| Partnership for Regional Livability |
|---|
Partnership for Regional
Livability
San Francisco Meeting Notes
Second Day, June 29, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Ralph:
Yesterday, critical role of active intelligence in room working on the issue; Harriet has say, "this is about people." Finding the entrepreneurs; providing a venue to work together.
Today, first, revisit issue of kinds of negotiations. Next three months, all about negotiations at all levels. Show basic guidelines and methodology options
Arlie will then reflect on conversation re: communications.
Then, Julia will report on consolidation of critical path; marching orders going forward.
Then Bruce and Scott will have brainstorming session in larger field.
Finally, Peter will sum up the accomplishments and challenges.
Over working lunch, Pete will discuss what he sees in context of government and system change efforts. Close at 2 PM
NEGOTIATIONS/COLLABORATION
Julia:
Began thinking about negotiations two weeks ago.
In the process I re-read Getting to Yes. In March, seemed like we would be ready by June to begin negotiations; now clear that this is the relationship building period, exploring the value added, more informal. Two projects will get to specificity and negotiation by September; other projects will be doing other negotiations.
Gail Bingham materials in packet I also found particularly helpful.
Doug:
Agreements manage complexity. They seek simplicity. What are the process steps; today we are addressing the "how" of the project, compared with the "what" of yesterday. If you want to do something, simplify it. How can we develop processes, which both simplify and create trust?
See Presentation Notes.
Intergovernment Negotiations: Negotiated Investment Strategy: started by a third party, an operating foundation with dedicated staff. INS were a test of a new way to do urban policy; we did it in three places.
The project formed local teams around projects that needed cooperation of several government agencies. The feds formed a regional team of local staff.
The Innovation was having outside mediators, one per project. They locked teams in hotel, per labor negotiation techniques. Signed agreements resulted. It was an interesting experiment, but it did not survive transition to new administration.
NIS underlying assumptions: Fragmentation is inevitable; differences will always exist; so negotiation is an acceptable outcome.
Oregon Option: Starting in 1994; Oregon had established benchmarks on outcomes and wanted leeway on how to get there; workforce, child health, etc. The focus was on waivers while being held accountable for outcomes.
Both examples, primarily focused on intergovernmental, government to government negotiations.
Dave: Results of the Oregon Option: Workforce, child nutrition and welfare reform. The welfare reform component merged into TANIF. In the child nutrition component, some things happened successfully. Workforce development took a long time. In all three areas, the Federal, state and local teams realized they didn't have a handle on the data situation. There was a shared recognition that they needed to solve the data problem.
John P.: The foundation community also got involved in the Oregon Option.
Doug: The Bay Area Alliance has organized caucuses around the three Es so that each develops its own positions. Work groups bring the three Es together. Then negotiation goes on within the regional group. The aim to get to a common compact;
Collaborative Regional Initiatives: Non profit; leadership from all sectors; initial focus on economic conversion; brought federal officials into teams on projects important to the regions.
Lesson: There are different models; the share a main theme with subtle differences. NIS and Oregon Option focus on intergovernmental agreements. In the Bay Area Alliance, feds were involved in the compact and in projects - at different levels.
NIS may be good for negotiating vertical relationships; other methods are better for horizontal relationships. Need both
Finally:
Step 1: Collaboration and multi-sectoral; foundations play an interesting role in this phase; can and should play a role in facilitating relationships and capacity building.
Step 2: Specific projects may require formal negotiations.
In summary, we need a process, which is both "Bottom Up and Top Down."
John: Joint Center is resurrecting the NIS idea; Wellington Webb is the incoming chair of the US Conference of Mayors. We need to try to integrate them into what we are doing;
Scott: As a new "straw man": we should try to integrate both vertically and horizontally. PRL should try to specify how a new set of relationships can come together. Simultaneous vertical and horizontal is interesting. Government-driven processes are notoriously unaccountable for decisions, especially in real time. Is there an image of how to get agreement with government partners in multi-part collaboration process in which all of the parties have standing? Otherwise, the risk is that lots of people say, "Its the mayor who decides:."
