans to identify and acquire regionally significant natural areas and wetlands holds real potential for success.
A heightened regional awareness of large population growth and land development over the next twenty years gives added impetus to the process and increased citizen receptivity to preserving and enhancing the region's quality of life and livability.
162 Libraries: The region's library systems are generally functioning well and funded at reasonable levels that assure their continuance if not their expansion. In the absence of pressure to maximize cooperation in the form of service agreements and compatible automated systems, improvements are not likely to be realized unless library professionals themselves unite to set and implement these objectives.
163 Transportation Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding
Legislation/Mandated Cooperation
Formal Structure
Crisis
Public Pressure
Media Pressure
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation) 16 Total
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
164 Land Use Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding.
Legislation/Mandated Cooperation.
Formal Structure
Crisis.
Public Pressure.
Media Pressure.
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation). 12 Total.
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
165 Water Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding
Legislation/Mandated Cooperation
Formal Structure
Crisis
Public Pressure
Media Pressure
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation)
Total
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
166 Sanitary Sewer Cooperation Factors
2 Cooperation Required for Funding.. 3 Legislation/Mandated Cooperation.
Forma! Structure
Crisis
Public Pressure.
Media Pressure.
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation). 11 Total.
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
167 Storm Water (Drainage Mgmt.) Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding..
Legislation/Mandated Cooperation.
Formal Structure
Crisis.
Public Pressure.
Media Pressure.
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation).
Total.
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
168 Solid Waste Cooperation Factors
o Cooperation Required for Funding 3 Legislation/Mandated Cooperation
Formal Structure
Crisis
Public Pressure
Media Pressure
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation) 15 Total
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
169 Law Enforcement Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding
Legislation/Mandated Cooperation
Formal Structure
Crisis
Public Pressure
Media Pressure
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation)
Total 13
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
170 Courts Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding
Legislation/^/landated Cooperation
Formal Structure
Crisis
Public Pressure
Media Pressure
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation)
Total
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
171 Corrections Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding.
Legislation/Mandated Cooperation.
Formal Structure.
Crisis.
Public Pressure.
Media Pressure.
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation). 13 Total.
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
1 7? Parlole and Probation Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding
Legislation/Mandated Cooperation
Formal Structure
Crisis
Public Pressure
Media Pressure
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation)
Total
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
173 Dispatch Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding
Legislation/Mandated Cooperation
Formal Structure
Crisis
Public Pressure
Media Pressure
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation)
Total
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
174 Human Services Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding
Legislation/^/landated Cooperation
Formal Structure
Crisis
Public Pressure
Media Pressure
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation)
Total
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
175 Convention Trade & Spectator Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding..
Legislation/Mandated Cooperation.
Formal Structure
Crisis.
Public Pressure.
Media Pressure.
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation).
Total. 15
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
176 Parks and Recreation Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding
Legislation/Mandated Cooperation
Formal Structure
Crisis
Public Pressure
Media Pressure
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation)
Total
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
177 Libraries Cooperation Factors
Cooperation Required for Funding
Legislation/Mandated Cooperation
Formal Structure
Crisis
Public Pressure
Media Pressure
Leadership (Voluntary Cooperation)
Total
Legend: 3 = High Presence 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = Absence
178 COMMITTEE REPORT
ON
INTERGROUP RELATIONS
February 14, 1990
" In the Portland area, we have grown so much, with so much diversity that we do not understand or appreciate, there is reason to believe we may have lost touch with who we are as a comnunity."
"...The implicit and explicit requirements for social and civic participation maintained by the majority Anglo-American world view represents a barrier to effective intergroup relations.
"...The incidence of racism, conflict and hate crimes will most likely increase."
" — It is participation in the process that leads to change, not reporting the results and recommendations to social and civic leaders."
Conmittee Members; Michael Conner, Psy.D Milt Markewitz Jeff Bornefeld Mary Ann Buchanan Cynthia Hopson 179 INTERGROUP RELATIONS
Introduction
A community's self-analysis of Intergroup Relations is one component of the Civic Index process. According to the National Civic League,
"A community must have strong leaders, from all sectors, who are able to work together with informed, involved citizens to reach consensus on those strategic issues that face the community and the region around it."
