Before and After on Parks Policy – Part 1: Before

After several weeks of slapping out blog posts at the rate of two or more per day, it’s becoming increasingly obvious to me that sooner or later, something I post is going down in flames of ignominy, not a blaze of glory. I do my best to research the information I post, and to consider my opinions carefully before publishing them. But nobody knows everything, and wise people constantly increase their knowledge base and revise their positions, based on new information and the thoughtful advice of others. One of my goals in life is to become a wise old woman. For now, there’s no doubt in my mind that probably soon and perhaps often, as I continue to post, there will be times when I will need to follow up later saying, “Y’know that [link] post yesterday? Utterly and completely wrong. Please disregard. What I should have said is: ….”

In anticipation of that eventuality, I’m writing a pair of posts about the Citywide Parks Team meeting on the Sponsorship and Naming policies of Portland Parks & Recreation (PPR), this Thursday (now tomorrow), February 15, 7 p.m. in the Rose Room on the third floor of City Hall. Today’s, “Before”, will be my opinion based on past experience, and studying the proposed policies. On Friday, I’ll post an “After” report, on what I learned at the meeting and whether my opinion has changed.

OK? Then here we go. First, the Sponsorship Policy and Procedures:

I would like to see the Policy more clear in stating that sponsorships are secondary to the City providing adequate funding of Parks through the General Fund, by appropriate and fair levels of taxation of residents and businesses. The policy of the City should not be that begging from and offering incentives to corporations is a necessary component of the Parks budget. I would also add “increase equity” as one of the potential reasons to seek sponsorships. My amended Paragraph 1 of the Purpose would be:

“It is the policy of Portland Parks and Recreation to actively seek sponsorships for its services, parks, and facilities from individuals, foundations, corporations, nonprofit organizations, service clubs, and other entities. The purpose of such sponsorships is to increase supplement PP&R’s ability to deliver services to the community, increase equity, and/or provide enhanced levels of service beyond the core levels which should be adequately funded from the City’s general fund.”

Under the “Guiding Principles” (sounds like a non-binding resolution) of sponsorship proposals, there’s a requirement that “Operating costs associated with the sponsor’s proposal should not exceed 10%”. I’m not sure what that means. PPR might take on additional ongoing operating costs after the sponsor’s donation? Needs clarification.

Here’s a tricky little legal thingy you’ll find useful when dealing in City Code and policy issues: the word “shall” is mandatory, “will” is not. If you want to be sure a rule won’t get waived or ignored, you want the word “shall”. So the Guiding Principle, “In recognition of a sponsor’s contribution, preference will be given to providing a form of recognition that is not displayed within parks” should be amended to state, “…. preference shall be given….”.

I don’t see any mention of logos under the guidelines. It’s hard to tell whether the Nike swooshes in the basketball courts mentioned in comments below meet the policy or not. For me, the logo on the court crosses the line between OK and not-OK for appropriate recognition and visibility of donations. A sign on a plaque or on the wall of a community center, as described in the policy, is fine with me; the logo on the court, not. And I don’t see any standards for the level of donation required before a sponsorship gift is acknowledged with recognition such as a sign or logo in a park. Under “Determining Types of Recognition”, authority to make that decision is allocated to the “Sponsorship Coordinator” for gifts under $10,000, and to the Marketing and Business Development Manager (currently Bob Schulz) if over that amount. There is no mention of public involvement being required or desired to help make the decision. There should be. Minimally, the Parks Board should be required to review and approve the decisions of bureau staff. Preferably, the sponsorship proposal should have a process of public comment at least with the Neighborhood Association in which the park is located, and on the web site.

I like the sections on Types of Recognition, and Ethical Considerations, very much.

Moving on to the Naming Policy:

You know what? This is an excellent policy. If followed, we won’t have another “PGE Park”. It is clear and inclusive, setting standards and criteria for both the name and the process. It includes discretionary considerations such as names should “Engender a strong positive image”. It requires that a name have “broad public support”, and sets up a public review process including notification to the Neighborhood Association and consideration by a committee of the Director of Portland Parks and Recreation or his/her representative, a staff member from the office of the Parks Commissioner, a staff member from the Oregon Historical Society, a member of the Portland Parks and Recreation Board, and the Director of the Office of Neighborhood Involvement or his/her representative. It even includes the sensible stipulation, “The naming of a park and/or recreational facility after people who may have lost their lives due to war or a tragic event will be considered only after the shock of such event has lessened within the community.” At this time, I have no suggestions for improvement – pending the discussion at the Parks Team meeting tomorrow.

The Citywide Parks Team is one of my favorite meetings of the month. There are usually guest speakers – sometimes staff of government agencies or non-profits, sometimes citizen volunteers. Participants come from all areas of the city, and are some of the most invested advocates and knowledgable experts, paid or unpaid, on a wide range of topics. People are passionate and vocal on the issues, and there are generally folks on both sides of any given one. I learn a lot. I expect tomorrow’s meeting to be no different. I know two of the guest speakers, Bob Schulz of PPR and Linda Laviolette, the Executive Director of the Portland Parks Foundation. They are both well-informed, thoughtful, good-hearted people with impressive records of having done great things for Portland’s parks. And I’m hoping for a good turnout of concerned citizens to contribute to the discussion. I’m looking forward to reporting back on Friday with any revisions to my “Before” opinions.