Doug: We're talking about a two-part negotiation: Part I; the right feds are at the table; Part II, specific allocations of roles etc. is worked out.
Ann: The Alliance was a business-driven initiative. It didn't start federally.
Michele: A mix of efforts came together in the Alliance.
Ann: Then there was a separate initiative, the Bay Area Partnership, in which federal partners were bringing community partners together. It was more informal, separate from the Alliance, as a way to see where there were common opportunities;
Andrew: The two approaches are converging.
Ann: Could it have been jump started as one initiative; or was it better to start in two separate forums?
James: There actually are three initiatives: Bay Area Alliance, Bay Area Council, and Capital for Communities.
Nick: There is lots of intelligence about mediation and dispute resolution. If we are explicitly about trust building, we can use the exercises that have been developed; we should use all that learning. It can lead to formal agreements later on. We need to train locals and feds in trust building.
Tim: It is helpful to think about horizontal and vertical negotiations. Such negotiations go well until you realize that there is a party not at the table.
Dave: One big difference between past efforts and this one is that this is a conversation that is beginning at the level of the metro area, and there is no government that represents this conglomeration. We have to take on frontally how to get the region to come together around understandings; it calls for a facilitated process, a process that needs to suit the client. There is a spectrum of approaches. We may end up using all techniques at one stage or another.
From NIS we get the value of a neutral player. It is important to have someone not vested in the result at the center of the undertaking, with power vested to do so. Because someone was at the center for whom credit was not the issue, the issue of credit disappeared.
NIS: horizontal negotiations first; then vertical. Federal team and local team were each individually facilitated; also the state. There is a whole industry around this; some state governments sponsor this capacity. A number of projects are at the stage where thoughtful intervention is not needed; but his advice is to consider these skills carefully. It is easier to build them in earlier in the process than later.
Keith: Reinventing the federal government is implicit in Doug's remarks. Horizontal is happening at the top, but doesn't happen now at the regional level.
Trust: Design processes need to be designed as trust building exercises. A labor negotiation model may get to yes, but at the cost of the long term building of social capital, the social infrastructure that will result in future agreements.
Throughout the process, the capacity of feds to carry out a limited number of projects has been an issue. How are we to evaluate this? The level of federal involvement is greater for traditional negotiations on waivers, less for something around a partnership which is aligning resources.
Cynthia: Perhaps we are not thinking about the federal role in a "getting to yes: way. Through these partnerships, we all, including the feds, can achieve efficiencies. Let's flip the way we think about it: we need coordination at the federal level to better reach for agreement, with local coordination and cooperation.
Doug: If a federal agency - locally or nationally - can have a project that they can focus on, it gives an opportunity to come together better than in a general way. "What do you think about this project…"Facilitation is needed; need to give them something with an innovative outcome; got to give a reason for them to get engaged.
Ralph: As we go forward,
Ann: Add:
4. The focal partners for each negotiation depends on the product you're trying to get. For "workforce" for example, the potential flexibility lies not with HHS, but the state; the state needs to be an equal partner.
Nick: I agree; we need triangulation between region, state and feds. The earlier we get to it, the better.
There is a fortuitous juxtaposition of the New Markets Initiative and Capital for Communities. We should look for similar potential connections between the regional projects and relevant national policy initiatives.
Katherine: From the beginning, if federal partners and the regional reps are all in at the beginning, "negotiations" will be going on informal all along the way. If we reach the point where we need formal negotiations, we've failed. Because everyone is putting marbles on the table, there will be no surprises. Negotiation is about the "extent possible." In contrast, we more need education than negotiated agreements.
Around workforce, the question is: "How are we going to use all the resources available?" Maybe waivers can't be put on the table, but other elements could move things along faster than we know now.
This process is not vertical, but horizontal all the way. From the beginning, the question is: "Are you willing to put all your available resources on the table?".