In addition,
"The degree to which different "solidarity' groups co-exist in relative harmony and cooperate in resolving shared problems is an essential measure of group success."
A community's civic infrastructure is a principle vehicle in this regard. With
"... more diversity and increasing change comes an increasing need for communication and appreciation of needs and diversity."
In general, an effective civic infrastructure provides for the identification, expression and resolution of conflict as well as strategic community problems while providing for continued and expanded civic participation in that process. At the same time, communities must insure that all groups have the skills and opportunities to become actively and effectively involved.
180 INTERGROUP RELATIONS page 3
The Diversity of Social and Civic Interest Groups
In Portland and the surrounding communities there exist an undetermined number of social and civic groups. There is more diversity than most of us realize or understand. How each "group", and their various subgroups, "handle" their social and civic agenda as well as their responsibilities will vary to a large extent. Social and civic interest groups can be identified on the basis of at least the following variables:
public private profit nonprofit geographic
economic social occupational racial ethnic
health age political religious sexual
Seven Leading Indicators of "Effective' Intergroup Relations
In order to appreciate and foster "effective" intergroup relations, it can helpful to examine intergroup relations in terms of leading indicators. Seven indicators were derived from the National Civic League publication "The Civic Index - A New Approach For Community Life". Several experts in cross cultural psychology were consulted regarding the use and limitations of these indicators.
The seven leading indicators are:
1. The group's capacity to identify and express their social and civic interest.
2. The extent to which group activity provides for peer modeling, enhancement of esteem and pride.
3. The group's capacity to foster leadership and corrmunication skills within their group.
4. The group's capacity to expand participation in their social or civic interest.
5. The extent to which the group's interaction with other groups leads to the identification of common social and civic interests.
6. The extent to which the group's interaction with other groups leads to the expression, mediation and resolution of conflict.
7. The extent to which the group's interaction with other groups leads to a productive change in tension.
181 INTERGROUP RELATIONS page 4
Interview/Survey. We assumed, for the purpose of gathering preliminary information, that knowledgeable people who are active within a "group" will have the best information regarding intergroup relations. A person-to-person survey of social and civic groups was conducted. Knowledgeable people were interviewed regarding the following groups: Black/African Americans Asians Youth Gangs Hispanic Native Americans Chronically Mentally 111 Homeless Law Enforcement Senior Citizens Gay/Lesbian
An interview form (Figure 1) was developed based on the leading indicators identified using a National Civic League Publication. We fully recognize the survey format represents a majority ethnocentric view of what constitutes "effective" intergroup relation. It is essential to recognize that an Anglo-American majority view of what reflects effective intergroup relations is not shared or considered desirable by all groups. It does indicate areas in which intergroup relations will be impaired as well as identify where that view of the world is not shared by others.
Additional Interviews Knowledgeable people in the Portland Public School system and the Metropolitan Human Relations Commission were interviewed regarding intergroup relations and multi-cultural and multi-ethnic social and education programs. These interviews were brief and very limited.
1 R? IOTERGROUP RELATIONS page 5
Figure 1,
Interview/Group:
If you were to estimate your knowledge of this group, would you say you
Have Minimal Knowledgeable Have Moderate Knowledge Have Substantial Knowledge 1 2 3
What do you feel this group is most proud of and what do you feel this group has to offer the community and other social or civic groups?
To what extent does this group demonstrate the ability:
... to identify and express their social or civic interest?
Serious Difficulty Difficulty Adequate Ability Outstanding Ability 12 3 4
Comments:
...to provide peer modeling, enhancement of group-esteem and pride.
Serious Difficulty Difficulty Adequate Ability Outstanding Ability 12 3 4
Comments:
.. to foster leadership and communication skills within their group.
Serious Difficulty Difficulty Adequate Ability Outstanding Ability 12 3 4
Comments:
183 INTERGROUP RELATIONS page 6
Figure 1. (cont.)
To what extent does this group demonstrate the ability:
... to expand participation in their social or civic interests.
