Standards of Community Engagement

Since joining the NCEC, I've heard story after story from people concerned about the notification process city departments, officials, and electeds use to bring citizens into the decision-making process.  Last week, a Northeaster (who I consider highly involved in neighborhood and city activities) brought to my attention a city meeting advertised as a "community meeting" in a press release.  However, the resident didn't receive any notice of the meeting despite being subscribed to numerous e-notice services from the city (including departments that were participating in the "community meeting").  

The meeting, the January 6th regular meeting of Minneapolis' Civilian Review Authority (CRA), had the sole purpose "to present, discuss and seek public comment on the 'CRA Participation in Performance Review of MPD Chief Dolan.'" 

Hopefully, the lack of notice was merely an oversight within the established protocol for instances when public comment is sought.  However, it is just as likely that the CRA followed the city's established practice for seeking comment which resulted in under notification.   

In my experience with the city, I've found the engagement process to be inconsistent.  For staff members and elected officials who believe engagement is an important part of the process, then citizens receive frequent, timely notices of ways to be engaged and involved.  The opposite is just as true. 

In the coming months, I will push the NCEC and the NCR (Neighborhood & Community Relations Department) to ensure that people's voices are heard and used in the process of making decisions.  To do that, the NCEC must establish community engagement standards, review the current practices of city departments, and work with departments and elected officials to ensure everyone complies with the standards.