Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-15-26 Study Commission Agenda and Packet Materials
A. Call to Order with Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence - 4:00 PM, Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse B. Changes to the Agenda C. Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission THE STUDY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA SC AGENDA Wednesday, April 15, 2026 How to Participate: If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to govreview@bozeman.net prior to 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. At the direction of the Study Commission, anonymous public comments are not distributed to the Study Commission. Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through video conference during the appropriate agenda items but you may only comment once per item. As always, the meeting will be recorded and streamed through the Meeting Videos and available in the City on cable channel 190. For more information please contact Ex Officio, Mike Maas, 406.582.2321, or visit bozemanstudy.com. This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online video conferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Video Conference: Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting. Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in- person United States Toll +1 669 900 9128 Access code: 951 6442 0347 This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Bozeman Study Commission. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Study Commission cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Study Commission shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name, and state whether you are a resident of the city or a property owner within the city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your 1 D. Consent Agenda D.1 Study Commission Claims Review and Approval(Heinen) D.2 Approval of Study Commission Minutes(Heinen) D.3 Authorize absence of Study Commissioner Barb Cestero E. Correspondence or Study Commission Update E.1 Review Calendar and Goals through June 17 and Discuss Promotion of Final Public Hearing on Tentative Report May 28(Franks) F. New Business F.1 Select a Firm for Ballot Education Services (Maas) G. Unfinished Business G.1 Presentation by County Commissioners on District System G.2 Discussion on Neighborhood Associations Time Permitting(Franks) H. Future Agenda Items H.1 Future Education Discussion and Needs for April 24 Meeting (Heinen) I. Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission J. Announcements K. Adjournment comments to three minutes. Written comments can be located in the Public Comment Repository. TBD Consider the Motion: I move to approve the Study Commission meeting minutes from April 2, 2026. Consider the Motion: I move to authorize Ex Officio Maas to begin contract negotiations of a professional services agreement for Bozeman City Study Commission Ballot Education. Reference Materials Study Commission Bylaws Study Commission Resources Study Commission meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact the City of Bozeman's ADA Coordinator, David Arnado, at 406.582.3232. Study Commission meetings are televised live on cable channel 190 and streamed live on our Meeting Videos Page. 2 3 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Caeleb Heinen, Recording Secretary Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Study Commission Claims Review and Approval MEETING DATE:April 15, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Finance RECOMMENDATION:TBD STRATEGIC PLAN:7.5. Funding and Delivery of City Services: Use equitable and sustainable sources of funding for appropriate City services, and deliver them in a lean and efficient manner. BACKGROUND:Study Commission claims for approval prior to payment by Ex Officio from the approved Study Commission Budget. Budget Tracking UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:The Study Commission could decide not to approve these claims or a portion of the claims presented. This alternative is not recommended as it may result in unbudgeted late fees assessed. FISCAL EFFECTS:$2791.45 Attachments: 20260409090203837.pdf Report compiled on: April 8, 2026 4 5 6 7 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Caeleb Heinen, Recording Secretary Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Approval of Study Commission Minutes MEETING DATE:April 15, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Consider the Motion: I move to approve the Study Commission meeting minutes from April 2, 2026. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:Attached are the written minute summaries from the previous two meetings. Future meeting minutes ought to be approved at the next schedule Study Commission meeting. All past meeting recordings are available for review on the City's Meeting Videos page. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified ALTERNATIVES:As per the Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: 04-02-26 Study Commission Meeting Minutes.pdf Report compiled on: April 8, 2026 8 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, April 2, 2026 Page 1 of 4 THE CITY COMMMISSION MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES April 2, 2026 A) 00:00:34 Call to Order with Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence - 4:00 PM, Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Present: Carson Taylor, Becky Franks, Barb Cestero, Deanna Campbell, Jan Strout, Mike Maas Absent: None Excused: None B) 00:01:45 Changes to the Agenda 00:01:48 Chair Taylor moved G.1 above F C) 00:02:24 Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission 00:03:12 Abby Jones gave public comment 00:06:06 Gracie Caldwell gave public comment D) 00:08:50 Consent Agenda D.1 Study Commission Claims Review and Approval Exponent-Invoice-00025-_-BCSC-_-02-26-2026.pdf BCSC Invoice #7 (March 2026) - Invoice.pdf BCSC Invoice #4 (December 2025) - Invoice (1).pdf BCSC Invoice #6 (February 2026) - Invoice.pdf 75385_0.pdf D.2 Approval of Study Commission Minutes 03-25-26 Study Commission Meeting Minutes.pdf 00:09:03 Motion to approve I make a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Becky Franks: Motion 9 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, April 2, 2026 Page 2 of 4 Jan Strout: 2nd 00:09:24 Vote on the Motion to approve I make a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. The Motion carried 5 - 0. Approve: Carson Taylor Becky Franks Barb Cestero Deanna Campbell Jan Strout Disapprove: None E) 00:09:31 Correspondence or Study Commission Update E.1 00:09:38 Final Survey Results by Working Ventures Survey Results Final.pdf 00:09:38 Cmr. Franks discussed the results for Working Ventures surveys 00:10:04 Cmr. Cestero forewarned her absence at the April 15 meeting 00:10:22 Cmr. Taylor discussed an upcoming meeting with the Bozeman Chronicle at a later date, suggested it to be him and Cmr. Franks G) New Business G.1 00:11:03 Discussion with Jeff Krauss and Danielle Rogers on City Boards Jason Delmue was also present but not noted in the agenda. 00:11:12 Cmr. Taylor introduced the panelists and the topic to be discussed 00:12:44 Discussion on the present system of Boards 00:14:13 Ex Officio Maas presented the current Board system City Boards City wide website Old Board Report 00:18:50 Jeff Krauss discussed his experience and history with City Boards 00:31:21 Danielle Rogers discussed her experience and history with City Boards 00:36:51 Jason Delmue discussed his experience and history with City Boards 10 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, April 2, 2026 Page 3 of 4 00:45:52 Question and answer portion for the panel Resolution 5323 Bozeman Charter Article IV 01:48:49 Daniel Carty gave public comment 01:50:04 Mark Campanelli gave public comment 01:53:29 Amy Hoitsma gave public comment 01:55:32 Zehra Osman gave public comment F) 02:00:05 Unfinished Business F.1 02:00:32 Further Learning for Wards/Districts Comparison City Chart (with Voter Turnout).pdf Voter Turnout in At Large vs. Wards.pdf Correlates of Voter Turnout Political Behavior.pdf Seattle Districting Commission.pdf San Diego Charter Redistricting.pdf 02:00:43 Dan Clark from MSU Local Government Center was present 02:01:15 Questions on the further learning on Wards/Districts G.2 02:24:39 Learning session for Neighborhood Associations and Boards Recommended INC Charter Language.pdf 02:24:52 Dan Clark handed out materials and introduced the item Descriptions of Neighborhood Councils found in Montana Local Government Charters Suggestions for Strengthening Inter-Neighborhood Council Charter Language Side by Side Comparison of Bozeman’s current charter language and recommended revisions 02:25:23 Handout 1: Descriptions of Neighborhood Councils found in Montana Local Government Charters 02:35:57 Handout 2: Suggestions for Strengthening Inter-Neighborhood Council Charter Language 02:46:25 Handout 3: Side by Side Comparison of Bozeman's current charter language and recommended revisions 02:51:18 Questions for Dan Clark Bozeman Charter Neighborhood Associations 11 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, April 2, 2026 Page 4 of 4 I) 03:08:10 Public Comment on Anything within the Jurisdiction of the Study Commission 03:08:25 Mary Bateson gave public comment 03:10:10 Mark Campanelli gave public comment 03:13:57 Pam Bodhi gave public comment 03:16:30 Amy Hoitsma gave public comment 03:20:30 Zehra Osman gave public comment H) 03:25:35 Future Agenda Items H.1 03:25:39 Future Education Discussion and Needs for April 15 Meeting 03:25:41 Cmr. Strout discussed having County Commissioner Zach Brown discuss the County's district system 03:26:17 Cmr. Taylor included County Commissioner Jen Boyer in the aforementioned discussion 03:27:06 Cmr. Campbell requested the Study Commission take a deeper look at Resolution 5323 03:27:25 Discussion on meeting on April 24. Scheduled for 11am-2pm. J) Announcements K) 03:31:48 Adjournment 12 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission SUBJECT:Authorize absence of Study Commissioner Barb Cestero MEETING DATE:April 15, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Authorize absence of Study Commissioner Barb Cestero 13 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Caeleb Heinen, Recording Secretary Mike Maas, Ex Officio Becky Franks, Study Commissioner Vice Chair SUBJECT:Review Calendar and Goals through June 17 and Discuss Promotion of Final Public Hearing on Tentative Report May 28 MEETING DATE:April 15, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Review previously approved calendar goals and dates and discuss the upcoming Public Hearing to stay on track with the Study Commission's goals and objectives. The Study Commission will also discuss attendance for May 7 meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:Planning for upcoming meetings and Public Hearings to stay on track with the Study Commission's goals. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified ALTERNATIVES:As per the Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:None identified Report compiled on: April 8, 2026 14 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Caeleb Heinen, Recording Secretary Mike Maas, Ex Officio Carson Taylor, Chair SUBJECT:Select a Firm for Ballot Education Services MEETING DATE:April 15, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Agreement - Vendor/Contract RECOMMENDATION:Consider the Motion: I move to authorize Ex Officio Maas to begin contract negotiations of a professional services agreement for Bozeman City Study Commission Ballot Education. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:The Bozeman City Study Commission advertised an RFP for Ballot Education Services on March 12 and March 28, 2026, for a submittal date of April 3, 2026. Two proposals were received (see attached). In an effort to foster an objective evaluation, Chair Carson Taylor and Ex Officio Maas are presenting them without their consensus recommendation. During the discussion they will present their consensus recommendation after both proposals are introduced and the Study Commissioners have crafted their initial opinions. There will be no scheduled interviews in the current process. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified ALTERNATIVES:As per the Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:TBD Attachments: KW Response - City of Bozeman Ballot Education - final.pdf Danegeld_BozemanCityCharterProposal_03April2026.pdf Report compiled on: April 6, 2026 15 City of Bozeman, MT Bozeman City Study Commission Recommendations Ballot Education Request for Proposals Submitted by Kearns & West April 3, 2026 Primary Contact: Jamie Damon jdamon@kearnswest.com 503-490-5815 537 SE Ash St, Portland, OR 97214 16 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 2 1) Executive Summary City of Bozeman PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 Dear Mike Maas, We are pleased to submit Kearns & West’s (K&W) application to the Bozeman City Study Commission Recommendations Ballot Education RFP. Our team brings decades of expertise with strategic communications, community education, bond campaigns, and public engagement planning with public agencies across the west and the nation. We understand that the City of Bozeman Study Commission (BSC) is embarking on a city-wide ballot education process ahead of the November election and the challenges local governments face when engaging with and educating the public in a campaign environment. K&W is partnering with Verkstad, a design and visual communications firm, which brings cutting-edge branding and digital strategies to support this work, and MSH Strategy, a firm specializing in engagement and communications strategies for complex projects. Our team recently led a city-wide education effort for local government in the Portland Metro area leading to the successful passage of a $150 million General Obligation bond to fund critical infrastructure. We offer the BSC the following resources and experience: • Expertise in communications and public engagement. Our team of engagement and communications specialists brings decades of experience designing and implementing strategic communications and public engagement programs for local governments and regional agencies. From our work with the Urban Flood Safety and Water Quality District, to large-scale initiatives for the Oregon Department of Transportation, we help public agencies communicate complex topics clearly, consistently, and accessibly. Our team is experienced in balancing the communication of technical content while building community awareness and support. We bring proven tools and approaches for community storytelling, media strategy, message discipline, and transparent feedback loops. • Expertise in neutral and non-partisan education. We specialize in distilling technical information and policy frameworks into objective, easy-to-understand educational materials that remain strictly impartial. With our commitment to impartiality, we focus on factual transparency and build public trust to ensure that community members are empowered to make informed decisions based on a clear understanding of the issues. • Strategic public affairs. MSH Strategy (MSH) brings extensive experience in supporting transitions in governance and funding structures, helping cities and public agencies manage the policy, legal, and cultural dimensions of change. MSH has helped develop and pass major funding measures, including the Fixing Our Streets gas tax renewal and Oregon Metro’s Parks and Nature levy. • Experience developing branding for government agencies. Verkstad creates distinctive branding for projects, agencies, and businesses that reflects their values and mission and is instantly recognizable. A strong, purpose-driven brand differentiates an agency, creates a memorable presence, and helps the public rally behind a shared vision. Please contact me with any questions or for additional information. We look forward to discussing this opportunity with you soon. Sincerely, Jamie Damon Principal and Senior Mediator jdamon@kearnswest.com, 503-490-5815 17 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 3 2. Firm/Individual Profile Project Team: Key Personnel and Qualified Staff Jamie Damon – Strategic Advisor Jamie Damon, Principal and Senior Mediator at K&W, brings nearly four decades of expertise in public communications, stakeholder engagement strategy, and collaborative process design for local, state, and federal agencies and Tribal governments across the west, including recent work in Montana for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) at Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge. Jamie is an expert in developing multi-party processes that require clear, accessible messaging, structured public involvement, and strategic decision frameworks. Her background as an elected County Commissioner further strengthens her public-facing communications judgment and governance insight. At K&W, Jamie specializes in public-facing strategy, helping agencies navigate and message the complexities of infrastructure, land use, and natural resources management. Jamie navigates contentious, large-scale projects by integrating stakeholder engagement with sophisticated branding and communications strategies. Jamie is dedicated to building resilient and transparent communications that are accessible to all. Jamie will act as a senior strategic advisor for this project, ensuring all final deliverables are reviewed for quality and content before being shared with the City. She will also provide strategic guidance to the development of all draft deliverables. Noah Siegel – Social Media & Audience Development Lead Noah Siegel is the Principal of MSH and has extensive experience in local government, including serving as Policy Director for the Mayor of Portland with portfolio responsibilities over fire and rescue, emergency management, and public utilities. As Deputy Director of the Portland Bureau of Transportation, Noah collaborated regularly with Portland Fire and Rescue on safety and right-of-way management. As a strategic communications professional, Noah has worked with a number of local government clients, including the cities of Portland, Oregon City, and Tigard in Oregon, as well as Tacoma and Vancouver in Washington. He is currently providing strategic communications for the communities of Hood River and White Salmon as they seek to replace their bridge across the Columbia River. Noah will lead strategic public affairs and support communications deliverables for the project. Drew Meisel – Logo, Branding, and Design Lead Drew founded Verkstad, a visual communications firm based in Portland, Oregon. He is a designer who specializes in visual communication for complex initiatives, helping organizations explain technical, policy-driven, or innovative ideas with clarity and purpose. Before working full-time as a designer, he trained and worked as an urban planner where he learned to communicate ideas with clarity, from explaining the need to finance levee improvements for flood safety (UFSWQD) to visualizing the neighborhood impacts of a new transit line (Metro MAX Tunnel Study). For nearly 20 years, he has used design and visual thinking to translate complexity into understanding. His work focuses on helping people see the big picture, grasp key insights, and move from information to action. Drew believed that good design doesn’t just make things look better, it shapes decisions, builds trust, and earns support. Drew will lead Logo and Branding for this project, including developing graphic materials. Nicole Metildi - Project Manager and Strategic Communications Lead Nicole is a Senior Associate at K&W with extensive experience managing complex public involvement and communications programs across local, regional, and statewide projects. She specializes in strategic communications planning, inclusive engagement design, and translating technical information into clear, accessible content. Nicole has led multi-million-dollar project teams, guided communications for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Urban Flood Safety and Water Quality District (UFSWQD), and managed engagement efforts for transportation, flood safety, and climate planning initiatives. She has holds professional certifications in public participation and content strategy and completed UC Berkeley Extension’s Professional Sequence in Editing. Nicole delivers clear messaging, coordinated project management, and 18 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 4 engagement approaches that help communities understand project impacts and meaningfully participate in decision-making. Nicole will manage this project and lead development of the Strategic Communications Plan and lead the team in messaging and education alignment. Ruby Gonzales – Voter Education & Engagement Lead Ruby is an Associate at K&W, specializing in public process development, strategic community engagement, and culturally-specific education programming. Prior to joining K&W, Ruby led voter education and outreach for Multnomah County Elections, where she developed a countywide education and communications strategy to enhance voter participation in underrepresented communities. Ruby also oversaw constituent services and community engagement for the Multnomah County Chair’s Office, managing communications and media channels, public testimony processes, and community relationship development. At K&W, Ruby brings additional communications and public outreach experience, supporting process development for local, state, and federal jurisdictions to engage diverse communities. She collaborates with the K&W digital accessibility team to navigate complex Section 508 requirements and ensure all communications assets meet the highest federal standards for accessibility. Ruby holds a Bachelor of Arts in Social Work from Portland State University, along with a certificate in Civic Leadership and applies a data-informed, trauma‑informed approach to communications and engagement. Ruby will lead the community partnerships engagement efforts and support the development of all project deliverables. Staff resumes can be found on page 18. 3. Scope of Project To ensure a successful and legally compliant ballot education campaign for the City of Bozeman Study Commission, the following work plan outlines a strategic and comprehensive project approach rooted in our firm’s deep expertise in neutral, non-partisan public engagement. We understand the bright line between advocacy and education and will prioritize factual transparency to build community trust while explaining the complexities of the proposed Amended City Charter and its accompanying sub-options. By leveraging national best practices in voter education, we will deliver a unified, accessible, and high-impact education program that empowers Bozeman voters to make informed decisions. This work plan considers the unique challenges Bozeman voters face when participating in local elections. In a November ballot, shared with federal and statewide issues, the Charter Amendment risks being overshadowed or misunderstood. Bozeman’s rapid growth has created a diverse population that may not be familiar with the current City Manager form of government, potentially leading to confusion about where accountability lies. To combat this, our engagement plan will utilize best practices in voter education to lower barriers for residents who may face time constraints or digital divides when it comes to making informed choices on their ballot. We will provide the BSC with a toolkit and diverse communication mediums to ensure that whether a voter is attending a neighborhood meeting or scrolling through social media, they receive consistent and clear information that empowers them to make an informed vote. Our approach centers on providing a transparent, inclusive, and neutral educational framework that adheres to the highest standards of the Montana Local Government Review process. We recognize that in high-growth cities like Bozeman, public trust is paramount, and residents may have expressed that they feel unheard or disconnected from the decision-making processes. As a neutral third-party, Kearns & West can ensure that the line between education and advocacy is never crossed. We will utilize our neutrality framework to distill technical Charter language into objective comparisons, allowing voters to consider how the proposed changes may impact daily governance without bias. Regarding the use of Generative AI, we believe AI can support our work when used carefully, transparently, and under appropriate guidance. However, we also recognize that AI outputs can be inaccurate, biased, or overly generic. Human review and verification of AI outputs is required at K&W, along with other standard project and client approvals. AI tools may support our work when used responsibly and under appropriate review. They cannot 19 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 5 replace human judgment, especially in client settings or sensitive contexts. This policy guides K&W use of AI and aligns with our Principles and Values on Impartiality, which emphasize trust, neutrality, and care in how we work. We propose the following approach to deliver the services listed under the Scope of Services. We view this as an initial proposal and are happy to further refine the scope of responsibilities based on the City’s priorities, availability of in-house resources, and budget considerations. The core tasks outlined below are aligned with our cost proposal in the following section. Task 1: Kickoff and Ongoing Project Management A successful ballot education campaign must align with the elections’ timeline. We treat project management as a strategic function, ensuring that every milestone is met without sacrificing the quality of the narrative. We will establish a cadence of communication and a detailed work plan from day one to provide the City with the stability and foresight needed to navigate the complexities of election-cycle communications. K&W has a team that has served government clients across states for over 20 years. Our team possesses the business functions and project management capacity required to manage this project and ensure it remains on schedule and meets the project deadline. Our team will use the following tools and techniques to help the City develop a ballot education campaign so that voters can make an informed decision on the proposed City Charter Changes on the November 3, 2026 election: • Facilitating a Project Kickoff: At the beginning of the process, our team will hold a project kickoff with the City’s team to discuss project background and goals, roles and responsibilities, tasks, potential risks and solutions to overcome them, and team coordination preferences. After the project kickoff, we will develop a detailed work plan and track progress over the course of the project. At the kickoff, we will also confirm how we will work together, discussing our expectations around deliverable review, who we should communicate with on a day-to-day basis, who the City’s decision makers are, and who will provide final sign-off on deliverables. • Creating a Work Plan: We will create a detailed schedule of tasks informed by the kickoff meeting. This will include any sub-tasks and assumptions about steps and timing for the City’s review process. At project team check ins, Nicole will share deliverable status to keep tasks on track and on schedule. • Ongoing Budget Tracking and Reporting: All K&W employees forecast and track project hours using Unanet software. This allows us real-time visibility to plan and track project budgets and supports monthly reporting. We will provide monthly invoices and progress reports to detail activities and budget remaining in the most appropriate format to meet City requirements. • Establishing Channels for Project Team Coordination and Communications: We will schedule and facilitate recurring weekly team meetings to report progress, coordinate on tasks, and seek client guidance on deliverables. We will send out action items and regular status reports to help track progress and align understanding of next steps. As needed, K&W can also help convene planning or topic-specific meetings if in-depth discussions can help support project development. We will also hold meetings internally to address questions and coordinate assignments. Task 2: Discovery and Strategic Planning To develop a voter education campaign that increases involvement and build public trust, K&W will begin by reviewing and understanding the City’s existing materials and the history of the proposed City Charter Changes. This discovery phase is more than a technical review; it is an alignment process designed to bridge the gap between complex City policy and public understanding. Our team will begin by conducting a review of all relevant project documentation, prior outreach results, and City Council directives. By conducting a deep-dive review of the City’s existing community education and historical voter data, we will identify the barriers that have historically prevented residents from engaging with ballot information. We will share these findings in the Work Session described below and discuss which elements or approaches the City is interested in replicating. 20 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 6 After this initial review, we will hold a two-hour Planning Work Session with City leadership and key staff to define the campaign’s core objectives. This session is designed to uncover the desired tone and voice of the education campaign, ensuring it aligns with Bozeman’s unique community identity while maintaining the neutrality required for election-related communications. After the Work Session, K&W will develop a specialized plan to facilitate focus groups with City of Bozeman priority audiences, as identified with City staff, to test the clarity of proposed charter changes messaging. This process is critical for evaluating how technical governance language translates into plain language that can resonate with voters. By testing educational concepts early, K&W can identify unique communication barriers and refine our approach to ensure the information provided is both neutral and easily understood before full-scale production begins. K&W will also develop a Guiding Principles Memo and a Focus Group Testing Plan that will be used to inform the development of the Strategic Communications Plan and voter education messaging. In this memo, we will detail criteria for creating brand and communications strategies that prioritize accessibility, ensuring that even the most hard-to-reach voters have the information they need to participate. Guiding Principles Memo The Guiding Principles Memo will serve as a foundational document for project staff to consult throughout the project as we build a clear and neutral brand for the campaign and create a Strategic Communications Plan that increases informed participation in the election. In the memo, we will detail criteria for creating brand and communications strategies that achieve the campaign’s goals. Criteria could include: • Accessibility-first • Clear, plain language • Recognizable logos and branding • Combatting misinformation Focus Group Testing Planning The Focus Group Testing and Message Validation Plan is an essential critical quality-assurance step. By engaging directly with representative segments of the Bozeman electorate, we can identify friction points where technical charter language may be confusing or where neutral information might be misconstrued. This plan details our strategy for soliciting high-value qualitative data from priority audiences to refine both the Strategic Communications Plan and Voter Education & Outreach Toolkit. We anticipate the Focus Group Testing Plan will include the following components: • Purpose and Goals of Message Testing: We will define the specific objectives of the testing phase, focusing on how we hope to learn from priority audiences. This includes assessing the "plain language" clarity of proposed City Charter changes and determining if the educational toolkit effectively lowers the barrier to participation in City decisions and election systems. • Priority Audience and Stakeholder Analysis: We will develop a targeted list of participants, working closely with the City to identify hard-to-reach community members. Our goal is to understand the unique barriers that specific groups face and to ensure the testing sample reflects the diverse perspectives of the Bozeman community. • Narrative and Concept Testing: We will establish a framework for testing key messages that explain why the BSC is proposing City Charter changes and the envisioned future of Bozeman governance with an updated Charter, allowing us to measure the neutrality and clarity of the messaging in a controlled setting. • Facilitation Plans and Engagement Methodology: For each focus group session, we will draft a structured facilitation plan that utilizes overarching questions designed to uncover how the public would like to be engaged and how to develop educational materials that are intuitive, accessible, and inclusive of the community’s needs. 21 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 7 • Logistics, Recruitment, and Implementation: Our plan will detail the high-level timeline for recruitment and session facilitation. We will outline the logistics for each activity, ensuring the virtual spaces are welcoming and accessible, and clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the consultant and City staff to ensure seamless execution of the testing phase. Deliverables may include: • Facilitated Planning Work Session • Guiding Principles Memo • Focus Group Testing Plan Task 3: Public Opinion Testing and Research The success of a ballot education campaign requires a deep understanding of the community’s existing perceptions, historical memory, and information-seeking behaviors. Our team will research the landscape of previous Bozeman ballot campaigns and conduct direct testing with residents, working to ensure that the City’s narrative on charter changes is not only technically accurate but also resonates with the values and concerns of the voters. As a neutral third party, we will create accessible and welcoming virtual spaces where participants can share honest feedback. We propose the following tasks and deliverables: • Research of Previous Bozeman Campaigns: We will conduct a retrospective analysis of recent and historical ballot measures and local campaigns within the City of Bozeman. We will identify previous messaging successes, points of community contention, and voter turnout patterns, to then provide the City with a strategic baseline of information. This research can help the City avoid past pitfalls while building on established community trust. • Focus Group Planning and Implementation: Building on the strategy developed in Task 2, we will recruit participants and facilitate three virtual targeted focus groups. These sessions will inform the development of the draft Voter Education & Outreach Toolkit. We will test the clarity of the proposed charter changes, the neutrality of the educational tone, and the usability of digital and print assets to ensure they lower the barrier to informed participation. • Summary of Results and Key Insights: Following the research and testing phases, we will develop a comprehensive focus group summary with key insights. This summary will reflect raw data and provide actionable insights and strategic recommendations. We will highlight specific messaging triggers and clarify which aspects of the charter changes require the most educational focus. This summary will serve as the basis for the Strategic Communications Plan, ensuring the final rollout is data-driven and community-validated. Deliverables may include: • Facilitated Focus Group Session (x3) • Focus Group Results & Key Insights Summary Task 4: Logo and Brand Development We want to support the City of Bozeman in establishing a visual identity for the proposed charter changes and the corresponding ballot education campaign. In an information-rich environment, a unified brand provides the public with an immediate signal that they are interacting with official, vetted, and neutral information from the City of Bozeman. Our goal is to develop a visual language that feels inherently "Bozeman", while strictly adhering to the neutrality required for voter education. Our approach is focused on establishing a clear set of brand guidelines early in the process and creating a tangible and recognizable presence across all print and digital platforms. 22 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 8 Logo Development and Visual Identity We will design a custom campaign logo and visual framework that differentiates the ballot education effort while remaining complementary to the existing City of Bozeman brand. Our design process focuses on usability and scalability, ensuring the logo is equally impactful on a small mobile screen, a printed ballot insert, or a large-scale mailer. We will provide up to three distinct design concepts for City review, refining the preferred direction into a final suite of digital assets. Campaign Brand Guidelines In the effort of long-term consistency and ease of use for City staff, we will develop a comprehensive Brand Guidelines document. These guidelines will include a defined color palette with accessibility-tested contrast ratios, typography standards that meet Section 508 compliance, and a library of iconography. These guidelines will ensure that all future deliverables, including the Voter Education Toolkit and social media assets, maintain a unified, professional, and trustworthy appearance. Deliverables may include: • Final Campaign Logo Suite (various file formats for print and digital) • Campaign Brand Style Guide (Typography, Color Palette, and Usage Standards) • Digital Asset Library (Iconography and Graphic Elements) Task 5: Strategic Communications Plan and Messaging Development This phase focuses efforts on the strategic translation of technical charter language into intuitive, high-impact visuals and messaging that lower the barrier to public understanding. Our creative approach is rooted in designing content that allow a busy resident to grasp the core components of the proposed charter changes in seconds, whether they are viewing a physical mailer in their kitchen or scrolling through a short-form video on a mobile device. It is our goal to create a single source of truth that translates the complexities of City Charter changes into accessible, plain-language narratives that empower voters. We will anchor our work in this phase through a formal Kickoff to review discovery findings and focus group insights. We will align with the City on the campaign’s core objectives, identify potential communications risks, and finalize the tactical priorities for the voter education rollout. As we work towards a final Strategic Communications Plan, we will stay centered on our mission to develop messaging that is clear, neutral, and grounded in the Guiding Principles established during the discovery phase. We will utilize the data gathered during focus group testing to develop educational materials that are not only visually cohesive but are also optimized for the specific digital and print channels where Bozeman residents already consume information. The Strategic Communications Plan may include the following components: • Communications Guiding Principles, Goals, and Objectives: We will define the overarching goal: to provide neutral, factual information about the Amended City Charter and Sub-Options. A core objective Elements in the final Brand Style Guide will include, but are not limited to: • Introduction and how to use • Brand goals • Mission statement, story • Voice and target audiences • Primary logo (appropriate use cases, logo variants, and inappropriate use cases) • Color palette • Typography • Imagery • Iconography and assets • Accessibility • File naming conventions • Version control protocol • Email signatures • Master templates in format of choice. May include letterhead, presentations, public meeting 23 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 9 will be to maintain the bright line of education, ensuring the City fulfills its responsibility to inform without straying into advocacy. • Targeted Audiences and Engagement Barriers: We will detail key segments of the Bozeman community, including those identified as hard to reach. This section outlines preferred communication methods (digital vs. print) and addresses barriers, such as the confusion caused by federal/statewide ballot items, with specific tactics to provide pathways to information. • Equity and Accessibility Considerations: In compliance with the RFP, all outreach strategies will prioritize WCAG Level A and AA accessibility. We will assess who is most affected by the Charter changes and highlight community dynamics that require specific outreach to ensure every resident has an equal opportunity to understand the ballot. • External Education Strategies and Tactics: We will provide a blueprint for how the City will share facts through mailers, rack cards, website content, and social media. It will include clear direction for designing materials that are scannable and easy to understand, ensuring a consistent brand identity that voters immediately recognize as official education. • Internal Coordination and Staff Resource Management: To respect City staff time, we will outline a clear workflow and decentralized communication model. This identifies which staff members are needed for specific educational efforts and establishes the internal review process to ensure all outgoing messaging remains strictly factual. • Unified Messaging Framework: We will establish a messaging hierarchy that supports consistent communication across all platforms and venues. This framework will include core messages regarding the Charter and procedures for the Sub-Options, ensuring the BSC and City staff speak with a single, authoritative, and neutral voice. • Risks and Mitigation (Anti-Misinformation): Given the potential for misinformation around complex ballot measures, this section will identify risks to education. We will develop specific mitigation tactics, such as a “Fact vs. Myth" component and a proactive FAQ to address confusion. • Evaluation Metrics and Optimization: We will develop clear measures of success using tools and analytics to track the reach of our educational materials. We will include an optimization strategy for media buys and social media advertising to ensure the ad-buy budget is being utilized effectively throughout the campaign. • Implementation Roadmap and Election Timeline: We will provide a practical timeline from contract award to Election Day. We will prioritize key milestones, such as the crucial one-month-out window when ballots are mailed, ensuring a thorough distribution of information at every stage of the voter journey. We will then package the campaign’s strategy into a user-friendly Voter Education and Outreach Toolkit. This toolkit is designed for both internal City use and for distribution to community partners. It may include talking points, social media templates, and fact sheets that make it easy for partners to share accurate, non-partisan information about the ballot measure with their respective networks. Deliverables may include: • Facilitated Strategy Kickoff Meeting • Comprehensive Strategic Communications Plan (Draft and Final) • Messaging Guide and FAQ(s) • Voter Education and Outreach Toolkit Task 6: Material and Social Media Planning and Development Our team is skilled in translating technical language into intuitive visuals that are rooted in neutral, fact-based storytelling. Every asset produced in this phase will be designed for maximum reach, prioritizing WCAG accessibility to ensure that all Bozeman voters have the tools they need to understand the proposed charter changes. 24 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 10 • Print Material Development (Ballot Inserts, Mailers, and Fact Sheets): We will design and produce a cohesive suite of print collateral to be distributed across Bozeman. With over 60% of Montana voters voting by mail, we would like to design a high-impact ballot insert mailer. We can also develop fact sheets, rack cards, and other print materials that utilize plain language to break down the proposed charter changes and the specific procedures for voting on the sub-options. • Educational Video Development: Recognizing the power of visual storytelling for complex subject matter, we will produce a series of short-form "explainer" videos. These videos can use motion graphics and neutral narration to walk voters through the Amended Charter's key components. It is our goal to create shareable content that can be easily distributed via the City’s social media channels and website. • Digital Assets and Content Development: We will build a comprehensive library of digital-first assets, including updated website content and a toolkit of social media-appropriate graphics. We will also develop a Presentation PowerPoint for the BSC. These slides will serve as a standard template for commissioners when presenting to local organizations, ensuring that all live educational efforts are unified, professional, and visually aligned with the campaign brand. • Strategic Media Planning: Our team can help design and execute a targeted paid digital campaign to support voter education in Bozeman, ensuring clear, accurate information reaches priority audiences at the right time and with the right frequency. We can work with the client to maximize views of organic social media and amplify proven content and accessible educational messaging with a paid digital strategy across high-performing platforms such as Meta (Facebook/Instagram), YouTube, LinkedIn, and other platforms. We can reach Bozeman residents based on geography, demographics, interests, and behavioral data. In addition to social media, we may consider banner and search ads that direct views to more detailed materials. Campaigns will be structured to achieve effective frequency, ensuring messages are seen multiple times while maintaining cost-efficiency. Throughout any campaign, we monitor performance in real time and continuously optimize targeting, creative, and budget allocation. We track engagement, reach, frequency, and platform performance, using these insights to refine strategy and improve results. To ensure the most efficient use of public resources, the specific allocation for paid media placements is excluded from our price proposal. Our approach treats the media buy as a strategic component to be finalized in partnership with the City once our initial research and audience segmentation identify the most effective platforms and frequency for reaching Bozeman residents. Deliverables may include: • Print Collateral Package (Mailers, Fact Sheets, Rack Cards) • Series of Educational Videos • Digital Toolkit (Web Graphics, Social Media Assets, and PowerPoint Slides) • Strategic Media Planning o Defined audience segmentation and messaging framework o Paid digital media plan and platform strategy o Ad deployment across targeted digital platforms o Ongoing campaign management, optimization, and strategic guidance o Performance dashboard with key engagement metrics o Analytical memo with insights and recommendations Task 7: Voter Education Implementation We can provide the operational capacity to manage a complex, time-sensitive launch that maintains the City’s neutrality while maximizing the reach of the educational toolkit. By coordinating with local partners and managing a targeted media spend, we will ensure that the charter changes are transparently presented to the public. Implementation Strategy and Voter Education Plan: We will finalize the implementation plan for the voter education campaign rollout, prioritizing the four weeks leading up to Election Day. This strategy will outline the specific cadence of information release, so that the most complex Charter sub-options receive targeted focus during peak periods of voter interest. 