Serious Difficulty Difficulty Adequate Ability Outstanding Ability 12 3 4
Comnents:
.. to identify cannon social or civic interests with other groups.
Serious Difficulty Difficulty Adequate Ability Outstanding Ability 12 3 4
Comnents:
.. to express, mediate and resolve conflict.
Serious Difficulty Difficulty Adequate Ability Outstanding Ability 12 3 4
Comments:
to interact with other groups in such a manner that it leads to productive change in tension.
Serious Difficulty Difficulty Adequate Ability Outstanding Ability 12 3 4
Comments:
In. INTERGROUP RELATIONS page 7
Summary of Preliminary Findings
Caution:
The following sumrary reflects work-in-progress and is not complete. In addition, our investigation is not comprehensive. The range of group diversity and issues are larger and more complex than most of us realize. We have concluded that we must be very cautious about what we can say about intergroup relations in our community.
Criticism:
An accurate assessment of Intergroup Relations requires a comprehensive and extended commitment of resources and leadership. A "grass roots" and volunteer effort is not adequate and possibly misleading. It will be viewed, by some, as yet another stereotyping or patronizing activity.
Benchmark Telephone Survey of 400 Portland Area Residents:
The people interviewed were evenly divided on whether ethnic and race relations have improved or deteriorated in the past 5 years.
Three quarters (3/4) of those surveyed felt that minorities are treated fairly or very fairly.
Three quarters (3/4) of those surveyed felt that race relations are as good as other American cities.
Portland's Metropolitan Human Relations Commission:
The Metropolitan Human Relations Commission (MHRC) appears to be a principle organization which evaluates, promotes and facilitates more effective intergroup relations.
The foreground issues appear to be: - MHRC appears to be understaffed and lacks adequate resources to meet existing community demand. - MHRC is recognized and valued by those groups we have interviewed.
185 INTERGROUP RELATIONS page 8
Multi-cultural and Multi-ethnic Education (Portland Public Schools):
Multi-cultural and multi-ethnic education in the public school system does provide a limited curriculum regarding global and social issues, but it does not focuses on intergroup relations in terms of community interactions.
The foreground issues appear to be: - Parents instill their attitudes and their sense humanity in their children and youth. Teachers can reinforce this, but rarely modify that basic view of the world. - Educational curriculum is designed to expose students to a global perspective on multi-cultural and multi-ethnic issues. - There is no curriculum designed to address those factors which enhance intergroup relations at a cannunity level. - For the most part, a large majority of teachers have the same ethnocentric world view and are not prepared to facilitate an ethnorelative view of the world (by modeling or direct education).
Racism:
Portland is reportedly a racist community. Overt racism is not pervasive and reportedly no worse than other cities of comparable size and socioeconomic history. The pervasive forms of racism are reportedly subtle, unconscious and are perceived as oppressive by minority groups. For the most part, racism in our community can be traced to at least two factors.
- Perceptions we inherited by our forefathers and peers which are maintained by lack of education, a lack of confrontation, and lack of exposure to other cultures and ethnic values. - Increasing misperceptions based on recent crime, drug use and youth gang activity.
It is very likely that conflict, racism and the incidence of hate crimes will increase.
186 INTERGROUP RELATIONS page 9
Community View on Intergroup Relations:
Surprisingly, Youth Gangs tend to think in terms of intergroup relation (but negative).
Racial and ethnic groups are focused less on intergroup social issues and tend to focus primarily on their own civic agenda as well as their own group-government relations.
The ethnic and racial groups identified in this survey (and generally the members of this committee) were very focused on promoting their groups agenda. A significant number of social and civic leaders initially demonstrated interest in participating on this committee and never returned. When the many of the remaining committee members accomplished their agenda, or became frustrated in accomplishing their agenda, they no longer participated in the process. We feel this reflects our comnunity in some way. We observed that a significant number of people on this committee were impatient and/or lacked confidence in the process as presented to the committee. Others reported they were overextended.
The groups identified in this survey (and members of this committee) were generally not aware of differences and commonalities in the world view of other groups. Examples: - Socio-centric vs ego-centric - Extended vs unextended nature of families. - Expression of conflict vs cooperation and consensus building (conflict avoidance). - Linear categorical thinking vs holistic non-categorical.