Harriet: One of the things we need to do is an internal marketing piece, which explains the policy options implied in each of these four regions, capturing the unique contributions of each region. Regional approaches can help agencies meet their missions better than other ways have been able to do.
Scott: If we engage expertise in negotiation or mediation, we need to make sure that we choose the right technologies. There are people pushing top down strategies in guise of real collaboration.
A second expertise is needed: how to increase the willingness to innovate. We need to learn to tell a story that people can understand. We need persuasive stories that people can see themselves in. This is a special expertise we don't have listed yet. Let's make sure we don't loose sight of the importance of innovation.
Steve R.: This group should have as its agenda to take this discussion as a starting point in a process, which is replicable. The goal is to replicate elsewhere and have it institutionalized so that that it survives transition. We need to abstract a reduced process from this intensive one to a set of rules that bureaucrats can replicate system wide.
Cynthia: Facilitation, mediation and story telling are tools, all trying to get to an outcome that works. Our goal should be to find technologies that can work to get there early.
Julia: Question: What help is needed from the PRL staff:
Keith We've talked about smart rules, smart citizens and smart money. It seems like smart citizens and money are easier; changing rules and regulations is harder. That's what may require mediation. Look at Project XL and that specific kind of negotiation.
Peter B.: We should look at benchmark product development techniques that businesses use to develop their products. At Fannie Mae, we use the Rapid Consensus Workshop that came out of Harvard Business School to bring various departments together and to better interact with customers. Includes timelines for product development. It's another lens for looking through.
Sheila: We need focus on who is at the table; make sure that the right people are there.
Harriet: Even more than a change of administration, a change of regional feds can hurt. Innovative ones tend to move on. Rule change maybe requires a culture change. Can we make it more the norm that 10% of feds in every agency would be able to do this kind of innovation. How do you grow an innovative federal official; stay in public service?
Scott: We need to find the long-term career entrepreneurs and bring them into the project more effectively than we have.
Julia: We can't have that conversation here; maybe at next meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
Arlie: Things can go wrong. The media business is uncontrollable. We could wind up having a bad day.
Basic advice:
The project starting at a great time: smart growth is in news every day, and will be important in the coming elections. I can't overemphasize the importance of starting bi-partisan. EMS has plans for other sprawl events, which can help, create supportive environment.
We will work individually with all four teams, with a designated person in each of the four regions, to take what each is doing and, at the appropriate time, frame it for regional, but also eventually for national coverage.
EMS is exploring ways to inject smart growth into the presidential campaign. We would like feedback on our strategy: We propose to focus on three cities, one each in Iowa, New Hampshire and California with lots of polling.
We would also prepare comprehensive mapping and animation of sprawl. (current and potential) using current zoning to animate what these three cities will look like in 10 years.
Then we would prepare a strategy document; and finally convening town meetings where the summary of findings could be spread out.
We will use polling info to develop core messages for campaign; press materials, develop a "spokesteam" to meet with editorial boards in the three states.
We would prepare reports with targeted teams and distribute them first regionally; then build to an eventual national release.
Also, determine what are the most sprawl-threatened counties; report on money from developers to candidates in those counties.
A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Bruce:
See Presentation Notes.
Three questions:
What solutions are working to promote reinvestment, aimed at giving low income residents access to the marketplace; PRL projects fit within those categories.
Regions are different; motivating factors can relate to health of the economy, demographic factors, governmental fragmentation/unity; environmental legacy; sense of citizenship. Factors differ around the country.
Alignment of constituencies in regional issues differs around the community. Chicago Metropolis 2020 vs. Washington DC business community pushing roads. Urban players: Denver/Chicago contrast with Milwaukee "go it alone"
Ability to influence particular constituency and then move to alignment
Workforce coherence in fragmented
How to stimulate investment without displacement
etc
Becoming the next group of best practices; shaping how people will perceive these questions; and informing the federal government about its appropriate federal role:
Sense: partnership is about informing others around the country, but also reminding the federal government about the roles they can play and the actions they can take
In "permanent campaign" to achieve social justice and equitable communities; at most volatile time in our lifetimes; demographics, technology change; e commerce; devolution
Watch: role of core constituencies around the country; local elected officials; key mayors, county leaders; minority constituencies; powerful core constituencies; how they talk about these issues is fundamental.