25 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 11 Strategic Media Buying and Placement: We will execute the media plan developed in Task 4 and manage the purchase and optimization of all paid placements. This includes a mix of local print (for high-trust reach among seniors) digital displays (for broad community awareness), and social media advertising (for high-frequency engagement). We will use data-driven analytics to adjust placements in real-time and are committed to ensuring the City’s budget is utilized with maximum efficiency to combat potential misinformation. We will manage the full-scale deployment of the Voter Education and Outreach Campaign across all platforms. This includes: • Partner Toolkit Distribution: We will proactively distribute the Voter Education Toolkit to Bozeman’s libraries, schools, community organizations, non-profits, neighborhood associations, and any other partners as determined with the City. We will extend the City’s reach by empowering local partners to share vetted, neutral facts through their own trusted channels. • Multi-Platform Execution: We will oversee the synchronized launch of digital content, print mailers, and social media graphics, ensuring a unified visual identity and message. • In-Person Engagement Activities: We have budgeted for up to four in-person educational events. These may include town halls, pop-up information booths at community hubs, or Q&A sessions designed to provide residents with direct access to neutral, factual information about the proposed changes. We will provide all necessary materials for the BSC presenters to ensure these sessions are professional and informative. Deliverables may include: • Final Campaign Implementation Schedule • Media Buy Execution and Optimization Report • Community Partner Distribution List • Four Facilitated In-Person Educational Events Collaboration with the City of Bozeman and the Bozeman Study Commission Below is a table of anticipated responsibilities of Kearns & West and the City/BSC, which we can discuss and confirm at the project kickoff: Task Kearns & West City/BSC Provide background knowledge and necessary project documentation to complete tasks x Schedule, develop agendas, and share key takeaways and action items for weekly project team meetings x Schedule, develop agenda, and share key takeaways and action items for project kickoff x Develop first drafts of all deliverables for client review x Revise and finalize all draft deliverables based on client feedback x 26 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 12 Provide review of deliverables with consolidated edits from City staff within agreed upon timeframe x Provide final sign off on all deliverables x Book space for any in-person meetings x Provide initial contacts for community focus groups x Develop community contact and invitee list for engagement activities x Post social media content to the City’s social media accounts x 4. Related Experience with Projects Similar to the Scope of Services Project Example #1 - Urban Flood Safety and Water Quality District (UFSWQD) | Strategic Communications, Public Opinion Research, and Engagement On-Call | 2022 – Present • Project Type: Strategic communications planning, public engagement, brand development, website creation, and template development • Relevance: Branding, messaging, and communications strategy for a complex public entity • Reference: Colin Rowan, Director of Planning & Public Affairs. 503-281-5675, crowan@urbanfloodsafetyor.gov • Team Members: Nicole Metildi, Drew Meisel, Noah Siegal, Jamie Damon K&W and Verkstad are currently supporting UFSWQD by providing a range of strategic communications and community engagement services. Over the past several years, we have supported the creation of the new UFSWQD (formerly the Multnomah County Drainage District). Verkstad worked in tandem with K&W on the successful bond levy initiative, Flood Safe Columbia River, to develop a unique logo, brand, website, and templates. The design was developed into a brand guide for agency and project staff, along with templates and digital assets that were used through the life of the project. As a part of this effort, we supported the UFSWQD in developing and implementing a strategic communications framework to explain complex flood safety infrastructure, governance changes, and funding needs to the public. Our work included message development, communication planning, and engagement 27 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 13 strategies designed to build public understanding and trust. The communications approach contributed to the successful passage of a $150 million general obligation bond and the launch of a new regional district. In addition to work on the bond, K&W led the development of a Communications Management Plan and a Public and Engagement Communications Plan for the joint UFSWQD and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Portland Metro Levee System (PMLS) project. These plans guide internal communications and coordination between USACE and UFSWQD, as well as external communications and engagement with the public and key stakeholders. K&W and Verkstad recently developed a new logo and visual identity for the UFSWQD, which included the development and testing of several logo concepts with staff and a brand guide. Project Example #2 – Portland Parks Levy, Portland Parks Foundation | Strategic Planning and Communications | 2025 • Project Type: Strategic communications planning, public engagement, survey development, material development, executive briefings • Relevance: Engagement, messaging, and communications strategy for a complex public entity • Reference: Jessica Green, Executive Director, 503.445.0994, jgreen@portlandpf.org • Team Members: Noah Siegel Noah Siegel led strategic planning and communications for the Portland Parks Foundation and Portland Parks & Recreation to advance a proposed 5-year operating levy through referral by City Council. This work focused on building broad understanding and support for the measure, with careful attention to the boundaries between public education and campaign activities. Noah developed research-based messaging, crafted a unifying narrative, supported stakeholder negotiations, and coordinated public affairs efforts to ensure alignment across City officials, business leaders, and advocacy organizations. Key activities included designing and analyzing a public opinion survey to assess support at varying tax rates; developing clear, value-driven messaging focused on maintenance, equitable access to nature, and community programming; and creating materials and presentations for use in public settings and elected briefings. Noah supported behind-the-scenes coordination across sectors and facilitated sensitive conversations with stakeholders to ensure the measure reflected both policy goals and public priorities. His efforts led to successful coordination between City officials, business leaders, and advocacy organizations, resulting in broad, cross-sector alignment and momentum behind the proposal. The work resulted in a unanimous referral by the Portland City Council, with widespread public messaging and organizational support already in place, positioning the levy for a strong public campaign and significantly improving its chances of passing. 5. Proposed Schedule The project schedule on the following page assumes a contract start date of May 1, 2026. At the Project Kickoff, we will work with the City to confirm the proposed project schedule and review timelines. To complete the work by the November 3, 2026 Election Day, we are proposing an accelerated deliverable review process, generally allotting three days for City review. 28 2026 May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Week starting: 30-Apr7-May14-May21-May28-May4-Jun11-Jun18-Jun25-Jun2-Jul9-Jul16-Jul23-Jul30-Jul6-Aug13-Aug20-Aug27-Aug3-Sep10-Sep17-Sep24-Sep1-Oct8-Oct15-Oct22-Oct29-Oct5-Nov12-Nov19-Nov26-Nov#Activity 1 Kick-Off and Ongoing Project Management 1.1 Facilitate project kickoff meeting (goals, roles, risks, coordination) 1.2 Create a detailed work plan and schedule of tasks 1.3 Ongoing budget tracking and reporting using Unanet software 1.4 Establish channels for project team coordination (weekly meetings and action items) 1.5 Convene planning or topic-specific meetings as needed 2 Discovery and Strategic Planning 2.1 Conduct a deep-dive review of existing materials and historical voter data 2.2 Identify historical barriers to resident engagement2.3 Hold a two-hour Planning Work Session with City leadership 2.4 Develop a Guiding Principles Memo (accessibility, plain language, branding) 2.5 Develop a Focus Group Testing and Message Validation Plan 3 Public Opinion Testing and Research 3.1 Research previous Bozeman ballot campaigns and voter patterns 3.2 Recruit participants and facilitate three virtual targeted focus groups 3.3 Test clarity of charter changes and neutrality of educational tone 3.4 Develop a Summary of Results and Key Insights with strategic recommendations 4 Logo and Brand Development 4.1 Design custom campaign logo and visual framework (up to three concepts) 4.2 Develop Campaign Brand Guidelines (accessibility-tested colors and typography) 4.3 Create a Digital Asset Library (iconography and graphic elements) 5 Strategic Communications Plan and Messaging Development 5.1 Facilitate a Strategy Kick-Off to review discovery and focus group insights 5.2 Draft a Comprehensive Strategic Communications Plan (goals, audience, equity, metrics) 5.3 Develop a Unified Messaging Framework and Messaging Guide5.4 Create a "Fact vs. Myth" component and proactive FAQ to combat misinformation5.5 Package strategy into a Voter Education and Outreach Toolkit 6 Material and Social Media Planning and Development 6.1 Develop print collateral (ballot inserts, mailers, fact sheets, rack cards) 6.2 Produce a series of short-form educational "explainer" videos 6.3 Build a digital toolkit (web graphics and PowerPoint templates for the BSC) 6.4 Conduct strategic media planning and audience segmentation6.5 Design a paid digital media plan and platform strategy 7 Voter Education Implementation 7.1 Finalize the Implementation Strategy and four-week rollout schedule 7.2 Execute strategic media buying and placement (print, digital, social) 7.3 Distribute Partner Toolkits to local organizations and community hubs 7.4 Oversee multi-platform synchronized launch of all content 7.5 Facilitate up to four in-person educational events (town halls or pop-ups) 7.6 Monitor campaign performance and provide an Analytical Memo/Dashboard 29 Kearns & West Response to City of Bozeman RFP 15 6. Present and Projected Workloads Ability to Meet the City of Bozeman’s Needs Our proposed team has the capacity and availability to conduct the project work within the desired timeframe. Our deep bench of engagement specialists and facilitators also allows us to increase capacity as project needs evolve. We are skilled at working under tight timelines and will create workback plans for all deliverables to ensure they are completed on time. In our workback plans, we include time for internal development and review, client review, as well as translation and design if needed. We will coordinate internally and work with the City to ensure our workback plans account for vacations and holidays, as well as for any additional reviews that are needed from people outside of the immediate project team. 7. Recent and Current Work for the City of Bozeman While Kearns & West has not yet had the opportunity to partner directly with the City of Bozeman, we bring extensive experience navigating the unique civic and environmental landscape of Montana and comparable municipalities in the Rocky Mountain region. Our team is deeply familiar with the local regulatory frameworks and community values that define this area. Relevant regional representative projects include: • USFWS: Red Rocks Grayling Stakeholder Facilitation | Contact: Lisa Talcott, United States Fish & Wildlife Service, lisa_talcott@fws.gov 8. Price Proposal The price proposal is on the following page. 30 City of Bozeman Quote (Late April - November 2026) Principal Senior Associate Associate Project Coordinator Verkstad MSH Strategy Task Totals Assumptions Task 1: Kick Off and Ongoing Project Management Project kick-off and work plan 1 4 6 2 2 15 Assumes 1 hr virtual kickoff (prep and emailed notes/action items) Includes time for development of workplan Project team meetings and invoicing 2 36 48 6 24 24 140 Assumes 30 minute weekly virtual meetings from late April to November 2026 (up to 24 meetings) includes prep and emailed notes/action items SUBTOTAL HOURS 3 40 54 6 26 26 155 SUBTOTAL COSTS 1,080.00$ 8,400.00$ 9,990.00$ 900.00$ 4,290.00$ 7,150.00$ 31,810.00$ Task 2: Discovery and Strategic Planning Review of project background materials 2 4 4 2 12 Assume materials are of the current landscape in Bozeman Planning Work Session 2 4 6 4 4 20 Assumes 2 hour work session and prep Guiding Principles Memo 1 2 2 4 2 11 Focus Group testing planning 1 4 8 4 6 23 SUBTOTAL HOURS 4 12 20 0 16 14 66 SUBTOTAL COSTS 1,440.00$ 2,520.00$ 3,700.00$ -$ 2,640.00$ 3,850.00$ 14,150.00$ Task 3: Public Opinion Testing and Research Plan and conduct focus groups 1 6 32 6 12 57 Assumes up to 3, 1-hour focus groups with 5-8 participants Includes time for participant recruitment (assumed to occur in collaboration with City and community partners) Includes prep, agenda and discussion guide development with City staff Includes time for scheduling Assumes focus groups will be virtual Research previous campaigns in Bozeman 2 16 2 4 24 Summary of focus group results and key insights 1 1 6 1 2 11 Assumes summary will be 1-2 pages; will inform development of project deliverables SUBTOTAL HOURS 2 9 54 0 9 18 92 SUBTOTAL COSTS 720.00$ 1,890.00$ 9,990.00$ -$ 1,485.00$ 4,950.00$ 19,035.00$ Task 4: Logo and Brand Development Logo Development 1 2 2 24 2 31 Assumes development of 3 concepts and 2, 1 hour meetings to disucss with client Brand guidelines 1 2 2 16 2 23 SUBTOTAL HOURS 2 4 4 0 40 4 54 SUBTOTAL COSTS 720.00$ 840.00$ 740.00$ -$ 6,600.00$ 1,100.00$ 10,000.00$ Task 5: Strategic Communications Plan and Messaging Kick-off meeting to inform plan development 4 8 2 4 18 Assumes one 2 hr virtual meeting with project team Draft and final Strategic Communications Plan 1 24 2 2 8 37 Messaging, talking points, and FAQ development 1 8 2 2 16 29 Voter education and outreach plan and toolkit development 1 4 22 2 2 31 SUBTOTAL HOURS 3 40 34 0 8 30 115 SUBTOTAL COSTS 1,080.00$ 8,400.00$ 6,290.00$ -$ 1,320.00$ 8,250.00$ 25,340.00$ Task 6: Material and Social Media Planning and Development Print material development (ballot insert, mailer, factsheet, etc.)1 8 16 80 8 113Video Development 1 4 6 60 4 75 Digital assets and content development (web content, social media, PPT, etc.)1 8 6 24 4 43 Media planning 1 4 8 20 33 SUBTOTAL HOURS 4 24 36 0 164 36 264 SUBTOTAL COSTS 1,440.00$ 5,040.00$ 6,660.00$ -$ 27,060.00$ 9,900.00$ 50,100.00$ Task 7: Voter Education Implementation Develop Implementation Strategy and Voter Education Plan 1 4 2 1 2 10 Assumes seperate budget to be determined with the City Media buying 2 4 16 22 Assumes seperate budget to be determined with the City Launch voter education and outreach campaign 56 80 12 148 Includes distribution of voter education toolkit to community organizations, managing execution of paid campaigns across digital, print, and social platforms, and implementation of up to four in-person engagement activities SUBTOTAL HOURS 1 62 86 0 1 30 180 SUBTOTAL COSTS 360.00$ 13,020.00$ 15,910.00$ -$ 150.00$ 8,250.00$ 37,690.00$ Labor Costs Hours 2026 Rates Subtotal Principal 19 360 6,840.00$ Vice President 0 305 -$ Senior Director 0 260 -$ Director 0 235 -$ Senior Associate 191 210 40,110.00$ Associate 288 185 53,280.00$ Project Coordinator 6 150 900.00$ Verkstad 264 165 43,560.00$ MSH Strategy 158 275 43,450.00$ SUBTOTAL HOURS 768 768 SUBTOTAL LABOR Travel Costs $5,000.00 Assumes travel costs for two KW staff on two seperate occasions TOTAL $193,125.00 31 Appendix A NONDISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL PAY AFFIRMATION ____________________________________(name of entity submitting) hereby affirms it will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin, or because of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability and acknowledges and understands the eventual contract will contain a provision prohibiting discrimination as described above and this prohibition on discrimination shall apply to the hiring and treatments or proposer’s employees and to all subcontracts. ____________________________________(name of entity submitting) hereby affirms it will abide by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Section 39-3-104, MCA (the Montana Equal Pay Act). ______________________________________ [Name and title of person authorized to sign on behalf of Respondent] Kearns & West Inc. Kearns & West Inc. Patricia Balmas, Senior Director Business Services 32 2 JAMIE DAMON VICE PRESIDENT/SENIOR MEDIATOR SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Jamie Damon specializes in large scale multi-party public policy mediation, facilitation, and public engagement processes. Since 1986, Jamie has worked as a mediator and facilitator with community and interest groups, local, state, and federal government agencies, and Tribal governments, to guide them through controversial and highly contentious situations. Jamie has mediated/facilitated an extensive number of cases/projects ranging from neighbor-to-neighbor issues to complex multi-party disputes. She has successfully designed, facilitated, and managed controversial public policy processes in Oregon, Washington and Alaska addressing issues involving public works, transportation, land use, natural resources, emergency services, crisis response, endangered species, public facilities, internal work teams, cultural resources, historic preservation, and legislative issues. In addition, Jamie has designed and implemented numerous training programs in collaborative governance, facilitation, mediation, and public involvement for public agencies and universities throughout the Pacific Northwest and abroad and served as a Clackamas County Commissioner. RECENT EXPERIENCE Kearns & West, Oregon - Vice President/Senior Mediator July 2020 -Present Solar Siting on Eastern Oregon Agricultural Lands Rules Advisory Committee, Department of Land Conservation and Development. Project Manager/ Facilitator/Mediator | 2024 – present. Lead facilitator and strategic advisor for developing rules to address siting conflicts of solar facilities on agricultural land in eastern Oregon at the direction of the Oregon legislature. Horse Heaven Wind and Solar Development Pre Operational Technical Advisory Group (PTAG), Scout Clean Energy/Energy Facility Siting Council. Kennewick, Washington. Project Manager/ Facilitator/Mediator | 2025 – present. Leading in person and virtual meetings of the PTAG, a model process for addressing wildlife and habitat impacts from wind and solar developments. Federal Emergency Management Agency – Oregon Environmental Impact Statement for National Flood Insurance Program Endangered Species Act Implementation Plan. 2023 – present. Lead strategic advisor and facilitator working with NFIP communities on compliance measures for ESA in Oregon. Work includes strategic communication, virtual webinars and in person technical workshops. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management — Oregon Offshore Wind Task Force Facilitator and Community Engagement. Project Manager/Lead Community Engagement/Facilitator | 2020 to 2024 Leads the community engagement and facilitation of the project team, stakeholder, and community meetings to gather data and information to inform potential offshore wind energy leasing decisions along the entire Oregon coast. She coordinates project management with the lead staff from BOEM and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and facilitates the • Portland, Oregon • JDamon@kearnswest.com • 971.238.3354 EXPERTISE Facilitation and Mediation Stakeholder and Public Engagement Strategy Collaborative Process Design and Management Conflict Resolution Strategic Planning EDUCATION & CERTIFICATIONS MA, Conflict Resolution School for International Training/World Learning | Brattleboro, VT 2007 Graduate Certificate, CONTACT Program for Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding/School for International Training/World Learning | Brattleboro, VT 2005 MEMBERSHIPS Oregon Mediation Association 33 3 Oregon Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force comprised of Tribal leadership and elected/appointed officials from Federal, State, and local governments. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management — Hawaii and Guam Offshore Wind Task Force Facilitator Project Manager/ Facilitator | 2024 – present. Facilitated the Hawaii and Guam Intergovernmental Task Force meetings to discuss the possibility of offshore wind development offshore local community leadership and elected/appointed officials from Federal, State, and local governments. Columbia River Levee System Drainage Special, Districts (Multnomah, Sandy, Peninsula 1 and 2, Levee Ready Columbia) — Strategic Communications, Community Engagement, Board Decision Making Processes, and Assets and Liabilities Valuation Work Group, General Obligation Bond Community Education and Engagement. Lead Mediator/Facilitator | 2020 -2025 Leading multiple efforts with the four special districts, a legislatively established “new” district and a collaborative group of government agencies to work through decision making, community engagement and the valuation of district assets and liabilities as the districts merge and form a new urban district with a larger footprint and tax base. The Columbia River Levee System protects eight thousand residents, sixty thousand jobs, the Portland International Airport, and three interstate highways. The levee system is up for recertification by the Federal Emergency Management Administration and the districts have partnered with the US Army Corps of Engineers to complete a feasibility study to better understand the infrastructure investments necessary to aid in the recertification process. Jamie served as the mediator for the Assets and Liabilities Work Group made up of representatives from the five special districts to reach an agreement on how to value their individual assets and liabilities as they worked to develop a shared taxing authority and budget process. Jamie supported the 20-member interim Urban Flood Safety Water Quality District board of directors as well as the boards for the four independent districts to help them understand the transition process to a single district, discuss revenue collection, and engage the property owners, residents, businesses, NGOs and jurisdictions within the legislatively directed new district boundaries. As a result, Jamie supported the individual districts to reach unanimous agreement and support for the valuation report – an important first step for their successful merging into one new district. In addition, through a comprehensive education and engagement program led by Jamie, the district was able to pass a General Obligation Bond of $150 million for the necessary infrastructure improvements for the levee system. Red Rock Lakes Arctic Grayling Science Workshop. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Montana. Project Manager/ Mediator | 2024 – present. Lead mediator working with federal, state and local agencies and land managers to address the decline of arctic grayling in the Red Rocks Lakes system in Montana. Lava Ridge Wind Farm Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management. Idaho. Project Manager/ Mediator | 2024. Lead mediator working with the Bureau of Land Management, private wind energy developer and private landowners/ranchers to address issues and concerns relating to a proposed wind development. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Pacific Region – Collaborative Governance Training Lead Trainer – 2023 - present Developed training curriculum and delivered collaborative governance and facilitation training to BOEM Pacific, USGS, NPS, USFS staff and leadership as part of a three-person senior training team. Bureau of Land Management Colorado, Wyoming – Collaborative Governance Training. Lead Trainer – 2023 - 2024 Developed a tailored training curriculum and delivered collaborative governance and facilitation training to BLM and USGS staff as part of three-person senior training team. Bureau of Land Management Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska – Collaborative Governance Training. Lead Trainer – 2023 - present Developed a tailored curriculum and delivered collaborative governance and facilitation training to BLM and USGS staff as part of three-person senior training team. CADR Dynamic Facilitation Training – Wyoming, Utah, California Lead Trainer – 2023 Delivered CADR’s two-day Dynamic Facilitation course both in person and virtually at multiple locations to Department of Interior staff in Utah, California and Wyoming. 34 4 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Air Quality Serious Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan Public Hearing Lead Facilitator - 2023 Designed, implemented and facilitated a challenging public hearing for FNSB and EPA Region 10 to provide an opportunity for residents of the FNSB to give formal public comment on a controversial proposed findings by the EPA regarding the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Serious Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan (SIP) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) to further limit household wood stove use to address persistent air quality issues. The hearing was attended by well over 100 people with 72 people testifying over the course of the 7 hour hearing. Worked with lead EPA legal, technical and communications staff to coordinate logistics, local contractors, materials, slide deck, and agenda. Oregon Department of Land Use and Conservation – Housing Capacity Work Group Lead Facilitator | 2022 Serving as the lead facilitator for this legislatively created work group focusing on how land within Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) in Oregon can be better utilized to address housing needs including developing ideas for refining current processes, reducing regulatory barriers and review and incentivize affordable and workforce housing. Oregon Water Resources Department – Ground Water Allocation Lead Facilitator | 2022 Provided meeting design, process support and facilitation for regional hybrid meetings around the state focused on gathering input to revise the ground water allocation process while protecting senior water rights. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife – Beaver Management Work Group and Trap Check Interval Work Group Lead Mediator | 2021 to 2022 Served as the lead mediator, facilitator, stakeholder engagement and strategic process guidance to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission for two work groups to address how the agency should manage beaver populations and habitat focused on federal lands and for assessing the trap check time intervals for fur trapping and damage control trapping in Oregon. City of Vancouver, Washington – Strategic Communications Plan Lead Facilitator | 2021 to 2022 Lead the development of the city’s first strategic communication plan including coordination meetings and workshops with city agencies, external stakeholders, and research. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality – Clean Fuels Program Expansion Rules Advisory Committee Lead Facilitator | 2022 Served as the lead facilitator for the Clean Fuels Program Rules Advisory Committee and associated public workshops. The committee is charged with providing input on possible changes to the program including the expansion of the annual average carbon intensity reduction targets beyond 10% and beyond 2025, modifications to the program that will support achievement of the new standards and other modifications to improve the effectiveness of the Clean Fuels Program. The committee includes fuels, transportation, environment, technology and industry leadership from across the U.S. City of Vancouver and Vancouver Police Department — Community Task Force on Policing/Body Worn Camera Program Lead Mediator/Facilitator | 2020 to 2021 Served as the lead facilitator for the City of Vancouver’s Community Task Force on Policing (Task Force). The Task Force was convened in response to events in early 2019, where members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) were involved in four officer-involved shootings within a four-week period. A comprehensive set of 84 recommendations was developed that will serve as a road map to reform the VPD’s culture, policies, and practices around use of force including the implementation of a Body Worn Camera program. The Vancouver Police Task Force is comprised of representatives from the City of Vancouver, VPD, and organizations representing a variety of Vancouver community groups including Communities of color, mental health, homelessness, Latinx community, African American community, youth/Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) youth, and veterans. The process resulted in unanimous City Council support for, and implementation of a body worn camera program. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality – Landfill Gas Monitoring Rules Advisory Committee Lead Facilitator | 2021 35 5 Served as the lead facilitator and provided process design for this Rules Advisory Committee focused on advising the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on recommend changes to the landfill gas monitoring program in Oregon. The committee included state and regional landfill operators, public health, and environmental advocates. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) — Collaboration Lead Mediator | 2020 to 2021 Lead mediator working with the deputy directors, directors and lead technical and policy staff at the DEQ and ODF to develop a new Memorandum of Understanding resolving longstanding differences in how the agencies approach intersecting regulatory challenges. The process resulted in unanimous support and adoption of the MOU by both the Environmental Quality Commission and the Board of Forestry in November of 2021. Office of the Governor, Oregon Solutions — Douglas County Medical Workforce Center Co-Lead Mediator | 2019 to 2021 Co-leading a coalition of community leaders, academic institutions, medical professionals, and elected officials to develop agreements regarding the siting of a medical workforce center. Community partners in Douglas County received a $10 million dollar bond from the Oregon Legislature to work together with academic and medical partners to implement a medical workforce center providing educational opportunities, economic development and critical medical personnel to this underserved rural community. Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University, Oregon - Senior Research Faculty/Mediator/Facilitator 2015 - 2020 Office of the Governor, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board — State of Oregon 100-Year Water Vision Lead Facilitator | 2017 to 2020 Led the Water Core Team of fourteen state agencies at the direction of the Natural Resource Agency Directors and the Governor’s office. The team was charged with increasing efficiency, collaboration, and communication across state agencies, to improve inter-agency coordination of agency work programs and state resources related to water. Work included strategy development and implementation of interagency communication and coordination of data, policy, legislative and budget discussions related to water quality, quantity, source water protection, monitoring, natural and built infrastructure, vulnerable communities (i.e. socio economic, wildfire, water availability, dam and levee safety), health (i.e. Harmful Algal Blooms-HABS; nitrate concentration), including impacts to and effects of industry, agriculture, development. Provided strategy and support for external stakeholder communication including developing written communication, web-based surveys, and facilitating regional workshops across the state co-hosted by Tribal leadership and local government elected officials. Office of the Governor, Oregon Consensus, SageCon — Sage Grouse Action Plan Project Manager/Lead Mediator | 2014 to 2020 Led the development of a state-wide plan in response to the warranted for listing finding of the Greater Sage-Grouse in Oregon under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Work included overall program management of this extensive collaborative process including leading policy and technical work groups; strategy development; identification of technical work products; project and budget management; facilitation and mediation; coordinating with local, state and federal agencies, elected officials, landowners, and interest group NGOs including conservation, agriculture, energy, mining and ranching. The process resulted in an unprecedented level of collaboration among all stakeholders, averting an ESA listing, developing two new OARs and a comprehensive Sage Grouse Action Plan currently being implemented. Jamie continued to serve as part of the Sage-Grouse Action Plan implementation team focused on supporting Soil and Water Conservation Districts with Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) across seven eastern Oregon counties. Association of Oregon Counties, County Solutions Program — Oregon Coast Trail Plan Update Facilitator | 2019 to 2020 Served as the lead for the North Coast segment of the Oregon Coast Trail Plan Update working with local communities, federal, state and local agencies, Tribes and advocacy/interest groups to discuss how to address “gaps” in this 362-mile trail that follows the entire Oregon coastline from Washington to California. The plan includes how to provide continuity of experience and seasonal passage for trail users, address maintenance and private land-owner concerns, and increase economic opportunity for local communities. Association of Oregon Counties, County Solutions Program — Marine Work Force Legislative Task Force 36 6 Lead Facilitator | 2018 to 2020 Guided the work of the Marine Work Force Task Force, a legislative task force charged with defining the Marine Workforce Sector for the Oregon Employment Department (previously underdefined) to include all aspects of marine-based supply chain economic development and its impact on Oregon. The work resulted in new categories of employment added to the state’s definition, a new partnership with local coastal/marine-based employers and community college training centers as well as increased advocacy to drive state and federal investment to coastal communities for workforce development. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board — Mid and North Coast Water Quality Monitoring Summit Facilitator | 2019 Provided strategy guidance and facilitation support for a two-day water quality monitoring summit. The summit brought together federal, state and local agencies, Tribes, communities, industry and conservation partners to discuss current and needed monitoring efforts, metrics, best practices, case studies and how to achieve greater coordination. Association of Oregon Counties, County Solutions Program — Tide Gates Coastal Workshops Lead Facilitator | 2019 Facilitated four, two-hour workshops in the Oregon coastal communities of Coquille, Newport, Tillamook and Clatskanie to discuss critical issues related to the inventory, maintenance, and regulatory framework for tide gates in Oregon. The meetings were attended by regulatory agencies, tide gate owners (farmers, municipalities), conservation interests and business/technical support entities. Oregon State University Agricultural Research Station, Hermiston — Lower Umatilla Groundwater Management Area Nitrate Workshop Lead Facilitator | 2018 Led an all-day workshop to identify issues to address and research needs regarding continued high nitrate levels in the Lower Umatilla Groundwater Management Area. Worked closely with academic, federal, state, local authorities including the Port of Morrow, Tribes, conservation, and industry/agriculture organizations. Jamie participated in a follow up situation assessment in the basin and developed an agreed upon strategy and approach to bring state agencies together with industry to understand ground water flows, reevaluate well test sites and potentially redraw the boundaries of the ground water management area. Association of Oregon Counties and the League of Oregon Cities — Regional Housing Workshops Lead Facilitator | 2018 Facilitated eight half day workshops across Oregon to discuss the housing challenges facing cities and counties in urban, rural and coastal communities. The workshops were co-hosted by city and county elected officials bringing together policymakers, industry leaders, advocacy organizations and cultural communities to outline the unique and common housing related issues in the state. The result of the workshops was to build a shared city/county legislative agenda for housing advocacy. Office of the Governor, Regional Solutions Coordinator, Oregon 2013 – 2015 Served as the South Valley Regional Solutions Coordinator housed at the University of Oregon serving Benton, Lane, Lincoln and Linn counties. Managed a state agency staff of six. Led a community Advisory Committee to establish regional priorities for economic development including the development of the Regional Accelerator Innovation Network (RAIN) a collaborative among OSU, U of O and community/business leaders in south Willamette Valley serving entrepreneurs to help them turn ideas into high impact, innovative, traded-sector companies that can grow and thrive locally. Office of the Governor, Oregon Consensus — Umpqua Community College Mass Shooting Recovery Process Lead Mediator | 2015 to 2017 Developed a leadership structure - The Leadership Council (TLC) - to manage the recovery process in the aftermath of the shooting at Umpqua Community College on October 1, 2015, Oregon’s worst mass shooting. Ten students and faculty died, nine students were injured, several with life-long injuries. Countless students, staff, faculty, family members, first responders and community members suffered from continued emotional distress from the worst mass shooting in Oregon’s modern history. The TLC included elected officials and agency directors from city and county government, tribal, business, mental health, emergency services, veterans, faith, education and the foundation community. The TLC is the decision-making group for the Community Health and Recovery Team (CHART) an ad hoc team of front-line response and 37 7 recovery staff. The TLC finalized a nearly $2 million request of the US Department of Justice Anti-Terrorism and Emergency Assistance program and has collaboratively supported their community through the challenging one-year mark and annual observances. Clackamas County, Oregon - Clackamas County Commissioner 2011 – 2013 Unanimously appointed from a field of 62 applicants to fill a vacancy after the departure of Chair, Lynn Peterson. Major activities and accomplishments included: developed policies to restore responsible management and harvest of the county’s timber holdings; resolved land use issues allowing the construction of the Sunrise System highway project; led the settlement of several union contracts; ensured the county’s legal obligations were honored and community interests served through the construction of the Portland to Milwaukie Light Rail; served on the Governor’s O and C Lands Task Force; pioneered the “sister county” program through AOC; supported substantial funding for reducing and addressing domestic violence; supported resolution of urban renewal reform. National Policy Consensus Center, Portland State University, Oregon - Collaborative Systems Director 2008 – 2011. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Burns, Oregon — Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Lead Mediator | 2008 to 2011 In partnership with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, developed a collaborative approach for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan – a 15-year management plan for the refuge – to overcome several decades of eroded community/agency relationships. developed the overall strategy; project and budget management; facilitated work groups and committee meetings; developed communication and media strategy; identified technical work products and policy development; mediated contentious issues to reach broad agreement among community and agency stakeholders including ranching, conservation, economic development, and agricultural research, local, state and federal agencies. The process has received several awards, was used as a model within the USFWS Refuge System for how to develop CCPs and is credited as the foundation for collaborative problem solving in eastern Oregon referenced often as a rebuttal to the occupation of the refuge in 2016. Oregon Consensus, Oregon and Washington — Federal Forest Advisory Committee Implementation Work Group Lead Mediator/Facilitator | 2010 to 2011 Contributed her expertise as the strategic advisor and facilitator of this high-level committee including Oregon Department of Forestry, US Forest Service, Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Sustainable NW, The Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, Oregon Forest Resource Council and others to develop a work plan and priorities to address challenging issues facing Oregon’s federal forests. US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, Oregon and Washington — Regional Environmental Forum Lead Mediator/Facilitator | 2010 to 2011 Facilitated this bi-state coalition of the state and federal natural resource agency directors in Oregon and Washington and the two Governor’s offices. The coalition was designed to identify cross agency issues for collaboration such as the need to coordinate state policies regarding siting renewal energy facilities in the west. Department of Land Conservation and Development — Oregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative, Target Rulemaking Committee Lead Facilitator | 2010 to 2011 Designed and facilitated an advisory committee appointed by the legislature to develop recommendations to the Department of Land Conservation and Development Commission on target reductions for greenhouse gas emissions for each of the state’s six metropolitan areas. In 2011 the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted the rules (OAR 660 - 044) setting targets to guide long range planning by Oregon’s largest urban areas to reduce greenhouse gas pollution from auto travel. Oregon Consensus, Eugene, Oregon — West Eugene Collaborative Lead Mediator | 2008 to 2009 Facilitated the 30-member grassroots collaborative developed to address decades of unresolved issues and community conflict in the wake of the demise of the West Eugene Parkway – a polarizing transportation project through an industrial 38 8 and natural area proposed for over 25 years. The included consensus on an integrated land use, transportation and natural resources vision for West Eugene supported by the Eugene City Council and other participant entities. The project resulted in a new way for diverse interests in Eugene to work together. JLA Inc, Oregon -Board of Directors/Senior Associate/ Senior Mediator/Facilitator 1993 – 2008 Oregon Department of Transportation, Eugene, Oregon — I-5/Willamette River Bridge Environmental Assessment Lead Public Engagement/Facilitator | 2006 to 2010 Led the public involvement, strategy, and facilitation, from the Environmental Assessment through design and construction to replace the temporary bridges crossing the Willamette River on I-5 between Eugene and Springfield. The process included extensive and complex community and tribal engagement in a highly technical and controversial environment. The bridge was completed on time and on budget and opened to the public in December 2013. The new bridge is considered a “signature” bridge and one of the most important bridge replacements in the OTIA bridge replacement program. This project has received more than 20 awards including the Best Bridge Project in the Nation 2014 awarded by ENR (Engineering News Record). City of Seaside, Oregon — Seaside Transportation System Plan Lead Public Engagement/Facilitator | 2008 to 2010 Designed and facilitated the public and agency discussion to develop the City of Seaside’s first transportation system plan in the wake of considerable community and agency controversy over the Pacific Way – Dooley Bridge project after it was voted down by the community and stopped in the final design stage. The process included collaborative community workshops and virtual discussions (web surveys, blog). This project was awarded Project of the Year by Women's Transportation Seminar (WTS), Portland, 2010. City of Portland, Bureau of Parks and Recreation, Oregon — Mt. Tabor Park Master Plan Update. Co-lead Mediator | 2007 to 2008 Co-mediated this dispute among staff from the City of Portland Parks department, including the director, the leadership of Mt. Tabor and S. Tabor neighborhoods, and adjacent neighborhoods regarding the process to determine the future of the Mt. Tabor Maintenance Yard and Nursery. The 16+ member group came together to develop an approach for updating the Mt. Tabor Park Master Plan that was unanimously accepted by the City Council. Jamie continued to lead a 30+ member stakeholder group through the development of the Master Plan resulting in a consensus recommendation and unanimous support from the City Council. The project was built in 2015. Johnson Creek Watershed Council, Oregon — Annual Board Retreats and Strategic Planning Facilitator | 2004 to 2008 Facilitated annual retreat and worked with board on development and organizational issues. Clackamas River Basin Watershed Council, Oregon — On Call Board Organizational Development Mediator | 2000 to 2008 Assisted the watershed council in working through difficult organizational issues including developing a shared vision, mission, goals and strategic plan. The work resulted in the council increasing membership, community visibility and funding. Metro, Oregon — Portland to Milwaukie Light Rail Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lead Facilitator | 2007 to 2008 Developed the strategy for and facilitated the Community Advisory Committee. She designed and facilitated public workshops and town hall meetings. This segment of the North South light rail line had been withdrawn from previous EIS processes because of the community controversy. The process resulted in consensus recommendations and full support by all jurisdictions with legislative authority. This project was built and opened to the public in 2014. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Oregon — Cad to Cad Interoperability Summit Lead Facilitator | 2007 Conducted an assessment, developed the strategy for and facilitated a two-day regional summit focused on discussing unresolved interoperability issues in the region. The summit included regional representatives from 911 centers, police, fire, and emergency management. 