187 INTERGROUP RELATIONS page 10
A Limited Summary of Finding
Black/African American:
Individuals surveyed expressed pride in the advancements made through the Black/African American movement, the Black Church, and pride in the extended nature of families.
The foreground issues appear to be: - Equality. - The acquisition/redistribution of political and economic power. - Power concedes nothing with out demand. - "Reportedly, Anglo-American people are consciously or unconsciously racist."
In general, there appears to be adequate to outstanding leadership and communication within Black/African American communities and organization.
It appears very likely that conflict (a result of the surfacing or creation of racism) between Black/African American and Anglo-American groups will increase.
Asian American:
Individuals surveyed expressed pride in their work ethic, commitment to the extended family, and the central role of community values and traditions.
The foreground issues appear to be: - Refugee resettlement. - A strong economic survival ethic. - Bringing Asian groups and generations together. - Establishing trust in light of a history of oppression (e.g. police, government, etc.). - Developing and understanding the role and use of conflict in a westernized society. - Cultural incompatibility and barriers to services, employment and civic activity (e.g. civil service, medical, law enforcement, and education).
Asian groups are making efforts to be more active in the identification and expression of their social and civic interests.
There is much more diversity within this group than most of us realize (e.g. SE Asian, Pacific Rim, refugee, generational effects, etc.) Organizations within Asian communities are attempting to form in order to bring segments of the Asian community together. INTERGROUP RELATIONS page 11
Native American/Indians:
Individuals surveyed expressed pride in their manner of governance and their culture (itself) which are imbeded in tradition, art, music and dance.
The foreground issues appear to be: - Sovereignty and self-determination. - Learning to express and resolve conflict in a westernized bureaucracy. - Addressing the cultural incompatibility (and injustices) when adhering to the majorities' expectations, bureaucracy and administrative requirements. - Reviving and instilling Indian cultural identity.
Native American/Indian leadership is reportedly having difficulty meeting demand for participation in social and civic activities.
Seniors and Elderly:
This group expressed pride in their range of experience and their ability to contribute to society.
The foreground issues appear to be: - Many volunteer opportunities are not meaningful. - Overcoming barriers to participation which include mobility, financial, family responsibilities and bureaucratic. - Overcoming perceptions that seniors and the elderly are impaired or disabled.
There is much greater diversity in the group than most people realize. For the most part, this diversity is based on race, mobility, health, the nature of family systems, and financial status, etc... This diversity is not generally acknowledged or respected by the majority of social and civic leaders. The social and civic issues of the senior, elderly and disabled populations are not the same, nor are the solutions.
Funding and the continuation of the Portland/Mu1tnomah Commission on Aging appears uncertain. It is very likely that elderly citizens may face increasing difficulty maintaining or improving their quality of life.
189 INTERGROUP RELATIONS pago 12
Youth Gangs: Youth gangs provide a sense of identity, belonging through bonding and a (negative) substitute for what they are lacking. The foreground issues appear to be: - The misperception that young people join youth gangs to make money. - The realization that some Youth Gang members may try to walk a "thin line" and try to avoid criminal activity, but are unable because of the nature of gangs. - Prevention and intervention (e.g. focusing of youth, ethnic appropriate family interventions, education, employment, etc.) - Comprehensive and effective drug and alcohol treatment (i.e. not revolving doors that treat symptoms). Youth gangs will continue to have followers and few leaders. Reportedly, two rival Youth Gangs (Black and Asian), temporarily suspended a conflict on the basis of mutual economic issues (e.g. drug and weapons trade). As a community, we have the expertise to deal with the Youth Gang problem (e.g. Youth Gang Task Force, Youth Employment Institute.) There does not appear (as of yet) to be the necessary community resources or comprehensive commitment needed.
Homeless: Being homeless, as well as unable to provide for one's self or family, and becoming dependent of others is a dehumanizing experience. Drugs and alcoholism increasingly lead to unemployment, homelessness, crime, disturbed families, abuse and run-away youth.