States are key to all of this; yet state legislators turn over every year;
Election: very important to make sure we broaden conversation; somewhat diminished at federal level; make sure that this is a broad, integrated, holistic conversation including land use plus access to opportunity, schools etc. Align up issues considered separate and align constituencies previously separate.
INFORMATION INITIATIVE
See Draft of Information Initiative
Scott: He introduced Tom Gunther, Policy Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, United States Department of Interior. Tom is liaison to people who do global positioning systems, and other cutting edge information technology work.
Information is one of the things we can ask the feds for that doesn't involve new money. 72% of the value added in business is now in knowledge. A disproportionate amount of that knowledge is federal-related.
Tom: I am thinking about Bruce's comments. We face complex, challenging, multi-disciplinary problems with insufficient data and tools. If we're going to approach livable community issues, we will need to depend upon data and on tools asking: "What's happening now, What if we do something new…"
Feds have lots of information, because it is mandated to send information largely to the states. It's in large databases that cannot be easily accessed. The same for tools: they are developed by specialists for specialists. Integrated data is beginning to be developed in isolated ways; and people want to be involved.
Question: "Can we bring together technology, the availability of data and tools, and demand for involvement. If communities can use data in innovative ways, can we translate it to other communities? Is there a way we can secure a cumulative return on our investment in data? It is possible; we are starting to do it.
One Example: The Aurora Partnership: The returns you get on your investments in information and its transformation into knowledge and wisdom is better through cooperation.
Scott: There are some capacities that are emerging in places that Tom is talking about; however, they are not interconnected between/among regions.
We could use a Learning Network to facilitate rapid learning; apply tools to problems we've decided to address. We relate at local level to achieve rapid consensus; we can reach collective judgment better with the appropriate information.
The proposal is that we form regional resource centers, which can aggregate local resources and expertise. They would interface nationally interface; learn how to get new tools into play; shorten the cycle time; and build continuous capacity.
We should form a working group out of the meeting, which would craft a letter to the federal team with identical goals. The four regional resource centers would figure out how we can test tools for national use and for more rapid use in our regions. Between us, we would improve their quality to drive our projects.
Today, we need to come to agreement to spend the summer developing agreements for such a partnership, with the regional resource centers launched on October 1st.
Visualization methods link proposed policies and interventions to specific contexts and make clearer the implications of policy changes. These new information technologies can help us to make better choices.
We need volunteers from the region to work on this.
Carl: This proposal fits with regional footprint; beginning to see the value added of a regional effort plus the feds.
Wim: Excellent ideas! The Great Cities Visualization Project is already underway. A connection with other cities and with feds adds richness of information, expertise and technology. We can bring it all to bear systematically.
Jeff: We have already articulated a need to get into this quickly. What are the local staffing resources and data base needs and requirements?
Ralph: Scott will specify timing, expectations etc. by the end of the week, with fast regional turn around.
John P.: We need a specification piece and also what all the feds are doing in region right now.
Tom: Federal GIS clearing houses have lots of the data. If groups take unified approaches, it can represent a louder demand than moving forward individually.
Ralph: There is a tremendous interest at the regional level in going forward with this. This is an example of a great value added tool we hoped this partnership would offer.
Scott: I will create a listserve to solicit comments. It will be a nice test of things we can do better together. Other opportunities for joint work, which has been mentioned, previously include: Transit Oriented Development and Valuing Alternative Economic Resources. We may want to create working group on these topics as well.
CRITICAL PATH GOING FORWARD
Julia: There is a need in next four weeks to define who the beginning team should be. Is it clear how we will get these teams in place in the next four weeks, e.g. the role of the foundations, who will contact the feds, etc. Question: What needs to happen on the federal/regional side to pull a team together?