39 9 Federal Office of Emergency Management, Washington D.C. — Statewide Emergency Managers Summit Lead Facilitator | 2007 Facilitated a two-day summit of statewide emergency managers from across the nation to discuss trends, common issues, and challenges facing emergency management agencies post 911. The process resulted in a set of recommendations to state and federal leaders. Network of Oregon Watershed Councils, Oregon – Strategic Plan Development Lead Mediator/Facilitator | 2006 to 2007 Developed the process and facilitated the discussions for the development of the first Strategic Plan. City of Damascus, Oregon — Comprehensive Plan Development Lead Public Engagement/Mediator/ Facilitator| 2006 to 2007 Led the public engagement strategy for the development of a vision and guiding principles for the comprehensive plan for Oregon’s newest city and the only new city within the Urban Growth Boundary. She developed innovative information and involvement techniques to help residents understand their new city governance structures and how to influence their future as they move from an unincorporated rural area to an urban city. The process resulted in community consensus on a set of guiding principles, City Council consensus on a vision, and the development of a Community Coordinating Committee to lead the comprehensive planning process. The process received national recognition with an award from the National Association for City County Communications for the visioning process. Unfortunately, with new staff and leadership at the city, the community moved in a divisive direction resulting in disincorporation of the city in 2016. City of Milwaukie, Oregon — Milwaukie Transportation System Plan Update Lead Public Engagement/Facilitator | 2006 to 2007 Developed the strategy for an innovative approach to update the city’s transportation system plan in the face of widespread dissent in the community regarding transportation priorities – which had resulted in a successful recall of city councilors. The approach included extensive community involvement at all levels such as broad community meetings, web survey, simultaneous policy area working groups and a combined technical and community coordinating committee. The process resulted in community consensus on the TSP. The project was named project of the year in 2007 by Oregon Planning Institute. Clark County, Washington — Clark County Methadone Clinic Siting Lead Mediator | 2005 Served as mediator at the request of the neighborhood associations for discussions involving the siting of a methadone clinic in the Salmon Creek area of Clark County. The work involved sixteen meetings with fifteen concerned neighbors, neighborhood leaders, medical, church, local government, and law enforcement representatives to work through issues associated with the proposed siting of a methadone treatment facility in their neighborhood. The processes resulted in a comprehensive evaluation of the siting of the proposed facility, a community action plan for the treatment provider to address neighborhood concerns and proposed siting policies for the County and State to consider when siting future opiate substance abuse treatment facilities. City of Gresham, Oregon — Springwater Community Plan Lead Public Engagement/ Facilitator | 2004 to 2005 Developed the strategy for and led the public involvement and facilitation for the development of a Concept Plan for the new community of Springwater. The area is predominately agricultural and unincorporated. Residents were opposed to bringing the area into the UGB and opposed to industrial development focus for the area. Many residents were not supportive of annexation by the City of Gresham. The process resulted in a consensus-based plan adopted unanimously by the city within a 16-month timeframe. Oregon Department of Transportation Region 2, Oregon — Woodburn Interchange Environmental Assessment Lead Public Engagement/Facilitator | 2003 to 2005 Developed the strategy and led the public/agency process for the Environmental Assessment and Interchange Area Management Plan to address long standing polarizing issues regarding the I-5/Oregon 214 interchange in Woodburn. The process included facilitating a Stakeholder Working Group, a Local Access Committee, and a Project Management Team. Developed newsletters and community displays in both English and Spanish. She conducted community meetings, interviews, and elected official briefings. Issues addressed included extensive impacts to the business community along Oregon 214. The process resulted in an EA/IAMP that was unanimously accepted by the community, city, county, state and federal government. This project was built and opened to the public in 2015. 40 10 Bureau of Emergency Services, City of Portland, Oregon — Urban Area Security Initiative Lead Mediator/Facilitator | 2004 Facilitated the Urban Area Security Initiative for developing a regional strategy to address chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive events in the Portland metro area and surrounding counties. The process included developing funding priorities and grant funds received from the Department of Homeland Security. City of Oregon City, Oregon — Oregon City Comprehensive Plan Update Lead Public Engagement/Facilitator | 2002 Led the public involvement and facilitated the Citizens Advisory Committee to update the comprehensive plan. The project focused on housing, commerce and industry, community facilities, and urbanization, including annexation of outlying areas for future industrial use – resulting in a successful update of the Comprehensive Plan. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau, Alaska — Juneau Second Channel Crossing Environmental Impact Statement Lead Public Engagement/Facilitator | 2002 to 2004 Developed the strategy for and lead the public engagement to explore a second crossing of the Gastineau Channel in Juneau connecting the City of Juneau with Douglas Island – served by one bridge. Several alternatives were developed. In 2010 Juneau decided construction of a second crossing was not a priority as voters rejected a local bond measure in 2010 to pay for the project. City of Wilsonville, Oregon — Wilsonville Water Treatment Facility Lead Engagement/Mediator/Facilitator | 2000 to 2002 Designed and facilitated the public involvement strategy to gather stakeholder input in the design of the Wilsonville Water Treatment Facility. The process included facilitating a neighborhood design team, coordinating on-site tours and informational meetings, public workshops, development of printed materials, production of an informational video, and utility bill inserts. The process resulted in community support for the design and the facility was built and open to the public in 2002. The project has received numerous awards including “Outstanding Public Facility Project” for Oregon in 2002 and national recognition by the American Society of Landscape Architect placing the project second in the nation in 2004 for its innovative community led public park and landscape design. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage, Alaska — Dowling Road EIS Lead Public Engagement/Facilitator | 2000 to 2001 Designed and led the public engagement to develop alternatives to address congestion on Dowling Rd. The process resulted interchange reconfigurations and other improvements designed to address projected traffic volumes through 2020. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska — Sterling Highway MP 45 – 60 Environmental Impact Statement Lead Public Engagement/Facilitator | 2000 to 2004 Designed and led the controversial public engagement process for exploring highway alternatives for a narrow section of the Sterling Highway along the Kenai River through the community of Cooper Landing. This section of highway experienced a very high accident and mortality rate due to the narrow winding curves and seasonal weather conditions. The work included leading technical, policy and community meetings, working closely with the Federal Highway Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, state and local agencies and communities, conservation, recreation and industry advocacy groups and Alaska Native Corporations. The project resulted in identifying several viable alternatives. Subsequent supplemental EIS processes resulted in the selected alternative, Juneau Creek. City of Portland Fire Bureau, Oregon — Sylvan Hills Fire Station Lead Mediator | 1999 Developed the engagement strategy and mediation with the Station Advisory Committee and public process to develop a consensus-based recommendation to the Fire Chief and Commissioner regarding the controversial siting of a new fire station in the Sylvan Highlands Neighborhood. This resulted in unanimous support for the new fire station including a community center – built in 2000. Clark County, Washington — Agriforest Task Force. Lead Public Engagement/Mediator/Facilitator | 1998 to 1999 41 11 Facilitated and assisted with strategy development for Task Force meetings, Open Houses, and informational materials. The Clark County Board of Commissioners charged this task force with the responsibility of determining how approximately 36,000 acres designated as Agriforest zoning (20-acre minimums) should be re-designated. The process began in the wake of a lawsuit against the county filed by activists on both sides of the issue regarding the current designation. The 12-member task force attended 17 meetings in five months to develop their consensus-based recommendations. City of Wilsonville, Oregon — Dammasch Area Transportation Efficient Land Use Plan Lead Public Engagement/Facilitator | 1994 Managed and conducted the public involvement and agency process to develop a land use plan for possible development of the Dammasch Hospital site in Wilsonville to counter state agency plans to site a prison at this location. The process included extensive community engagement including site tours. The process resulted in a strong case for relocating the proposed prison. The Coffee Creek Correctional facility opened in 2001 in a different location in Wilsonville and the Dammasch area has since been redeveloped into Ville Bois, a mixed-use residential community. Neighborhood Mediation Center, City of Portland, Interim Director and Staff Mediator 1997 – 1998 and 1986 - 1993 Began as an intern/work study student 1986 – 1987. Served full time as a staff mediator from 1987 – 1993. Mediated and facilitated conflicts between individuals and within/between groups involving neighborhood disputes, minor criminal cases and public policy issues, with typical case management of approximately 200 cases per year. Served as lead trainer and mentor for several hundred volunteer mediators. Developed and conducted mediation-training programs. Appointed Interim Director after the sudden death of the previous director a beloved long-time mediator well respected within the African American community. His death came while the program was slated for closure by the city at the end of 1997 after almost 20 years of service. While Interim Director, worked to establish a public process to build community support, rebuild trust within the African American Community and the City of Portland, resolved outstanding organizational issues, and supported grieving staff. At the end of the 11 months, the city reestablished its commitment to providing community mediation services and the program continued as a city agency with expanded budget. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING AND CERTIFICATES M.A. Masters in Conflict Transformation, School for International Training (SIT), Brattleboro, VT. 2007. Graduate Certificate. CONTACT Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding, School for International Training (SIT), Brattleboro, VT. 2005. Undergraduate studies. 186 credit hours towards a BA in Speech Communication at Portland State University, 1984- 1988. Diploma. Sam Barlow High School, Gresham, Oregon. 1982 Certificate. North Clackamas Chamber of Commerce Leadership Program Clackamas County, Oregon. 2012 Committee member. Oregon Community Dispute Resolution Centers Advisory Committee, 2007 – 2014. Certified Practitioner. Systematic Development of Informed Consent SDIC), 2007. Commissioner and Chair. Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission, Governor Appointed 1996 – 2004; Chair 1999 – 2004. Committee member. Future of the Courts Committee, Chief Justice appointed position, 1998 – 2002. Board member, Vice President, & Life member. Oregon Mediation Association, 1988-1994; Vice President 1996-1997. Board member. Portland State University School of Extended Studies Mediation Advisory Board 1990 – 1996. Certificate. Mediating Across Cultures, Confluence NW, 1991. Cross cultural training. Certificate. Facilitating Multi Party Disputes, Confluence NW, 1990. Facilitation training. Certified Arbitrator. Better Business Bureau Arbitration Training, BBB 1988 – 1994. Certified Mediator. Multnomah County Small Claims Court Mediation Training Program, 1989 – 1993. Certificate. Basic Mediation Training, Community Boards and Neighborhood Mediation Center. 1986. 42 12 TRAINING, PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS Trained public agency staff, volunteers, and neighborhood groups in public involvement, mediation, listening skills, communications skills, facilitation, case management, and general conflict resolution. Supported the establishment of community mediation programs across the state and in the Pacific Northwest from 1987 – 2000 including providing ongoing technical assistance. Examples: National Policy Consensus Center, Public Policy Facilitation and Collaborative Governance Institute, 2009 – 2015. Served as part of training team with duties including curriculum development and training for graduate students and professionals at Portland State University and University of Oregon. Oregon Planning Institute Annual Conference, 2013. Keynote speaker Executive Leadership Institute Graduation, 2013. Keynote speaker International Association for Public Participation, Cascade Chapter Annual conference, 2012. Keynote speaker Association of Oregon Counties Annual Conference, 2012. Governance and Conflict, panel presenter University of Oregon, Conflict Resolution Graduate program, 2010 – 2012. Developed curriculum for and co-taught the graduate course on facilitation together with Mary Forst. Executive Leadership Institute, 2008 - 2013. Served as part of training team including curriculum development and presenter for Collaborative Governance Training through the Executive Leadership Institute at Portland State University. Willamette University Dispute Resolution Center, Advanced Negotiation Class, 2010. Guest lecturer. Oregon Cultural Trust, 2010. Led panel on working collaboratively with communities. Oregon Mediation Association Conference, 2009. Presented a half day case study seminar including participants from the West Eugene Collaborative. Turkish and Greek Cypriot Bi-communal Peace Camp, 2008. Developed curriculum for and presented basic mediation skills training as part of a week-long peace camp for Greek and Turkish Cypriot Fulbright scholars at the School for International Training in Brattleboro, Vermont. Mediation Class, School for International Training, 2006. Designed and implemented a graduate level mediation-training curriculum for the Program for Intercultural Leadership and Management. Basic Mediation Skills and Introduction to Community Engagement, 2005. Designed and implemented a two-day program for women community organizers in Bujumbura, Burundi for Search for Common Ground. Other presented or trainer for: the City of Portland Bureaus of - parks, planning, fire, police, emergency services, transportation; Community Dispute Resolution Programs in Jackson County Oregon, Multnomah County Oregon, Lane County Oregon, Washington County Oregon, Clark County Washington; Oregon State Public Law Conference 2001 - 2002; Oregon Mediation Association 1988-1991, 1996, 1998, 2002, 2006 - 2009; League of Oregon Cities 2006; Oregon Planning Association 2006; American Planning Association 2003; International Association for Public Participation 1999; Society for Professionals in Dispute Resolution 1999; National Association for Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution 1989, 1991, 1999; US West Communication Conflict Management Training Program; Multnomah County Small Claims Court Mediation Training Program; State of Oregon Employment Division; and role-play coaching with trainings by Confluence NW. Quotes from Clients: Matthew Jentgen, EPA Air and Radiation Division had this to say: “Thank you again for being a great facilitator at the Fairbanks public hearing! I’ve received nothing but positive feedback about the event. It was well organized, we were prepared, and we achieved our objectives for the hearing”. 43 13 “We hired Kearns and West to facilitate complex discussions on an interagency MOU with a partner state agency with whom we have had intermittently challenging relationships. We were fortunate to work with Jamie Damon and Samantha Meysohn. They artfully helped us both improve our relationships with the other agency, and work through sticking points to complete an MOU that everyone (including our respective governing bodies) felt good about. They were also great at helping with the logistics of our meetings – setting them up, taking notes, clarifying action items and deadlines. At the end of this process, we have both a signed MOU, and good relationships with our partner agency staff - both of these great outcomes probably wouldn’t have happened without Jamie and Samantha’s support.” – Terry Frueh, Oregon Department of Forestry “Wow, we knocked it out of the park yesterday. In my 20 years at this agency, I haven’t’ seen anything like this.” Kimberly, FEMA HQ Gordon Howard, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, DLCD Solar Opportunties on Agricultural land Rule Making stated at the June 26, 2025 LCDC Commission meeting: “Kearns and West led by Jamie Damon was key to dealing with the very contentious issues that were raised during the rule making process” 44 Noah Siegel Strategic advisor with 20+ years of experience helping government, private sector, and nonprofit leaders advance complex initiatives. Specializes in coalition-building, public affairs, and implementation strategy across housing, infrastructure, and economic development. Summary Contact Education (503) 704-4409 Phone noah@mshstrategy.com Email 4209 SE Ellis St. Portland, OR 97206 Address Prior Experience LinkedIn www.linkedin.com/in/noah-siegel- msh Recent Experience University of Michigan, BA Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy Tufts University, MALD Mayor’s Central City Roundtable (Current) Lead strategic communications for a mayor-led initiative aligning business, government, and community leaders to drive downtown recovery, activation, and coordinated action. Multnomah County Drainage District (2022–2024) Developed pre-referral strategy and communictations for a successful flood safety bond measure, including branding, content, and social media for the Flood Safe Columbia Initiative. Oregon Mass Timber Coalition (2022) Supported coalition alignment and communications strategy contributing to a successful $41.4M federal funding award. US High Speed Rail Association (2021–2022) Led digital strategy, branding, messaging, and advocacy communications to advance federal investment in high-speed rail. Portland Parks Foundation (2025) Directed pre-referral strategy and communications for a proposed levy rate increase to fund Portland Parks and Recreation. Referred by unanimous vote from City Council, with support from business, labor, and community groups. The measure was approved by voters.Winning Mark Director of Public Affairs (2020– 2022) Portland Bureau of Transportation Deputy Director / Director of Public Affairs (2018– 2020) Metro Regional Government Strategic Partnerships Manager (2013–2017) Office of the Mayor, Portland Policy Director (2009–2013) U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Officer (2003– 2009) Center for Sustainable Infrastructure Board member and former president 2014-2026 Fixing Our Streets, 2019-2020 Oversaw public communications for Portland Bureau of Transportation’s voter-approved gas tax, renewed by voters in May 2020. 1000 Friends of Oregon (Current) Developing messaging and public education on Oregon’s land-use system and the value of nature, farms, and forest lands. Keith Wilson for Mayor (2024-2025) Lead strategist and communications advisor to successful campaign for mayor of Portland. 45 Principal Verkstad | 2020-present Visual Communications Supervisor Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 2014-2020 Adjunct Professor Visual Communications for Planners Graduate Course Portland State University | 2013-2019 Senior Planner Alta Planning + Design | 2009-2014 Drew Meisel, Verkstad LLC verkstadpdx@gmail.com verkstadpdx.com 541.968.4168 COBID# 13356 Metro MAX Tunnel Study Seattle Congestion Pricing Study Hiatus Capital Fund DAIM 2022 PlayBook Safe Mobility Santa Ana Plan BART Role in the Region TriMet Bike Plan Des Moines Connect Downtown Downtown Austin Parking Study Portland Citywide Crash Summary Chicago Make Way for Play Guide EXPERIENCE KEY PROJECTS CONTACT DREW MEISEL Drew Meisel is the Principal of Verkstad, a full-service visual communication and graphic design firm specializing in communicating complex, technical data and information to your audience. The focus of Drew's decade-plus career is on using visual communication to cut through the clutter. His work improves the public's understanding of concepts, data, and the underlying tradeoffs behind decisions. He believes that every project has a story to tell, and he works to visualize it into compelling design narratives that articulate why your project matters. Consistent with this focus, he developed and taught a graduate level course at Portland State University called 'Visual Communications for Planners'. With this course, Drew worked to inspire the next cohort of planning students. He taught them to approach planning using design thinking and visual communication that would increase awareness, accessibility, and understanding on their future projects. Drew’s work on contentious projects, such as the North Williams Safety Project in 2012, have taught him the power of "showing" instead of telling residents and concerned citizens about potential outcomes for their community. At the culmination of that transportation project, which had a focus on bicycle and pedestrian safety, Drew decided to further hone his skills in translating planning ideas for the public. He saw firsthand how the combination of visualizing design ideas and conducting robust community outreach led to a safer N Williams Ave, one of the most heavily bike- traveled routes in the City of Portland. That’s why his design strategies are based on universal design principles. Through their use, Drew has seen enhanced audience interest and information comprehension and broadening participation among diverse groups of stakeholders. Strong visual communication elevates the key message, leads to stronger public support, and contributes to positive outcomes. 46 NICOLE METILDI SENIOR ASSOCIATE SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Nicole Metildi is a Senior Associate at Kearns & West with experience developing and implementing public involvement and communications programs for a variety of local, regional, and statewide public projects. Nicole brings expertise in project management, community engagement, strategic communications planning, and content development. She helps her clients create inclusive engagement approaches and uses her storytelling and content creation skills to develop communication materials that are easy-to-understand. Nicole brings experience working on contentious projects, supporting engagement efforts to help community members learn about the project impacts and share their concerns with decision-makers. She is dedicated to developing project communications and key messages that are accessible and use plain language, helping those most affected by a project understand its goals, how it will impact them, and how they can share their feedback in meaningful ways. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Urban Flood Safety and Water Quality District (UFSWQD) — Strategic Communications, Public Opinion Research, and Engagement On-Call Project Manager and Communications Lead | 2024 to Present Nicole serves as project manager, providing project management services which includes managing a budget of over $1 million, organizing team meetings, tracking task and deliverable progress and project schedules, and managing subcontractors. She led the development of a Communications Management Plan and a Public and Engagement Communications Plan for the joint UFSWQD and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Portland Metro Levee System (PMLS) project. These plans guide internal communications and coordination between USACE and UFSWQD, as well as external communications and engagement with the public and key stakeholders. Upcoming work includes engagement and communications support for the PMLS project, development of a visual identity for the new UFSWQD, education and outreach, and engagement with local communities as flood safety projects are designed and implemented. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — Oregon Implementation Plan for National Flood Insurance Policy Endangered Species Act Integration Strategic Communications Lead | 2024 to Present Nicole led the development of communications strategies and materials for the Preliminary Implementation Compliance Measures (PICMs) phase of work and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) public comment period. This included the development, implementation, and analysis of a questionnaire to gather input from impacted Oregon communities, the drafting of email communications with jurisdictions, slide decks and facilitation plans for webinars and workshops, talking points and FAQs for use by FEMA staff, and informational handouts about the PICMs. As a part of this work, she maintained a list of key terms to be used throughout communications and followed FEMA’s style guide in all content development to maintain consistency across communications. She also facilitated several PICM workshops with floodplain managers across Oregon. Nicole co-led public engagement and communications for outreach and engagement for the Draft EIS. Portland, Oregon NMetildi@kearnswest.com 949.521.3039 EXPERTISE Transportation and Planning Public Involvement Strategic Communications Stakeholder Engagement Copyediting Project Management EDUCATION & CERTIFICATIONS BA, International Studies University of California, San Diego | La Jolla, CA MA, English Oregon State University | Corvallis, OR Certificate in Public Participation International Association for Public Participation | Portland, OR Certificate in Storytelling & Content Strategy University of Washington | Seattle, WA Professional Sequence in Editing University of California, Berkeley | Berkeley, CA 47 Clark County — Climate Change Element Engagement and Facilitation Deputy Project Manager | 2024 to 2025 Clark County is implementing the new climate requirements in ES2HB 1181. The Kearns & West team assisted with facilitating a consensus-based process for developing recommendations for the Planning Commission and County Council consideration. The team also facilitated an equity-based process for the Environmental Justice Coalition, which is a coalition of community-based organizations who are helping the county meet the public engagement and environmental justice requirements of ES2HB 1181. Nicole supported engagement planning and process design, agenda development, meeting summaries, advisory group member management, and meeting facilitation. ODOT — I-5 and I-205 Regional Tolling Engagement and Outreach Public Involvement and Communications Specialist | 2023 to 2024 The Oregon Department of Transportation planned to toll I-5 and I-205 in the Portland metropolitan region to provide more predictable trips for travelers and pay for improvements to our transportation system. The Kearns & West team implemented an engagement plan guided by an equity framework, creating surveys and social media communication materials, and planning discussion groups and forums to reach a variety of stakeholders and agency partners. Nicole supported engagement efforts and the development of project communications. EXPERIENCE FROM WORK AT PREVIOUS POSITIONS City of Tualatin — Climate Action Plan Public Involvement and Communications Consultant | 2022 to 2023 Nicole developed the public involvement and communications plan for the creation of the City of Tualatin’s first Climate Action Plan. Work included co-facilitating equity workshops with and for the city to ensure that historically underserved community members were prioritized in public engagement. Nicole also designed and co-facilitated in-person public workshops in which participants were asked if draft climate strategies were responsive to their lived experiences. Additionally, she developed project webpage and social media content and designed online open houses and surveys. City of Bend — Olney Ave Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements (Phase 1) Public Involvement and Communications Manager | 2023 Nicole provided public involvement and communications strategy and management for the City of Bend as they worked to identify and design improvements for walking and biking along Olney Avenue between Wall Street and NE Second Street. In addition to daily project management, Nicole worked with the City to develop a public involvement and communications plan and key messages for the project. Work also included development of project mailers, factsheets, display boards, and an online open house in which the public could share their thoughts on three project alternatives. City of Camas Parks and Recreation Commission — Core Values Workshop Communications Consultant and Co-Facilitator | 2023 Nicole co-facilitated a workshop on core values for the Camas Parks and Recreation Commission. In the workshop, attendees shared their core values with one another and identified overlap between them. After the meeting, she developed the meeting summary and worked with her team to develop core value statements based on input shared during the workshop. Discovery Clean Water Alliance — Communications and Public Involvement Support Public Involvement and Communications Consultant | 2020 to 2023 Nicole supported ongoing communications and public involvement needs for the Discovery Clean Water Alliance by working with graphic designers to develop and update project factsheets, develop quarterly email newsletters, develop annual online open houses, and prepare for and staff an annual open house at the Salmon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Nicole also wrote a script and assisted in the development of a short video that encouraged residents to adopt activities and behaviors that protect water in the area. Washington State Department of Transportation — Performance-based Project Evaluation Model Proviso Project Consultant | 2022 to 2023 In 2022, the Washington State Legislature directed the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) through a budget proviso to complete a performance-based project evaluation model based on a feasibility report WSDOT submitted to the Legislature in 2020. Through this work, the project team developed objectives and criteria to clarify the statutory transportation policy goals, created procedures to consistently score and rank all types of proposed transportation investments being considered for new law funding revenue, and provided a summary of the model functionality and implementation recommendations. Nicole supported client meetings with presentation and agenda development, as well as meeting summarization. 48 RUBY GONZALES ASSOCIATE SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Ruby Gonzales brings public involvement, strategic communications, and culturally specific engagement skills to her position as an Associate at Kearns & West. She uses an anti-oppressive and trauma-informed approach to build meaningful relationships through community outreach and engagement. With her experience working in highly complex political spaces, Ruby is an expert in managing contentious moments with diplomacy and care. Her background includes creating strategic community engagement plans, meeting facilitation and coordination, and communications. Ruby earned a Bachelor’s degree from Portland State University in Social Work in addition to a minor in Civic Leadership. Her professional interests include economic and community resiliency, civic participation pathway development, and environmental justice. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Metro – Supportive Housing Services Facilitation Project Coordinator | September 2025 to Present Ruby is supporting facilitation of three structures supporting the investment and oversight of housing bond dollars across three counties in the Portland, OR region. This includes a bond oversight committee focused on ensuring that construction of new housing is aligned with regional goals, the Supportive Housing Services Oversight Committee providing review and accountability for County plans to connect supportive housing with chronically homeless and those at risk of experiencing homelessness to permanent housing. Finally, Ruby supports facilitation of the Tri-County Regional Planning Body that collaborates to develop and approve regional plans that support alignment, jurisdictional partnerships, and community-based organization success to improve the homelessness response region wide. US Army Corps of Engineers –Willamette Valley System Biological Opinion Adaptive Management Process Facilitation Project Coordinator | June 2025 to October 2025 Kearns & West provides facilitation and process guidance to the USACE to implement the National Marine Fisheries Service 2020 Biological Opinion on the Willamette Valley System Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives through an Adaptive Management framework to support Endangered Species Act compliance. Ruby provides meeting coordination and support for the workgroup which includes over 30 participants from Federal, State, Tribal, and regional sovereigns, and covers topics ranging from fish passage to total dissolved gas management, river flow management, and temperature management, as well as interactions and trade-offs between these dimensions of Federal project operations. Portland, Oregon RGonzales@kearnswest.com 503.415.9611 EXPERTISE Community Engagement Community Outreach Trauma Informed Project Management Data Analysis Communications Public Policy EDUCATION & CERTIFICATIONS BSW, Social Work Portland State University | Portland, OR 49 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) - Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action — Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Re-Organization Plan Tribal Consultations Project Coordinator | May 2025 to June 2025 Kearns & West supported the DOI’s Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action to engage Tribal communities on two proposed rulings: Executive Order 14210 “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative, and Executive Order 14156 DOI Emergency Permitting Procedures. Ruby supported the design, logistics, and overall coordination of the consultation series that brought together Tribal leadership and U.S. officials for dialogue on the plan. Oregon Health Authority (OHA) - Benefits Update Project: Coordinated Care Organizations (CCO) Work Groups Project Coordinator | January 2025 to June 2025 The Benefit Update Project (BUP) will update the Oregon Health Plan to cover all medically necessary and appropriate services in the benefit package. OHA held three facilitated sessions with Coordinated Care Organizations (CCOs) and Fee-for-Services/Open Card Contractors in the summer and fall of 2024. Feedback from these sessions informed the creation of a workgroup for CCO representatives to discuss BUP operation topics. Ruby supported the Kearns & West team and project budget, in addition to supporting the delivery and facilitation of workgroup meetings. Office of Governor Kotek & Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) – Canola and Brassica Seed Work Group Project Coordinator | September 2024 to January 2025 In late 2024 Governor Kotek’s office convened a small group of Willamette Valley farmers to work toward a long-term solution to growing Canola in the Willamette Valley, a problem that has persisted for over a decade. Ruby not only supported development of the process and facilitation of the six-meeting series, but also supported extensive shuttle discussions between members to help work through sticky issues. Ultimately, the group was able to identify and codify some key areas of shared agreement that ultimately was used as a basis for proposed legislation in the 2025 session. Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) Carmen-Smith Fish Passage Process Project Coordinator | 2025 to Present Ruby supports the mediation and facilitation for the EWEB Carmen-Smith Fish Passage Process (FPP). In 2019, EWEB acquired a new license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to continue generating hydropower at the Carmen-Smith Hydropower Project, which consists of a network of three dams, three reservoirs, and two power-generating plants located a few miles downstream from the headwaters of the McKenzie River. The Kearns & West team is working with EWEB, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop mutually satisfactory fish passage requirements for the Carmen-Smith hydro license. Ruby accurately captures technical conversations in her notes and composes high-level meeting summaries for the parties’ approval. Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) — Health Care Market Oversight (HCMO) Community Leaders and Organizations Engagement Project Coordinator | 2024 to June 2025 Kearns and West is supporting OHSU in their engagement strategies to convene meetings with key community leaders and organizations that have partnerships with OHSU and Legacy to discuss the combination efforts for the HCMO filings. Ruby provides project management, logistical, and programmatic support for engagement strategies and convenings. Her role includes facilitating process convenings with the OHSU + Legacy team and preparing materials and facilitation for engagement with specific OHSU + Legacy partners and the communities they represent. Department of Land Conservation & Development (DLCD) — Eastern Oregon Solar Siting Rulemaking Advisory Committee (RAC) Project Coordinator | 2024 to May 2025 Kearns & West is assisting he RAC in developing recommendations to the Land Conservation and Development Commission on rules relating to the siting of photovoltaic solar power generation facilities. Ruby provides meeting planning, materials development, and process support for DLCD’s Eastern Oregon 50 Solar Siting Rules Advisory Committee (RAC). Ruby also supports the facilitation of the hybrid RAC meetings by providing technical assistance for RAC members and the Kearns & West team. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – Oregon’s Implementation Plan for Endangered Species Act Integration Project Coordinator | 2024 to November 2025 FEMA engaged Kearns & West to provide outreach and engagement services focusing on potentially interested and impacted parties regarding the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Draft Oregon Implementation Plan for National Flood Insurance Policy Endangered Species Act Integration. Ruby provides project support, including meeting logistical planning and material development. Multnomah County Chair’s Office — Constituent Engagement Project Lead | 2023 to 2024 Before joining Kearns & West, Ruby oversaw the Multnomah County Chair’s Office constituent services and community engagement. In this work, Ruby built trust with elected officials, community members, partner organizations, and staff to ensure the timely reflection of constituent challenges and opportunities. Ruby effectively managed public testimony processes, engagement contracts, and community relationships on behalf of the Chair. Multnomah County Chair’s Office — Community Involvement Committee (CIC) Project Lead | 2023 to 2024 Ruby led the Multnomah County Community Involvement Committee’s 2024-2025 recommendations development process to produce and deliver applicable policy and engagement recommendations to the Multnomah County Chair and Board of County Commissioners. Ruby worked closely with the CIC to produce briefing materials for elected officials and their staff in addition to coordinating the CIC’s engagement with the Board. Multnomah County Elections — Voter Educations & Outreach Project Coordinator | 2022 to 2023 Ruby worked in the Multnomah County Elections Division to develop and initiate a Voter Education & Outreach Strategy to advance the work of removing barriers to voting and voter services, focusing on voters in underrepresented and marginalized communities. By designing a GIS map that created a visualization of voter participation and census demographic data, Ruby created a data analysis method that informs the program’s approach to providing strategic culturally specific outreach and education. Ruby is a trained elections administrator and a subject matter expert on Ranked-Choice Voting. 51 Charting Bozeman’s Future: a city charter ballot education initiative proposal presented by Danegeld April 2026 Danegeld, LLC Missoula, MT 52 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Firm Profile 5 Scope of Project 8 Related Experience to Similar Projects 10 Proposed Schedule 13 Present and Projected Workloads Recent Work with the City of Bozeman 15 Price Proposal 17 Affirmation of Nondiscrimination and Equal Pay 19 53 3 Executive Summary 54 4 Executive Summary Danegeld is a Montana firm of career non-profit and civic engagement professionals now serving as consultants within the non-profit, governmental, and private sectors. The entirety of Danegeld’s personnel boast a lengthy background in civic engagement and education, community outreach, and public-private relations. Our team has previously engaged on ballot and voter education campaigns, specific advocacy efforts, non- partisan GOTV efforts, ballot initiatives, and fundraising projects that raise public awareness and bring forward a clear, specific message. Each of our team members’ specific backgrounds allow us to better understand aspects of the city charter review process and how to reach the voters where they are. We are excited to present this proposal to the City of Bozeman and the Study Commission to offer our services for an education campaign surrounding the upcoming charter amendments in the November election. We aim to uplift the study commission’s work and the results of the surveys and deliberation to ensure voters are well informed not only about their options in November, but about the work, process, and feedback that led to these proposed changes. Our firm’s background is uniquely suited to navigating the ‘bright line between advocating and educating’ and we look forward to helping the Study Commission share its work with the voters of Bozeman. As language for the ballot takes its final shape, we look forward to helping the Commission and the City navigate engagement with voters via in-person events, comprehensive digital efforts, and physical handouts and traditional media, all under a unified and identifiable branding created specifically for this campaign. We will draw inspiration from the Gallatin Votes Campaign that Erin Corsi created and ensure the messaging, logo, branding, and format of the ballot education campaign provide a unique identity and a clear message to voters from now through election day. Danegeld personnel prioritize community connections, clear messaging, and good government practices in all our work. In our previous experience with ballot initiatives and voter education campaigns, we have relied heavily on multifaceted media efforts, strong partnerships with local community groups, and a trusting relationship with the city staff and electeds we work with. As part of our campaign, we will ensure our messaging provides distinct information to voters while also pushing back against misinformation surrounding the election. We anticipate working alongside the Study Commission to turn the hard work and results of the past two years into easily digestible public information. With the election effectively 6 months away by the start of the contract, we’re excited to jump in immediately and work quickly to give the Commission an identifiable brand and early talking points as soon as possible. After reviewing the commission’s minutes and resource documents, we’re confident that the work ahead is public-focused and entirely centered on providing the public the information and results of the Study Commission’s process. Danegeld enthusiastically offers our services and looks forward to providing tools to inform voters about the Commission’s work today, the plans for the next few months, and the final language and details for the election itself. Due to our firm belief in the power of people, art, and human connection, we DO NOT use generative AI in any of our language, graphics, or design processes. 55 Firm Profile 5 56 6 Team Profile Tor Gudmundsson Tor’s background is heavily grounded in advocacy, get out the vote efforts, and non-profit program work. Since 2020, Tor has worked with MontPIRG to ensure the passage of ballot initiatives, drive GOTV efforts, and raise funds for ongoing student success in non-partisan civic engagement. During his time with Habitat for Humanity Missoula, Tor served as executive director and the primary compliance contact for the organization. Additionally, Tor has spent time working with election advocacy groups like the Progressive Turnout Project and advocated for Montana issues with the Bitterroot Valley Community College effort and the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Act. This background combined with non-profit program compliance experience ensure that the Danegeld team has a keen view of the bright line between advocacy and education and a strong respect for compliance, consistency, and the voters we engage with. Nevin Graves Nevin is a fundraising and community organizing specialist with a background in public media. Previous experience with MontPIRG included leading a legislative district targeting team for statewide statutory and constitutional ballot initiatives in 2020, with considerable public engagement efforts by a small internal team and wider coalition partnerships. With extensive service through the Missoula Civic Television Advisory Commission and Missoula Community Access Television, Nevin is deeply familiar with best practices in public media, neutral carrier messaging, and government enterprise content creation. 57 7 Audrey Dozier Audrey is a former debate kid and perennial artist with experience in campaigns, event planning, and communications. As a current state employee in the Montana University System, they are familiar with the narrow bright line between advocacy and education that public entities walk. In addition, Audrey is painfully familiar with recent changes to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the new standards that state and local governments are responsible for adhering to. Audrey has previously worked with MontPIRG and the Montana Brewers Association, and is currently working with Danegeld and Daisy Chain Arts Collection to make cool things happen. Erin Corsi Erin is a creative director, designer, and strategist with extensive experience developing compelling brand materials for Bozeman entities. She worked extensively on ballot education materials for the Gallatin County Elections Office in 2020 during the first all-mail general election in county history. In the private sector, she has created highly-recognizable brands for Bridger Brewing, Ghost Town Coffee Roasters, Monarch Fitness Studio, Merry Piglets, Hachi, Genuine Ice Cream, and Hardy Brands. Erin is a co-owner of Studio Wheelhouse and frequently collaborates with the statewide civic engagement organization Forward Montana for local programming. Team Profile 58 8 Scope of Project 59 9 Scope of Project We will approach the campaign with a 3 stage plan beginning the moment the contract is signed and ending with a post-election debrief. Danegeld anticipates developing a Strategic Communications Plan that centers the Study Commission as the hub for the City’s education and outreach. This plan will include unified branding, a cohesive central message from the Study Commission, and the avenues of communication for city staff and electeds. We intend to create the majority of the cohesive branding, unifying messaging, and public facing content as early as possible while putting deliberate care into creating space for the final ballot language information. Our messaging will clearly describe the options ahead, the work of the study commission, and the details of both the ballot language process and the proposed amendment itself. From the start of contract into early June, we will work closely with the Commission to finalize branding and messaging in partnership with Danegeld personnel and Graphic Designer Erin Corsi. All content and assets created during the course of the contract will adhere to WCAG 2.1 AA standards and the Americans with Disabilities Act, with particular attention taken to adhere to recent changes to Title II of the ADA. As the specific language for the charter takes shape, we will move with the Study Commission into the second phase of our plan to bring the unified message, branding, and updates from the Commission to the public as language becomes available for comment. We intend to utilize a broad swath of outreach and media options to reach the entirety of Bozeman’s voters, including but not limited to local news, social media, presentations by the Commission, updates through official city channels, paid advertisements, community partnerships, and broadly available, easily identifiable infographics both physical and digital. With the branding created alongside the study commission at the start of the contract, we anticipate easy translation across digital, print, and physical media for all educational materials and voter outreach. We will use these combined efforts and partnerships with local community organizations to drive engagement and education along both the broadly accessed and frequented communication channels and those more likely to reach underserved and disengaged voters. As we move through June and closer to finalized language and Election Day, we will move into our 3rd phase leveraging partnerships and communication channels to make a final push for voter awareness and participation. We will also use the time from July until Election Day to address any unanticipated changes to the election process, changes to the proposed language on the ballot, or any other unforeseen issues. As we continue to elaborate the importance and details of the upcoming charter options to the public, we will ensure that our previously established plan and branding remain consistent throughout. From the start of the contract through to election day, we want to ensure we reach Bozeman’s voters through all available channels with a consistent and identifiable message to provide information in a clear, engaging way. Following a post-Election Day debrief, we will work with the Study Commission to ensure all information was accurately conveyed and that the plans, branding, and efforts put towards this process remain viable and usable to the Study Commission and the city for future efforts to the highest extent possible. The broader political environment has a high potential to produce last-minute changes to election procedures for the 2026 General Election. Our pricing proposal encompasses what we believe to be sufficient resources to craft and deploy engaging materials from a neutral voice on the Amended City Charter and provide support and coaching to the Study Commission as the public engages with the content. We have also budgeted time to provide rapid responses to emergent issues in voting procedures, misinformation regarding the content, and other messaging and design needs that may arise. 