The foreground issues appear to be: - Food, shelter, health, employment and dignity. - Community assessment of needs and intervention before the homeless become dehumanized and dependent on the system. - There is no clear solution to deal with the chronically unemployed, mentally ill and homeless.
l qn INTERGROUP RELATIONS page 13
Homeless: (cant.)
Working with any leadership from within the homeless population tends to make our civic and social leaders uncomfortable. The loss of leadership from within the homeless population has had some positive effects regarding recent commitments from business. Bureaucracies and non-profit organizations reportedly prefer to avoid supporting leadership from within the homeless population. Business advocates appear to prefer to remain accountable to their own sense of humanity. The homeless will continue to rely on the community to adequately address their needs. There are organizations which address various aspects of homelessness such as education and employment (e.g. Private Industry Counsel & Youth Employment Institute). The Housing Authority of Portland (HAP) has proposed a framework to coordinate and address the homeless situation in Portland and Multnomah County. There does not appear (as of yet) to be the comprehensive resources or commitment needed.
Law Enforcement (Portland): The Portland Police Bureau will continue to make improvements as it affects their liability and risk management. There appears to be a commitment to community policing and Neighborhood Associations. At the same time there are concerns on the part of some groups that law enforcement not assume the role of an occupying army.
Gay/Lesbian: This group expressed pride in their activism regarding human and civil rights. The foreground issues appear to be: - Aides, health care. - Discrimination. There appears to be inadequate to minimal health and counseling services available for HIV+ and AIDS.
191 INTERGROUP RELATIONS page 14
Mentally 111:
A small group of people expressed pride in their efforts to develop creative support systems.
The foreground issues appear to be: - There is a significant number of mentally ill people who are in distress and do no qualify for meaningful services. - There are significant cultural barriers to mental Health Services. Culturally competent service delivery systems and practitioners are greatly lacking. - There are subtle, but effective barriers to service for people who are dangerous to self and others. - There are subtle, but effective barriers to sex offenders and dangerous people who are seeking (as best they can) assistance in order to not reoffend.
There appears to be a few minor "grass roots" efforts from within the mentally ill population that are attempting to identify and express their social and civic interest to the legislature.
The problems and lack of resources faced by the chronically mentally will continue to grow. They will continue to remain dependent on the community much like the homeless (as many of then are or will be).
Hispanic Americans: INTERGROUP RELATIONS pnqe
Tentative Summary:
A common misconception in Portland is that we live in a mono-cultural community. We increasingly live in a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic community. The implicit and explicit requirements for social and civic participation maintained by the majority Anglo-American world view represents a barrier to effective intergroup relations.
The Anglo-American majority view of intergroup relations in Portland is ethnocentric and not necessarily shared by other cultures.
Improving understanding, appreciation and respect for group differences was an important value to those interviewed.
The incidence of racism, conflict and hate crimes will probably increase. This will come about for a number of plausible reasons, one of which will be increased social and civic activity by racial and ethnic group.
In the Portland area, we have grown so much, with so much diversity, that we may have lost touch with who we are as a community. When a community does not foster the recognition and appreciation of cultural diversity, this will lead to misunderstandings, misdirection of resources, lack of participation and conflict.
Participation in the process of examining intergroup relations will lead to change. Unless social and civic leaders actively participate in a process like this, it is very doubtful that substantial change will occur. It is participation in the process that leads to change, not reporting the results and recommendations to social and civic leaders.
193
CIVIC INDEX SURVEY
RANDOM SAMPLE OF 400
TELEPHONE SURVEY
194
1676D Ques # 1 12 3 4 JW RESEARCH City of Portland
DATE PHONE # INTERVIEWER INTRODUCTION Hello, I'm calling from JW Research. We are conducting an important survey on public attitudes about Portland's future. Do you live in the City of Portland? (IF NO, TERMINATE) Would you be willing to spend about fifteen minutes to help us understand how Portlanders feel about important local issues?
