Minor details

Anna Griffin’s article in the Oregonian today on the policy for corporate Sponsorships in Portland’s parks, contains a couple of minor but significant errors. I’ll state up front it’s my fault, since Anna interviewed me for the article and evidently I didn’t make the following points clear. And also that the rest of the report is well researched and accurate, and I appreciate attention to this important policy choice.

One sentence illustrates the major problem in this issue. You’ll find it on the second page of the web link:

“At public hearings and community meetings, neighborhood leaders argued for a clause calling on the City Council to give the parks system the money it needs. The clause didn’t make the final draft.”

There was one community meeting. One. No public hearings, prior to the Council’s session tomorrow. The only opportunity to discuss the proposals was at the Citywide Parks Team meeting organized by citizens, covered here and here. Very few changes were made to the draft proposal following that meeting. The recommended version was sent on to Council by the Parks Board, but unlike most other appointed citizen committees, the Parks Board does not take testimony, and meets at 7:30 a.m. which is not an easy time for citizens to present even if they did.

One meeting, not attended by the citizen decision-makers sending the proposal on to City Council, does not constitute a full public hearings process. And that is one of the core problems with the proposal to be reviewed by Council tomorrow – lack of public participation in forming or refining it.

There really isn’t a “right” or “wrong” answer on the question of whether/how much corporate advertising to allow in Portland’s parks. It depends on the community’s values; it should be something the community decides through a consensus-driven process. This particular issue would have been an excellent focal point for a question in the VisionPDX project. Instead of asking general questions about lofty goals, ideals, and values, what if 12,000 Portlanders had responded to “Do you want to allow corporate logos in parks?”, and then the specific quandary of “Are you willing to pay more taxes to ensure that corporate logos are kept out of Portland’s parks?”? Most people are not in the least interested about, say, the design of Holly Farm Park. But many would love to give their two cents on something as universal about what they want all parks to look like, when they choose to visit. There should have been a wider public process on this issue, and perhaps there still should be. One option tomorrow is for the Council to direct Portland Parks & Recreation (PPR) to go out into the community and actively seek more input, followed by a formal public hearing before the Parks Board at a time convenient than 7:30 a.m., to encourage more citizens to engage in the debate.

Another detail: this is not a “new” policy. PPR has been using almost the same language as their internal policy for years. It’s only being reviewed by Council because citizens asked, and a new manager in PPR respected and responded to our request.

Note the language of the Resolution tomorrow: Direct Portland Parks and Recreation to adopt new sponsorship and naming policies. Notice it doesn’t say “Adopt new ….”, it says, “Direct PPR to….”. We have a turf issue here, folks. Bureaus get to adopt administrative rules without approval of the full Council. Yet some administrative rules rise to the level of citywide policy, and it’s appropriate for the entire Council to comment and vote on them. Some citizens at the Citywide Parks Team meeting asked that the City adopt the Naming Policy citywide, so that non-PPR facilities like Civic Stadium/PGE Park will not be allowed to switch to corporate names in the future.

The turf problem will be harder to overcome if 26-90 and 26-91 pass. If the form of government Charter change wins, only the Mayor will be aware of administrative rules in all the bureaus. Only the Mayor will get to approve them. This Resolution is on the Council’s agenda tomorrow because citizens lobbied a bureau manager and a staff person to the Commissioner-in-charge. Under 26-90, many more City workers could be fired for assisting citizens in challenging an administrative rule. If 26-91 passes, the staff person would be one of maybe 50 (or more) in the Mayor’s office. If the Mayor chose not to allow a public process to review an administrative rule, that would likely be the end of the story. Now, if Commissioner Saltzman had not approved the request for review, citizens would have gone to another Commissioner for assistance. Indeed, some of us are hoping there will be three votes tomorrow for directing PPR to conduct a wider public process before Council adopts City-wide sponsorship and naming policies.