60 10 Related Experience 61 11 Gallatin Votes 2020 was an unprecedented year. Gallatin County needed help getting voters on the same page about how the election would be affected. The goal of the Gallatin Votes campaign was to reduce confusion and increase voter turnout while maintaining trust in the voting process. AMS (Armstrong Marketing Solutions) worked with the County over two weeks to execute a full-scale campaign encompassing digital and print advertisements, tv and radio spots, social media ads, posters, and web assets. Erin was the sole designer on the campaign. Gallatin County was set to have an all mail-in ballot election, and they needed to communicate that format to voters. Every active registered voter in the county was sent a ballot in the mail on October 9, and voters needed to return their ballots by mail or via drop-off locations around the county. They also needed to spread the word about their Mobile Satellite Election Office, which would be traveling across the county to assist voters. The campaign began with an integrated marketing strategy with tactical recommendations that include identifying audience motivators, marketing issues and opportunities within the local landscape, radio/TV, newspaper and social media recommendations. From this strategy the following marketing and advertising pieces were developed:1. 30-second TV advertisement (seen during World Series by their team)2. KGLT & NPR 30-second radio advertisement spots 3. Newspaper Print Ads for Belgrade News, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Explore Big Sky, Lewis & Clark Journal, and Three Forks Voice 4. Social Media Ads5. Web banners 6. Landing page 7. Posters Feedback from their team: “Couldn’t stop raving — you clearly listen to us and did your homework — impressive and healthful, you launched us from the get-go.” “The graphic design was amazing yet simple — beat out the nose and made it clear” “A lot of people commented positively on the colors, mapping and messaging” This integrated marketing strategy and the subsequent advertising pieces resulted in: • Close to 1,000 voters across satellite offices • Fairgrounds closed by 8:30 (usually 11pm) — 1,700 votes showed up • Last voter was done by 9:15 • First time they had results for the 10pm news that were 88% complete • 90% of ballots were submitted• 10,000 voters changed some status between this campaign and the primary Work for the County, signed off by Eric Semerad, Whitney Bermes (point of contact). Related Experience Danegeld personnel have extensive experience across the civic engagement space and have created and participated in ballot initiatives, direct campaign advocacy, education initiatives, and fundraising and marketing work for the same. Of the previous work of the team presenting this proposal, we believe the two examples below best illustrate our abilities to meet the needs of the Study Commission and this proposal. 62 12 The Marijuana Campaign Danegeld personnel contributed directly to the successful ballot initiative campaign to amend Montana’s constitution to legalize cannabis. This effort required communicating language changes to a governing document to a broad swath of disparate voters and ensuring those education efforts were clear, accurate, and grounded in messaging of the initiative. Nevin was the lead organizer for a travelling team of signature gatherers working on MontPIRG’s 2020 campaign to qualify CI-118 and I-190 for the General Election ballot, and Audrey joined them on the affirmative campaign in the later summer of said election cycle. These joint initiatives created a bipartisan and constitutionally resilient approach to cannabis legalization in the State of Montana, and involved adherence to a demanding campaign schedule with thorough outreach metrics for direct voter contact, print and broadcast media content creation, and messaging strategies for diverse populations. Voter education efforts required specific and extensive outreach to ensure voters passed both CI-118 and I-190 as both measures required passage to legalize cannabis for adult use and possession. This complicated and multifaceted ballot education process reinforced our ability to navigate complex issues and communicate them clearly to the voters. Beyond gathering signatures to get the initiatives on the ballot, the campaign included collecting voter pledges to create contact lists for phone banking, email, and other marketing pushes during the final weeks of the campaign. Ultimately, the goal was to get out the vote and inform the electorate of options available to them. Carl Anderson, Regional Director with MontPIRG, worked closely with Nevin on this campaign and remains with the organization as a reference. The Results: • CI-118 passed with 340,847 votes (57.8%) for the initiative. • I-190 passed with 341,037 votes (56.9%) - only 190 voters who voted positively to legalize cannabis misunderstood that both measures needed to pass. • With a total of 589,289 voters making a choice on the constitutional initiative, such a small discrepancy was heralded as a huge campaign success. 63 13 Proposed Schedule 64 14 Proposed Schedule We propose starting work on unified outbound messaging, logos & branding, and presentation and physical materials for the study commission immediately. As we move through the summer, we intend to ramp up voter outreach while being mindful of information burnout. We estimate a monthly schedule below based on our current understanding of the Commission’s timeline per the information in the February 18th Study Commission Agenda. With draft charter language available in May and the final language due in August, we have a window of time to ensure voters feel heard and engaged while also providing them opportunities to learn more about the charter amendment language and the Study Commission’s work and survey data. As Soon As Possible• Branding and messaging work begins • Analysis and consolidation of themes from study commission’s survey results begins. Early themes are used to inform key messaging. May - Early June • Branding work completed or mostly completed.• Central messaging developed, and work begins on building out the website and social media accounts in partnership with City channels. End of June• Informational website built out with branding. • Social media accounts established. • Establish metrics for later engagement success to be measured by, based on a reasonable portion of registered voters in Gallatin County and number of respondents to study commission’s work. • Create an online form to collect FAQs, and start FAQ database informed by information from the study commission’s survey results. July • Social media and earned media push. This may (and should) include Q&A in-person events, potentially livestreams on social media, Youtube, or Twitch to answer questions like “what the heck is a charter anyway?” • We want people to be familiar with, but not burnt out by, the central message. August• Continue push. • Goal is for at least xx social followers across Instagram, Facebook, and Bluesky, xx average views and engagement/week on website (with metrics based on determination from end of June). • City commission is informed of and in the loop on the work and city channels mirror and reference the outreach. September• City leadership are enlisted to participate in engaging social media and digital content.• Ads are purchased and deployed on local news sources. October • Final mailer out, and arrives in mailboxes same week as ballots. • Door hangers and other collateral is developed if staff are available for a street team to be deployed. November• The final stretch. • Keep up the momentum. • Evaluate effectiveness based on feedback. 65 15 Present & Projected Workloads Current & Previous Work with the City of Bozeman 66 16 Present & Projected Workloads Danegeld is eminently available for this campaign. We are currently completing our contract with WYRD Productions & Studio Wheelhouse’s First Contact Convention on April 6th. This contract has been our major focus for the year and we anticipate having excellent availability as soon as it concludes. We do have three small contracts with regular engagement throughout the year, but their expected workload is fairly light and all such contracts are on a long-term basis with infrequent work as needed. We do not anticipate any challenges in including this contract in our current workload and are confident we will be able to give the City of Bozeman’s contract our full prioritization and attention. Current & Previous Work with the City of Bozeman Danegeld has worked closely with City of Bozeman leadership on identifying resources for First Contact Con 2026. Tor and Nevin worked closely with Brit Fontenot to build relationships with area business leaders with the Bozeman Area Chamber of Commerce and Montana Festival. Bozeman Mayor Joey Morrison has been an enthusiastic participant in FCC 2026 programming, and recently made a Danegeld-authored mayoral proclamation of First Contact Day during a City Commission meeting on March 24th, 2026. The aforementioned work on First Contact Con 2026 included application for and award of a grant from the Gallatin Valley Tourism Business Improvement District. Danegeld personnel worked closely with Bozeman Area Chamber of Commerce CEO Daryl Schliem on the application, and we see our ongoing, positive relationship with these entities as an opportunity to quickly build inroads to key stakeholder audiences in education surrounding the new City Charter. 67 17 Price Proposal 68 18 Price Proposal Our pricing model is based in the following major expense areas: consulting personnel hourly fees, print/broadcast/digital media creation and distribution expenses, and internal software and digital tools. We remain open to negotiation on hours committed in either direction. Media content creation and distribution costs are tiered according to increasing sizes of target audiences and/ or contact attempts during the campaign. Pricing Breakdown Personnel Costs Four Consultants for 600 hours (Approximately 150 hours over 6 months for 4 people) $100 / Hour x 600 Hours = $60,000 Media Content Creation and Distribution Lowest Effective Engagement: 14,594 voters (equal to total ballots cast in the 2025 Municipal General Election for the Mayoral contest) ~$1.50 spent per voter = $21,900 Active Electorate Engagement: 43,281 voters (equal to total registered voters in the 2025 Municipal General Election) ~$1.50 spent per voter = $64,950 Transformative Voter Engagement: Previous tier expense total x 2 ~ $3 spent per voter = $129,900 Software and Other Tools A portion of costs for internal software and digital tools needed to complete the project. $1,400 69 19 Nondiscrimination & Equal Pay Affirmation Danegeld, LLC hereby affirms it will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin, or because of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability and acknowledges and understands the eventual contract will contain a provision prohibiting discrimination as described above and this prohibition on discrimination shall apply to the hiring and treatments or proposer’s employees and to all subcontracts. Danegeld, LLC hereby affirms it will abide by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Section 39-3-104, MCA (the Montana Equal Pay Act). Tor Gudmundsson Tor Gudmundsson, Principal Danegeld, LLC 70 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission SUBJECT:Presentation by County Commissioners on District System MEETING DATE:April 15, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:At 5:00pm County Commissioners Jen Boyer and Zach Brown will present on how their district system works, how new district borders are drawn, the objective standard for their salaries, how their time is accounted for and the system for County Advisory Boards. 71 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Caeleb Heinen, Recording Secretary Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Discussion on Neighborhood Associations Time Permitting MEETING DATE: April 15, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION: Time permitting begin discussion of thoughts Wards/Districts, Advisory Boards and Neighborhood Association based on the previous Learning Sessions ran by Dan Clark and the other educational materials. STRATEGIC PLAN: 1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND: Reference Materials are attached. Mandatory Reading and Materials from 4/2 (all attached): Recommended INC Charter Language Suggestions for Strengthening Interneighborhood Council Side by Side Comparison of Bozeman Neighborhood Association FY 2024 Montana County Elected Official (EO) Salary Survey Results (Taylor) Old Board Report City of Bozeman Resolution 5323 (August 10, 2021 agenda memo and video) Suggested Reading (links provided by Taylor): American Review of Public Admin 2019 CO Law Review 2008 Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Neighborhood Organizations in Civic Governance Missoula Neighborhood Councils Assessment Plan Eugene Charter Eugene City Council Committee Assignments Eugene Boards and Commissions Seattle Charter UNRESOLVED ISSUES: 72 Seattle "A New Chapter for the Department of Neighborhoods" Seattle Grants and Funding Category Santa Fe New Mexico City Website Santa Fe Charter Santa Fe Boards, Commissions and Committees None Identified ALTERNATIVES: As per the Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS: None Identified Attachments: Recommended INC Charter Language.pdf Suggestions for Strengthening Inter 4.2.26.pdf Side By Side Comparison of Bozeman 4.2.26.pdf Neighborhood Associations 3.9.26.pdf FY 2024 Montana County Elected Official (EO) Salary Survey Results.pdf Old Board Report.pdf City of Bozeman Resolution 5323.pdf American Review of Pubic Admin 2019 Effec Neighborhood Assoc.pdf CO Law Review 2008.pdf Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems.pdf Neighborhood Organizations in Civic Governance.pdf Missoula Neighborhood Councils Assessment Plan.pdf Report compiled on: March 25, 2026 73 Final INC recommended Charter Language Approved 12/11/25 (a) Intent: The citizens of Bozeman, and the City of Bozeman, value the contribution neighborhoods can make to the governance of the city. Therefore, it is the purpose of this article to strengthen neighborhood participation where it exists, and to encourage and support neighborhood participation where it does not yet exist. (b) Purpose: There shall be a City program that supports the creation and maintenance of resident-led neighborhood associations. The associations shall act in an advisory capacity, and may contribute information, opinions, advice, suggestions and recommendations to the City Commission, City Manager and other City advisory bodies on all governmental affairs and services having an effect on the area the neighborhood association represents, including, but not limited to, public finance, public works, public safety, planning and zoning, and public health and sanitation. (c) Recognition of neighborhood associations. The Inter-Neighborhood Council shall establish minimum recognition standards for neighborhood associations, to be adopted by the City Commission by ordinance. These standards shall include, but not be limited to: (1) clear geographic boundaries; (2) adherence to established minimum by-laws that ensure voting capabilities by a neighborhood association’s selected Inter-Neighborhood Council representative; (3) periodic meetings, including an annual meeting; (4) copy of the by-laws and all amendments filed with the City; (5) the definition of membership eligibility includes all residents, property owners, business owners, and nonprofit organizations located within a given neighborhood association’s boundaries; and (6) demonstrated means of communication with all members in a neighborhood association. (d) Minimum Standards. A neighborhood association must meet and continue to maintain conformity with the minimum standards as established by ordinance in order to be recognized by the City of Bozeman and to be eligible to select members and representatives to the Inter-Neighborhood Council. Neighborhood associations existing on the date of the enactment of this charter shall have one year after the enactment of said City ordinance to come into compliance. 74 (e) Inter-Neighborhood Council. There is hereby established, an Inter-Neighborhood Council (INC) to be composed of representatives selected by each formally recognized neighborhood association. (1) The INC shall provide a public forum for formally recognized Neighborhood Association representatives to meet, share information, and make recommendations to the City Commission and City Manager. Recommendations made by the INC may be related to neighborhood-level and/or city-wide issues in order to advocate for their resident’s concerns. INC recommendations do not preclude a neighborhood association from taking its concerns directly to the Mayor/City Commission and/or City Manager. (2) The INC shall meet on a regular basis to understand and address city-wide concerns, examine current or proposed city policy, and foster dialogue between neighborhoods and with City leadership. (3) The INC shall adopt by-laws governing the conduct of their business. Such by-laws shall be adopted by the City Commission, by ordinance. A vacancy on the INC shall be filled only by the affected neighborhood association. The INC may include a City Commissioner as a non-voting member of the INC. (f) Neighborhoods Coordinator. The City shall retain a full-time paid staff member to coordinate with neighborhood associations and the Inter-Neighborhood Council. This staff member shall be under the City Manager’s Department and work solely on the neighborhoods program. 75 1 | Page Suggestions for Strengthening Inter-Neighborhood Council Charter Language Below is a research-grounded, charter-focused set of suggestions showing how Bozeman can strengthen Section 4.06 to better achieve the four effectiveness criteria you identified. I organize this in three layers: 1. What the literature says matters (brief synthesis) 2. Targeted improvements to charter language (by effectiveness criterion) 3. Illustrative revised charter language (optional draft text you can lift or adapt) I used the following “effectiveness” criteria identified from the research articles: • Improve two-way communication between residents and local government • Increase resident participation in planning, budgeting, or policy discussions • Serve as a legitimate advisory body rather than an advocacy or political body • Build neighborhood level social capital and leadership capacity I explicitly tie each suggestion to findings from the peer-reviewed articles and assessments, especially: • Li, Wen & Cooper (2019) – American Review of Public Administration • Olberding, Wilson & Swiger (2022) – Journal of Economics and Politics • Mathews (2021) – Voluntas • Parlow (2008) – University of Colorado Law Review • Speer (2006) – Participatory Planning & Neighborhood Councils • Missoula Neighborhood Councils Assessment (2021) Artificial intelligence tools were used to synthesize and organize findings across these sources. 1. What the research says improves effectiveness (brief synthesis) Across the attached literature, effective neighborhood governance systems share several common design features: • Institutionalized two-way communication (not just access): regular, predictable feedback loops between neighborhoods and city decision-makers (Li et al. 2019; Missoula Assessment 2021). o This is also supported by Gallop research on employee engagement. Having a connection to a common mission or purpose Feeling clear about role, expectations and priorities Ask for input and act on it when possible Create safe spaces for ideas, concerns, and feedback Recognize effort and contribution, not just outcomes 76 2 | Page Actively support learning, development, and growth Set norms for quality and mutual accountability Encourage trust and connection among coworkers Provide regular feedback on progress • Early, upstream involvement in planning and budgeting, rather than reactive input after decisions are mostly formed (Speer 2006; Parlow 2008). • Clear advisory—not advocacy—role, with expectations that councils deliberate internally and present reasoned suggestions reflecting neighborhood consensus (Mathews 2021; Parlow 2008). • Capacity-building supports (training, staff liaison, predictable resources) that help neighborhood associations develop leadership, social capital, and institutional memory (Li et al. 2019; Olberding et al. 2022). Bozeman’s existing charter language establishes legitimacy and structure, but it is largely procedural and underspecified on how neighborhoods interact with city government and what outcomes are expected. 2. Targeted improvements by effectiveness criterion Two-way communication between residents and local government What’s missing now • The charter ensures neighborhoods can communicate to the City, but not that the City must meaningfully communicate back. • No requirement for responses, explanations, or follow-up. Research-based improvement • Require formal response obligations from city commission or staff to InterNeighborhood Council (INC) recommendations. • Define communication as reciprocal and iterative, not informational only. Why this works • Li et al. (2019) show that perceived responsiveness—not just access—drives neighborhood effectiveness. • Missoula’s assessment identified disconnected communication as a core weakness and recommended formalized pathways. Increase resident participation in planning, budgeting, or policy discussions What’s missing now • No guarantee that neighborhood associations are engaged early in planning or budgeting processes. 77 3 | Page • Participation is optional and reactive. Research-based improvement • Embed neighborhood input upstream (e.g., draft plans, budget priorities, major policy initiatives). • Specify participation in processes, not just meetings. Why this works • Speer (2006) demonstrates that early involvement increases both participation and trust. • Parlow (2008) emphasizes that deliberative structures lose legitimacy when engagement occurs only after decisions harden. Serve as a legitimate advisory body (not advocacy or political body) What’s missing now • The charter does not clearly distinguish deliberative advisory input from political advocacy. • This ambiguity can undermine legitimacy and invite conflict. Research-based improvement • Explicitly define neighborhood associations and the INC as advisory, deliberative bodies. • Emphasize consensus-seeking, issue framing, and reasoned recommendations rather than positional advocacy. Why this works • Mathews (2021) finds that neighborhood organizations are most effective when acting as intermediaries rather than advocates. • Parlow (2008) stresses advisory status as essential to avoid capture, NIMBYism, and factional politics. Build neighborhood-level social capital and leadership capacity What’s missing now • Recognition standards focus on structure, not development. • No mention of leadership training, inclusivity practices, or succession. Research-based improvement • Add an explicit capacity-building purpose. 78 4 | Page • Require or authorize the City to provide training, technical assistance, and leadership development support. Why this works • Li et al. (2019) and Olberding et al. (2022) show leadership capacity and internal governance quality are stronger predictors of effectiveness than formal authority. • Missoula’s assessment highlights lack of diversity and leadership pipelines as persistent challenges. 3. Illustrative revised charter language (model text) Below is sample language showing how Bozeman could strengthen Section 4.06 without changing its basic structure. Section 4.06(a) – Purpose (revised) The purpose of this article is to strengthen neighborhood participation in the governance of the City by supporting neighborhood associations as inclusive, deliberative, and advisory bodies that facilitate two-way communication, early public involvement, and neighborhood leadership development, while enhancing trust, transparency, and informed decision-making. Section 4.06(b) – Recognition Standards (additions in bold) Add a new subsection: 8) procedures to encourage inclusive participation, leadership development, and transparent deliberation; and 9) demonstrated capacity to provide reasoned, consensus-based advisory input on neighborhood and citywide issues. Section 4.06(d) – InterNeighborhood Council (strengthened) Add a new subsection: 4) The City Commission and/or designated staff shall provide timely responses to formal recommendations submitted by the InterNeighborhood Council, including explanations of how such input was considered or reasons for divergence. Add another subsection: 5) The InterNeighborhood Council shall be consulted, when practicable, during the formative stages of citywide planning efforts, major policy initiatives, and budget priority discussions. 79 5 | Page Section 4.06(e) – City Liaison (expanded) The City shall designate a staff member to serve as liaison to the InterNeighborhood Council and neighborhood associations. The liaison shall support coordination, training, leadership development, and communication between neighborhood associations and the City, and may assist in facilitating participatory planning, budgeting, and policy engagement processes. Bottom line (for commissioners or charter reviewers) Bozeman does not need to give neighborhood associations decision-making authority to improve effectiveness. The research consistently shows that clarity of role, early engagement, reciprocal communication, and capacity-building matter far more than formal power. 80 1 | Page Side By Side Comparison of Bozeman’s current charter language and recommended revisions Below is a clear, side-by-side comparison of Bozeman’s current charter language and recommended revisions, organized section-by-section. The recommended language is intentionally incremental, it preserves Bozeman’s structure while strengthening effectiveness, legitimacy, and clarity consistent with the attached research. Artificial intelligence tools were used to develop suggested charter language based on the findings from the peer-reviewed articles and assessments. Section 4.06 — Neighborhood Associations (a) Purpose Current Charter Language Recommended Charter Language The citizens of Bozeman value the contribution neighborhoods can make to the governance of the city. Therefore, it is the purpose of this article to strengthen neighborhood participation where it exists, and to encourage and support neighborhood participation where it does not yet exist. The citizens of Bozeman value the contribution neighborhoods make to the governance of the City. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to strengthen neighborhood participation by supporting neighborhood associations as inclusive, deliberative, and advisory bodies that promote two-way communication, early public involvement in planning and policy, and neighborhood leadership development, while enhancing transparency, trust, and informed decision-making. Why this matters: Clarifies how neighborhoods contribute (deliberation, advice, communication), not just that they contribute. (b) Recognition of Neighborhood Associations Introductory Clause Current Recommended The city commission shall establish by ordinance minimum recognition requirements for neighborhood associations. The city commission shall establish by ordinance minimum recognition requirements for neighborhood associations that support inclusive participation, democratic deliberation, and effective communication with residents and the City. 81 2 | Page Recognition Standards (Subsections) Current Standards Recommended Standards (additions in bold) 1) clear geographic boundaries; 1) clear geographic boundaries; 2) procedures for defining a resident for neighborhood association membership; 2) procedures for defining eligibility for neighborhood association membership; 3) adherence to established by-laws that ensure democratic deliberative and voting procedures; 3) adherence to established by-laws that ensure democratic, inclusive, and deliberative procedures; 4) periodic meetings, including an annual meeting; 4) periodic meetings, including an annual meeting; 5) copy of the by-laws and all amendments filed with the city; 5) copy of the by-laws and all amendments filed with the city; 6) inclusion of all residents in the neighborhood association; 6) inclusion of all residents in the neighborhood association; 7) demonstrating that it has a means of communicating with all residents in a neighborhood association. 7) demonstrating that it has a means of regular, accessible, and two-way communication with all residents in the neighborhood; — 8) procedures to encourage leadership development, representative participation, and continuity of governance; — 9) capacity to develop and transmit reasoned, consensus-based advisory input on neighborhood and citywide issues. Why this matters: Moves beyond structure to capacity, inclusion, and quality of input—key predictors of effectiveness. (c) Minimum Standards Current Recommended A neighborhood association must meet and continue to maintain conformity with the minimum standards as established by A neighborhood association must meet and continue to maintain conformity with the minimum standards established by 82 3 | Page ordinance in order to be recognized by the city and to be eligible to elect members to the InterNeighborhood Council. ordinance in order to be recognized by the City and to be eligible to select members to the InterNeighborhood Council. (Minor wording change clarifies eligibility without altering intent.) (d) InterNeighborhood Council (INC) Purpose and Role Current Recommended The InterNeighborhood Council shall provide a forum for Neighborhood Associations to come together, share information, and make recommendations to the city commission, city staff, and the mayor on city-wide issues. The InterNeighborhood Council shall provide a forum for Neighborhood Associations to come together to deliberate, share information, and develop reasoned recommendations to the city commission, city staff, and the mayor on city-wide issues. New: Formal Two-Way Communication Current Recommended (New Subsection) (No requirement for City response) The City Commission and/or designated City staff shall provide timely responses to formal recommendations submitted by the InterNeighborhood Council, including an explanation of how such input was considered or the reasons for any divergence. New: Early Engagement Current Recommended (New Subsection) (No reference to planning or budgeting) When practicable, the InterNeighborhood Council shall be consulted during the formative stages of citywide planning efforts, major policy initiatives, and budget priority discussions. 83 4 | Page Governance (By-laws) Current Recommended The InterNeighborhood Council shall adopt by-laws governing the conduct of their business. Such by-laws shall be approved by the city commission, or as designated by ordinance. The InterNeighborhood Council shall adopt by-laws governing the conduct of its business, emphasizing deliberation, transparency, and inclusive participation. Such by-laws shall be approved by the city commission, or as designated by ordinance. (e) City Liaison Current Recommended The City shall designate a staff member to serve as liaison to the InterNeighborhood Council and neighborhood associations. The City shall designate a staff member to serve as liaison to the InterNeighborhood Council and neighborhood associations. The liaison shall support coordination, leadership development, training, and two-way communication, and may assist in facilitating participatory planning, budgeting, and policy engagement processes. Why this matters: Transforms the liaison from a passive contact into a capacity-building role, consistent with best practice. Summary for Decision-Makers These revisions do not expand neighborhood authority or create new legal obligations, but they materially strengthen Bozeman’s neighborhood system by clarifying purpose, institutionalizing two-way communication, embedding early engagement, reinforcing an advisory, not political, role, and supporting leadership development. The result is a system that is more effective, legitimate, and durable without increasing risk or administrative complexity. 84 1 | Page Descriptions of Neighborhood Councils found in Montana Local Government Charters Butte Silver Bow Section 3.03(e) The Council of Commissioners shall be the legislative and policy determining body of the City-County. Except as otherwise provided by this Charter, the Council of Commissioners shall have all legislative powers and duties conferred on counties and cities which include but are not limited to, the power and duty: (e) to authorize community councils to advise the Council of Commissioners; Bozeman Section 4.06 Neighborhood Associations a) Purpose. The citizens of Bozeman value the contribution neighborhoods can make to the governance of the city. Therefore, it is the purpose of this article to strengthen neighborhood participation where it exists, and to encourage and support neighborhood participation where it does not yet exist. b) Recognition of neighborhood associations. The city commission shall establish by ordinance minimum recognition requirements for neighborhood associations. These standards shall include, but not be limited to: 1) clear geographic boundaries; 2) procedures for defining a resident for neighborhood association membership; 3) adherence to established by-laws that ensure democratic deliberative and voting procedures; 4) periodic meetings, including an annual meeting; 5) copy of the by-laws and all amendments filed with the city; 6) inclusion of all residents in the neighborhood association; and 7) demonstrating that it has a means of communicating with all residents in a neighborhood association. c) Minimum Standards. A neighborhood association must meet and continue to maintain conformity with the minimum standards as established by ordinance in order to be recognized by the city and to be eligible to elect members to the InterNeighborhood Council. Neighborhood associations existing on the date of the enactment of this charter shall have one year after the enactment of said city ordinance to come into compliance. 85 2 | Page d) InterNeighborhood Council. There is hereby established an InterNeighborhood Council to be composed of representatives selected by each recognized neighborhood association. 1) The InterNeighborhood Council shall provide a forum for Neighborhood Associations to come together, share information, and make recommendations to the city commission, city staff, and the mayor on city-wide issues. This does not preclude a neighborhood association from taking its concerns directly to the city or the commission. 2) The InterNeighborhood Council shall meet on a regular basis to address city-wide concerns and foster dialogue between neighborhoods. 3) The InterNeighborhood Council shall adopt by-laws governing the conduct of their business. Such by-laws shall be approved by the city commission, or as designated by ordinance. A vacancy on the InterNeighborhood Council shall be filled only by the affected neighborhood association. The city may appoint a city commissioner as a non-voting member of the InterNeighborhood Council. e) City Liaison. The City shall designate a staff member to serve as liaison to the InterNeighborhood Council and neighborhood associations. Great Falls Section 4 - Neighborhood Councils. a) Purpose: There shall be neighborhood councils. The councils shall act in an advisory capacity to the City Commission, the City Manager and to other City advisory bodies, and may contribute information, opinions, advice, suggestions and recommendations to the City Commission, City Manager and other City advisory bodies on all governmental affairs and services having an effect on the area the neighborhood council represents, including, but not limited to, public finance, public works, public safety, planning and zoning, and public health and sanitation. b) Provision of Neighborhood Districts Composition of Councils; Election: The City Commission shall, by ordinance, divide the City of Great Falls into no less than nine (9) and no more than thirteen (13) neighborhood council districts. The residents of a district shall comprise the electorate for that district. Each district shall have a council comprised of five (5) members; elected to a two (2) year term at the election held in conjunction with the City general election. Nominees for election to a neighborhood council must be residents of their designated neighborhood district. c) Organization: Each council shall select from its members a chairman, secretary, and an official delegate to attend City Commission meetings, and may appoint a Vice Chair or other officers as it deems necessary. The chairman must be one of the five elected council members. In the event of a vacancy on the council, the remaining members shall appoint a person eligible to hold the position to fill the vacancy until 86 3 | Page the next general election. In the event that the Council cannot agree upon the appointment of a replacement member, the City Commission shall fill the vacancy. On or before January 30, after each election, or within thirty (30) days after new council member(s) elected in a special election receive the oath(s) of, and are sworn into office, each neighborhood council shall meet to organize as provided in the section. Each council shall adopt by-laws prescribing additional duties of the council, meeting criteria and times, and such other provisions as the council may deem appropriate and which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this charter and the laws of Montana. The City Commission may provide model by-laws for use by the councils in drafting their own by-laws. d) Open Meetings and Right to Know: All meetings of the neighborhood councils shall be open to the public. All records maintained by the council shall be available for public inspection. e) Organization of a Great Falls Citizen's Council: A majority of the neighborhood councils may provide for the creation of a Great Falls Citizen's Council, consisting of one (1) member from each of the participating neighborhood councils. The Citizen's Council may determine its rules of organization and operation, except that no rules adopted shall be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter or the laws of Montana. The City Commission may provide model by-laws for use by the Council in drafting its own by-laws. The purposes of the Citizen's Councils shall be set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. f) Obligations of the City Commission; City of Great Falls: Nothing in this section shall obligate the City Commission to appropriate funds to any council for its operation, or to the Great Falls Citizen's Council authorized in paragraph (e). The City of Great Falls shall not be liable for any obligations incurred by the councils or the Citizen's Council during their existence except as provided for by the City Commission. Helena ARTICLE IV Neighborhood Councils Section 4.01 - Purpose There shall be seven (7) Neighborhood Councils, collectively comprising a Helena Citizens' Council. Operating independently from the city commission or city officials, the Helena Citizens' Council shall review and recommend actions relating to the annual budget and make recommendations relating to future development of the city. For federal and state programs requiring citizen participation, the Helena Citizens' Council may contract with the city for the provision of citizen participation. Section 4.02 - Composition, Boundaries, Election, Terms, Qualifications 87 4 | Page 1. The city commission shall, by ordinance, divide the City of Helena into seven (7) Neighborhood Council Districts 2. Each Neighborhood District shall have a council composed of four (4) members elected to two (2) year terms at an election held with the city general election. 3. Members of a Neighborhood Council must be residents of the designated Neighborhood Council District. 4. In the event of a vacancy on the Neighborhood Council, the remaining members shall appoint a person eligible to hold the position to fill the vacancy until the next city general election. If there are no remaining members of a Neighborhood Council, the Helen Citizens’ Council may appoint a person to fill the vacancy. A member’s position is deemed to be vacant before the expiration of the term if so declared by the Helena Citizens’ Council on the occurrence of either of the following: 1. The member fails to attend three (3) consecutive meetings of the Helena Citizens’ Council without good cause; or 2. The member ceases to be qualified to hold the position as prescribed in the rules adopted by a majority of the members of the Helena Citizens’ Council. 5. All of the elected Neighborhood Council members shall together comprise a Helena Citizens' Council 6. Within thirty (30) days after election each Neighborhood Council shall meet to organize, and within sixty (60) days after election, the mayor shall convene the Neighborhood Councils for a meeting of the Helena Citizens' Council. At that meeting the Helena Citizens' Council shall elect a chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary who shall take office immediately and proceed with business. 7. The Helena Citizens' Council shall cause a representative to attend each City Commission meeting and report back to the council. ARTICLE V Nominations and Elections Section 5.01 - Procedures The procedure for the nomination and election of all members of the city commission and the Helena Citizens’ Council shall be as required by Montana law for non-partisan elections. Missoula ARTICLE VI. Neighborhood Councils and Community Council Section 6.1 - Purpose (1) The City of Missoula values the contribution neighborhoods can make to the governance of the City. Therefore, it is the purpose of this article to strengthen 88 5 | Page neighborhood participation where it exists, and to encourage and support neighborhood participation where it does not yet exist. (2) The City Council shall establish Neighborhood Councils to advise the City Council and the Mayor on neighborhood and City-wide issues. (3) Neighborhood Councils and Community Councils shall provide a structure for increased citizen participation in the governance of the City, and shall build cooperation and improved communication between citizens and City officials. Neighborhood Council duties shall include, but shall not be limited to, developing proposals for neighborhood plans and advising the City on neighborhood projects as they occur. Neighborhood Councils shall respond to neighborhood issues at the neighborhood level. (4) The City Council shall establish a Community Council to be composed of representatives from the Neighborhood Councils. (5) The Community Council shall provide a forum for Neighborhood Councils to come together, share information, and make recommendations to the City Council and Mayor on City-wide issues. Neighborhood Councils, the Community Council, and the City of Missoula shall work together in partnership, bridging the gap between citizens and government. Section 6.2 - Composition and Responsibilities (1)Neighborhood Councils shall be created through a democratic process. All residents within the boundaries of a neighborhood district shall be eligible to serve on Neighborhood Councils, participate with Neighborhood Councils, or participate in the selection of officers for their Neighborhood Council. Composition of each Neighborhood Council should reflect the diversity which exists within that neighborhood. (2) Neighborhood Council members shall serve on a voluntary basis. The City of Missoula shall provide reasonable financial assistance to support the efforts associated with the formation and operation of Neighborhood Councils. (3) Each Neighborhood Council and the Community Council shall adopt by-laws governing the conduct of their business. Such by-laws shall be approved by the City Council. (4) Each Neighborhood Council shall meet with the residents of its neighborhood district on a regular basis. Neighborhood Councils, along with the City, shall be responsible for providing information on City and neighborhood issues to the residents of their neighborhoods. Neighborhood Councils shall facilitate participation in, and coordination of, neighborhood-initiated projects. (5) The entire City shall be divided into neighborhood districts. Neighborhood Councils shall be formed to represent the residents in each district. (6) A Missoula Community Council shall be created from an equal number of representatives from each Neighborhood Council, in accordance with Community Council 89 6 | Page by-laws. The Community Council shall meet on a regular basis to address City-wide concerns and foster dialogue between neighborhoods. (7) The City of Missoula shall be responsible for providing information on City and neighborhood issues to all Neighborhood Councils and the Community Council regularly and in a timely manner. The Neighborhood Councils and Community Council shall be responsible for reporting to the City Council and the Mayor regarding concerns and interests of the residents in the neighborhoods and in the City as a whole on a regular basis, and in a timely manner. (8) The City Council shall appoint a liaison from the City government who shall facilitate communication between the City of Missoula and the Neighborhood Councils and the Community Council. (9) Neighborhood Councils and the Community Council shall not preclude any individual or individuals from access to, or participation with, the City Council, the Mayor, or City departments. 