RECORD GENDER Male 5- 1 Female 2 Ql" Do you believe that our Strong vision.. . ^.T 6- l community leaders have a strong Weak vision X^f 2 vision for the future of No vision K 3 Portland, a weak vision for the Don't know 5" 8 city, or no vision at all? No response ^r 9
Q2 What organization or individual 7-8 is doing the best job of putting forth a vision for the city? (PROBE)
Q3 How about problem solving? Is Excellent.. . P. 9- 4 Portland• s leadership doing an Good If 3 excellent, good, fair, or poor Fair i%% 2 job of solving the problems in Poor 3.1. 1 the city? Don't know I 8 No response.. ..' 9
Q4 What organization or individual O«^ t'£*-t-k.- / "?* 10-11 is doing the best job at solving _, the city's problems? Hv o-^y 3-37' •' && ^^ " Q5 When the community must get Excellent.. ,*3 12-4 together to solve problems, is Good A^ 3 it your impression that the Fair .4 &. 2 process we have is excellent, Poor .-V. 1 good, fair or poor? Don't know. . . .•? 8 No response. .. J 9 Q6 I would like to read you two suggestions about the way Portland deals with issues and ask you which is most like what you believe: (ROTATE) A. The city plans carefully and is ready to >-• meet problems when they arise 7. 13- 1 OR B. Nothing happens until there is a crisis and c the city is forced to deal with a problem V. 2 Don' t know 8 No response ~(. . . 9
195 Aidl Q7 Would you say that Portlanders Extremely proud...... 14- 3 are extremely proud, somewhat Somewhat proud $A 2 proud, or not at all proud of Not at all proud....^ 1 their city? Don't know 8 No response 9 Q8 Thinking of the City of Portland, what two things about Portland make you the proudest? (PROBE AND CLARIFY) 15-18 f) ^^ r r-^
Q9 If you could live anywhere you Stay ^ft7? 19- 1 wished, would you stay in Move .3 9.1°. 2 Portland, or move away? Don • t know /. 7? 8 No response 9 Q10 How would you rank Portland's One ?. 20-21 01 quality of life on a scale of Two 02 one to ten, with one being the Three.... 03 lowest and ten the highest? Four 04 Five .a. 05 Six ..7.. 06 Seven.... ."3L2-. 07 Hi JL u Xl w ••••>• •• J J* • ••»•••••• 08 Nine tjh? 09 Ten 7 10 Don't know 88 No response 99 Qll Do you contribute to one or Yes .22- 1 more political cause, issue, NO (GO TO 2 church, agency, or charity? Don't know (GO TO Q12) 8 No response (GO TO Q12) 9 QUA As a household, do you annually Less than $100.00. .. A *• 23- contribute: (READ LIST) $100.00 - $249. 99... •fJ $250.00 - $499.99.../^. $500.00 or more 3 Don • t know '. No response. . . ?. '.
Q12 Have you worked as a volunteer Yes 24- 1 with any local organization in No (GO TO Q12B) Ch. 2 the past year? Don't know (GO TO Q12B) 8 No response (GO TO Q12B) 9
Q12A How often do you work — less Less than once a week. 25- than once a week, 1 to 3 hours 1-3 hours a week A£ a week, 4 to 6 hours a week, or 4-6 hours a week 13. more than 6 hours a week? More than 6 hours a week./A .. Don • t know / No response NOW GO TO Q13 196 Q12B Would you like to do volunteer Yes ±4... 26- 1 work? No ??... 2 Don't know H. 8 No response. .. .2~. 9
Q13 I am going to read a list of factors which may provide encouragement or discouragement to volunteers. Please tell me if each has been encouraging, discouraging, or has had no effect on your ability to volunteer. Encour- Discour- No aging aging Effect DK NR
A. Your employment/employer 27- 1 2 - X3- 3 6O8 9 B. Your family 28- 1 2/7 3 *f3 8 9 C. Availability of time 29- 1/7 2 (,(? 3 /£> 8 9 D. Awareness of community needs....30- 1 £/ 2 1 3 -< 7 8 9
Q14 Now, I would like to ask a couple of questions about your perception of relations between different religious and ethnic groups in Portland.
Do you believe that relations Better ?K\ 31- between citizens of Portland Worse from different religious and Same ethnic groups are better, the Don' t know. ... II same, or worse that they were No response. . .. ? five years ago?
