Critical questions

• What kind of long-term relationship do people want with their government?

• How can temporary organizing strategies be incorporated in the way communities conduct their public business?

• What have we learned from 30 years of experimentation in neighborhood governance?

Why do neighborhoods matter?

Neighborhoods are:• “Where the people are”• Where conflict between residents and government

is on the rise • Where new leaders first emerge• Where public problems – and assets – are most

evident• Where government “of, by, and for the people” can

actually happen, on a regular, ongoing basis• Where politics can be reunited with community and

culture

Cities presenting

• Portland, OR

• Minneapolis, MN

• Los Angeles, CA

Strengths:

• Official authority• Independent voices• Generators of “public

work”• In some cases, “Bob’s

Rules” • Connections with

policymakers

Weaknesses:

• “mini-City Councils”• Not inclusive• Not interactive,

democratic• In most cases, “Robert’s

Rules”• Unclear expectations of

policymakers

Tension #1: “Shared governance” or “blurred governance?”

• “Getting rid of” prostitutes, drug dealers• Who is being empowered?• Racial dynamics• Delegating authority and responsibility to

groups that may not be representative or accountable

Tension #2: The “involvers” and the (potentially) “involved”

• “Make sure the food is visible from the doorway”

• Whose needs are served through involvement? Are residents being engaged or just managed?

• Making this work a broadly shared activity rather than (merely?) a professional practice

Tension #3: Democratic leadership in a republican system

• Newer, more facilitative forms of leadership – out of step with, and even a threat to, existing leaders?

• “Graduates” of neighborhood governance who “forget what they’ve learned”

• “The structures need to reflect the practices”

Tension #4: Democracy and community

• Failure to incorporate social and cultural aspects

• Competition between ‘official’ councils and more community-oriented groups

• Importance of history and language

Tension #5: ‘Top-down’ vs. ‘bottom-up’

• Top-down = legitimate but undemocratic structures; Bottom-up = democratic but illegitimate processes

• Need something “in between the city council meeting and the barbershop”

Conclusions reached

• “We know how to do a lot of this stuff” (recruitment, facilitation, action planning, leadership training, etc.)

• Work must be jointly owned and directed• Need to ensure that democratic practices are being used

(need new mechanisms for evaluation and accountability; more access to technical assistance; joint trainings)

• Apply lessons to governments, not just neighborhoods (public engagement skills should be taught throughout gov’t; need new formats for public meetings; need better connections between neighborhood and local decision-making)