90 County Uniform BASE EO Annual Salary Uniform Increase for EOs (% or flat amount) Longevity for all EOs (excluding statutory longevity) Clk & Rec Add-on for Election Admin Duties (MCA 7-4-2503) Treasurer Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) School Supt Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Clerk of District Court Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Justice of the Peace Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Combined County Elected Offices (MCA 7-4-2503) Consolidated EOs Receiving a Salary Above the BASE Salary as a Result of Consolidation County Commissioners Full-time, Part-time, or Per diem Co. Attorney Full-time or Part-time & Salary (not including longevity) A-Deer Lodge (City-County) Beaverhead $63,500 $2,600 $1 $2,000 $2,000 $400 $2,000 $2,000 No combined offices N/A Full-time Full-time, $123,500 Big Horn Blaine $61,157.52 $3.33 Yrs=per hr inc: 6-10 = $0.60; 11-15 = $1.20; 16-20 = $2; 21-25 = $3; 26-30 = $4; 31 & up = $5 $2,000 $2,000 $400 No No 1. Clk & Rec/ Survyr/(E.Admin) 2. Sheriff/Coroner No Full-time Full-time, $119,725.92 Broadwater B-Silver Bow (City-County) Carbon Carter $65,926.76 6.4%1.0%$2,000 $2,000 No $2,000 $2,000 1. Clk & Rec/ Public Admin/ Survyr/(E.Admin) 2. Clk of Ct/ School Supt 3.Sheriff/Coroner 4. Treas/Assessor 1. Clk & Rec: $1,000 2. Clk of Dist Crt: $1,000 3. Treasurer: $1,000 Part-time, 70% of EO base Part-time, $69,689.34 Cascade FY 2024 Montana County Elected Official (EO) Salary Survey Results (38 out of 56 counties responded) Montana Association of Counties Page 1 of 7 Elected Official Salary Survey Results91 County Uniform BASE EO Annual Salary Uniform Increase for EOs (% or flat amount) Longevity for all EOs (excluding statutory longevity) Clk & Rec Add-on for Election Admin Duties (MCA 7-4-2503) Treasurer Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) School Supt Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Clerk of District Court Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Justice of the Peace Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Combined County Elected Offices (MCA 7-4-2503) Consolidated EOs Receiving a Salary Above the BASE Salary as a Result of Consolidation County Commissioners Full-time, Part-time, or Per diem Co. Attorney Full-time or Part-time & Salary (not including longevity) Chouteau $52,910 $2,405 1.0%$2,000 $2,000 $400 $2,000 $2,000 1. Clk of Crt/ School Supt/ Survyr/(E.Admin) 2.Sheriff/Coroner 3. Treas/Assessor 1. Clk of Crt: $1,000 for Surveyor 2. Sheriff: $3,000 for Coroner Full-time Part-time, $84,425 Custer Daniels $51,894.48 $0.50 No $2,000 No No No No 1. Clk of Crt/ School Supt 2. Clk & Rec/ Survyr/(E.Admin) Assessor/Auditor 3.Sheriff/Coroner 1. Clk of Crt/ School Supt: $400 Per Diem Part-time, $63,259.09 Dawson $61,817.09 No No $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 1. Co Attrny/ Public Admin 2. Clk & Rec/ Auditor/Assessor/ Survyr/(E.Admin) No Full-time Full-time, $113,248.03 Fallon $75,816 6.0% Yrs=per hr inc: 5 = $0.25; 10 = $0.50; 15 = $0.75; 20 = $1; 25 = $1.50; 30 = $2 $2,000 $2,000 Contract Supt of Schools $2,000 Prorated, $848.64 1. Clk of Crt/ Public Admin 2. Clk & Rec/ SchoolSupt/ (E.Admin) 3.Sheriff/Coroner 4. Treas/Assessor No Full-time Part-time, $109,354; State Reimb.= $47,453 Fergus $60,518.46 5.5% $0.10/hr per yr, per yr of service $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 1.Sheriff/Coroner 1.Sheriff/Coroner: $5,000 Full-time Full-time, $128,635.73 Flathead $82,514 4.0%No $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 No, salary is $97,381 1. Clk & Rec/ Auditor/Surveyor 2. Sheriff/Coroner 3. Treas/Assessor 1.Sheriff/Coroner: $8,000 Full-time Full-time, $136,393 Montana Association of Counties Page 2 of 7 Elected Official Salary Survey Results92 County Uniform BASE EO Annual Salary Uniform Increase for EOs (% or flat amount) Longevity for all EOs (excluding statutory longevity) Clk & Rec Add-on for Election Admin Duties (MCA 7-4-2503) Treasurer Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) School Supt Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Clerk of District Court Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Justice of the Peace Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Combined County Elected Offices (MCA 7-4-2503) Consolidated EOs Receiving a Salary Above the BASE Salary as a Result of Consolidation County Commissioners Full-time, Part-time, or Per diem Co. Attorney Full-time or Part-time & Salary (not including longevity) Gallatin $86,086 3.0%No $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 1. Clk & Rec/ Survyr/(E.Admin) 2. Clk of Crt/ Public Admin 3.Sheriff/Coroner 4. Treas/Assessor No Full-time Full-time, $130,166 Garfield Glacier $62,600 7.0%No No $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 1.Clk & Rec/School Supt 1.Clk & Rec /School Supt:$400 Full-time Part-time $110,300 Golden Valley $38,700.01 2.5% ($943.91)No $2,000 $2,000 $400 $2,000 $2,000 1. Clk & Rec/ Clk of Crt/ (E.Admin) 2.Sheriff/Coroner 3. Treas/ School Supt 1. Clk & Rec/ Clk of Crt: 14% 2. Sheriff/ Coroner: 12% 3. Treasurer/ School Supt: 10% Full-time + the $2,000 = $166.67 per month + mileage Full-time, $28,262.25 (Share will Musselshell) Granite $52,325.88 8.0%1.0%$2,000 $2,000 $400 $2,000 $1,000 1. Clk & Rec/ Assessor/Surveyor /(E.Admin) 2.Sheriff/Coroner 3. Treas/School Supt/Public Admin 1. C&R/Assessor/ Surveyor: 5% 2.Sheriff/ Coroner: 15% 3. Treas/School Supt/Public Admin: 5% Half-time, $2,000 + mileage Full-time, $113,059.86 Hill $56,218.42 $5,000 1.0%$2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 1.Sheriff/Coroner 2. Treas/Assessor 1.Sheriff/Coroner: 15%Full-time Full-time, $122,583.99 Jefferson $71,041.52 6.0%1.0%$2,000 $2,000 $400 $2,000 $2,000 1. Co Attrny/ Public Admin 2. Clk & Rec/ Assessor/Surveyor /(E.Admin) 3.Sheriff/Coroner No Full-time Full-time, $135,930.87 Montana Association of Counties Page 3 of 7 Elected Official Salary Survey Results93 County Uniform BASE EO Annual Salary Uniform Increase for EOs (% or flat amount) Longevity for all EOs (excluding statutory longevity) Clk & Rec Add-on for Election Admin Duties (MCA 7-4-2503) Treasurer Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) School Supt Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Clerk of District Court Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Justice of the Peace Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Combined County Elected Offices (MCA 7-4-2503) Consolidated EOs Receiving a Salary Above the BASE Salary as a Result of Consolidation County Commissioners Full-time, Part-time, or Per diem Co. Attorney Full-time or Part-time & Salary (not including longevity) Judith Basin $50,644.45 4.5% ($2,180.95) $225/yr, beginning yr 2 $2,000 $2,000 Combined office split between the 2, $1,000 Combined office split between the 2, $1,000 $2,000 1. Clk of Crt/ School Supt 2. Sheriff/Coroner 1.Sheriff/Coroner: $3,500.04 Full-time, but actually only work Part-time, so 40% of EO base Full-time, $126,541.20 (85% DC Judge Salary) Lake Lewis & Clark $86,690 4.0% $2K after yr 1; $3K after yr 2; addt'l $500 each yr after $2,000 $2,000 $400 $2,000 $2,000 1. Co Attrny/ Public Admin 2.Clk & Rec/ Auditor/Assessor/ Surveyor/Treas 3.Sheriff/Coroner No Full-time Full-time, $134,723.00 Liberty $52,133.00 0.025 $26/yr after 5 yrs $2,000 $2,000 200 $2,000 $2,000 1.Sheriff/Coroner/ Public Admin 2. Treasurer/ Assesor No Full-time 75% $96,294 Lincoln $63,166.43 No 1.0%No No No No $2,000 1. Clk & Rec/ Auditor/Assessor/ Surveyor No Full-time Full-time, County pays $62,232.94; State pays $60,640.00 = $122,872.94 Madison $68,025.30 6.5% +$2,250 for Elected Schedule $2,000 $2,000 5% higher than the highest salary provided by law $2,000 $2,000 1.Sheriff/Coroner 2. Treas/ School Supt 1.Sheriff/Coroner 2. Treasurer/ School Supt Full-time Full-time, $137,063.10 McCone Montana Association of Counties Page 4 of 7 Elected Official Salary Survey Results94 County Uniform BASE EO Annual Salary Uniform Increase for EOs (% or flat amount) Longevity for all EOs (excluding statutory longevity) Clk & Rec Add-on for Election Admin Duties (MCA 7-4-2503) Treasurer Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) School Supt Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Clerk of District Court Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Justice of the Peace Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Combined County Elected Offices (MCA 7-4-2503) Consolidated EOs Receiving a Salary Above the BASE Salary as a Result of Consolidation County Commissioners Full-time, Part-time, or Per diem Co. Attorney Full-time or Part-time & Salary (not including longevity) Meagher $56,160.00 0.041 according to statute $2,000 $2,000 400 $2,000 $2,000 1. Clk & Rec/ School Supt 2. Sheriff/Coroner 3. Treasurer/ Assessor Mineral $50,872.28 $1 No $2,000 $2,000 $400 $2,000 $2,000 1. Clk & Rec/ Assessor 2.Sheriff/Coroner/ Public Admin 3. Treas/ School Supt 1.Sheriff/Coroner/ Public Admin: 1%Part-time, 50% Full-time, $115,597.20 (includes the State portion) Missoula $47.91 25.0%1.0%No $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 1. Clk of Dist Crt/ Assessor 2.Clk & Rec/Treas 3. Sheriff/Coroner No Full-time Full-time, $148,865.60 ($71.57/hr) Musselshell Park $63,105.10 $0.25 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $2,000 $2,000 1. Clk & Rec/ Surveyor No Full-time Full-time, $115,752.00 Petroleum $36,072.24 8.0%$500 $2,000 No $2,000 No No 1. Clk of Dist Crt/ Clk & Rec 2.School Supt/ Treas 1. School Supt/ Treas: $2,000 Part-time, 50%Full-time, $40,340 Phillips Pondera $56,637.84 5.0%No $2,000 No No, Combined w/Treas. No No 1. Co Attrny/ Public Admin 2.Sheriff/Coroner 3.Treas/Assessor/S chool Supt 1. Treasurer/ School Supt/ Assessor: $3,500 for School Supt. Full-time Check other sheet, $107,368.44 Montana Association of Counties Page 5 of 7 Elected Official Salary Survey Results95 County Uniform BASE EO Annual Salary Uniform Increase for EOs (% or flat amount) Longevity for all EOs (excluding statutory longevity) Clk & Rec Add-on for Election Admin Duties (MCA 7-4-2503) Treasurer Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) School Supt Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Clerk of District Court Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Justice of the Peace Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Combined County Elected Offices (MCA 7-4-2503) Consolidated EOs Receiving a Salary Above the BASE Salary as a Result of Consolidation County Commissioners Full-time, Part-time, or Per diem Co. Attorney Full-time or Part-time & Salary (not including longevity) Powder River $49,478.97 7.0%1.0%$2,000 $2,000 $400 $2,000 $2,000 1.Sheriff/Coroner 2. Treas/Assessor 1.Sheriff/Coroner: 20%Full-time Part-time, $60,223.03 Powell $56,860 $4,000 $400 per completed term $2,000 $2,000 $400 $2,000 $2,000 1. Clk & Rec/ Auditor No Part-time, 75%Full-time, $110,424.43 Prairie $49,418.75 $1 Based on FTE status No $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 No 1. Co Attrny/ Public Admin 2. Clk & Rec/ Clk of Crt 3.Sheriff/Assessor 4. Treas/ School Supt No Part-time, 40%3/4-time, $92,798.28 Ravalli Richland $81,697.93 8.5% $0.50 every 5 yrs up to 25 yrs paid 2X/yr on a flat 2080 hrs $2,000 $2,000 $400 $2,000 $2,000 1. Clk & Rec/ Surveyor 2. Treas/Assessor No Full-time, 8-9 days per month Full-time, $146,892.48 Roosevelt Rosebud $71,194.29 8.0% or $2/hour whichever greater No $2,000 $2,000 $400 $2,000 $2,000 1. Clk & Rec/ Assessor No Full-time Full-time, $135,350.77 Sanders $63,500.00 N/A Start at $90/mo.; move to $100/mo. after 5 yrs $11,852 (combined w/several offices) $2,000 $400 $2,000 $2,000 1. Clk & Rec/ Treas/ School Supt Yes Full-time Full-time, $125,000 Sheridan $57,018 6.0%0.5%No $2,500 No No No 1. Clk & Rec/ School Supt 1. Clk & Rec/ School Supt: 10%Full-time Part-time, $88,200 Montana Association of Counties Page 6 of 7 Elected Official Salary Survey Results96 County Uniform BASE EO Annual Salary Uniform Increase for EOs (% or flat amount) Longevity for all EOs (excluding statutory longevity) Clk & Rec Add-on for Election Admin Duties (MCA 7-4-2503) Treasurer Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) School Supt Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Clerk of District Court Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Justice of the Peace Add-on (MCA 7-4-2503) Combined County Elected Offices (MCA 7-4-2503) Consolidated EOs Receiving a Salary Above the BASE Salary as a Result of Consolidation County Commissioners Full-time, Part-time, or Per diem Co. Attorney Full-time or Part-time & Salary (not including longevity) Stillwater Sweet Grass Teton Toole $61,696 6.5%1.0%$,2000 No $3,000 No No 1. Treas/ School Supt No Full-time Full-time, $117,187 Treasure $44,749.43 5% & $3,000 No $2,000 $2,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,000 1. Co Attrny/ Public Admin 2. Clk & Rec/Clk of Crt/(E.Admin) 3. Treas/Supt of Schools 4. Sheriff/Coroner 1.Clk & Rec/Clk of Court/E.Admin 3. Treas/Supt of Schools 4. Sheriff/Coroner Part-time Part-time $69,462.01 Valley Wheatland $51,889.56 12.0%1.0%No No No No No 1. Sheriff/Coroner No Part-time, 25%Full-time, $135,890 Wibaux $61,273.48 8.62%1.0%Yes, $2,000 No Yes, $400 No No 1. Co Attrny/ Public Admin 2. Clk & Rec/ School Supt/ Surveyor 1. Clk & Rec/ School Supt/ Surveyor: 20% Part-time, 50% Part-time, 50%, $55,608.54 Yellowstone $81,989 5.0% $6,800/yr 4-yr max of $27,200 No No Yes, $400 No No 1. Clk & Rec/ Surveyor/Auditor 2.Treas/Assessor/ School Supt 1. Clk & Rec/ Surveyor/ Auditor: 20% 2. Treasurer/ School Supt/ Assessor: 10% Full-time Full-time, $148,872 Montana Association of Counties Page 7 of 7 Elected Official Salary Survey Results97 Name Audit Committee Board of Adjustment Board of Ethics Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board (BABAB) Bozeman Beautification Advisory Board (BBAB) Bozeman Downtown Urban Renewal District (DURB) Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board (BHPAB) Bozeman Midtown Urban Renewal Board (formally North Seventh Urban Renewal Board)(NSURB) Bozeman Tourism Business Improvement District (BTBID) Building Board of Appeals Cemetery Advisory Board City Planning Board City-County Board of Health Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board Community Alcohol Coalition Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Design Review Board Downtown Business Improvement District Board (BID) Economic Development Council (EDC) Fire Code Board of Appeals Impact Fee Advisory Committee Inter-Neighborhood Council (INC) Library Board of Trustees Mayors' Community Climate Task Force Northeast Urban Renewal Board (NURB) Parking Commission Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Police Commission Prospera Business Network Revolving Loan Fund Committee Recreation and Parks Advisory Board Resources Senior Citizens' Advisory Board South Bozeman Technology District Trails, Open Space and Parks Committee Transportation Coordinating Committee Tree Advisory Board Wetlands Review Board Zoning Commission 98 Version April 2020 Resolution 5323 Page 1 of 6 RESOLUTION 5323 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THE RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS, ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR COMMUNICATION, AND ESTABLISHING EXPECTATIONS, DUTIES, AND NORMS OF BEHAVIOR FOR ALL APPOINTED CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AGENCIES, AND COMMITTEES. WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4.07 of the Bozeman Charter permits the City Commission to create boards, commissions, or committees as determined necessary; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2018, the Bozeman City Commission formally adopted the Bozeman Strategic Plan via Resolution 4852; and WHEREAS, the Strategic Plan Section 1.2 Community Engagement encourages the City of Bozeman to “[b]roaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders” by “restructure[ing] or combin[ing] City boards and committees to more effectively advise the City and engage the public”; and WHEREAS, City Staff prepared a Memorandum and Proposed Plan for board restructuring, made the plan available on May 20, 2021 for public review, and provided public notice to inform the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the Proposed Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission held public work sessions on February 23, May 25, and June 22, 2021 during which it received and reviewed all public, written and oral testimony on the restructuring of City boards; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, and in consideration of such testimony, the City Commission confirmed direction for City Staff to move forward with restructuring the City’s advisory boards; and DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 99 Version April 2020 Resolution 5323 Page 2 of 6 WHEREAS, Strategic Plan Section 7 High Performance Organization states, “[w]e operate as an ethical high performance organization, anticipating future needs, utilizing best practices, and striving for continuous improvement.” WHEREAS, the Commission intends by this Resolution to establish standards for the recruitment and appointment of board members, establish standards for how board members will communicate with the Commission and individual members of the Commission and City staff (“High Performing Boards”)to increase efficiency and efficacy of advisory board input; and WHEREAS, High Performing Boards aim to formalize and streamline communications between the City Commission, advisory boards, the City Manager, and the public; and WHEREAS, High Performing Boards aim to achieve policy driven decision-making; and WHEREAS, High Performing Boards aim to create consistency, predictability, and stability by clearly defining duties, norms, and expectations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, to wit: SECTION 1: Membership, Recruitment, & Appointment 1) Membership: Membership is established in the resolutions, ordinances, or statutes establishing each Board’s structure, including any mandatory member qualification. Additional membership requirements include: a) Board Members may only serve in one City appointed position at a time; b) The balance of an unexpired term served by an appointee shall be considered a “term” if such unexpired term exceeds 50% of the full term; c) Upon completion of a gap in service equal to a position’s full term, a former member may be eligible for re-appointment; and d) Appointments should be made during a regular meeting in January. 2) Recruitment: Commissioners, Board Members, and the City Manager are encouraged to actively recruit qualified members to apply. During the recruitment process, the City will focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and will actively work to achieve membership that reflects, at the least, the demographics of our community – as outlined in, but not limited to the gaps analysis and equity indictors report and available census data – across all board membership. Formal recruitment will occur by three methods: a) Vacancies will be posted in the lobby of City Hall and on the City’s website; DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 100 Version April 2020 Resolution 5323 Page 3 of 6 b) Biannual active solicitation period, as prescribed in Section 4.07 of the City Charter; and c) As necessitated by vacancies. 3) Review: The review of applicants shall occur by a panel consisting of the assigned Commission Liaison, Board Chair, and the City Manager’s assigned staff liaison: a) Interview questions must ensure applicants receive a fair comparison with other candidates and will focus on potential conflicts of interest, compliance with norms of conduct, including but not limited to decorum, communications, and the concept of acting as a body with one voice; and b) Evaluation criteria must consider the City’s goals related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, the duties and purpose of the individual board, and any membership requirements in enabling legislation or law. 4) Appointment: All Board appointments will be made by the City Commission except for appointments authorized by law to be made by the Mayor. Board Officers (Chair & Vice- Chair) shall be appointed by the City Commission SECTION 2: COMMUNICATIONS 1) The Boards shall receive direction from the City Commission via pursuant to the Commission’s bi-annual goal setting, requested assigned work priorities, or other specific direction as the Commission may provide; 2) A board’s annual work plan must align with the Commission’s adopted Strategic Plan 3) The Board should communicate with the Commission only through approved minutes, work plans, progress reports, or formal recommendations/resolutions voted on by the Board; 4) Board chairs shall communicate with the Staff Liaison on matters related to the Board’s operations and the board’s agenda; 5) Board Chairs should direct policy related questions to both the Commission Liaison and Staff Liaison; 6) Board Members shall adhere to the “One Body, One Voice” principle in communications to the City Commission on matters under the Board’s purview, or may become under the purview of the Board. 7) City Staff will develop minutes that the Board will review and approve; minutes shall be provided to the City Commission and made available to the public. SECTION 3: EXPECTATIONS, DUTIES, AND NORMS OF BEHAVIOR Norms for Board Members are modeled upon the City Commission’s Norms Policy as presented in Resolution 5124, and the Rules of Procedure are modeled upon Chapter 2, Article 2, BMC (See Exhibit A), and are incorporated herein. DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 101 Version April 2020 Resolution 5323 Page 4 of 6 1) Training of Board Members: Board Members must participate in an onboarding program established by the City Manager. a) The training will include, but is not limited to: i) General onboarding: Boards procedures, open meetings, public records, process, and requirements, and expectations; ii) Purposes and focus areas of the Board to be presented by the Staff Liaison; iii) “Effective Meetings” – a training to assist Board Members in conducting an efficient and effective meeting; iv) Ethics: Initial ethics training upon appointment and annual ethics training as required by the Charter; and v) Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Training focusing on various DEI topics including, but not limited to, implicit and unconscious bias, anti-harassment and anti- discrimination; accessibility; and DEI in institutions, workforces, and local government. b) Board Members must complete onboarding and training within six months of the appointment of any member; and c) Board Members must participate in a six-month check-in with the Staff Liaison and Commission Liaison. 2) Duties: a) Commission Liaison has the following duties: i) Lead the interview of applicants; ii) Serve as the primary contact with the Board for the City Commission; iii) Assist with resolving questions regarding the role of the City Commission, City Manager, Staff Liaison, and the Board; iv) Serve as contact rather than an advocate, unless assigned as a voting member; v) Review the Board’s work plan and make recommendations to the City Commission regarding the Board’s work plan; vi) Support efficient Board operations; and vii) Assist training of new board members. b) The Presiding Officer has the following duties: i) Act as meeting facilitator; ii) Maintain a tone of civility during debate; iii) Ensure the public has a meaningful opportunity to participate, and that meetings operate fairly and impartially; and iv) Ensure the Board’s questions and discussion are germane to the issues presented. c) Board Members have the following duties: i) To ensure the Board has a quorum at all meetings, and commit sufficient time to ensure regular and punctual attendance; ii) Be prepared, attentive, and participate; DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 102 Version April 2020 Resolution 5323 Page 5 of 6 iii) Abide by Rules of Procedure, Norms of Behavior, and the City and State Codes of Ethics; iv) Notify the Staff Liaison as soon as they learn they will not be able to attend a meeting and of any changes to contact information. d) Staff Liaison and/or their designee(s) will prepare the agenda with collaboration from the Board Chair. 3) Norms of behavior: a) Board Members are encouraged to share their experience and knowledge with new members; b) Board Members should treat all city employees with respect, and in doing so recognize staff in performing their work strive to always serve the public to the best of their abilities; c) Board Members should be mindful of arguing or debating the merits of staff's professional judgment; rather, should Board Members disagree with staff’s professional judgment, they should direct such disagreement to the Staff Liaison; in the event that the Staff Liaison is subject to the disagreement, Board Members should direct their concerns to the City Manager; d) Board Members must seek to ensure staff recognizes the Board Member's questions are for purposes of inquiry only and should in no way be taken as an order, a request to take action, or a directive; e) Board Members should not use language or communication methods that a reasonable person would find humiliating, intimidating, hostile, or offensive; f) A Board Member may not take any action that could be construed as a directive or order to staff; g) A Board Member must not attempt to pressure or influence discussions, recommendations, workloads, schedules, or department priorities absent the approval of the City Manager and only then upon an action of the majority of the City Commission; h) Board interaction with staff during board meetings: i) Criticism of staff by a Board Member should be made in private to the City Manager. Board Members are encouraged to provide commendation to staff in public; ii) Board Members may not direct or issue orders to staff; iii) Board Members may direct questions regarding the factual basis for an item or a question soliciting staff expertise to the City employee presenting the item; questions other than those directly related to the factual basis of an agenda item should be directed to the Staff Liaison who may request the assistance of other city employees in answering the question. i) Specific provisions for Board Member's attendance at meetings other than board meetings: i) Board Members may not attend staff meetings unless requested by the City Manager; DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 103 Version April 2020 Resolution 5323 Page 6 of 6 ii) Board Members’ conduct at public meetings or other events should be informed by this Resolution and the Code of Ethics. Board Member attendance at public meetings called by staff or City Manager should not occur unless requested by the City Manager. j) All appointed members of City boards or committees should be mindful of the prohibition regarding interference with administration. PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the 10th day of August, 2021. ___________________________________ CYNTHIA L. ANDRUS Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ MIKE MAAS City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ GREG SULLIVAN City Attorney DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 104 Appendix A Rules of Procedure Section 1 Applicability A. These rules shall govern the conduct of all City of Bozeman boards, commissions, agencies, and committees (hereinafter "boards") where a majority of members are appointed by the City Commission and shall supplement other governing rules of the board. B. These rules are supplementary to the provision of Title 7, Chpt. 1, Part 41, MCA, Title 7, Chpt. 5, Parts 41 and 42, MCA, and Title 2, Chpts. 2 and 3, MCA as they relate to procedures for conducting meets and public hearings before City boards. Section 2 Chairperson and Vice Chairperson – Powers and Duties A. The City Commission will appoint the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the year within one month of the start of new members’ terms. B. The recording secretary shall be any staff member assigned by the Staff Liaison. C. The Chairperson shall be the Presiding Officer of the board. D. During the absence of the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson shall discharge the duties and exercise the powers and authority of the chairperson. E. The Presiding Officer shall preserve strict order and decorum at all meetings and confine members in debates to the question under consideration. F. The Presiding Officer may move or second any item of business then before the board. G. The Presiding Officer shall state, or cause to be stated, every motion coming before the board, announce the time for a roll-call vote to be announced by the recording secretary, announce the decision of the board on all subjects, and decide all questions of order, subject, however to an appeal to the board, in which event a majority vote of the board members present shall govern and conclusively determine such question of order. H. The Presiding Officer shall vote on all questions. Section 3 Parliamentary Authority A. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein or by ordinance or statute, all meetings and hearings of the boards shall be conducted in accordance with these rules. DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 105 B. In all cases not covered by these rules, the controlling parliamentary authority shall be the latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. Section 4 Meeting Agendas A. The Staff Liaison, or their designee, shall arrange a list of matters to be brought before the Board according to the order of business specified herein, and furnish each member and the public through the City's website with a copy of the agenda and all supporting information no later than 48 hours immediately preceding the meeting for which that item has been scheduled. All material to be presented to the board for consideration with an agenda item shall be made available to the public within the above time frame. Copies of the agenda shall be available from the City Clerk and one copy shall be posted at the designated posting board in the City Hall for public viewing and made available on the City's website. Pursuant to Section 7-1-4135, MCA, the City Commission designates as the official posting place for all boards the posting board in the lobby of City Hall located at 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana. B. The Staff Liaison shall prepare the meeting agenda and may consult with the Commission Liaison or the Board Chairperson in preparing the agenda. The Chairperson or a majority of board members may remove an item from the agenda. The agenda shall be in substantially the following form: a. Call to Order b. Disclosures c. Changes to the Agenda d. Public Service Announcements e. Approval of Minutes f. Consent Items g. Public Comments h. Special Presentations i. Action Items j. FYI/Discussion k. Adjournment Order of the above may be adjusted by the Presiding Officer. Section 5 Meetings All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public unless authorized by law. Prior to closing any meeting of the Board, the Chairperson and Staff Liaison shall consult with the City Attorney. A. Regular Meetings DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 106 a. Boards shall hold a regular meeting once a month or no less than quarterly as directed in their establishing documents. b. Any meeting of the Board may be adjourned to a later date and time, provided that no adjournment shall be for a longer period than until the next regular or specially scheduled meeting. c. The Staff Liaison, Presiding Officer, or majority of the Board may cancel a regular meeting if no business is scheduled for that meeting. B. Public Hearings a. Public Hearings are meetings required of some citizen advisory boards to be held as a public hearing pursuant to law. The provisions of Section 5.A apply to Public Hearings. b. Unless prohibited by law, a public hearing may be rescheduled or adjourned to a specific later date and time. C. Executive Sessions a. Executive Sessions are meetings of the Board with the purpose to discuss litigation strategy, a matter of individual privacy, or other matters wherein a meeting may be closed pursuant to law and will be scheduled as needed. b. Although each Executive Session will commence as an open public meeting, Executive Sessions may be closed to the public pursuant to authority and limitations in Title 2, Chpt. 3, Part 2, MCA. c. An Executive Session may be called at any time during any meeting if authorized by law. D. Special Meetings a. The Staff Liaison, Presiding Officer, or a majority of the board may call Special Meetings of the board, upon at least forty-eight (48) hours’ notice to each member personally served on each member through email or left at the member’s usual place of residence. b. Notice shall also be made to the public by, at a minimum, posting the agenda on the City’s website and posting board at least 48 hours prior. E. Subcommittees a. Subcommittees shall only be formed with the express authorization of the City Commission. b. Subcommittees shall be limited to a period of time not to exceed six (6) months or until the completion of an assigned specified task. Section 6 Order of Presentation/Public Participation A. The order of presentation in which items are presented to the board shall generally be as follows: DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 107 a. The Staff Liaison, or their designee, shall present the agenda item to the Board, if appropriate. b. If applicable, the Staff Liaison may present a background report on the matter for discussion. Upon conclusion of a staff presentation, board members may ask questions of staff for the purposes of understanding and clarification. If the agenda item is a public hearing, the Presiding Officer will open the public hearing prior to staff presentation. c. If applicable, comments from the applicant, or the applicant's agent, shall be heard. The applicant's presentation/testimony is limited, subject to the discretion of the presiding officer, to ten (10) minutes. d. After being recognized by the Presiding Officer, a board member may direct questions to the staff or applicant. e. Members of the audience or their agent may be invited to present testimony or evidence. To be recognized, each person desiring to give testimony or evidence shall step forward and, after being recognized, give their name and place of residence for the record. The Presiding Officer may establish a timeframe for each public comment, typically three (3) minutes per speaker and each speaker will be afforded the same allotment of time. The Presiding Officer may lengthen or shorten the time allotted for public testimony. f. After being recognized by the Presiding Officer, a board member may direct questions to any person so testifying for purposes of clarification, g. Following public comment, the Staff Liaison shall be given the opportunity to comment on any testimony or other evidence. h. Following staff comment and if a public hearing, the applicant will be given the opportunity to rebut or comment on any testimony or other evidence. The applicant's comments and rebuttal is limited, subject to the discretion of the presiding officer, to five (5) minutes. i. If a public hearing, following applicant rebuttal and any further questions, the Presiding Officer will close the hearing and bring the agenda item forward for discussion, motion and vote. j. If a public hearing, after being recognized by the Presiding Officer, a board member may direct questions limited to the rebuttal testimony and evidence. k. The recording secretary shall enter into the record all correspondence that has been received but was not yet provided. l. Unless required to act by a certain date pursuant to law, the Board may continue the discussion to a date certain, close discussion and vote on the matter, or close the discussion and continue the vote to a date certain. B. All testimony and evidence shall be directed to the Presiding Officer. No person, other than a board member and the person recognized as having the floor shall be permitted to DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 108 enter into the discussion. No questions shall be asked of a board member except through the presiding officer. C. The Board may ask the Staff Liaison for their recommendation. D. If a public hearing, in the event the applicant does not appear at the scheduled time and place, unless the applicant has waived his or her appearance in writing, and which waiver has been accepted, or unless the matter is submitted as a consent item, the matter shall be continued to the next available regular meeting, public hearing date, or other date certain. E. For all public hearings involving land use and annexation decisions, the Board will wait a minimum of one week before making a decision whenever requested by a member unless a decision is required due to a statute, ordinance or other law. Agreement with staff’s written findings is an acceptable method of presenting findings. F. Witnesses may be required to testify under oath. G. The Board shall not be bound by the strict Rules of Evidence and may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent or unduly repetitious testimony or evidence. H. The Presiding Officer shall rule on all questions relating to the admissibility of evidence with advice from the City Attorney, which ruling may be overruled by a majority vote of the Board. I. A public hearing which has been formally closed for all public input may not be reopened and no additional evidence or testimony from the public shall be received or considered except as provided herein. If additional information is required from the public before a decision can be made, the Board upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, may call for an additional public hearing which hearing shall be noticed as required by law, specifying date, time place and subject matter of hearing. This paragraph does not preclude the Board, after the public hearing, from asking questions of staff, receiving additional evidence from staff or, after a hearing held on a preliminary plat, pursuant to Title 76, Chpt. 3, MCA, from consulting the subdivider about conditions or other mitigation required of the subdivider. Upon decision by the Presiding Officer, or upon a duly adopted motion of the board to reopen the public hearing prior to close of the agenda item in which the hearing was held, the requirement to provide public notice does not apply; the public hearing may be reopened and the additional input provided prior to a final decision on the item. Section 7 Quorum and Voting A. Unless otherwise provided by law, a quorum shall consist of a majority of all board members. If a quorum is not present, those in attendance shall be named and the board shall adjourn to a later time. B. The recording secretary shall reduce motions to writing and, upon request, shall read a motion prior to the vote. DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 109 C. All votes shall be made by roll-call. D. Upon every vote, the outcome shall be stated and recorded. E. A board member has an obligation to vote unless there is a conflict of interest. F. Email, telephonic, or proxy voting shall be prohibited. Section 8 Rules of Debate/Reconsideration/Conflict of Interest A. Every board member desiring to speak shall address the Presiding Officer and upon recognition by the Presiding Officer, shall confine discussion to the question under debate, avoiding all personalities and indecorous language. B. A board member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless the member is to be called to order, or as herein otherwise provided. If a board member, while speaking is called to order, they shall cease speaking until the question of order be determined, and, if in order shall be permitted to proceed. C. Order of rotation in matters of debate or discussion shall be at the discretion of the Presiding Officer. D. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the Board must be made on the day such action was taken. It must be made either immediately during the same session, or at a recessed and reconvened session thereof. Such motion shall be made by one of the prevailing side, but may be seconded by any member, and may be made at any time and have precedence over all other motions or while a board member has the floor. It shall be debatable — nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any board member from making or remaking the same or any other motion at a subsequent meeting of the board, but the matter must be duly scheduled as- an agenda item. E. Pursuant to the City' s Code of Ethics, a board member may seek the advice of the City Attorney as to whether the member has a conflict of interest pursuant to law. If the board member is advised there is a conflict of interest, the member shall recuse themselves, step away from the meeting table, and refrain from discussion and vote on the matter. F. After a motion, duly made and seconded, by the board, no person shall address the board without first securing the permission of the Presiding Officer. Section 9 Open Meetings and Email A. Except for properly called executive sessions as permitted by state law, all meetings of the board shall be open to the public and media, freely subject to recording by radio, television and photography at any time, provided that such arrangements do not interfere with the orderly conduct of the meetings. DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 110 B. A majority of the Board shall not conduct synchronized email discussions involving a matter over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. Synchronized email discussions are email exchanges among a majority of board members within minutes of each other that create the quality of simultaneity similar to instant messaging or chat room discussions. Such discussions are characterized as an active exchange of information rather than the passive receipt of information. An example of synchronized email discussion would be a majority of board members sitting at their computers and instantly exchanging emails concerning board business, whereas a passive receipt of information is where a board member receives an email and responds in the normal course of time similar to responding by letter received in the mail. The Board shall not view emails or other electronic communication mechanisms concerning any matter on the agenda during a board meeting unless the submission is part of a specifically approved and adopted electronic public testimony program. Electronic communication mechanisms include text messaging or any other emerging technology that violates the spirit of open meeting laws. This does not preclude viewing emails or electronic communication mechanisms that were received prior to the board meeting. Emails received by board members concerning an agenda item shall be forwarded to the staff liaison or board secretary and retained in accordance with the City's retention policy. Section 10 Decorum A. While the Board is in a session, board members must preserve order and decorum, and a member shall neither, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the Board nor disturb any member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the board or its Presiding Officer. B. Any person making personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks or who shall become boisterous while addressing the board may be denied farther audience with the board by the presiding officer, unless permission to continue is granted by a majority vote of the board. C. The Board shall not debate, in a heated or argumentative manner, with a member of the public presenting testimony during a meeting. D. Speakers shall only address the agenda item before the Board. Any person speaking on an agenda item not before the Board may be called out of order. Section 11 Recording of Meetings and Minutes A. The recording secretary shall prepare a summary of all meetings to be known as the “Minutes” and to be approved by the Board. It shall not be necessary to formally read out DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 111 loud the Minutes prior to approval. The Staff Liaison or Board Secretary may revise such Minutes to correct spelling, numbering, and other technical defects. Prior to approval, any board member may request the privilege of amending or correcting the Minutes to accurately reflect the substance of the prior meeting. If objection is made by any board member to such amendment or correction, a majority vote of the board shall be necessary for adoption of the correction or amendment. The approved minutes shall be forwarded to the City Clerk's office for posting within a month of the meeting in which they were approved. B. Executive Session Minutes. Executive Session Minutes shall be taken and prepared by the Board Secretary. The Board shall approve the minutes of an executive session in open meeting; provided, however that any discussion concerning the contents of the minutes, prior to approval, shall be conducted in executive session. The Staff Liaison or Board Secretary will distribute the draft executive session minutes to the members in a manner that ensures and retains confidentiality. The Board shall follow the provision 2. 02. 