Q15 Do you believe that ethnic Very fairly //. 32- 3 minority citizens are generally Fairly &3 2 treated very fairly, fairly, or Unfairly 1 unfairly in Portland? Don' t know V. 8 No response 9
Q16 Do you believe Portland's race Better .. 33- 3 relations are better than, as As good as A 7- 2 good as, or worse than other WorseX 1 American cities of similar size? Don't know 8 No response 9 Q17 There has been some discussion of the need for an office of information for the City of Portland. Some people say that it would be extremely useful to have one number to call for help, while others say it would be a waste of tax dollars. Do you believe that a city Helpful (?P. 34- 1 information office would be Waste of money. .33. 2 helpful, or a waste of money? Don' t know ih 8 No response •$. 9 Q18 Would you say that the media Excellent.. . .7*. 35- 4 does an excellent, good, fair, wOOu •••••••• »^r •{+ ••«••••••••••• «J or poor job of representing all fuir< • • • •• • • • *r **• ••••••#••••••• £• sides of a public issue? Poor ii 1 Don' t know 8 No response 9
197 Q19 There has been a lot of talk Excellent. . . . .^r 36- 4 about regional cooperation to Good %tf 3 solve problems in the metro- Fair ty-S^ 2 politan area. Do you think that Poor Itf. 1 the local cities and counties are Don't know 7. 8 doing an excellent, good, fair, No response. . . • 9 or poor job of cooperating to solve common problems? Q20 Do you think that it is extremely Extremely important../.*? 37- 3 important, somewhat important, or Somewhat important... JJ 2 not important that local Not important / 1 governments work cooperatively? Don't know 7^ 8 No response 9 Q21 The City of Portland provides 2*» Excellent /i 38- 4 sewer, water, parks, transpor- Good ^7- 3 tation, fire and police services Fair 7-.*? 2 to its citizens. Overall, would Poor (a 1 you say that the job being done Don't know...... /. 8 is excellent, good, fair or poor? No response 9 Q21A Which service, if any, is most in need of improvement? 39-40 Q21B What service, if any, should be cut back? /WVt^ 6 7 *7' \ t_ (L"-t-^i
Q22B Which areas get worst service?
7. 50-55
Q23 Now, I'd like to ask you about Spends to much. . . .<=£,/ 56- 1 the dollars spent by the City of The right amount.. . 2 Portland. For the services Too little 3 provided, does the city spend to much, the right amount or too little money? 198 Q24 If the City needs more money for City sales tax TS 57- 1 City services, would you rather Increase property tax. P.?n .... 2 pay for them with a city sales (DON'T READ) No tax...2-<<«> 3 tax or increased property taxes? Don' t know 3. 8 No response / 9
DEMOGRAPHICS Now, I'd like to ask you a few questions strictly for classification purposes. Q25 What is your age, please? 18-24 1 58- 1 25-34 Pf. 2 35-44 7-X 3 4 5-54 ).2f 4 55-64 ).3 5 65+ 11 6 No response 9
Q2 6 Do you live west of the river, West 11 59- 1 in north Portland, east of the North /P 2 river to 39th, 39th to 82nd, or River to 39th 3 east of 82nd? 39 th — 82nd. 4 o^nci east..»...... •* k b 5 No response 6
Q27 How long have you lived in 1-5 years n 60- 1 Portland? (READ LIST) 6-10 years K^r- . . . 2 11-15 years $. 3 16 or more years (?}?. 4 No response 9
Q28 How many people live in your 1 61- 1 household? 2 2 3-5 3 6 or more... 4 No response. 9 Q29 What is the highest level of Less than high school..r^ 62- 1 education you had the Finished high school. . . At . . . . 2 opportunity to complete? Some college -3.1.... 3 Finished college fV. .... 4 Graduate school !ip. .... 5 No response 9
Q3 0 What is your ethnic background? White $$. 63- 1 Black ST. 2 Asian ^ 3 Hispanic / 4 Other 5 No response. 9 May I verify that I reached you at... And, may I have your first name only to show that I spoke with someone in your household?