|
Mayor to NCs: “I am the Decider” |
|
|
Commentary
By Greg Nelson
Everyone knows that democracy is messy, but the mayor has a solution. He’ll make the all important decisions so that the unwashed, ignorant peasants who are part of the neighborhood council system don’t have to be troubled.
The new City Charter clarified the mayor’s role as the head of the city’s departments. The problem comes when he decides that he is going to dictate to the neighborhood councils or control them. By law, the neighborhood councils are supposed to be as independent as possible from City Hall and it has always been expected that they would be the agents of a change that promotes decision-making from the bottom up.
At the first public meeting to plan the next citywide Congress of Neighborhoods, 30 neighborhood council leaders and stakeholders were told that all of the important decisions had already been made.
At the start of the meeting, the department’s words sounded good – valuing the involvement of the neighborhood councils, etc. – but almost without pausing for a breath, its actions contradicted the words.
Last year, the participants complained loudly that the date had been picked well before the first planning meeting.
This year, not only had the date been picked, but it had been decided that the event would be held at City Hall, that the mayor would start things off with a speech (whether anyone wanted him to or not), and that the opening session would be expanded by two hours so the mayor and his budget staff could explain the city budget process to the captive audience (whether or not they wanted to be held captive).
That left the neighborhoods with deciding how to fill up the two hours worth of workshops, which, I’m sure, the mayor doesn’t care about as long as they aren’t too meaningful, such as teaching people how they can take back control of their own Congress of Neighborhoods.
To make public participation more difficult, the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment explained that a new system would be used in which two representatives from each of the City’s seven geographic areas would be selected from the people present to continue the planning effort. What little planning, that is, that is left to the councils.
It was never explained what help the department will provide these people so they can get input from the neighborhood councils and stakeholders in their areas. Without a meaningful outreach effort the result is easy to predict: each “representative” will end up representing only their own (perhaps narrow) views.
What’s happening is clear.
The desire to promote grass-roots democracy, and to respect the experience and creativity of those in the neighborhood council system, has taken a back seat to the mayor’s political needs.
Neighborhood councils should insist:
1. That the public be fully involved in the planning process. DONE could create a discussion group on the Internet so the discussions could continue around the clock involving all those who choose to participate. Failing that, anyone else could create a discussion spot just for this purpose.
2. That the neighborhood councils control the program and choose the venue if it fits into the budget. (Toward that end, my column in Friday’s CityWatch will be devoted to suggesting some workshop sessions that could help the councils move forward, as opposed to just being what is the most boring part of any neighborhood council meeting -- committee reports.)
3. That DONE explain how it will comply with the City Charter requirement that the Congress only be held if the neighborhood councils determine they want it. (This language was a guaranty that no mayor could take over the event.)
Failing all of that, neighborhood councils could use their most powerful tool and threaten to play the boycott card.
These are harsh words, but the neighborhood council system is facing another threat to its independence. (Greg Nelson can be reached at
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
) ◘
CityWatch
Vol 6 Issue 64
Pub: August 5, 2008
|