130, BMC related to dissemination of executive session minutes. C. At the discretion of the Board and City Clerk's office, meetings shall be televised, broadcast, and/or a video or audio recording made. Audio or video recordings shall be made available to the public unless required to be kept confidential by law. Section 12 Attendance at Meetings/Removal by City Commission/Terms A. All board members are expected to contribute the time necessary to fulfill their fiduciary obligations to the Board. All board members are required if they are to be absent from a meeting to contact the Presiding Officer and the Staff Liaison prior to the meeting. If prior contact is made, the absence will be determined excused. If a board member fails to contact the Presiding Officer or Staff Liaison prior to the meeting, the absence will be considered unexcused. The City Commission and City Manager will be notified by the Staff Liaison of any board member with more than one unexcused absence in any calendar year. The Board, via motion and vote, may forward to the City Commission the name of any board member having three or more excused absences, or a combination of excused and unexcused absences. As provided by law, the City Commission may remove a board member for excessive absences. B. A board member’s term may be extended for up to 30 days after term expiration on a case by case basis by the City Clerk’s Office if the board member has reapplied for a subsequent term but the application process has not yet been heard by the City Commission. C. All terms shall expire on December 31 of their given year. DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 112 Section 13 Compliance with the City Code of Ethics A. All board members are required to follow State ethics laws regarding appointed officials and the City of Bozeman Code of Ethics. B. New board members will receive the City of Bozeman ethics handbook and must sign a form acknowledging receipt of the handbook and affirm they will uphold the state and city ethics codes. C. Board members are also required to attend City sponsored Ethics Training. Non- compliance with the City Code of Ethics and training requirements may result in removal of a board member. See the City Code of Ethics for more details. Section 14 Compliance with the City Purchasing Policy A. All boards are subject to the City purchasing policy (Administrative Order 2009-06), as revised, unless specified by law. B. City Staff Liaisons shall handle financial transactions unless specific arrangements have been made in writing through the City Controller. C. Boards shall not appropriate money unless specifically authorized by statute. Section 15 Compliance with State Records Retention Policy A. All City boards are subject to the State of Montana records retention policy. B. The City Clerk’s Office will handle retention of all agendas, minutes, and board resolutions once they have been forwarded to the Clerk’s Office. C. E-mails, websites and social networking sites are subject to adopted records retention schedules. For social media and websites, please refer to the current Information Technology Social Media Use Policy for further guidelines. D. Individual members are responsible for preserving communications that are potentially subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s State Constitution (Art. II, Section 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, these emails, its senders and receivers, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law. DocuSign Envelope ID: EFA8B98A-9F9D-4D9D-8976-89AD726CA766 113 https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019854160 American Review of Public Administration 1 –13 © The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0275074019854160 journals.sagepub.com/home/arp Article Urban governance refers to the institutional arrangements through which local governments, neighborhood associa- tions, and residents make collective decisions and deliver public services in the urban setting (Cooper, Bryer, & Meek, 2006; Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012; Fung, 2009). It includes a wide array of major functions, including planning, coordinating, and implementing projects, allocating resources, organizing, and advocating (Chaskin & Garg, 1997). Urban governance establishes the conditions for citi- zens to channel their voices and participate in local policy issues. Neighborhood associations, which bridge the rela- tionship between citizens and local government, are essential elements of neighborhood governance (Chaskin & Greenberg, 2015; Marwell, 2004; Musso, Weare, Bryer, & Cooper, 2011). Thus, the effectiveness of neighborhood associations determines, to a large extent, how urban gover- nance functions. Neighborhood associations have been characterized vari- ously as grassroots neighborhood organizations, civic asso- ciations, community-based organizations, or city-sanctioned governing structures created at the community level by the people of each area. Scholars have been particularly inter- ested in examining the effectiveness of neighborhood asso- ciations. For example, Berry, Portney, and Thomson (2002) have identified four conditions for success of neighborhood associations: a citywide system, adequate resources, political support, and empowerment innovations to encourage participation in city governance. Andrews, Ganz, Baggetta, Han, and Lim (2010) argued that political context and resources are important, but the existence of committed activists and interdependent leadership, who can turn resources into programs and support activities, is vital to the effectiveness of civic associations in coordinating collective action. These studies have enriched our understanding of the vari- ous factors contributing to the effectiveness of neighborhood associations. However, few have examined the role of board members, who are the stewards of the organizations and act accordingly on behalf of the organizations they oversee. Organizational boards serve two important functions for organizations: monitoring management on behalf of stake- holders and providing resources (Hillman & Dalziel, 2003). As Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) note, “when an organization appoints an individual to a board, it expects the individual will come to support the organization, will concern himself with its problems, will variably present it to others, and will 854160ARPXXX10.1177/0275074019854160The American Review of Public AdministrationLi et al.research-article2019 1The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong 2City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong 3University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA Corresponding Author: Hui Li, Department of Politics and Public Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Rm. 9.46, The Jockey Club Tower, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. Email: lihuipa@hku.hk What Makes Neighborhood Associations Effective in Urban Governance? Evidence From Neighborhood Council Boards in Los Angeles Hui Li1 , Bo Wen2, and Terry L. Cooper3 Abstract This study examines the perceived effectiveness of neighborhood councils (NCs) in Los Angeles, a government-sanctioned and financed institutional innovation in urban governance. The study considers NC boards as a dynamic and open social system that interacts with NCs’ internal and external environment. We propose that three factors—internal capacity, external networking, and attention-action congruence—are related to perceived NC effectiveness. The findings from a questionnaire survey of 80 NCs show that NC leaders perceive their organizations to be moderately effective. While internal capacity contributes to all three dimensions of effectiveness, external networking enhances NCs’ effectiveness in solving community issues and advising about city policies. Attention-action congruence, which examines the correspondence between NC board members’ issue orientation and actual actions, is positively related to NCs’ effectiveness in advising about city policies. The study concludes with considerations for enhancing the effectiveness of neighborhood associations. Keywords urban governance, neighborhood council, board, organizational effectiveness, Los Angeles 114 2 American Review of Public Administration 00(0) try to aid it” (p. 163). They assert that board members provide four primary benefits: (a) advice and counsel, (b) legitimacy, (c) channels for communicating information between the focal organization and its external environment, and (d) pref- erential access to commitments or support from important elements outside the organization. In civic associations, elected board members invest significant amounts of time, expertise, and resources so that the organizations they oversee have sufficient external support, adequate resources, a large pool of committed participants, and effective leadership to advance their missions. Therefore, the effectiveness of neigh- borhood associations depends heavily on the extent to which their boards can promote internal governance, navigate the external environment, and transform ideas into actions. This study seeks to explain how board performance con- tributes to neighborhood associations’ effectiveness by revis- iting the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council (hereafter NC) System, a government-sanctioned and financed governance structure established in 1999 that aims to promote citizen participation and connect citizens to the administrative sys- tems of the City of Los Angeles. With financial, operational, and institutional support from the Los Angeles municipal government, the NC system assumes three principal func- tions—promoting citizen participation, resolving commu- nity issues, and advising about city policies—that are central to urban governance. A questionnaire survey addressing these three functions was, therefore, designed and distributed among NC leaders to examine their perceptions of effective- ness and factors contributing to these perceptions. The findings show that despite the rosy expectations from both the public and the government, NCs can only be consid- ered moderately effective. NC boards are dominated by rela- tively affluent, well-educated, White, and older men who are residents of the neighborhood. More notably, by integrating theories related to board performance, agenda setting, and neighborhood governance, the study develops a framework linking board performance factors to NC effectiveness. Internally, NCs with higher capacity to run meetings, recruit volunteers, set goals, sustain leadership, and manage con- flicts—all basics of running civic associations—are likely to be more effective. Externally, NCs with board members who network more frequently with stakeholders, peer groups, elected officials, and agency officials are viewed as more effective in solving neighborhood issues and advising about city policies. In addition, we propose a new variable—atten- tion-action congruence—to capture the transformational process from issues to actions. This variable consists of the extent to which espoused concerns are acted on. When an NC board acts on what it identifies as important, it is per- ceived to be more effective in advising about city policies. Research Context Since the 1970s, a series of secession movements had been developing in the city of Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley, Hollywood, and the Harbor area, where residents felt that they were not receiving municipal services in proportion to their taxes and compared with the rest of the city. The seces- sion efforts had threatened the geographic, financial, and political integrity of the city, which moved city officials to take neighborhood participation in governance seriously in the mid-1990s. Initially, members of the city council attempted to create a system of NCs through passing a city ordinance. However, a city charter reform was proposed in the late 1990s and finally adopted in 1999 to address numer- ous inadequacies in that very old document. According to the new charter, the goals of the NC system are to promote more citizen participation in government, enhance the responsive- ness of government to local needs, and make NCs represen- tative of “many diverse interests in communities.” NCs are self-organized, voluntary associations that play an advisory role in the city’s public-policy process concern- ing the delivery of municipal services in their respective areas (Los Angeles City Charter, Article IX). Each NC must be certified before becoming eligible to represent the stake- holder interests in its proposed jurisdiction and garner resources from the city government to sustain daily opera- tions. To be certified, the NC has to cover a minimum popu- lation of 20,000 residents within its boundary, collect 200 to 500 signatures from community stakeholders, write bylaws, and establish a financial accounting system. All NCs are cer- tified (and decertified) by the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (BONC), which serves as the policy board for the NC system. The commissioners are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. The certification of each NC requires a governing board. The City Clerk administers elections to select boards to rep- resent the interests of stakeholders. The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE), also known as Empower LA, subsequently assists certified NCs in organiz- ing, learning to run meetings, and navigating the city bureau- cracy. The agency also sets regulations to ensure that NCs follow all pertinent rules. Once certified, NCs become eligible to apply for $37,000 in annual funding to support daily operations and hold spe- cial events. As suggested by Weare, Musso, and Jun (2009), NC boards, elected in accordance with bylaws set up by indi- vidual councils, “are the primary membership structure of the councils” (p. 154). NC boards hold regular meetings and are responsible for creating programs and events to respond to the unique needs of their community. They advocate on issues ranging from crime prevention, roads and streets maintenance, the creation of safe spaces for children, to eco- nomic development. They are also invited on occasion to meet with the Mayor or other city agencies to discuss budget priorities and policy issues. The size of NC boards varies from seven to more than 30 individuals. While there are no head-count rules on the size of the board from above, each NC is asked to specify in its bylaws the methods employed to select/elect individuals 115 Li et al. 3 serving on the board. These methods must be in concert with the following two principles: (a) reflecting the diversity of the NC’s stakeholders and (b) specifying a reasonable, total num- ber of terms board members can serve. Considering that NC board members are legitimate representatives of their com- munity stakeholders and are empowered to make decisions on behalf of their NCs, they are required by DONE to take and pass online training courses in ethics and public funding management, sign a code-of-conduct affidavit, and register personal profiles on the board roster before assuming duties. During the 18 years since its inception, a citywide net- work of 96 NCs has been created, covering almost every neighborhood in the city.1 A set of supporting institutions, such as an early notification system, the Budget Day, the regional alliances of NCs, and the Congress of NCs have been created to foster NC capacity building as well as facili- tate interactions between NCs and city agencies. Despite all these institutional innovations, the implemen- tation of the reform has not been smooth. At the city level, NCs are susceptible to fluctuating political support and changing administrative leadership (Musso et al., 2011). Participatory institutions like NCs cannot function well if elected officials and agency officials do not have faith in citi- zens. At the organizational level, NC board members have been predominantly White, affluent, well-educated, and homeowners (Guo & Musso, 2007; Weare et al., 2009). The turnout rates of NC meetings have remained consistently low across jurisdictions and years. It is, thus, questionable whether NCs could represent the interests of stakeholders to policymakers. NCs vary in effectiveness in achieving their expected goals. Some are effective in mobilizing residents to partici- pate in local public affairs, whereas others are effective in solving community issues. Certain NCs may not be effective at all; some are dysfunctional and potentially vulnerable to an involuntary decertification procedure initiated by DONE. Our interest is in knowing why some NCs are more effective than others. In previous research, there are two streams of studies on NCs (see Table 1 for a summary of studies on NCs). One stream focused on explaining the role of the NC system in urban democracy (e.g., Kathi & Cooper, 2005), whereas the other stream empirically examined NCs’ formation, net- works, representation, and effectiveness. Jun and Shiau (2012), for example, examined NCs’ effectiveness from a multiple constituency perspective. Houston and Ong (2012) studied the determinants of voter participation in NC elec- tions. Yet, the data used in these studies were mainly col- lected prior to 2007. The effectiveness of this institutional innovation from 2007 onward is, thus, unknown. In this regard, our “revisiting” effort is a meaningful update to exist- ing studies on NCs. Below, we integrate theories related to board capacity, agenda setting, and neighborhood gover- nance to explain differential effectiveness in NCs. Framework and Hypotheses Conceptualizing NC Effectiveness Neighborhood associations like NCs exhibit distinctive char- acteristics. They differ from corporations or government agencies in that they depend heavily on elected board mem- bers’ voluntary efforts to facilitate their operations. Compared with formal social service nonprofits that focus on providing goods and services, the goals of NCs include mobilization, representation, and policy advocacy. Given these unique characteristics, it is difficult to directly measure their effec- tiveness (Sowa, Selden, & Sandfort, 2004). Existing studies have used different approaches to study organizational effectiveness. Early literature mainly used unidimensional and framework-based approaches. The uni- dimensional approach focuses on one aspect of effective- ness. Goal attainment and system resource theories are two competing perspectives of this kind. The framework-based approach recognizes the multifaceted nature of the effective- ness construct. A variant of this approach is the multiple con- stituency framework which emphasizes that multiple constituencies have different understandings of organiza- tional effectiveness. Jun and Shiau (2012), for instance, found that NCs’ levels of performance significantly vary, depending on who the evaluators are and what constituency groups they represent. For our project, we adopt a multidi- mensional approach to study the perceived effectiveness of NCs based on the distinct objectives they have, that is, (a) promoting civic engagement, (b) resolving community issues, and (c) advising about city policies. Promoting civic engagement refers to the extent to which NCs help encour- age more citizen participation in government and include representatives of the many diverse interests in the neighbor- hood. By resolving community issues, we point to NCs’ effectiveness in working to solve various neighborhood problems, such as planning, land use, and garbage collection. The last dimension, advising about city policies, captures the degree to which NCs advise the city on citywide policies, local service needs, and land use. Our approach has two key strengths. First, it is multidi- mensional in that it recognizes that NCs do not work to deliver tangible goods and services but to facilitate demo- cratic processes and connect citizens to the administrative system of the city. Second, it is comparable across organiza- tions because it focuses on organizational viability rather than on the success or failure of a specific campaign or project. Explaining Differential Effectiveness To explain factors associated with NC effectiveness, we pro- pose a theoretical framework by drawing on literature from board capacity, agenda setting, and neighborhood gover- nance (see Figure 1). We propose to view NC boards as 116 4 American Review of Public Administration 00(0) dynamic and open social systems (Katz & Kahn, 1978) that interact with the NCs’ internal and external environments. NC boards’ internal capacity refers to the extent to which boards can effectively run meetings, recruit and manage vol- unteers, define goals, maintain leadership, and manage con- flicts. External networking focuses on the extent to which board members contact other actors in their respective insti- tutional environments (see also Musso, Weare, Oztas, & Loges, 2006; Weare et al., 2009). Attention-action congru- ence captures the transformational process that translates NC board members’ issue attention to actions. Below, we explain in detail how each dimension of NC board performance relates to perceived NC effectiveness. Internal capacity. In conventional public administration litera- ture, capacity is commonly regarded as an interchangeable term with “management,” deeply linked to the performance of organizations (e.g., T. L. Brown & Potoski, 2003; Christensen & Gazley, 2008; Eisinger, 2002; Meier & O’Toole, 2003). As a multidimensional construct, it encompasses resources, lead- ership, staff, and a certain level of institutionalization (Chris- tensen & Gazley, 2008; Eisinger, 2002). In their study of community-based development agencies, Fredericksen and London (2000) contended that the internal management capac- ity provides the basis “upon which organizations can imple- ment programs and achieve goals” (p. 233). Neighborhood associations rely heavily on board mem- bers’ contributions of money, time, effort, and skill to the organizations’ cause (Andrews et al., 2010; Herman & Renz, 1997). As Rich (1980) succinctly put it, “the recruitment and maintenance of leaders is thought vital to the success of citi- zens’ action groups” (p. 570). For instance, Bradshaw, Table 1. A Summary of Studies on Neighborhood Councils. Articles Major findings Cooper and Musso (1999)This article discussed the theoretical foundations for involving neighborhoods in governance. It highlighted the role of the university in helping mediate the information gap and develop mutual understanding between citizens and city agencies. Kathi and Cooper (2005); Kathi, Cooper, and Meek (2007) The studies presented the Learning and Design Forum, which brings NCs and city agencies together in a collaborative partnership. They highlighted the potential role of the university in mediating the relationship between NCs and city agencies. Musso, Weare, Oztas, and Loges (2006); Weare, Musso, and Jun (2009) The authors described the complementary roles of bonding and bridging ties in promoting information dissemination and mobilization among NCs. In a later study, they found that elite bias tends to counteract homophily in lower income communities, where the involvement of higher income individuals tends to diversify the organization with respect to socioeconomic status. Musso, Weare, Elliot, Kitsuse, and Shiau (2007) This report demonstrated that (a) NCs are not descriptively representative of the social and economic diversity of Los Angeles residents; (b) despite the strong citywide networks, NCs remain largely peripheral in citywide policy making and service delivery; (c) the capacity and activities of NCs vary substantially across the city. Guo and Musso (2007)This study proposed a conceptual framework for understanding the verities of representation. The authors then examined the representational capacities of an NC and a community-based service organization. Jun (2007)The article examined the impacts of community contexts on NC formation. It indicated how community heterogeneity characteristics (race/ethnicity, income) and community capacity influenced the earlier formation of NCs. Bryer and Cooper (2007); Bryer (2009)Based on an action research study of NCs and city departments, the authors analyzed factors contributing to city agencies’ responsiveness to NCs and highlighted the challenges of enhancing bureaucratic responsiveness to citizens. Chen, Cooper, and Sun (2009)The authors compared the participation approaches in Los Angeles and Shanghai and highlighted how political and administrative structures in the two municipalities affect the civic engagement program differently. Musso, Weare, Bryer, and Cooper (2011)The authors summarized six lessons learned from their 10 years of research on NCs. Jun and Shiau (2012)The authors proposed a multiple constituency approach to understand NCs’ effectiveness. Their article demonstrated that citizen participants, street-level bureaucrats, and city council have different effectiveness ratings on NCs. Houston and Ong (2012)This study examined the election participation of 88 NCs and showed how neighborhood demographic and socioeconomic characteristics are related to the variation in election participation. Jun and Musso (2013)The authors analyzed the meeting agendas of NCs and showed how NCs engage with varied issues, such as land use, internal capacity, and community improvement. Their content analysis also revealed the U-shaped relationship between income and land use. Note. NC = neighborhood council. 117 Li et al. 5 Murray, and Wolpin (1992) found that more than one third of the variance in organizational effectiveness can be explained by the levels of board involvement in strategic planning. Similarly, Green and Griesinger (1996) indicated that well- functioning boards, which unexceptionally embody mecha- nisms to constructively handle conflicts and regularize meetings, are the key to organizational success in terms of goal attainment. W. A. Brown (2005) argued that the strate- gic contributions from the board account for executive per- ceptions of organizational performance. From these perspectives, the presence of an effective board in an NC, manifested through its capability to (a) run meetings smoothly, (b) recruit and manage volunteers effectively, (c) define goals clearly, (d) maintain leadership stability, and (e) reconcile internal conflicts constructively, enables the organi- zation to be more effective (Cairns, Harris, & Young, 2005). Therefore, we are advancing the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1a (H1a): NC boards’ internal capacity is positively associated with NCs’ effectiveness in promoting civic engagement. Hypothesis 1b (H1b): NC boards’ internal capacity is positively associated with NCs’ effectiveness in resolving neighborhood issues. Hypothesis 1c (H1c): NC boards’ internal capacity is positively associated with NCs’ effectiveness in advising about city policies. Attention-action congruence. Attention-action congruence examines the degree of congruence between NC board mem- bers’ issue orientation and their action, that is, the extent to which they contact respective city agencies to resolve the issues that they have discussed in their meetings. The con- cept of attention-action congruence was inspired by the the- ory of policy responsiveness, which examines the correspondence between citizens’ interests and policy out- comes. One way to look at this alignment, based on the responsiveness literature, is attitudinal concurrence, which reveals whether public officials concur with citizens on what the important issues are and how the government should respond (Hansen, 1975; Verba & Nie, 1987). The concur- rence score is considered high when citizens form and con- vey their opinions about the problems that ought to be addressed by government to public officials, public officials hear these messages, and then make informed decisions which reflect citizens’ wants. Similarly, attention-action congruence indicates the extent to which NC board members identify important issues in their neighborhood and then contact respective government agencies. Unlike the internal capacity construct, which focuses on the operational dimension of NC boards, atten- tion-action congruence emphasizes the transformational pro- cess through which NC board members translate their identified problems into actions. While the attitudinal con- currence concept focuses on the alignment of attention from two distinct parties (citizens and government), attention- action congruence examines the agreement of attention and action of board members. We draw on insights from Kingdon’s (1995) agenda-set- ting theory and hypothesize that NCs with higher attention- action congruence are more effective in advising about city policies. According to Kingdon, agendas are the result of a Figure 1. Theoretical framework. Note. NC = neighborhood council. 118 6 American Review of Public Administration 00(0) complex interaction among the politically salient issues, decision-making processes, and available policies. He distin- guished three policy streams: problems, proposals, and poli- tics. When a policy window emerges, the three streams converge, and policy agendas will be set. Kingdon also high- lighted the role of policy entrepreneurs in pushing problems and proposals onto policy agendas. Likewise, NC board members serve as exactly what Kingdon called “policy entrepreneurs” who strive to push the convergence of issue orientations and actions (Purdue, 2001). They hold meetings to discuss local problems and issues waiting to be addressed. These meetings serve as a discussion platform on which board members collectively identify problems. After the problems are identified, board members set out to contact appropriate government agencies. This kind of contacting behavior helps NC leaders gain a more nuanced understand- ing of the issues that are important to them. They acquire political skills and become well-informed participants with a higher policy advocacy capability. As Lawton and Macaulay (2014) showed, through participation in local standards com- mittees, local citizens became both expert citizens and every- day makers of their own local governance. In urban politics, scholars have long been interested in whether and how community power is distributed and exer- cised in a democratic manner. Schumaker (1993), for exam- ple, distinguished three dimensions of power, where the first face of power concerns the direct causal impact of various actors (e.g., elected representatives, bureaucrats, group lead- ers, and citizens) on policy decisions, the second face of power examines the capacity of certain actors to control issue agendas, and the third face of power estimates the indi- rect impact that various actors have in shaping the prefer- ences of those with direct power. The concept of attention-action congruence taps into these dimensions of power as it looks into the process through which NC leaders transform their issue attentions to specific actions to impact the behavior of administrative agencies in the city. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 (H2): Attention-action congruence is posi- tively associated with NCs’ effectiveness in advising about city policies. External networking. External networking refers to board members’ efforts in building and using connections with other organizations to leverage resources and support (Hick- lin, O’Toole, & Meier, 2008). Such networking helps foster connections with organizations’ external environment, bring in resources, and gain institutional efficiency and legitimacy (Isett & Provan, 2005). Johansen and LeRoux (2013), for example, distinguished two types of networking—commu- nity and political. They found that community networking increases nonprofits’ organizational effectiveness in making strategic decisions, increasing organizational funding, meet- ing funders’ performance expectations, and responding to client complaints. Political networking increases advocacy effectiveness by raising public awareness of the organiza- tion’s mission and by influencing local government’s priori- ties. Similarly, Sandfort (2013) examined how intermediary organizations and coalitions help nonprofits gain resources and garner public attention needed for effective advocacy. In this sense, external networking helps organizations exploit opportunities and protect against environmental threats (Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004; Meier & O’Toole, 2003). NCs network among themselves (i.e., bonding social cap- ital), in the form of joining in regional and citywide alliances and coalitions as a means to generate a louder voice. They also network with others (i.e., bridging social capital), such as city elected officials and city agency officials, to garner sufficient attention. The respective bonding and bridging ties fostered through networking, according to Musso et al. (2006), play a mutually supporting role in promoting the sharing of innovative knowledge and trust among NCs. More specifically, from a micro perspective, networking helps build individual political skills, which, in turn, contribute to the collective action capacity of the NCs. Networking also helps improve information flows, aggregate political demands, and communicate the gathered feedback with city decision makers. This, as a whole, leads to NCs’ higher effectiveness in resolving neighborhood issues and advising about city policies. As Oztas (2004) argued, both bonding and bridging social capital matter for NC performance. Bonding social capital is conducive to internal discussions through which local concerns are crystallized, and bridging social capital “has a positive relation with NCs’ impact on both citywide and local decisions” (p. 155) as it helps fill structural holes concealed in the overall NC system and strengthen stakeholder engagement. Therefore, Hypothesis 3a (H3a): External networking is positively associated with NCs’ effectiveness in resolving neighbor- hood issues. Hypothesis 3b (H3b): External networking is positively associated with NCs’ effectiveness in advising about city policies. Data and Method Data Sources To test the relationships between board performance factors and NC effectiveness, we collected data with a questionnaire survey in 2016. Key constructs and measurements in the sur- vey were theoretically driven and drawn from a systematic review of the existing studies on neighborhood governance. We also invited scholars in the field to comment on the sur- vey; we revised the survey based on their constructive input. We obtained a list of all 96 NCs, including organization names, leadership team, and contact information (both email and telephone number) from the Los Angeles City DONE. 119 Li et al. 7 We piloted the questionnaire with a few experienced NC members and improved it based on their feedback. The questionnaire was then sent to all NC leaders, includ- ing the president and vice president of each council board via email, in which the purpose of the project was introduced and a link to the survey was provided. We sent three follow- up emails to NC leaders, reminding them to complete the survey. One of the authors also attended the Budget Day and Congress of Neighborhoods held by DONE at City Hall in July and September of 2016. In both events, we disseminated pamphlets and flyers to solicit participation in our project. Finally, we acquired a letter of support from DONE. This letter, along with the access to our survey, was incorporated in a monthly brochure, titled “NC Profile,” released on October 1, 2016, to all the NCs. Because of these outreach and legitimization attempts, we were able to collect valid responses from 80 different NCs,2 yielding a response rate of 83%. In addition, we examined whether the 80 surveyed NCs and the 16 missing ones are significantly different in terms of the covered population, organization age and size, and the percent of household with income below $20,000. The results indicate that missing data are not a major concern. We collected respondents’ demographic information at the end of the survey. The finding is consistent with previous studies that show that NC boards tend to be dominated by relatively affluent (while 18 cases are missing, 43.75% of the 80 have yearly household income above $100,000), well- educated (71.25% hold a bachelor, professional, or doctoral degree), White (65%), and middle-aged to older men (70% of the leaders are between the ages of 45 and 74; 60% are men) who are residents living in the neighborhood (76.25%). As Heikkila and Isett (2007) argued, people from dominant status groups (e.g., well educated, middle- to upper- income citizens) are more likely to get involved in public forums, leading disadvantaged groups underrepresented in public participation forums. Thus, the likelihood of truly representative “participation” may be a misnomer for forums such as advisory committees and public meetings. (pp. 246-247) Measurement The dependent variable is NC effectiveness. It is measured by asking NC leaders how their council has been performing in the past year in terms of six items. A 5-point Likert-type scale is used, where 1 = “Not at all effective” and 5 = “Extremely effective.” Guided by theory, we categorized the six items into three dimensions. The first is promoting civic engagement, which consists of two items: (1) promoting more citizen participation in government and (2) including diverse interests in the neighborhood (Cronbach’s α = .90). The second dimension is resolving community issues, which includes one item, working to solve problems in the neigh- borhood. The third dimension captures NCs’ advisory role in city policy making. It consists of three items, advising the city on (1) land use, (2) local service needs, and (3) citywide policies (Cronbach’s α = .91). The first independent variable, internal capacity, is mea- sured by the extent to which NC leaders agree with the fol- lowing six items on a 5-point Likert-type scale, including our board is able to (a) Run meetings smoothly, (b) Recruit and manage volunteers effectively, (c) Define our goals clearly, (d) Maintain leadership stability, (e) Manage conflict con- structively, (f) Form consensus effectively (Cronbach’s α = .92). Principal component factor analysis shows that one fac- tor was retained, with an eigenvalue of 4.36, explaining 73% of the variance of the variable. The six items were averaged to create a variable for internal capacity. Attention-action congruence examines the correspon- dence between board members’ issue attention and their action. The variable is calculated by averaging the distance between issues discussed in board meetings and the respec- tive agencies the NC board contacted. We are well aware that attention-action congruence cannot be assessed on a single issue; rather, it must cover a sample of key community issues to reflect the dynamics and nuances of neighborhood affairs. Therefore, the attention component examines the extent to which board members have discussed the following issues over the past year, including (a) Public safety, (b) Land use, (c) Neighborhood beautification, (d) Parks and recreation, (e) Transportation and street maintenance, (f) Solid waste and garbage collection. In the survey, we asked NC leaders to report the extent to which they discussed the above issues on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occa- sionally, 4 = frequently, and 5 = always. The action compo- nent examines how often NC boards have contacted the following government agencies: (a) Police Department, (b) Department of Planning, (c) Department of Public Works, (d) Department of Recreation and Parks, (e) Department of Transportation, and (f) Department of Public Works.3 It is measured by a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = not in contact and 5 = very frequent contact. We calculated the distance between the attention and action components. For example, if an NC reported that board members have always discussed public safety issues (coded as 5), but they have never con- tacted the police department (1), the distance between atten- tion and action for the safety issue in this NC is 4, indicating a high discrepancy between board members’ attention and actual action in safety issues. We reverse coded the distance and obtained the congruence score for safety issues: 5 − 4 = 1. Similarly, the congruence scores between attention and action for the other five issues were calculated, and an over- all congruence score for the NC was produced by averaging the six scores. The higher the score, the higher the congru- ence between attention and action on critical issues in the neighborhood. External networking is measured by the extent to which NC leaders have contacted community stakeholders, elected officials, agency officials, and other NCs in the 2 weeks prior 120 8 American Review of Public Administration 00(0) to the last board meeting. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used, where 1 = “Not in contact,” 2 = “1-2 times,” 3 = “3-5 times,” 4 = “6-10 times,” and 5 = “More than 10 times.” The items were averaged to create the networking variable. Three control variables were included in the analysis. Organization age is measured by the number of years an NC has been in operation since certified. We expect that older NCs are likely to perform better because compared with younger ones, they often have experienced leaders, skilled volunteers, and established contacts and systems (Chambré & Fatt, 2002). Organization size is the number of members on a particular NC board. We expect that larger NCs are often more centrally located in the interorganizational net- works and may have more resources and capacity to perform better (McPherson, 1983; Newton, 1982). These two ques- tions were in the questionnaire but can also be found in each NC’s official website. We thus cross-checked the informa- tion provided by NC leaders with that listed online and found that they are consistent. This partially implies that the quality of the survey data is reliable. The last variable is stakeholder involvement, which asks the typical number of stakeholders who showed up at an NC’s board meetings in the past year. It is a categorical variable, in which 1 = “less than 10,” 2 = “11-20,” 3 = “21-30,” and 4 = “more than 30.” Engagement with stakeholders is a key task that most NCs focus on. It allows NCs to build strategic relevant relationships with diverse community stakeholders, bring in more voices, and stimulate new ways of approaching community problems. Thus, we expect that stakeholder engagement helps increase perceived effectiveness of NCs. Analytic Strategy The survey data are analyzed using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. For each effectiveness measure, the model is built hierarchically in two major steps—the control vari- ables are entered, followed by the main effects (i.e., three antecedents). Standard errors are weighted to avoid problems associated with heteroscedasticity (Newey & West, 1987). While we acknowledge that common source bias may be a problem when the independent and dependent variables are all from the same survey, we performed Harman’s single- factor test (Harman, 1976), and the analysis shows that the estimated variance for the three models is 38.8%, 39.54%, and 39.97%, which are below the 50% threshold, suggesting that common source bias is not a serious problem with the data set. Findings Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the variables of interest. The means for the three dimensions of NC effective- ness are 3.01, 3.29, and 3.10, respectively, suggesting that most NC leaders perceive their organizations to be moder- ately effective. Regarding the independent variables, NC board’s internal capacity is somewhere between moderately effective to effective. The mean congruence score between NC board members’ issue orientation and action is 1.48. In addition, NC board members communicate with other groups several times prior to the board meeting. The correlation table (Table 3) shows that the three dimen- sions of NC effectiveness are correlated at .81, .73, and .77, respectively, suggesting that they tap into different aspects of organizational effectiveness. The correlations between the explanatory variables are low. Three multivariate regression models with robust options were performed using Stata 12.0 (see Table 4). The first model examines factors associated with NCs’ effectiveness in promoting civic engagement. The three independent vari- ables, together with the control variables, combine to explain 57.99% of the variance in NCs’ effectiveness in promoting civic engagement. NC boards’ internal capacity is positively associated with NCs’ effectiveness in promoting civic engagement (β = .49, p < .001). That is, when an NC board performs well internally, in terms of running meetings, man- aging volunteers, defining goals, maintaining leadership, and managing conflict, the NC as a whole is likely to be more effective in promoting citizen participation and representing diverse interests. The second model focuses on NCs’ effectiveness in resolving neighborhood issues. The whole model is signifi- cant (F statistic = 39.75, p < .001), explaining 69.39% of the variance in the dependent variable. Consistent with the first model, NC boards’ internal capacity is positively related to NCs’ effectiveness in resolving community issues. In addition, if an NC is deemed active in connecting with exter- nal actors from the institutional environment, it is likely to be more effective in solving issues within the neighborhood (β = .28, p < .01). The third model concerns NCs’ effectiveness in advising the city on citywide policies, local service needs, and land use. The full model explains 58.70% of the variance in NCs’ effectiveness in advising about city policies. Furthermore, NC boards’ internal capacity contributes positively to NCs’ capacity in playing the advisory role (β = .58, p < .001). External networking is positively related to NCs’ effective- ness in advising about city policies (β = .48, p < .001). The congruence between board members’ issue orientation and action is positively associated with the extent to which NCs can play an advisory role (β = .32, p < .05). In other words, when an NC board exhibits higher congruence between its attention and actions, it is likely to be more effective in pol- icy advocacy. Discussion and Conclusion In “The Rebirth of Urban Democracy,” Berry, Portney, and Thomson (2002) considered the cultivation of citizenship as the fundamental step to revitalize urban democracy. Specifically, good citizens, who tend to believe that they are 121 Li et al. 9 responsible for bettering the functionality of the government, are more willing to proactively participate in the governmental process, thus nourishing democracy in a practical manner. Following this line of reasoning, Kathi and Cooper (2005) Table 2. Descriptive Statistics. Variables Operationalization M SD Minimum Maximum Promoting civic engagement Average of two items 3.01 1.18 1 5 Resolving community issues Single-item measure 3.29 1.18 1 5 Advising about city policies Average of three items 3.10 1.24 1 5 Internal capacity Average of six items 3.69 1.03 1 5 Attention-action congruence Average of the distance between issues discussed in board meetings and the respective agencies NC board contacted 1.48 0.65 0.17 3 External networking Average of four items 2.48 0.86 1 4.8 Organization age Years in operation since certified 12.79 2.54 1 15 Organization size Number of board members an NC currently has 16.99 5.72 5 35 Stakeholder involvement Categorical 2.33 1.03 1 4 Note. NC = neighborhood council. Table 3. Correlation Table. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Promoting civic engagement 1.00 2 Resolving community issues .81*1.00 3 Advising about city policies .73*.77*1.00 4 Internal capacity .64*.74*.65*1.00 5 Attention-action congruence .29*.26*.31*.22 1.00 6 External networking .45*.47*.51*.32*.08 1.00 7 Organization age .25*.30*.20 −.01 .00 .09 1.00 8 Organization size .36*.39*.30*.26*.09 .13 .32*1.00 9 Stakeholder involvement .55*.49*.43*.45*.26*.43*.17 .10 1.00 *p < .05. Table 4. Regression Results (N = 80). Promoting civic engagement Resolving community issues Advising about city policies Internal capacity 0.49***0.69***0.58*** (0.10)(0.09)(0.11) Attention-action congruence 0.21 0.17 0.32* (0.13)(0.12)(0.14) External networking 0.20†0.28**0.48*** (0.11)(0.08)(0.09) Organization age 0.07*0.11**0.07 (0.03)(0.04)(0.04) Organization size 0.03 0.21 0.02 (0.02)(0.02)(0.02) Stakeholder involvement 0.25†0.04 −0.03 (0.12)(0.09)(0.12) Constant −1.58**−2.12***−1.84** (0.43)(0.46)(0.63) R2 .5799 .6939 .5870 F statistic 35.28***39.75***23.41*** Note. Standard errors in parentheses.†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. 