Chicago
Wim: There is a clear sense of steps to take. We are relying on Harriet to expand the network into other agencies, to invite them in - get them into the kitchen. Yesterday, I had a sense that we did not need negotiation /mediation process resources; this morning, I put question mark on that. Clearly we need to be thinking consciously about the process - what level of commitment is asked; how exposed do people feel; reflection on a somebody or process charged with developing this process; who that would be.
Sheila: Getting Dave Ullrich, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region V USEPA, early on. There is a July 9 meeting with leadership of Clean Air Dialogue already scheduled to merge processes. We need a joint session with Harriet, Dave and the leadership of dialogue on integration.
Harriet: Give Dave Ullrich help marketing to other Chicago officials. We need to explain the federal policy opportunities to get Region V and other agencies engaged.
Keith: We need a marketing tool so that we can continuously expand the circle: a five pager with one page on PRL and one page each on the four projects, written for general use within the partnership.
John P.: It should include examples of a similar collaboration that is working elsewhere The Denver write up would include Seattle etc.
Rebecca: Variants of the fed materials are also needed for funders.
Scott: Tim needs examples of the same problem being approached in a variety of different ways in different places so the Chicago process doesn't get into an argument on the mayor's proposal as the only way.
Wim: Local government could feel threatened by this project.
Denver
John P.: Eight federal agencies are targeted. There will be no lead agency for a few months. Keith and I will develop a matrix of potential lead people, both nationally and locally.
On facilitation, our Center for Regional and Neighborhood Action proposes to provide facilitation.
On storytelling, the St. Louis and Seattle workforce examples are very important.
On bi-partisanship: one of the best way is to come up with anecdotes that show it. Hopefully, we will shortly have one, with a Republican governor and Democratic mayor working closely on the workforce initiative.
We intend to engagement the federal agencies in next 10 days.
Atlanta
Jeff:
Challenges:
Julia: How will the broader group come together? Will you ask someone to convene a team outside of transportation. A consortia of land management agencies working under the urban resources partnership might be a start, plus HUD and Interior and the Corps of Engineers.
Keith: Jeff will come up with a timeline for each of these two tracks.
Ralph: The challenge is how to break the transportation conversation out of just transportation issues and how to keep the two conversations connected.
John S.: The transportation timeline demanded by the situation is too fast and the development timeline is too slow for PRL.
Hattie: In order to model some of the Bay Area work, we should take a trip back here.
Jeff: Many studies are underway, but they only pay lip service to comprehensive growth management strategies. We need to explore how they can be melded together in a coordinated way. Facilitation will keep us on track and help us to keep them together. We will convene a Washington meeting soon. We also need the same sort of meeting in Atlanta on a comprehensive approach.
Ralph: Would a matrix be helpful on different roles?
Scott: The timing of the transportation timeline is a specialty. STPP has offered help. If PRL is to do something, you need to communicate that soon.
Bay Area
Andrew: By the end of July, we need local community support where keystone developments are likely to be developed.
We need to complete the letter of intent in order to get a response from federal partners - to get the right kind of information and expertise for both the Community Capital and Footprint. Initiatives.
Initial leadership group will have HUD Treasury and Dept. of Commerce as primary. We will establish a learning framework with exchange between the federal, state and other partners.
By end of summer; we will start to get more detailed in a work plan to implement the initiatives, broadening the stakeholder involvement and coming up with a phasing in of different elements.
Hopefully, by end of September, there will be a detailed work plan, then specific requests for agency support can be made from the partnership.
Nick: There is a strong policy linkage between feds and the Bay Area on capita; also on the footprint project.
Keith: Yes.
Carl: EPA and DOT also have roles in footprint.
James: Is California on the President's itinerary for the New Markets Initiative tour? It would be an opportunity for synergy; an opportunity for problems at both levels.
Keith: The Bay Area is not on the list.
Carl: We want to stay close to the decision criterion in News Markets to learn from it. The Bay Area has a conscious focus on all three Es, especially equity. There is not yet much in national discourse about equity, gentrification, etc.
Andrew: The role of the facilitation in this is not clear yet.
