Before and After on Parks Policy – Part 2: After
Last night, about 30 people attended the Citywide Parks Team meeting discussing the draft-that’s-been-in-use-for-years Portland Parks & Recreation (PPR) policies on Sponsorship and Naming. On Wednesday, I promised to report new information learned, and whether my opinions on the issues changed.
Important clarifications:
1. PGE Park is not a Portland Parks & Recreation facility, and was not a PPR facility when it morphed from Civic Stadium.
Those of us concerned about that change should support Rick Seifert, former editor of the SW Connection community newspaper and current blogger at The Red Electric, in his quest to ask the Council to establish sponsorship and naming policies citywide, not just for PPR.
2. There are two categories of corporate/individual support for PPR (beyond required taxation and fees): Sponsorships and Donations.
* Sponsors are generally corporations, and require some form of recognition as a condition of their financial or in-kind support.
* Donors are philanthopists whose gifts are not contingent on receiving recognition.
PPR, the Parks Bureau, deals with sponsorships. The Portland Parks Foundation, an independent non-profit organization with tax-exempt status, seeks and manages donations.
3. The creation of the Portland Parks Foundation was recommended in the adopted Parks 2020 Plan, in 2001.
4. To secure strategic gifts to the Foundation, their Board members met with all the Council members to be sure they understood that the gifts were contingent on Council not cutting the Parks budget in other areas.
For example, the gift by Columbia Sportswear of $100,000 per year for 10 years, to support additional maintenance and plantings at Sellwood Park, was made with the explicit understanding that the level of service by PPR regular employees at that site would not be reduced. Note that this Columbia Sportswear support is a donation, not sponsorship. It is acknowledged only with three small plaques at the park – citizens are challenged to try to find all three, as they’re not conspicuous.
Staff at PPR and the Foundation agree that public review of the sponsorship and naming policies is overdue, and that it is A Good Thing we’re doing it now. Changes have already been incorporated into the draft based on comments submitted so far, and staff acknowledge that in the future, decisions will be made to ensure different outcomes from some of the examples cited as objectionable by citizens in this process.
I figure you’ll skim whatever you’re not interested in.)
Bob Schulz of PPR and Linda Laviolette of the Parks Foundation confirmed my opinion that they are good, caring people working hard for stewardship of Portland’s parks for the immediate and long term good of its citizens. Linda reviewed the work of the Foundation. I didn’t hear any comments or suggestions that what they do is anything other than desirable. In their current signature project, the new Holly Farm Park (I’ll be writing about this soon), the Foundation has raised over $700,000 of the $2m price tag. Even private individual donors who gave over half a million dollars in stock options will be acknowledged only in a list of donors on small signs in the park.
Bob gave several examples of corporate support by Nike, including one donation, another in sponsorship. The resurfacing of all 96 basketball courts in the city was done as a donation through the Foundation, with a $2 million gift donated as part of Nike’s celebration of the 30th anniversary of the founding of the company. The logo on the courts represents a pearl (30th anniversary stone). Bob stated that logos as permanent/semi-permanent installations in parks would not be allowed in the future, under the draft policy he will be presenting to the Parks Board. He also reviewed a sponsorship gift by Nike, the “Nike GO” cards. PPR gives these cards out annually to up to 1,000 children in need, each card good for $75 per term in program user fees. The cards have Nike’s logo and name on them, in return for the subsidy. I didn’t hear anyone object to this level of recognition for a sponsorship program. Nike also gives $75,000 – $100,000 per year to sponsor PPR’s summer parks programs for needy children, at five sites around the city. I’ve seen these programs in action and was unaware of the sponsor’s involvement, which indicates to me at least that the visibility of recognition of their support wasn’t overwhelming.
Several other examples of sponsorship gifts and recogntion were cited, e.g., Freightliner (Summer concerts in parks => banner at the event, listing in program); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IBEW union (recreational basketball league => their logo on the team jerseys); various corporate sponsors each supporting one of the five ballfields at Delta Park while getting it temporarily named for the company. Local businesses buy ads printed on the back of mailed PPR program lists for community centers.
Many of the citizens present stated the value of having Parks funded adequately, without having to rely on corporate sponsors for basics. Bob noted that voters here passed Measures 5, 47, and 50 passed ballot measures limiting property taxes. This is a topic to take up during the public hearing on these policies at City Council.
Questions/responses at the meeting:
Q: What about long term sustainability? Are the sponsors starting programs that will have to be discontinued when the sponsorship ends?
A: PPR seeks long-term commitments from the corporation asking to sponsor a program.
Q: Why do we need a parks employee to manage corporate support, instead of letting the Foundation handle all gifts?
A: Because if the company gets something in return, it’s not a donation, it’s sponsorship, and the Foundation as a tax-exempt non-profit can’t and shouldn’t get into the business decision-making.
Q: A new position for a “Sponsorship Coordinator” isn’t in the proposed budget, how will it be funded?
A: The position is already designated and funded; the staff person is being used in another capacity right now and this assignment can be added to the bureau work program without additional resources. It’s expected the position will bring in more than it costs, anyway.
Q: What about the Pepsi logos on the scoreboards in Community Centers paid for with the bond levy? We didn’t pay to provide a canvas for corporate ads.
A: The bond measures didn’t bring in enough money to pay to furnish the new Community Centers (East, SW, Mt. Scott) without additional corporate sponsorship. The policy under consideration should address logos for future decision-makers.
Q: What’s the policy on concessions in parks facilities?
A: Good point, we should add a paragraph on sales in parks into this policy.
(Note: for summer concert sponsors, the current practice is that sponsors donating over a certain amount to put on the concerts are allowed to sell things – except alcohol – at booths during the concerts – AF)
Q: Why isn’t there more public involvement in decisions about sponsorship and naming?
A:That’s what we’re discussing in this process, make more comments on the draft policy if you don’t think it’s where it should be.
Q: Why not separate events vs. assets? Events are more labor intensive and sponsorship is clearly temporary.
A: Great idea! We’ll consider that suggestion.
My favorite answer to a question came from Bob Schulz at the end, when we clarified the process for adoption of the policies. He said the web site comments page will be open through February 23 (realistically, until Monday Feb 26 at the start of the work week, but Feb 23 is the published date), then the draft will be revised based on comments received and a proposed policy goes to the Parks Board. After their approval, it will go to a public hearing before Council for adoption.
So I asked, “Can you give us an estimate of when that will be?”, expecting to hear an answer based on the length of time it takes to secure a space on the Council’s agenda, prepare an ordinance, etc. Instead, Bob said, “Well, it depends what the citizens on the Parks Board decide to do with our proposal. They may direct us to send it back out for much more work. I don’t want to tell you a timeframe since I don’t know what their response will be and it might turn out to be inaccurate.”
Note to all agency staff and government officials: that is an exemplary answer. It showed the person responsible for preparing the proposal does not expect the citizen Board to rubber-stamp it. It gave citizens present a clear understanding of expectations, and of the importance of the Parks Board. And it answered my question honestly, even though the answer is, “we don’t know”.
In conclusion: I think we’re headed towards an improved sponsorship and naming policy for the city’s Parks. We need one for all bureaus, citywide. Corporate donors generally get minimal recognition for their philanthropy; in the case of logos in parks, the line may have been crossed on rewards for sponsorships. There would be value in expanding this public process to discuss the issues with community groups all over the city, since that line is fuzzy and subject to consensus. This current process for a quick review of the policy has been a good start.