122 10 American Review of Public Administration 00(0) urged academics and practitioners to clarify the nature of par- ticipation mechanisms through which authentic democracy can be attained. In their opinion, while representative democ- racy is widely adopted and entails citizen participation to a certain extent, its ability to represent the diversity of constitu- ent interests in populated, multicultural states like the United States remains questionable (Roberts, 2004). Given that par- ticipatory mandates are historically incapable of allowing citi- zens to have the primary influence on government agenda setting relating to local governance and service delivery (Alford, 2002), Kathi and Cooper subsequently advocated for the creation of “bottom-up structures within a governmental framework” (p. 562). The NC system in Los Angeles is a typi- cal example of such bottom-up structure. This study contributes a much-needed empirical dimen- sion to neighborhood governance by examining whether NCs in Los Angeles, a government-sanctioned and financed institutional innovation related to civic engagement at the neighborhood level, after its 18 years of operation, are effec- tive in promoting civic engagement, resolving neighborhood issues, and advising about city policies. Drawing on litera- ture from board capacity, agenda setting, and neighborhood governance, our study proposed a theoretical framework to explain NC effectiveness. We consider NC boards as a dynamic and open social system that interacts with NCs’ internal and external environment. Three factors, including internal capacity, external networking, and attention-action congruence, were related to NC effectiveness. Admittedly, existing studies have examined the effective- ness of the NC system. Musso, Weare, Elliot, Kitsuse, and Shiau (2007), for example, conducted a comprehensive eval- uation of the NC reform in 2007 and found that (a) NCs are not descriptively representative of the social and economic diversity of Los Angeles residents, (b) many NCs struggle with outreach and infighting, (c) NCs remain largely periph- eral in citywide policy making and service delivery issues, and (d) the capacity and activities of NCs vary substantially across the city. Jun and Shiau (2012) found that NC board members, street-level bureaucrats, and city council staff evaluate NCs’ internal and external dimensions of effective- ness differently. While these studies are insightful, their data were collected in 2005 to 2006. Our study uses survey data collected in 2016 and provides a timely update as to how effective NCs have been performing. We find that most NC boards are dominated by relatively affluent, well-educated, White, and elderly men who are residents living in the neigh- borhood, and they perceive their organizations to be moder- ately effective. The empirical results show that NCs’ internal capacity is positively associated with all three dimensions of organiza- tional effectiveness, confirming H1a, H1b, and H1c. In other words, if an NC has an effective board that runs meetings smoothly, recruits and manages volunteers effectively, defines goals clearly, maintains leadership stability, and rec- onciles internal conflicts constructively, it is likely to be more effective in promoting civic engagement, resolving neighborhood issues, and advising about city policies. This finding contributes to the discussion of the relationship between board internal capacity and organizational effec- tiveness. While existing studies posit that nonprofit and vol- untary boards make a difference in organizational effectiveness, few specify how they do it. As Herman and Renz (2008) propose, “Future research is necessary . . . to determine what board member, board process, and organiza- tional factors are important in affecting organizational per- formance” (p. 403). Our study shows that an effective board refers to one that performs well in running meetings, setting agendas, and resolving conflicts. These are all critical com- ponents of board process that contribute to effective neigh- borhood associations. Our study also finds that when NC board members com- municate more frequently with community stakeholders, other NCs, elected officials, and agency officials, they per- ceive their organizations to be more effective in solving com- munity issues and advising about city policies (H3a and H3b). This is consistent with prior studies on managerial net- working. While networking is costly in terms of time, efforts, and resources (Agranoff, 2006; Galaskiewicz et al., 2006), it is a critical managerial tool for nonprofit and civic organiza- tions to gain resources and status to support organizational development and policy advocacy (Johansen & LeRoux 2013; Sandfort, 2014). For NCs, networking is essentially a process of relationship building and outreach through which NCs cultivate ties with community stakeholders and outside members (including peer NCs, the city, and elected officials). These ties help develop board members’ political skills, improve information dissemination, and collective mobiliza- tion for bigger voices and impact, within the neighborhood and beyond. Thus, NCs’ external networking efforts lead to higher effectiveness in resolving neighborhood issues and advising about city policies. In addition, we proposed a new variable—attention-action congruence—to capture the degree of congruence between NC board members’ issue orientation and their action, that is, the extent to which they contact appropriate city agencies to resolve the issues they attend to. The findings show that NCs with a higher congruence score between issue attention and actions are likely to be more effective in playing the advisory role in local policy making. Put differently, when board members in an NC can collectively identify the important issues in the neighborhood and contact government agencies to solve those problems, that NC exhibits a higher level of effectiveness in policy advocacy. This speaks to Kingdon’s agenda-setting theory, which suggests that setting policy agendas is an art that requires knowledge, skills, and political savviness to identify problems, grasp windows of opportu- nity, and leverage political support. The congruence of issue and action within board members epitomizes this kind of art. NC board members deliberate, identify, and act. This process helps them gain a more nuanced understanding of the issues 123 Li et al. 11 that are important to them (Carpini, Cook, & Jacobs, 2004). They acquire political skills and become knowledgeable par- ticipants in the policy process. While existing studies exam- ine attitudinal concurrence between citizens and government officials, our study follows a similar logic but proposes a new variable to measure the congruence of board members’ attention and action in neighborhood associations. It shows that this variable is a critical predictor of these organizations’ effectiveness in policy advocacy. Future studies may include this variable and examine the processes through which atten- tion-action congruence predicts organizational effectiveness in other contexts. This study has several limitations. To start with, data were gathered from individuals leading their respective NC boards. Nonetheless, as Musso et al. (2007) and our study explicitly pointed out, one of the most regrettable shortcom- ings of the NC system is that NCs fail to adequately reflect the racial, socioeconomic, and cultural diversity of the com- munity. NC board members, in particular, are “substantially more likely than neighborhood residents to be white, wealthy, highly educated, and homeowners” (p. 7). The extent to which their expressed perceptions represent the majority opinion of community stakeholders remains unknown. In future study, one might want to conduct a more inclusive analysis of NC effectiveness. In addition, our article may be limited by the mono-method bias. Echoing Morrison (2002), “single-source bias is most problematic when both indepen- dent and dependent variables are measured on similar types of scales” (p. 1159). Although we found that it is not a seri- ous issue in our study, we believe that qualitative compo- nents, mainly in the forms of semi-structured interviews or focus group discussions, can be incorporated in future research to give our findings “an added lift.” Our study carries practical implications. The need to adapt administrative structures to embody democratic legiti- macy and procedural justice exists in other continents and metropolises around the world. In Europe, for instance, neighborhoods have been recognized as proper sites for innovation in service delivery and local governance (Lowndes & Sullivan, 2008). In Denmark, citizens and pub- lic officials worked together in the form of NCs to deal with problems of public safety, crime, and neighborhood decline (Wagenaar, 2007). In the United Kingdom, the government introduced the Localism Act in 2011, which promotes the transfer of power from above to neighborhoods and individ- ual citizens as well as the development of new exemplars of neighborhood governance and community empowerment (Lawton & Macaulay, 2014). While the sociodemographic contours of Los Angeles might not be found elsewhere, its NC system represents and subsequently demonstrates the promise of local governance reform which strives to produc- tively “mediate between communities and core decision- making institutions” (Musso et al., 2006, p. 92). Key elements of the NC system and the relationships between board per- formance and NC effectiveness can stand up to scrutiny in other contexts. By understanding issues related to underper- forming boards, the discrepancies between attention and action, and networking difficulties, this article might help devise appropriate approaches to not only increase the oper- ating effectiveness of Los Angeles NCs but also enhance the sustainability of participatory democracy in broader urban contexts. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: The project was funded by the Bedrosian Center on Governance and the Sol Price Center for Social Innovation at the University of Southern California. Notes 1. At the time of our study, there were 96 neighborhood coun- cils (NC). In 2 years, three more NCs were established. By December 2018, there are 99 NCs in Los Angeles. 2. We received more than one response from some NCs. We com- pared these responses and chose the most credible response based on two criteria: (a) the degree of missing data and (b) the accuracy of the responses by comparing them with informa- tion collected online (e.g., date certified, the number of board members). Therefore, the N of 80 represents 80 different NCs. 3. Some argue that neighborhood organizations often only orga- nize when there is a crisis. For example, many homeowner associations in China are very active when property rights vio- lations are acute. It is possible that NCs have similar dynam- ics, organizing more frequently when there are crises in the community. Yet, NCs are more institutionalized, with annual funding and administrative support. Most have various sub- committees (e.g., land use committee, public safety commit- tee, homelessness committee) and meet monthly to discuss neighborhood issues. Therefore, compared with other types of neighborhood associations, NCs are likely to have more fre- quent organizing and contacting. ORCID iD Hui Li https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1674-5480 References Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration Review, 66, 56-65. Alford, J. (2002). Why do public-sector clients coproduce? Toward a contingency theory. Administration & Society, 34, 32-56. Andrews, K. T., Ganz, M., Baggetta, M., Han, H., & Lim, C. (2010). Leadership, membership, and voice: Civic associations that work. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 1191-1242. Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., & Thomson, K. (2002). The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 124 12 American Review of Public Administration 00(0) Bradshaw, P., Murray, V., & Wolpin, J. (1992). Do nonprofit boards make a difference? An exploration of the relationships among board structure, process, and effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21, 227-249. Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel per- spective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795-817. Brown, T. L., & Potoski, M. (2003). Contract–management capacity in municipal and county governments. Public Administration Review, 63, 153-164. Brown, W. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15, 317-339. Bryer, T. A. (2009). Explaining responsiveness in collabora- tion: Administrator and citizen role perceptions. Public Administration Review, 69, 271-283. Bryer, T. A., & Cooper, T. L. (2007). Challenges in enhanc- ing responsiveness in neighborhood governance. Public Performance & Management Review, 31, 191-214. Cairns, B., Harris, M., & Young, P. (2005). Building the capac- ity of the voluntary nonprofit sector: Challenges of theory and practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 869-885. Carpini, M. X. D., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344. Chambré, S. M., & Fatt, N. (2002). Beyond the liability of new- ness: Nonprofit organizations in an emerging policy domain. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 502-524. Chaskin, R. J., & Garg, S. (1997). The issue of governance in neighborhood-based initiatives. Urban Affairs Review, 32, 631-661. Chaskin, R. J., & Greenberg, D. M. (2015). Between public and pri- vate action: Neighborhood organizations and local governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 248-267. Chen, B., Cooper, T. L., & Sun, R. (2009). Spontaneous or con- structed? Neighborhood governance reforms in Los Angeles and Shanghai. Public Administration Review, 69(Suppl. 1), S108-S115. Christensen, R. K., & Gazley, B. (2008). Capacity for public administration: Analysis of meaning and measurement. Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice, 28, 265-279. Cooper, T. L., Bryer, T. A., & Meek, J. W. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 76-88. Cooper, T. L., & Musso, J. A. (1999). The potential for neighbor- hood council involvement in American metropolitan gov- ernance. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 2, 199-232. Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level food assistance programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 115-130. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 1-29. Fredericksen, P., & London, R. (2000). Disconnect in the hollow state: The pivotal role of organizational capacity in commu- nity-based development organizations. Public Administration Review, 60, 230-239. Fung, A. (2009). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Galaskiewicz, J., Bielefeld, W., & Dowell, M. (2006). Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based non- profits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 337-380. Green, J. C., & Griesinger, D. W. (1996). Board performance and organizational effectiveness in nonprofit social services organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6, 381-402. Guo, C., & Musso, J. A. (2007). Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A conceptual framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 308-326. Hansen, S. B. (1975). Participation, political structure, and concur- rence. American Political Science Review, 69, 1181-1199. Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Heikkila, T., & Isett, K. R. (2007). Citizen involvement and per- formance management in special-purpose governments. Public Administration Review, 67, 238-248. Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 185-206. Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit orga- nizational effectiveness research and theory: Nine theses. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18, 399-415. Hicklin, A., O’Toole, L. J., & Meier, K. J. (2008). Serpents in the sand: Managerial networking and nonlinear influences on organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 253-273. Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence per- spectives. Academy of Management Review, 28, 383-396. Houston, D., & Ong, P. M. (2012). Determinants of voter par- ticipation in neighborhood council elections. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 686-703. Isett, K. R., & Provan, K. G. (2005). The evolution of dyadic inter- organizational relationships in a network of publicly funded nonprofit agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 149-165. Johansen, M., & LeRoux, K. (2013). Managerial networking in nonprofit organizations: The impact of networking on orga- nizational and advocacy effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 73, 355-363. Jun, K. N. (2007). Event history analysis of the formation of Los Angeles neighborhood councils. Urban Affairs Review, 43, 107-122. Jun, K. N., & Musso, J. (2013). Participatory governance and the spatial representation of neighborhood issues. Urban Affairs Review, 49, 71-110. Jun, K. N., & Shiau, E. (2012). How are we doing? A multiple con- stituency approach to civic association effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 632-655. Kathi, P. C., & Cooper, T. L. (2005). Democratizing the adminis- trative state: Connecting neighborhood councils and city agen- cies. Public Administration Review, 65, 559-567. Kathi, P. C., Cooper, T. L., & Meek, J. W. (2007). The role of the university as a mediating institution in neighborhood council- city agency collaboration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13, 365-382. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organiza- tions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley. 125 Li et al. 13 Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. London, England: Longman. Lawton, A., & Macaulay, M. (2014). Localism in practice: Investigating citizen participation and good governance in local government standards of conduct. Public Administration Review, 74, 75-83. Lowndes, V., & Sullivan, H. (2008). How low can you go? Rationales and challenges for neighbourhood governance. Public Administration, 86, 53-74. Marwell, N. P. (2004). Privatizing the welfare state: Nonprofit community-based organizations as political actors. American Sociological Review, 69, 265-291. McPherson, M. (1983). The size of voluntary organizations. Social Forces, 61, 1044-1064. Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2003). Public management and edu- cational performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administration Review, 63, 689-699. Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1149-1160. Musso, J., Weare, C., Bryer, T., & Cooper, T. L. (2011). Toward “strong democracy” in global cities? Social capital building, theory-driven reform, and the Los Angeles neighbourhood council experience. Public Administration Review, 71, 102-111. Musso, J., Weare, C., Elliot, M., Kitsuse, A., & Shiau, E. (2007). Toward community engagement in city gover- nance: Evaluating neighborhood council reform in Los Angeles. Neighborhood Participation Project, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California. Retrieved from https://www.venicenc.org/files/ USC-10YrStudyOfNCeffectiveness.pdf Musso, J., Weare, C., Oztas, N., & Loges, W. E. (2006). Neighborhood governance reform and networks of commu- nity power in Los Angeles. The American Review of Public Administration, 36, 79-97. Newey, W. K., & West, K. D. (1987). Hypothesis testing with effi- cient method of moments estimation. International Economic Review, 28, 777-787. Newton, K. (1982). Is small really so beautiful? Is big really so ugly? Size, effectiveness, and democracy in local government. Political Studies, 30, 190-206. Oztas, N. (2004). Neighborhood network structure of social capital: A multilevel analysis of the Los Angeles experiment (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of orga- nizations: A resource dependence approach. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Purdue, D. (2001). Neighbourhood governance: Leadership, trust and social capital. Urban Studies, 38, 2211-2224. Rich, R. C. (1980). The dynamics of leadership in neighborhood organizations. Social Science Quarterly, 60, 570-587. Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 34, 315-353. Sandfort, J. (2013). Analyzing the practice of nonprofit advocacy: Comparing two human services networks. In R. J. Pekkhanen, S. R. Smith, & Y. Tsujinaka (Eds.), Nonprofits and advocacy: Engaging community and government in an era of retrench- ment (pp. 222-253). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Schumaker, P. (1993). Estimating the first and (some of the) third faces of community power. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 28, 441-461. Sowa, J. E., Selden, S. C., & Sandfort, J. R. (2004). No longer unmeasurable? A multidimensional integrated model of non- profit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 711-728. Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1987). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Wagenaar, H. (2007). Governance, complexity, and democratic participation: How citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighborhood decline. The American Review of Public Administration, 37, 17-50. Weare, C., Musso, J., & Jun, K. N. (2009). Cross-talk: The role of homophily and elite bias in civic associations. Social Forces, 88, 147-173. Author Biographies Hui Li is an assistant professor in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Hong Kong. Her research focuses on public and nonprofit management, NGO-government relations, and civic engagement. Bo Wen is an assistant professor in the Department of Public Policy at City University of Hong Kong. His primary areas of study are public management, organization theory and behavior, institutional analysis, policy implementation, and Chinese politics. Terry L. Cooper is the Maria B. Crutcher professor in citizenship and democratic values at the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California. His research focus is on citizen participation and ethics in government. 126 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM, PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY, AND NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS: A NEW MODEL FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT MATTHEW J. PARLOW* This Article analyzes the lack of civic engagement in local government decision-making and the problems that result from it. Public choice theory offers one explanation: domi- nant special interest groups capture local governments for their own private interests. Thus, average citizens are not only alienated from their local government, but they also find the barriers to entry into local politics too high for col- lective action and participation. While at first glance this account seems accurate, public choice theory's explanation of local governments has normative limitations because it fails to recognize these features of the local political process as problematic-much less to offer any solutions. Therefore, this Article suggests that we ought to reject this model of local government in favor of a model based on civic republicanism, which offers a solution to the problem of civic disengagement. Civic republicanism envisions local gov- ernment substructures that provide meaningful opportuni- ties for stakeholders to deliberate with one another regarding matters facing their community and thus inform the local decision-making process. This Article explores whether neighborhood councils-new substructures of local govern- ment that aim to involve citizens in policy- and decision- making processes-can improve civic engagement. Assistant Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law. J.D., Yale Law School; B.A., Loyola Marymount University. I am grateful to Professors William N. Eskridge, Jr., and Janine Young Kim for their thoughts on this Arti- cle; to Brooke Mallette for her superb research assistance; and to Chapman Uni- versity School of Law for its financial support. 127 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW INTRODUCTION It is a truism in today's intellectual discourse that our de- mocracy is failing in significant ways. Among other things, scholars bemoan that the general public is largely uninformed about politics;' that voter turnout is consistently low in federal, state, and local elections;2 and that our democracy lacks civic virtue because of low public participation 3 in politics and gov- ernment, whether measured by voter turnout or some other in- dicator of civic engagement.4 These three phenomena are probably interconnected, with the last of these criticisms driv- ing the other two: if people are not civically engaged, they are more likely to be uninformed about current political and gov- ernmental issues and are thus less likely to vote. There are several possible explanations for the current lack of civic engagement. Public choice theory offers one: dominant special interest groups capture local government 5 1. Michael S. Kang, Democratizing Direct Democracy: Restoring Voter Com- petence Through Heuristic Cues and "Disclosure Plus," 50 UCLA L. REV. 1141, 1143 (2003) ("Voters do not know basic facts about ballot measures, seem confused about the issues, and appear unduly influenced by superficial advertising."). But see BENJAMIN I. PAGE & ROBERT Y. SHAPIRO, THE RATIONAL PUBLIC: FIFTY YEARS OF TRENDS IN AMERICANS' POLICY PREFERENCES 1, 386-90 (1992) (disputing claims that voters are ignorant and uninformed in their policy preferences). 2. See generally THOMAS E. CRONIN, DIRECT DEMOCRACY: THE POLICIES OF INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL 66-70 (1989) (discussing low voter turnout in elections); THOMAS E. PATTERSON, THE VANISHING VOTER: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN AN AGE OF UNCERTAINTY 4 (2002) (noting the decline in voter turnout for elections). 3. Terms like "civic participation," "public participation," and "civic engage- ment" can include activities ranging from voting to joining a bowling league or lo- cal softball team. For purposes of this Article, I use these terms interchangeably to refer to citizen participation in their government decision-making process, ei- ther through formal (government-sponsored) or informal (community-driven) means. 4. ROBERT D. PUTNAM, BOWLING ALONE: THE COLLAPSE AND REVIVAL OF AMERICAN COMMUNITY 1-24 (2000) (describing the decline in social networks, so- cial capital, community, and civic engagement). As Carlos Gonzdlez notes, "American politics vacillates between long periods of uninformed and apathetic disengagement, and relatively brief periods of popular ferment and participation." Carlos E. Gonzilez, Popular Sovereign Generated Versus Government Institution Generated Constitutional Norms: When Does a Constitutional Amendment Not Amend the Constitution?, 80 WASH. U. L.Q. 127, 215 (2002). 5. In this Article, I use the term local governments, cities, and localities in- terchangeably and broadly to refer to local government entities. While the sub- stance of this Article is most applicable to cities and, to a lesser degree, counties, the discussion of civic engagement and neighborhood councils has relevance to other local governments as well. By "substructure" of local government, I am re- [Vol. 79 128 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM decision-making for their own private interests. Thus, average citizens are not only alienated from their government, but they also find the barriers to entry into local politics too high for col- lective action and participation. On a superficial level, public choice theory's descriptive account of local government appears accurate. It offers convincing explanations of some of the key features of local government today-in particular, lack of transparency in policy-making and the capture of the political process by interest groups. However, public choice theory fails to recognize such features as problematic, ignoring the wide- spread belief that the dearth of citizen participation is trou- bling in our democratic society, and, more importantly, that such disengagement may lead to dysfunction and illegitimacy in local government. Instead, it views lack of engagement as the consequence of rational choice, not a flaw in a system that fails to provide opportunities for public participation. Thus, public choice theory suffers from significant normative limita- tions. Accordingly, we ought to reject a public choice theory model of local government in favor of a model infused with civic republicanism. Unlike public choice theory, civic republican- ism views the lack of civic engagement as leading to suspect lo- cal policies that stem from an insiders' game controlled by dominant interest groups. Moreover, it explains the public participation problem as deriving not from rational choice, but rather from the inaccessibility of local government structuring. Therefore, civic republicanism envisions local government sub- structures that provide meaningful opportunities for stake- holders to deliberate with one another regarding matters facing their community and correspondingly inform the local decision- making process. In doing so, we can shift from viewing local governments as a winner-takes-all political arena to an under- standing of local governments as a forum for engaging commu- nity stakeholders in a dialogic process to advance government policies that further the common good. The goal of this Article is to explore whether neighborhood councils-new substructures of local governments that aim to ferring to smaller institutions or entities created within local government by the government itself. Such smaller institutions tend to address niche areas of policy or regulation-such as business improvement districts, enterprise zones, and the like-though, as I argue later, neighborhood councils would have a broader pur- pose. 2008] 129 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW involve citizens in policy- and decision-making processes-can improve civic engagement. By providing a viable avenue for ef- fecting change in their communities, neighborhood councils can encourage everyday citizens to engage in their democracy in greater numbers and for a sustained period of time. This should be a salutary development in local government process, not only to those who favor the civic republican model of gov- ernment, but also to public choice theorists. From either per- spective, more participation should yield better, more represen- tative decision-making. Part I of this Article highlights some of the causes of civic disengagement as well as the problems that result from it and explains why local governments provide the most meaningful opportunity for citizen participation in our governmental sys- tem. Part II analyzes local governments from competing theo- retical perspectives-public choice theory and civic republican- ism-and makes a normative case for a civic republican form of local government. Part III discusses how and why past at- tempts at civic engagement on a local level have failed and the lessons that can be gleaned from those failures in order to bet- ter structure modern neighborhood councils. Finally, Part IV considers the advent of neighborhood councils, the potential pitfalls that may determine their success and longevity, and the transformation they may bring about in local governments through increased civic participation. I. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS THE ANTIDOTE TO CMC DISENGAGEMENT In Downsizing Democracy, Matthew Crenson and Benja- min Ginsberg observe that we have entered an era of "personal democracy" where citizens no longer collectively mobilize.6 In this new personal democratic regime, citizens interface with their governments as individuals; they do not inform govern- ment policies through a deliberative process that enables the community to form a collective identity and express to decision- makers the common good for the community. As citizens be- come more private in their interactions with government, they participate less in the policy-making process and thus wield 6. MATTHEW A. CRENSON & BENJAMIN GINSBERG, DOWNSIZING DEMOCRACY: How AMERICA SIDELINED ITS CITIZENS AND PRIVATIZED ITS PUBLIC 1, 14 (2002). [Vol. 79 130 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM less and less influence in the decisions that affect their day-to- day lives. 7 In this grim assessment, Crenson and Ginsberg are not alone. One scholar notes that since the nineteenth century, in- dividuals have had fewer and fewer opportunities to assert in- fluence or control in their local government decision-making.8 Another observes that as society becomes dominated by imper- sonal institutions, citizens experience increased anxiety about their ability to have a say in the government decisions that af- fect their lives.9 This sentiment may stem from the belief that "there is ...only a small probability that any change in bene- fits one receives can be effected by one's own political activities" in local government actions. 10 Such forced detachment leads citizens to develop a sense of alienation from government. 1 1 This phenomenon pervades all levels of government, in- cluding local government, and is particularly acute in urban areas. Citizens describe their experience with local govern- ment as marked by apathy, frustration, and disenfranchise- 7. See id. at 10-11. The cyber-revolution makes it even more likely that citi- zens will pay less attention to local affairs and further weaken already ineffective neighborhood monitoring of, and input in, local government decision-making. See Robert B. Ellickson, Monitoring the Mayor: Will the New Information Technologies Make Local Officials More Responsible?, 32 URB. LAW. 391, 393 (2000) (arguing that opportunity costs for involving oneself in local governmental affairs increase as the internet allows citizens to download movies and music; watch live sporting events; and bid on collectibles through an online auction). 8. See, e.g., Gerald E. Frug, The City as a Legal Concept, 93 HARV L. REV. 1059, 1068-69 (1980). Frug points out several possible explanations for this phe- nomenon: growth in the government bureaucracy, lack of citizen participation in the decision-making process, and inaccessible government officials making deci- sions without consulting the community. 9. See generally MICHAEL J. SANDEL, DEMOCRACY'S DISCONTENT: AMERICA IN SEARCH OF A PUBLIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 1, 1-7 (1996). 10. PAUL E. PETERSON, CITY LIMITS 119 (1981). Peterson examines both neighborhood and individual attempts at influencing local government decision- making. He notes two key considerations which relate to this feeling of anomie experienced by local residents. Id. First, policy change would have occurred irre- spective of any lobbying or involvement by neighborhood organizations or indi- viduals. Id. Second, change oftentimes does not occur even after vigorous lobby- ing efforts. Id. These observations lead to the prevalent "[y]ou can't fight City Hall" mentality. Id. at 119-20. 11. Norman I. Fainstein & Susan S. Fainstein, The Future of Community Control, 70 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 905, 905 (1976). But see J. Eric Oliver, The Effects of Metropolitan Economic Segregation on Local Civic Participation, 43 AM. J. POL. SCI. 186, 205 (1999) (positing that low civic participation corresponds with citizen satisfaction with their governments rather than stemming from feelings of apathy or alienation). 2008] 131 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW ment.12 They feel that there are not enough opportunities for community input in local government decision-making proc- esses.13 Moreover, they lament the fragmentation of commu- nity and express feelings of anomie as a result of their lack of connectedness to others and their community.14 When asked, citizens express a desire to feel part of an integrated commu- nity where they can both empathize with others over public concerns that affect their day-to-day lives and seek to address collectively such concerns.15 Due to the failure of local gov- ernments to involve citizens in decision- and policy-making processes, "the public has become highly skeptical of the ability of government to ensure public safety, to oversee their general welfare, and to provide them with a satisfactory quality of life." 16 Despite the disconnectedness between local governments and their constituents, local governments hold the greatest po- tential for increasing civic participation. As one scholar has noted, "cities are a patchwork.., of neighborhoods, each one of which contains a somewhat greater denominator of values, needs, and interests than does the city as a whole."17 12. Archon Fung & Erik Olin Wright, Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance, 29 POL. & SOC'Y 5, 37 (2001). Such apathy may result from the governmental structure-perhaps by design-or it may be that individuals in contemporary society do not have the time or interest for par- ticipation opportunities. Id. As Paul Peterson explains, most local governments and their decision- and policy-making processes are structured to discourage neighborhood group formation and involvement. PETERSON, supra note 10, at 121; see also Eleanor Holmes Norton, Public Assistance, Post-New Deal Bureauc- racy, and the Law: Learning from Negative Models, 92 YALE L.J. 1287, 1293 (1983) (arguing that government administrative bureaucracies have refused to cede power or influence to community groups that were adopted-either formally or informally-into the decision-making process). 13. Michele Frisby & Monica Bowman, What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate, PUB. MGMT., Feb. 1996, at A-1. Moreover, residents believe that those avenues for participation do not really allow citizens or community organi- zations to effect change or influence the policy decisions. Id. 14. RICHARD C. HARWOOD ET AL., MEANINGFUL CHAOS: HOW PEOPLE FORM RELATIONSHIPS WITH PUBLIC CONCERNS 1 (1993). 15. See id. at 2. 16. William H. Hansell, Jr., A Common Vision for the Future: The Role of Lo- cal Government and Citizens in the Democratic Process, NAT'L CIvIC REV., Fall 1996, at 5, 5. 17. Thomas J. Mikulecky, Neighborhoods: Small, More Responsive Local Gov- ernment, PUB. MGMT., AUG. 1990, at 9, 9. As Richard Briffault notes, "[a]s a social and a political concept, the city is a heterogeneous place, combining residence, work, recreation and cultural life, and mixing people of different racial and ethnic groups, socioeconomic classes and levels of education and occupational attain- [Vol. 79 132 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM Neighborhoods, like families, have a history and an identity that oftentimes bind community members together. They serve"as the primary context-beyond the household-for family life and as a focus of many informal relationships and activities."18 The groups of people who form a neighborhood tend to share many of the same values, concerns, histories, and traditions that are often unique to their community because these values are based on the formative experiences that help define the neighborhood. This communal bond is deepened by the fact that community members are repeat players with one another in the most basic and essential activities in daily life: church, work, school, business, and community organization.19 Com- munity members thus get to know one another and build both trust and respect based on shared experiences and interactions that can foster a commitment to the public good.20 This com- munal experience can, in turn, increase the likelihood that citi- zens will participate in their government, enhance its effec- tiveness, and give more credence to the policies adopted through their involvement.2 1 Indeed, if channeled properly, this process becomes self-fulfilling and self-reinforcing. Local governments can create a greater sense of community that spurs more civic engagement. Such participation in the gov- ernmental process, in turn, can strengthen the bonds of the ment." Richard Briffault, Our Localism: Part II-Localism and Legal Theory, 90 COLUM. L. REV. 346, 347 (1990). 18. Robert J. Chaskin & Sunil Garg, The Issue of Governance in Neighbor- hood-Based Initiatives, 32 URB. AFF. REV. 631, 633 (1997). 19. Small, homogenous communities may have fewer internal conflicts and thus be able to organize better. Richard Briffault, The Role of Local Control in School Finance Reform, 24 CONN. L. REV. 773, 795 (1992). On the other hand, in our increasingly diverse society, such civic engagement enables community mem- bers-who might not otherwise interact-to understand one another better and deepen their mutual ties to their neighborhood. Sheryll D. Cashin, Localism, Self- Interest, and the Tyranny of the Favored Quarter: Addressing the Barriers to New Regionalism, 88 GEO. L.J. 1985, 2001 (2000). 20. Richard Briffault, The Local Government Boundary Problem in Metropoli- tan Areas, 48 STAN. L. REV. 1115, 1126-27 (1996) [hereinafter Briffault, Local Government]. The greater the distance between constituents, the less likely such communal bonding and unity of purpose can occur. See Richard Briffault, "What About the 'Ism?" Normative and Formal Concern in Contemporary Federalism, 47 VAND. L. REV. 1303, 1314 (1994) [hereinafter Briffault, "What about the 'Ism?]; see also JEFFREY M. BERRY ET AL., THE REBIRTH OF URBAN DEMOCRACY 10 (1993) (stating that the neighborhood offers the "possibility of face-to-face interaction, which lies at the heart of the theory of participatory democracy"). 21. Briffault, Local Government, supra note 20, at 1127. 20081 133 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW community.22 Thus, the neighborhood as a "mediating institu- tion" has the potential to be a meaningful entity "within the formal framework of democratic polity."23 Local governments are also more ideally suited for new models of civic participation because they are smaller in size.24 While state and federal governments can command more re- sources and have control over broader policies than local gov- ernments, they are simply too large and inaccessible for mean- ingful civic participation. To the degree that federal and state governments could allow for citizen participation in the policy- making process, such involvement would constitute an insig- nificant percentage of the respective government's constitu- ency.25 In contrast, smaller forms of government invite a higher percentage of citizens to deliberate directly over issues affecting their community because it is easier for people to meet and share their opinions and to solicit feedback from their fellow citizens. Moreover, local governments also give commu- nity members a greater sense that their voices will be heard by the decision-makers as well as by their fellow citizens.26 In addition, constituents may be drawn to participate in lo- cal government because of the nature of the policies and regu- lations enacted at a local level. The purpose of most city gov- ernments is to provide goods and services to their residents, businesses, and other stakeholders. Such goods and services are usually those that affect people's day-to-day lives, such as 22. Richard Briffault, Voting Rights, Home Rule, and Metropolitan Govern- ance: The Secession of Staten Island as a Case Study in the Dilemmas of Local Self-Determination, 92 COLUM. L. REV. 775, 827 (1992). 23. See Chaskin & Garg, supra note 18, at 633-34. 24. Briffault, "What About the 'Ism?" supra note 20, at 348 (noting that more than 75% of cities are less than 5,000 people). In fact, the town meeting form of government that marked the beginnings of our nation were heralded by many po- litical thinkers at the time as being the quintessential form of self-government. George W. Liebmann, Devolution of Power to Community and Block Associations, 25 URB. LAw. 335, 336 (1993). However, due to the increase in population and the transformation of municipalities and their boundaries, this model of direct democ- racy has become almost non-existent. Id. at 336-37. 25. Fainstein & Fainstein, supra note 11, at 905. As Kathryn Abrams points out, federal governmental entities have been formed and developed by pluralist values and thus are, perhaps by design, distant and inaccessible to the average citizen. Kathryn Abrams, Law's Republicanism, 97 YALE L.J. 1591, 1604 (1988). 26. Richard Briffault, The Rise of Sublocal Structures in Urban Governance, 82 MINN. L. REV. 503, 505 (1997). Conversely, on the state or federal level, the average citizen is more likely to think that his or her voice will be ignored or washed out with the hundreds of thousands or millions of other constituents. See Briffault, supra note 17, at 395. [Vol. 79 134 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM trash collection, libraries, education, street paving, parks, pub- lic safety, and land use regulation, to name a few.2 7 Therefore, local governments provide an opportunity for citizens to engage in the decision- and policy-making process not only in a mean- ingful way, but also on issues that matter most to them.28 Costs of participation are similarly lower at a local level than at a state or federal level. Collective action is never easy, but the larger and more diffuse the group, the more difficult it is to mobilize and unite it. The amount of time, money, and energy necessary to reach, educate, and mobilize citizens is likely to be lower at the local level.29 Problems of scale are minimized locally because of the relationships and networks in neighborhoods and communities that make the crafting of the participation process more economically efficient. 30 The acces- sibility and proximity of local governments and elected officials, in contrast to federal and state governments, also create greater efficiencies that encourage collective action. Therefore, local governments constitute the most viable avenue for engag- ing the public in the decision- and policy-making processes and provide the proper context for this Article. 27. Richard Briffault, Local Government and the New York State Constitution, 1 HOFSTRA L. & POLY SYMP. 79, 80 (1996). 28. As Richard Briffault notes, "Local governments have long been celebrated for their role as incubators of democracy." Briffault, Local Government, supra note 20, at 1123. In fact, Briffault argues that local decision-making enables lo- calities to tailor their policies to meet the unique needs and conditions of the community, policies that are far more difficult to craft at a more centralized level of government because of the divergent experiences that communities within lar- ger governmental boundaries have. Id. at 1124. 29. Richard Briffault, Home Rule for the Twenty-First Century, 36 URB. LAW 253, 258 (2004). 30. See William R. Potapchuk, et al., The Transformative Power of Govern- ance, 88 NAT'L CWIC REV. 217 (1999); see also Carol M. Rose, The Ancient Consti- tution vs. The Federalist Empire: Anti-Federalism from the Attack on "Monar- chism" to Modern Localism, 84 Nw. U. L. REV. 74, 101 (1989) (asserting that since there are fewer constituents on a local level, they can organize more easily into groups that make up a larger percentage of the population and thus garner more attention and influence). 2008] 135 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW II. Two MODELS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: PUBLIC CHOICE AND CIVIC REPUBLICANISM A. Public Choice Theory Many scholars view local governments from a public choice perspective.31 This commonly held viewpoint explains well the lack of public participation on the local level. Public choice theory applies economic ideas to political structures and proc- esses.32 It focuses on the interaction of two parties-interest groups and policy-makers-seeking beneficial legislative and governmental decision-making outcomes through the rules of supply and demand.33 As consumers of the public policy mar- ket, interest groups represent the demand side, while policy- makers represent the supply side.34 Moreover, public choice theory assumes that all players in the local decision-making process-elected officials, bureaucrats, business interests, lob- byists, neighborhood groups, and others-will act in the politi- cal marketplace as actors in the private, financial marketplace do: in their own self-interest.35 Accordingly, the local political process is dominated by in- dividuals who organize into special interest groups in order to 31. See, e.g., MYRON ORFIELD, METROPOLITICS: A REGIONAL AGENDA FOR COMMUNITY AND STABILITY 5-6 (1997) (detailing the successes of the "favored quarter," a phrase used to describe that portion of the population that reaps the greatest benefits from local governments); Cashin, supra note 19. As Robert Ben- nett notes, "No serious observer of contemporary American politics doubts that interest-group politics is thriving." Robert W. Bennett, Of Gnarled Pegs and Round Holes: Sunstein's Civic Republicanism and the American Constitution, 11 CONST. COMMENT. 395, 420 (1994); see also Robert C. Ellickson, New Institutions for Old Neighborhoods, 48 DUKE L.J. 75, 89 (1998) (detailing the capture of local governments by rent-seeking interest groups); Stephen M. Feldman, The Persis- tence of Power and the Struggle for Dialogic Standards in Postmodern Constitu- tional Jurisprudence: Michelman, Habermas, and Civic Republicanism, 81 GEO. L.J. 2243, 2243 (1993) ("Since the 1950s, most constitutional scholars have pre- sumed that the American political system is pluralistic, with autonomous indi- viduals struggling in the legislative arena to maximize the satisfaction of their preexisting private interests."). 32. See GEORGE A. BOYNE, PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE UK AND THE USA 1 (1998). 33. See MICHAEL T. HAYES, LOBBYISTS AND LEGISLATORS: A THEORY OF POLITICAL MARKETS 17-18 (1981). 34. See ALAN PEACOCK, PUBLIC CHOICE ANALYSIS IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 13 (1992). 