Doug: On federal involvement, we need clarity on who is assigned by agencies, at both the national and regional level.
Ann: One of the additional pieces by next meeting, is to identify the tools by which the four regions assure that they have representation of minority and community-based constituencies. What capacity building activity needs to be done so that they are full partners. At this meeting we didn't grapple with that issue enough. Equity needs to be central to PRL.
Nick: We also make assumptions about the capacity of environmental groups to participate fully in this process, but they may need the capacity as well.
Ann: In Chicago, there is a discussion whether the business community had the capacity to understand its relationships to the other partners.
Michele: It is key that PRL projects find individuals who bring leadership. Part of the reason collaboration has worked in the Bay is because of Carl. We need to find his counterpart leaders in other regions.
Nick: PRL should triangulate: region, feds, and the state. We know ways to do this. It will be more complicated for the footprint project, than for the community capital project.
Ralph: What assistance to you need? Including from PRL team?
Carl: What is the opportunity to get borrowed staff from the feds?
Keith: It is possible.
Scott: Loaned staff is idiosyncratic, agency by agency. DOI does have such placements; it may be possible to systemize it with other agencies.
John Ross: HUD can loan staff, if someone plays. We would have to work out payment arrangements. HUD also has the community builder program; they have resources that might be made available.
Tom Brown: There are 16 HUD community builders in Bay Area, all of whom are two-year fellows. We could put a team together; fulltime committed staff would be harder.
John P.: On equity, the workforce proposal was chosen because of the ease putting together a diverse team. We already have two HUD community builders working on it.
REFLECTIONS
Peter B.: I'm thinking about what is going to happen in September in Atlanta. And why I'm still here?
Originally I was intrigued, but skeptical. Then, I got the feeling of real potential. After the Washington meeting, I went back to the region and brought people together - all people have plenty of things to do already. People like Jeff, Hattie, John and Winsom. I am very encouraged that they see value in these efforts.
Our motto: "There is no hope, but we could be wrong"
Neighborhoods and Regions, where we connect the most, we have the least grip. We are just beginning to learn how to operate in this new domain. We need to relate intellectual connective tissue.
I know that, in Atlanta, this not the only thing going on. There is going to be lots of pushing and pulling. We're pulling; others are pushing. We need to see ourselves in the context of the other efforts going on out there. Specifically, the National Coalition on Smart Growth - they understand that federal policy is key; need to make connection.
We are happy to host the Atlanta meeting in September. Atlanta may well be the first city whose air goes up in flames. It's a lovable city; but there is no community context, beautiful in many ways and trying to reverse bad habits.
There is lots of media interest around sprawl. The Atlanta Journal Constitution is a national leader. Its reporters have shown that sprawl has to be dealt with. And CNN is very interested in this issue. Originally though we might do work with media about the kinds of stories they are looking for. There is no question: the stories are in the regions. The partnership is not news, but insider baseball. We need to communicate what we are doing.
The meeting should focus on progress of the regional projects; progress of the feds to develop capacity to work as teams in support of the regions; progress in identifying strategies; expanding PRL with new regions; and lessons learned about the collaborations.
When you are involved in a campaign, sometimes you get the sense that the planets are lined up; things seems to be working. I think this is true here. No one person owns PRL; we have to hold each other accountable.
LESSONS FROM PRL
Ralph:
Context: Pete was helping with the Sustainable Everglades Initiative. At one point, he asked me: "What are you about here; do you want to entertain your board or make change happen?" It was the most useful thing said to me as a funder.
Pete P.: I am not an evaluator; I am an interpreter.
My question is: "What are we learning."
My methodology: Step one: immersion, like an anthropologist, without a screen; Step two:: Making sense of it.
Peeling the onion, only two layers deep
See Presentation Notes.
Harriet: The four projects are addressing the most important issues of our time. Sprawl, racism, urban revitalization, etc. Trying to solve the most intractable problems. All are noble endeavors.
Scott: Some observations about the federal team: It didn't seem like people were working out of a common set of principles. Keith needs to work with team to articulate these principles, a common language, ground rules for engagement. This work might help surface the hidden entrepreneurs in the federal system.
Keith: Not difficult; we are close already; put to paper; then broad discussion; larger group that already subscribe than are already here
James: On the relationship between what's being attempted here and the larger movement: There might be lager movement that we are trying to deal with. We should think about how movements proceed. It is important that there be examples; then we all can learn from the examples.
The social responsible investment field very much grew out of the anti-apartheid movement. It developed an entire financial infrastructure which some say is the leading edge of the financial services industry.
There is a dynamic tension and creative potential in recognition that we are part of a movement, but also to be servants to the larger movement.
Pete P.: I don't know much about the movement model so I don't know whether I agree.
Dave: The reason I'm committed is because of the equity issue. This is my personal thing, but in order for this conversation to go forward, it has to be more than equity. Equity is not enough; other forces need to be at work. If the conversation has legs now, it's because of a coming together of diverse interests. Should the feds have a single song sheet? Ok if there are various bars, because people will be coming to it for various reasons.
Ralph: The image is less a song sheet, than an agreed upon tonal system.
Carl: RE: Scott's paper: There are two Es and a T. There is a tension between equity and community that is important to understand. On the one hand, people put their interests forward as insiders. The argument has so many pieces that there is a feeling that you don't need those other people. There's a real tension. Just as environmental concerns cut across all issues and we also have to have an economy that works, we also have to be about changing the disparities between rich and poor. Complexity is part of the problem, not just of the solution. Participatory equity is the desire of poor people in California to do something. Despite a strong economy, disparities are growing. We need to make sure that the things we are building in PRL can't make the problem worse.
John P.: Devolution and transcending. I see an opportunity; after devolution. There is now a bounce back to regionalism. In Colorado, a Republican governor is now talking about making workforce boards regional. This is a window that devolution has produced.
We developed a paper around a campaign metaphor for what we are doing. We need to be thinking differently; what makes movements work, using a different language that helps to change the way that we do business.
Rebecca: From Harriet: there was a conceptual breakthrough that people could not do sustainable development or regionalism for the sake of the environment, but possibly from other directions. Equity needs to learn to become allied with the environment and other interests. We need to look for those strategic opportunities.
Scott: In the smart growth coalition, there is the beginning of a conversation about making sure that when we propose things as a coalition, we were always looking at two or more outcomes. A musical metaphor: There is a contrast between traditional music and improvisational jazz. We all stand for the same thing; the proof is in what we actually do. We need to hold each other accountable to a certain standard of performance. There has to be a performance standard, or there won't be equity.
Ralph: Issues successfully addressed:
Other concerns:
MEETING EVALUATION
[Review of meeting objectives]
Coming to agreement on a critical path.
Keith: There is not just one critical path.
Jeff: We know what we are going to do, but not necessarily what we are going to get from it.
Defining options for negotiating agreements.
General agreement that this meeting outcome was met.
Generating new ideas for addressing regional projects.
General agreement that this meeting outcome was met.
Identifying key lessons learned.
Jim: We need more balance with engagement with the conversation, not just about it. When we are engaged in the conversation, we would end up with a stronger community among ourselves and, in the long run, deeper learning. There was a clear purpose articulated for what we were intended to talk about, but an openness to take it where it was going to lead us. You start out with all the elements together by brute force of will; then, if successful, it clicks and takes over and creates its own structure and guides folks who have put the original structure together. In this last conversation, we allowed it to take over. Some of sense of transcendence took over.
Networking across Regions/ Feds/etc
General agreement that this meeting outcome was met.
Clear sense of expectations moving forward on roles and responsibilities
A seven on a scale of 0-10.
Specific feedback from feds, regions, foundations on the projects
General agreement that this meeting outcome was met.
CLOSE
Rebecca: We made a good decision to choose places and roll up our sleeves in those places. Now we are moving the ball forward. There is lots of work to do for the next three months and new ideas to pursue. However, we need to clone Scott.