35. See Clayton P. Gillette, Plebiscites, Participation, and Collective Action in Local Government Law, 86 MICH. L. REV. 930, 978 (1988). [Vol. 79 136 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM gain benefits for their members through the local government decision-making process.36 These benefits, or "rents," come in the form of local political commodities, such as laws, legisla- tion, administrative decisions, government contracts, govern- ment subsidies, and the like. "Public choice theory suggests that only by organizing into special interest groups can indi- viduals influence the political process" and gain such rents.37 Therefore, individuals with similar goals and interests selec- tively join interest groups seeking to advance their economic, political, and social agendas in the local government policy- making process. Because interest groups seek to maximize their self- interest, often they must compete against one another for scarce local government resources.38 The success of a special interest group in public choice theory hinges on its effective- ness and efficiency. Large interest groups tend to be more ef- fective, but given their need to administer themselves- through more complex organizational structures and power al- locations-this effectiveness often comes at the expense of effi- ciency.39 Smaller groups are typically more efficient because of their size, but may not be able to gather the resources neces- sary to gain effectiveness in the political process.40 The "free rider" problem also contributes to the inefficiency of interest groups. An interest group faces a free rider problem when it provides a benefit to its members that others may en- joy, even if they did not share any of the burden in attaining the benefit.4 1 When free riding occurs, interest groups lose 36. Gary Becker, A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Politi- cal Influence, 98 Q.J. ECON. 371, 371 (1983) (stating that "actual political choices are determined by the efforts of individuals and groups to further their own inter- est"); see also MANCUR OLSON, THE LOGIC OF COLLECTIVE ACTION: PUBLIC GOODS AND THE THEORY OF GROUPS 5 (2nd ed. 1971) (explaining that the purpose of all interests groups is to further their members' interests). 37. See Dorothy A. Brown, The Invisibility Factor: The Limits of Public Choice Theory and Public Institutions, 74 WASH. U. L.Q. 179, 180 (1996). 38. JAMES Q. WILSON, POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS 261 (1974). 39. OLSON, supra note 36, at 46-48. 40. Id. 41. Id. at 48. Olson points to three specific problems facing large interest groups. First, "the larger the group, the smaller the fraction of the total group benefit any person acting in the group interest receives." Id. Second, "the smaller the share of the total benefit going to any individual, ...the less the likelihood that ... any single individual will gain enough from getting the collective good to bear the burden of providing even a small amount of it." Id. Third, the larger the 20081 137 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW membership, monetary contributions, and other resources, leading to the loss of the desired public policy benefit.42 There- fore, interest groups that can best avoid free riding and main- tain the equilibrium between effectiveness and efficiency will often receive a disproportionate share of any public policy bene- fits.43 Competition among interest groups in the public policy marketplace often leads to coalition-building and compromise. Coalitions may greatly increase the bargaining position and in- fluence of what would otherwise be diffuse and statistically in- significant smaller interest groups.44 According to James Q. Wilson, coalitions are most likely to form when "resources and autonomy for all prospective members can be significantly threatened (a crisis) or enhanced (an opportunity).'45 Interest groups negotiate and compromise on an agreement to ensure that a majority of the interest groups involved in a public policy issue share in the benefit.46 In this regard, the preferences of the different interest groups change so that the groups are able to come to a shared agenda that provides benefits to many or all groups and that has the best chance to affect public policy decisions. According to public choice theorists, this majority of interest groups can exert significant influence over policymak- ers, as opposed to the less effective influence of each individual, smaller interest group.47 Indeed, the compromise process forces interest groups to abandon the "all-or-nothing" pitfall in public policy and adapt their goals to coincide with those of other similarly situated groups, thus gaining some benefit to number of members in the group, "the higher the hurdle that must be jumped be- fore any collective good at all can be obtained." Id. 42. See William N. Eskridge, Jr., Politics Without Romance: Implications of Public Choice Theory for Statutory Interpretation, 74 VA. L. REV. 275, 286 (1988). Large interest groups are more susceptible to the free rider problem because the individual benefit will usually be very small, creating an incentive to rely on oth- ers to contribute and do the work. OLSON, supra note 36, at 53. Smaller interest groups can better overcome the free rider problem. Id. Not only is the potential for individual gain greater, which provides an incentive for the individual to con- tribute, but interest groups can more easily monitor free riders and perhaps ex- clude them from the public policy's benefit. Id. 43. See DENNIS C. MUELLER, PUBLIC CHOICE 1113 (1989). 44. See Saul Levmore, Voting Paradoxes and Interest Groups, 28 J. LEGAL STUD. 259, 261 (1999). 45. WILSON, supra note 38, at 267. 46. See MUELLER, supra note 43, at 63. 47. Id.; see also WILLIAM C. MITCHELL, PUBLIC CHOICE IN AMERICA: AN INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN GOVERNMENT 195 (1971). [Vol. 79 138 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM more interest groups and their members. However, this com- promise process is only successful when all interest groups in this majority are engaged in a "mutually beneficial ex- change."48 In the absence of coalitions, interest groups attain- ing the effectiveness and efficiency equilibrium mentioned above will dominate the public policy process. Constituting the supply side of the political market, local elected officials' overarching goal is to get reelected or elected to a higher office.49 Local elected officials thus pursue means that lead to this goal: votes, political contributions, expanded budgets and/or staff, and other avenues for expanding their po- litical support and power.50 Votes are a critical component of sustaining elected status for such officials. Consequently, local elected officials will not undertake a course of action without first carefully deliberating upon whether their constituents would strongly oppose such action.5 1 However, as David Mayhew points out, "the average voter has only the haziest awareness" of what his or her elected policymaker actually does in office.52 Interest groups, on the other hand, can mar- shal resources other than votes-namely, political contribu- tions and support-that are also essential for elections.53 And unlike the average voter, interest groups are keenly aware of local elected officials' actions and express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with them through lobbying, pressure and, ul- timately, through distribution of the aforementioned political 48. See MITCHELL, supra note 47, at 122. Unless interest groups believe they can gain from such a compromise, there is no incentive for them to participate and the market fails. 49. See generally DAVID R. MAYHEW, CONGRESS: THE ELECTORAL CONNECTION at 36-38 (1974); see also Eskridge, supra note 42, at 288 (stating that "[p]ublic choice theory argues that legislative behavior is driven by one cen- tral goal-the legislator's desire to be reelected"). 50. See Clayton P. Gillette, Comment, Interest Groups in the 21st Century City, 32 URB. LAW. 423, 424 (2000). This is not to imply that elected officials are cor- rupt or accept bribes, though some inevitably do. Rather, elected officials will act in ways that reward those interests that have garnered-and presumably will continue to garner-votes and/or political contributions for that official. More- over, an elected official may act in a manner which seems to advance the public good-such as a new public improvement project in the community, like a com- munity center-but the elected official may not derive his or her motivation for such action out of a disinterested obligation to the public good, but rather from a desire to appease the voting constituency. 51. See Eskridge, supra note 42, at 288. 52. MAYHEW, supra note 49, at 40. 53. See id. at 39-40. 2008] 139 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW resources. In response, local elected officials seek to keep such interest groups happy and thus create and distribute rents to those interest groups that support them in their elections.54 Those interest groups that can provide these valuable com- modities to elected officials will ultimately be more successful in the policy-making marketplace-leading to the capture of lo- cal governments by such interest groups. Public choice theorists thus view local government as a fo- rum for the political marketplace to play out. This means that local government decisions are illegitimate insofar as they con- stitute policy outputs that stem not from the community's pref- erences and needs, but rather from the influence of powerful interest groups that may or may not represent the majority view in the community.55 Public choice theory recognizes this problem of capture, but it offers few realistic or viable solutions for a more transparent and responsive local government. For example, some public choice theorists recommend limiting the autonomy of local government in order to eliminate or mini- mize the capture problem.56 A limited government offers fewer benefits, which should lead to less rent-seeking behavior. Oth- ers suggest increasing transaction costs for interest groups to make capture too expensive to sustain.57 A third solution, championed by Charles Tiebout, contemplates consumer-voters"voting with their feet" and leaving a city that fails to meet their preferences.58 The possibility of exodus by citizens, in 54. See Becker, supra note 36, at 373-74 (stating that "taxes, subsidies, regu- lations, and other political instruments are used to raise the welfare of more in- fluential pressure groups"). Robert Ellickson describes the purposefully crafted"cumbersomely indirect system for the delivery of favors" to interest groups-a system designed to hide public largess from voters that marks today's local gov- ernments. Ellickson, supra note 31, at 89. This cumbersome process for local governmental outputs also serves as an inhibitor to civic engagement because it is purposefully confusing to hide the captured system that showers benefits on the rent-seeking interest groups. 55. See Gillette, supra note 50, at 423-24. 56. See Donald J. Kochan, "Public Use" and the Independent Judiciary: Con- demnation in an Interest-Group Perspective, 3 TEx. REV. L. & POL. 49, 106-14 (1998). 57. See id. 58. See Charles M. Tiebout, A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures, 64 J. POL. ECON. 416, 419 (1956). However, many have challenged the modern day practi- cality of this theory, noting that mobility is exceedingly more difficult for a grow- ing percentage of American society because of costs and other factors. See Erin Ryan, Federalism and the Tug of War Within: Seeking Checks and Balance in the Interjurisdictional Gray Area, 66 MD. L. REV. 503, 615 (2007). [Vol. 79 140 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM theory, creates an efficient marketplace where local govern- ments compete for residents and businesses by providing a de- sirable set of goods and services.59 With the exception of Tiebout's theory, public choice ig- nores the role of citizens in government decision-making. Moreover, the role of the citizen that Tiebout does recognize is an extremely limited one of exit and entry rather than en- gagement, deliberation, and negotiation. At best, public choice theory envisions interest groups bargaining and reaching agreements to help bring about certain local government deci- sion-making results that benefit them.60 At worst, public choice theorists posit that consensus among divergent interest groups on governmental decisions can only be reached through deception, manipulation, and horse trading.61 Thus, implicit in the public choice perspective is a rejection of the notion that community stakeholders can and should; communicate with one another regarding their needs, inter- ests, and values; change one another's views or positions through dialogue; and reach consensus on a decision that is in the public interest.62 Instead, the conclusion of a local gov- ernment decision-making process is one that merely reflects a temporary political judgment based on relative conditions and power dynamics in society or, at most, an aggregation of indi- vidual and group preferences.63 This perspective also suggests that there is nothing wrong with current levels of civic disengagement because it theorizes that it is the product of an efficient marketplace. In other words, public choice assumes that if individuals feel strongly enough about the common good, they will engage in collective action. Accordingly, weak public participation in local govern- ment decision-making suggests to a public choice theorist that people are either satisfied or at least satisfied enough, having calculated that the costs of participating are not worth the po- tential reward.64 In short, public choice theory views the lack 59. See Tiebout, supra note 58, at 419-20. 60. See Steven G. Gey, The Unfortunate Revival of Civic Republicanism, 141 U. PA. L. REV. 801, 807-08 (1993) (presenting idea that public choice theory dis- misses the notion that there is an a priori set of communal values). 61. See Frank Michelman, Law's Republic, 97 YALE L.J. 1493, 1507 (1988). 62. See id. 63. See Gey, supra note 60, at 808. 64. See Cass R. Sunstein, Beyond the Republican Revival, 97 YALE L.J. 1539, 1546 (1988). 20081 141 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW of civic engagement as the result of rational choice and general satisfaction. However, as Part I of this Article detailed, many average citizens would like to participate in their local government de- cision-making but avoid doing so because they feel alienated from the process. This suggests that civic disengagement re- flects dissatisfaction and frustration with government, not si- lent approval. If this is correct, then public choice theory's so- lutions are no solutions at all. On the contrary, lack of civic engagement creates the preconditions for local governments that lack transparency and community oversight, are subject to greater incidence of capture, and produce illegitimate local government outputs. B. Civic Republicanism The fact that public choice theory largely accepts the status quo is reason enough to reject it as a model of local gov- ernment. A government plagued by actual and perceived ille- gitimacy must be changed as well as explained. Public choice theory fails to advocate for change by positing that the current state of disengagement is a more or less rational state of af- fairs. This view is, however, inconsistent with our democratic ideal that government is accountable to all of its citizens, not just to those who have the luxury of power, money, and connec- tions. Instead of continuing on our current course, we should strive for a model of local government that is infused with the values of civic republicanism. Civic republicanism envisions local government as a delib- erative democracy whereby community stakeholders engage with one another in a dialogic process to identify the needs of the community and the appropriate course of action that fur- thers the common good.65 In this way, civic republicanism in- jects an indispensable third party in the process-the ordinary citizen-and recognizes that in the absence of public discourse among such citizens, local government decisions will be driven by private and factionalized interests.66 To a civic republican, 65. Id. at 1554-55. The terms "common good" or "public good" are inextrica- bly linked to virtue or "civic virtue" in civic republican literature. See, e.g., Kath- leen M. Sullivan, Rainbow Republicanism, 97 YALE L.J. 1713, 1713 (1988). 66. See S. Candice Hoke, Preemption Pathologies and Civic Republican Val- ues, 71 B.U. L. REV. 685, 706 (1991). [Vol. 79 142 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM then, disengagement is both a symptom and a cause of a seri- ous problem that undermines government's appropriate role vis-A-vis its citizens. Fostering engagement, on the other hand, encourages positive government outputs and reduces public disenchantment. Local governments, especially, can provide a forum for public discourse and a deliberative democracy.67 Civic republi- canism has roots that hearken back to Aristotle, who argued for this model of government within the context of the Greek"communal city-state."68 In ancient Greece, it was the boule- or "council"-rather than the assembly that was the policy- making entity for the community.69 This governmental struc- ture was attributable to the recognition that the boule could serve as a forum for deliberation that was at the core of Athe- nian democracy.70 In the early years of our nation, civic repub- licanism was best embodied in town halls which, like the boule, resembled a gathering of neighbors rather than of the citizens of a larger state or nation. Within this local setting, commu- nity stakeholders come together to share ideas and understand different perspectives.71 Such community deliberation may re- veal to the collection of stakeholders their common values and help to identify norms greater than self-interest: the public 67. See Joseph Lubinski, Countering Majoritarian Politics: Challenging State- wide Initiatives at the Local Level, 13 KAN. J.L. & PUB. POLy 85, 88 (2004). Community dialogue can occur in settings both public and private: neighborhood or civic associations, places of employment, block parties, government entities' meetings, and other such locations. Gerald Frug refers to the ability to deliberate with members of one's community in this manner as "public freedom." Frug, su- pra note 8, at 1068. But as this Article argues, such dialogue should occur within formal, recognized, and legitimized substructures of local government. 68. See Stefan Kapsch & Peter Steinberger, The Impact on Legislative Com- mittees and Legislative Processes of the Use of the Initiative in the American West, 34 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 689, 696 (1998). 69. See id. 70. See id. 71. The deliberative process brings a diverse community to consensus, but not through horse trading and deal-making as we see in local governments viewed through a public choice lens. See Bennett, supra note 31, at 409. As Cass Sun- stein explains, in a deliberative democracy, "political outcomes should be produced by an extended process of deliberation and discussion, in which new information and new perspectives are brought to bear." Cass R. Sunstein, Administrative Substance, 1991 DUKE L.J. 607, 612 (1991). While this process involves participa- tion by a broad and diverse group of community stakeholders, it does not consist of merely aggregating different preferences "precisely because preferences have themselves been created by legal rules." Bennett, supra note 31, at 409 (quoting CASS R. SUNSTEIN, THE PARTIAL CONSTITUTION 11 (1993)). 2008] 143 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 79 good.72 For civic republicans, such critical norms can only be developed and reached through this dialogic discernment proc- ess; they cannot be ascertained solely through the reflection of an individual political actor.73 Civic republicanism not only offers the possibility of better government, but also of better citizens and healthier communi- ties. Community stakeholders are given the opportunity to confront one another-with their own biases, formed opinions, parochial interests, individualism, and differing experiences and cultural backgrounds-and transform themselves, their preferences, their intentions, and the community by searching for commonly held values, generating those public values, and agreeing upon the common good.74 In this way, those who 72. The common good is not the aggregation of various stakeholders' inter- ests, but rather the qualitatively different concept of the community consensus regarding the common good derived from such dialogic politics. See Mark Sei- denfeld, A Civic Republican Justification for the Bureaucratic State, 105 HARV. L. REV. 1511, 1528-29 (1992). 73. See MICHAEL J. SANDEL, LIBERALISM AND THE LIMITS OF JUSTICE 183 (1982) (observing that "when politics goes well, we can know a good in common that we cannot know alone"). In fact, as Clayton Gillette notes, voting without a dialogic process leads to self-interested voting patterns that place minority views and interests in a vulnerable state. See Gillette, supra note 35, at 954-56. Nor is the initiative process properly informative, as it also is not deliberative. See Daniel M. Warner, Direct Democracy: The Right of the People to Make Fools of Themselves; The Use and Abuse of Initiative and Referendum, A Local Govern- ment Perspective, 19 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 47, 77-78 (1995) (noting that initiatives are written by a small group of people-devoid of debate or compromise-and are susceptible to oversimplification of the issues and appeals to prejudice, rather than the common good). As Candice Hoke points out, voting alone cannot prop- erly inform government decision-making because it is not derived from the trans- formative deliberative process mentioned above. Hoke, supra note 66, at 709. Clayton Gillette echoes this sentiment in questioning whether voting can ever re- flect the actual aggregate preferences of a community. See Gillette, supra note 35, at 933. While nothing precludes voters from discussing issues they must decide on, voters tend not to do so. See id. at 945. Moreover, voters merely choose be- tween limited options rather than discuss a range of proposals and select one or more from the myriad brought up in the dialogic process. 74. See Feldman, supra note 31. When participants in the community dia- logue change their minds, civic republicans view this change as part of the trans- formative process of a deliberative democracy. The change is not the result of co- ercion, but rather it comes from a normative understanding of the needs of the community as gleaned from the dialogic process. As John Stuart Mill explains, participation is the key to this transformative process: "the practical part of the political education of a free people, taking them out of the narrow circle of per- sonal and family selfishness and accustoming them to the comprehension of joint interests, the management of joint concerns-habituating them to act from public or semi-public motives and guide their conduct by aims which unite instead of iso- 144 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM choose to engage in the dialogic process are encouraged to re- flect critically on their own preferences, allowing others' view- points to move and shape them as their perspectives do so to others-the result being a more integrated and unified com- munity.75 Moreover, by strengthening community relation- ships and fostering participation, the dialogic process renders it more likely that decisions will be accepted, even by those who may not fully agree with it.76 To be sure, the civic republican model is an ideal. Some difficult challenges must be overcome for the process to yield agreement on the common good. For example, the process must be open to and include a diverse cross-section of the local community-people with different cultural backgrounds, val- ues, and interests. 77 These different perspectives, while diffi- cult to gather, are necessary for the deliberating community to awaken to the true needs of the collective whole. Moreover, community stakeholders must be equal in their participation in the dialogic process; historic disparities among socio-economic or racial groups in society and/or the political process must be eliminated for the outcomes to be successful and accepted by lating them from one another." JOHN STUART MILL, ON LIBERTY 170 (Everyman ed. 2003). 75. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., What Is Republicanism, and Is It Worth Reviving?, 102 HARV. L. REV. 1695, 1721 (1989). While the dialogic process helps partici- pants mold each other and their communities, the resulting formulation of the common good requires that each member of the community is concomitantly sub- ject to these collective values. See Hoke, supra note 66, at 704. 76. Gey, supra note 60, at 858-59; see also Seidenfeld, supra note 72, at 1529 ("Through the transformative power of politics, citizens are able to define the community norms that restrict the behavior of all community members, yet all accept as just."); Cynthia V. Ward, The Limits of "Liberal Republicanism": Why Group-Based Remedies and Republican Citizenship Don't Mix, 91 COLUM. L. REV. 581, 584-585 (1991) ("The ideal of contemporary republican citizenship is not ini- tial agreement on substantive issues, but belief in the consensual possibilities of deliberative dialogue."). But see Gillette, supra note 35, at 934 (questioning whether individuals can truly understand and set aside their preferences and not act in their own self-interest, while also recognizing that a deliberative process may enlighten people as to their own irrational motives and prejudices). 77. See Stephen M. Feldman, Whose Common Good? Racism in the Political Community, 80 GEO. L.J. 1835, 1849-55 (1992). Civic republicans do not ignore cultural differences and private self-interest. Rather, they see these characteris- tics as necessary to be shared with others, discussed and empathized with, and ultimately used in the dialogic process to help inform the collective discernment of the public good. Kathleen Sullivan calls this goal of gathering a diverse cross- section of the community "rainbow republicanism." See Sullivan, supra note 65, at 1714. 20081 145 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 79 the community.78 Again, such equality among citizens may prove to be elusive. In addition, citizens must have meaningful points of access to local government decision-makers in order to inform the de- cisions that affect their day-to-day lives.79 Similarly, local gov- ernment decision-makers must be open to, communicate with, and engage in the community dialogue. Government officials must also explain their decisions to this group and demonstrate how they advance the public good. Such transparency helps ensure that government decisions are not made to advance the interests of a few, but rather the community as a whole.80 Oth- erwise, the process may devolve into yet another avenue to ad- vance the interests of existing groups that already dominate the political process.81 This is not to say that interest groups are always bad for the political process from a civic republican perspective. Inter- est groups can serve a valuable role in consolidating citizens with similar goals and perspectives and streamlining their in- put into the local political process.8 2 Moreover, representatives 78. See Sunstein, supra note 64, at 1541. 79. See Michael A. Fitts, Look Before You Leap: Some Cautionary Notes on Civic Republicanism, 97 YALE L.J. 1651, 1656 (1988). This approach to local gov- ernment decision-making resonates with basic tenets of American democracy: "to incorporate citizen participation in policy making and program delivery is to take seriously the rights and responsibilities of citizens to have some control over poli- cies that will have an impact on their lives." Chaskin & Garg, supra note 18, at 633. The practical effect of such civic participation is the creation of better poli- cies, programs, and services that inspire public confidence and approval. More- over, the community's collective stewardship of local government decisions and policies stemming from the deliberative process has more legitimacy than indi- vidual interests attempting to use the government decision-making process for their own personal advantage. See Hoke, supra note 66, at 705. 80. See Seidenfeld, supra note 72, at 1530. Even assuming that some elected officials endeavor for the public good-freed of the political pressures of reelection and political self-perpetuation-it seems unlikely that all of the elected officials would be so common-good-oriented. Nevertheless, such transparency is valuable regardless of the number of such noble public servants. 81. See Feldman, supra note 31, at 2243-44. As Frank Michelman explains, "the pursuit of political freedom through law depends on 'our' constant reach for inclusion of the other, of the hitherto excluded-which in practice means bringing to legal-doctrinal presence the hitherto absent voices of emergently self-conscious social groups." Michelman, supra note 61, at 1529. Nor does civic republicanism embrace majoritarianism. Civic republicanism thus rejects majoritarianism-a "winners" and "losers" approach to politics. Instead, government exists to allow for community stakeholders to deliberate about decision and policies and to reach consensus for the common good. Seidenfeld, supra note 72, at 1514. 82. Nor does there necessarily need to be a negative connotation to the term "interest group." Indeed, many of the interest groups that may participate in such 146 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM from interest groups can communicate with their members re- garding the policies and decisions adopted by their local gov- ernment.8 3 However, such interests groups must engage in the dialogic process with the goal of informing others of their views and goals, not intransigently pursuing their private interests. In other words, instead of dominating the decision-making process, interest groups should enjoy the same status as that of other community stakeholders. And like any other stake- holder, interest groups must remain open to agreeing to a solu- tion that may not directly advance their cause but that the col- lective whole believes advances the common good. 84 This civic republican model begs the question of whether one hundred percent community participation is even possible in contemporary society. As Steven Gey points out, classic civic republicanism favored small communities that were easier to organize and where the essential familiarizing and bonding could occur among citizens in order to reach a consensus as to the common good and then protect such values from outside pressures.8 5 A more modern view of civic republicanism real- izes the impossibility of replicating this model. Instead, it em- braces a more modest goal of providing individuals and repre- sentatives of different stakeholder groups with genuine avenues for engagement with their government, even if they choose not to take advantage of them. In this regard, civic re- publicanism does not require forced or total community par- ticipation, just the meaningful opportunity for it.86 III. PAST ATTEMPTS AT LOCAL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Given the importance of public participation to democratic legitimacy and good decision-making, it strikes one as odd that more opportunities for civic engagement and community delib- eration are not available. In fact, federal, state, and local gov- ernments have attempted in the past to create means for citi- a dialogic process are critical stakeholders in the community: religious groups, civic associations, labor unions, homeless organizations, and others. 83. Seidenfeld, supra note 72, at 1530. But see Sullivan, supra note 65, at 1719 (arguing that private voluntary associations pose a threat to republicanism). 84. As I will discuss later in this Article, it remains to be seen whether it is realistic to expect interest groups to set aside their own interests-even occasion- ally-for the betterment of the common good. 85. Gey, supra note 60, at 814-15. 86. See id. at 819-20. 2008] 147 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW zen participation. However, with a few exceptions such efforts have largely failed to provide for meaningful, sustained, and broad public participation in government decision-making.87 Analysis of these failures (beginning with the War on Poverty programs)-as well as some successes-provides valuable les- sons for crafting lasting and effective models for civic engage- ment at the local level. In conjunction with the federal government, many cities started programs to engage citizens in local government proc- esses during the federal War on Poverty programs of the 1960s and 1970s, which were established by the Economic Opportu- nity Act of 1964. The War on Poverty programs encouraged"maximum feasible participation" by the poor in decisions that affected their communities.88 This emphasis led to the creation of Community Action Programs and Community Development Corporations, which were intended to facilitate more involve- ment of poor citizens in redevelopment efforts, such as opening supermarkets, engaging in business enterprise, and building or rehabilitating housing.89 These programs envisioned neighborhoods as the focal point for reform and for understand- ing and addressing problems plaguing urban areas. To that end, they sought to structure new opportunities for citizens- particularly those traditionally disenfranchised-to participate in local (and to a lesser degree federal) government decision- making. Unfortunately, administrators for the War on Poverty pro- grams-both at the federal and local levels-had little experi- ence creating and fostering deliberative processes. There was minimal participation in these programs, due in part to skepti- cism that such economic development efforts would be any more successful than in the past and thus waste citizens' time.90 The programs also struggled because of heightened ex- 87. And even those successes have distinct limitations. See infra text accom- panying notes 98-110. 88. Robert R. Alford & Roger Friedland, Public Participation and Public Pol- icy, ANN. REV. Soc., 429, 455-57 (1975). The federal Model Cities Program was very similar to these models, but also met the same unsuccessful fate. See James W. Lowe, Note, Examination of Governmental Decentralization in New York City and a New Model for Implementation, 27 HARV. J. ON LEGIS. 173, 202-03 (1990). 89. See Alford & Friedland, supra note 88, at 455-57; see also Ellickson, supra note 31, at 86-87. 90. Alford & Friedland, supra note 88, at 455-56. [Vol. 79 148 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM pectations and inadequate funding.9 1 These programs never fulfilled their potential and wound up having little impact on changing the functioning of government agencies or in success- fully engaging citizens.92 These programs failed in their en- tirety by the mid- to late-1970s. Despite these failures, the federal government-and by ex- tension local governments-attempted to spur more neighbor- hood planning and civic engagement in the 1980s and 1990s through major decentralization programs for urban revitaliza- tion. These levels of government collaborated to create territo- rially based formal substructures of local government-such as business improvement districts (BIDs)-that were created for specific purposes: namely taxation, services, and regulation. These programs continue to exist today. However, they are not designed in accordance with civic republicanism in that public participation in these programs stems from individuals orga- nizing to pursue a common self-interest. In the case of a BID, for example, business owners band together to collect and spend money raised through additional property assessments for property owners in a certain designated geographic region. The group uses this money to pay for additional services like private security and street beautification.93 Moreover, once the BID is established, a board of directors takes over its opera- tions and the collective action and engagement of the group dissipates. To be sure, entities like BIDs are successful in involving some community stakeholders in local governance.94 But their success is limited because their membership is restricted. For example, BIDs are usually only open to property owners, ex- cluding businesses, renters, and other community stake- holders. Moreover, these local government substructures en- gage only single-interest stakeholders-with BIDs, business owners. They also usually only focus on one issue-e.g., im- proving business conditions within the BID's boundaries. In 91. Peter W. Salsich, Jr., Grassroots Consensus Building and Collaborative Planning, 3 WASH. U. J.L. & POL'Y 709, 713 (2000). 92. See Alford & Friedland, supra note 88, at 457; see also Neil Gilbert, Maxi- mum Feasible Participation? A Pittsburgh Encounter, SOC. WORK, 84, 91-92 (1969) (providing a case study in Pittsburgh suggesting few successes with the programs seeking maximum feasible participation). 93. Mark S. Davies, Business Improvement Districts, 52 WASH. U. J. URB. & CONTEMP. L. 187, 191-92 (1997). 94. Briffault, supra note 29, at 531. 2008] 149 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW this sense, these substructures fail to engage an array of com- munity stakeholders in a connected and coordinated system that promotes long-term and sustainable change and policy- making. Thus, they are generally insufficient to spur greater and broader civic engagement in cities.95 At the same time, cities also provided new opportunities for public participation through neighborhood services centers, city hall annexes, and expanded constituent service depart- ments-all of which survive today.96 While these avenues give residents some sense of participating in the decision-making process, such opportunities have minimal impact on policies and services because citizens do not interact directly with those making the decisions and because citizens do not speak in a collective voice. Citizens may have realized the inefficacy of these avenues for participation because during this same pe- riod, cities experienced a dramatic increase in community ac- tivism and neighborhood group organization. Termed the "backyard revolution," this period saw the establishment of more private neighborhood groups that formed to advocate for better services and to oppose what they deemed to be undesir- able land use decisions that affected their communities.97 These groups are entities separate from local government and form to advance the interests of the neighborhood resi- dents in local government decision-making. In general, after an initial surge of interest, resident involvement is usually quite low, with only board members and a few gadflys attend- ing meetings. However, when a particular land use decision threatens the character or quality of life in the community, 95. Id. at 522 (questioning the effectiveness of sublocal government structures like BIDs, empowerment zones, and tax increment financing districts because of their targeted purposes). 96. Richard J. Cole, Citizen Participation in Municipal Politics, AM. J. POL. SCI., 761, 761 (1975). 97. William H. Simon, The Community Economic Development Movement, 2002 WIS. L. REV. 377, 388 (2002) (citing HARRY C. BOYTE, THE BACKYARD REVOLUTION: UNDERSTANDING THE NEW CITIZEN MOVEMENT (1980)). Ironically, at this same time, communities also experienced the decline in secondary associa- tions within which neighbors meet and socialize, like the Boy Scouts and bowling leagues. See generally PUTNAM, supra note 4, at 1. Putnam argues that the strength of a democratic society rests in citizens' associational life, which en- hances "social capital," promotes civic engagement, and thus strengthens democ- racy. Id. The decline of such secondary associations, then, depletes social capital, weakens democracy, and creates new barriers for collective action. So these in- formal networks that begot social capital gave way to community groups focused on narrow issues. [Vol. 79 150 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM perhaps one that increases traffic dramatically or poses envi- ronmental or health risks, the neighborhood group once again becomes flush with active residents who mobilize to oppose the project.98 These neighborhood groups have often proved suc- cessful in fighting such projects-so much so that a new word was coined to describe their attitude: NIMBYism ("Not In My Back Yard"). But once the project has been defeated, the throngs of residents disband, and the group remains active largely in name only until another such threat or problem pre- sents itself. Moreover, while such a group may be successful in bringing to light a particular issue in the immediate, this ap- proach often fails to consider long-term effects of their goals.99 Other self-interested, singularly-focused community groups such as environmental organizations, chambers of commerce, and the like experience similar limitations. Like business-oriented substructures of local government, the problem with this model of civic participation is that these groups of stakeholders mobilize and unite around a single issue that directly affects them. Such involvement in local govern- ment affairs is solely self-interested, outcome-oriented, and of- tentimes campaign-based. Moreover, it usually does not mix, say, residents from the neighborhood group with other commu- nity members who have a stake in the area, such as educators, environmentalists, and others. Those involved for such a fleet- ing issue do not communicate with others to understand the needs of the community at large and to inform government de- cision-makers about the interests of the collective whole. Rather, they push their individual agenda and attempt to in- fluence the decision-making process through mobilizing and lobbying. And since the group quickly disbands after resolu- tion of an issue, the lessons of collective action and community 98. Harold A. Ellis, Neighborhood Opposition and the Permissible Purposes of Zoning, 7 J. LAND USE & ENVTL. L. 275, 275 (1992); see also Carol M. Rose, Plan- ning and Dealing: Piecemeal Land Controls as Problem of Local Legitimacy, 71 CAL. L. REV. 837, 863 (1983). Indeed, this incidence is perhaps exacerbated by the mandatory public participation requirements in many land use decisions. See William A. Fischel, Voting, Risk Aversion, and the NIMBY Syndrome: A Comment on Robert Nelson's "Privatizing the Neighborhood", 7 GEO. MASON L. REV. 881, 881-83 (1999). 99. Salsich, supra note 91, at 732-33. Such voluntary associations oftentimes face significant barriers to entry as their efforts to raise money and to build and galvanize membership are frequently plagued by free riding. See Ellickson, supra note 31, at 86. 20081 151 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW involvement are not extended to other issues facing the com- munity as a whole. 100 These programs, which lead to semi-permanent and ad hoc public participation, appear to fit the public choice model of government decision-making. Single-issue, short-term groups are largely reactive. Instead of informing the policy- and deci- sion-making process as it unfolds, these groups enter public life only in reaction to a result or threat-either intended or unin- tended-that they find untenable. This intermittent form of civic engagement may be reflective of the costs of political and collective action. Transaction costs such as time spent not working or not with one's family, and overhead costs for run- ning such an active community organization, may prove too high for anything but those crisis situations where the personal costs of collective inaction far exceed those of collective ac- tion.101 As a consequence, policymakers make decisions with, at best, the information of those who manage to involve them- selves in the currently insulated local government processes. The governmental output thus lacks properly informed inputs from a broad cross-section of stakeholders who are not crisis- driven. Many current methods to engage the community demon- strate the problems that exacerbate citizens' feelings of discon- nectedness and lack of responsiveness from their local govern- ment. Typically, local governments interact with and engage local communities through two methods. The "try-and-sell" method, which involves no real community participation,10 2 consists of local government agencies making a decision and then attempting to "sell" it-after the fact-to local communi- ties through public meetings and other interactions. 103 The 100. See, e.g., Potapchuk et al., supra note 30, at 17 (noting that the City of Denver's effective community governance is restricted to economic development projects and does not reach other areas of interest to the community). 101. As discussed further in Part IV.C., the question of time may be the most significant barrier to neighborhood council success. 102. See Frank Benest, Serving Customers or Engaging Citizens: What is the Future of Local Government?, 78 PUB. MGMT. A6, A8 (1996). 103. For example, a city might make a decision to privatize its trash collection service without providing meaningful input from its citizens. Elected officials would then speak at community group meetings after the decision was made in an attempt to build support for the decision by delineating all of the positives of the privatization move. Such an approach-even if correct on the merits-can alien- ate constituents who will inevitably feel as though decisions affecting their day-to- day lives were made without their input. Citizens might also feel insulted that [Vol. 79 152 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM "try-and-sell" method has had little success with neighborhood groups or the community at large, generating a negative reac- tion and fostering mistrust in the decision-making process. 104 The second approach is for local governments to create new community groups or support existing neighborhood organiza- tions to provide input regarding policy-making and the needs of their communities. 105 These groups engage in discussions with local government officials and agencies regarding community concerns and approaches to solving neighborhood problems. This approach creates partnerships between city governments and neighborhood groups, spurring community clean-up, anti- drug, anti-gang, and after-school programs. 106 However, this model primarily relies on existing community-based organiza- tions. Local governments believe that these groups are embed- ded institutions with mechanisms for inclusion and communi- cation that can streamline representation of neighborhood interests. 107 But this assumption seems to be unfounded. First, as described above, these groups are usually singularly focused and do not engage a meaningful cross-section of the community. Second, rather than emerging as grassroots re- sponses to local needs, these existing groups are established, at least in part, by outside organizations, such as government elected officials assume that community members will feel a sense of ownership in the decision if the elected officials come "cheerlead" at such a meeting. 104. See Benest, supra note 102. Local residents complain about traditional models of public information dissemination, seeking a more honest form of two- way communications between neighborhoods and city government. See Frisby & Bowman, supra note 13, at 4. Residents believe that public meetings, such as"meet your local government official day," are more of a public relations opportu- nity for officials rather than a meaningful sharing of information. Such artificial shared governance relationships anger local communities. When invited to par- ticipate in community meetings with local officials, residents want an assurance that their opinions will be heard, valued, and used in the policy-making process. See id. 105. See Benest, supra note 102, at A9. In Brea, California, public officials of- ten attend homeowners association meetings to inform residents of and seek their input on new policy initiatives or to gain their support for recycling, fire preven- tion, or crime resistance programs. See Frank Benest, Creating Neighborhood Connections, 72 PUB. MGMT. 6, 7 (1990) [hereinafter Benest, Creating Neighbor- hood Connections]. This type of relationship demonstrates an effective informa- tion dissemination and collecting model of city government to neighborhood rela- tionship. 106. See Benest, supra note 102, at A9; see also Benest, supra note 105, at 6 (explaining how local governments have teamed with homeowners associations to counter gangs and drug dealers in their communities, as well as to take back local parks and community centers). 107. See Chaskin & Garg, supra note 18, at 634. 2008] 153 UNIVERSTY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW agencies or corporations, in need of information, support, or le- gitimacy in the neighborhood. 108 Third, a small group of local elites often run these organizations-a phenomenon referred to as the "iron law of oligarchy."109 These elite leaders operate with few mechanisms of communication with, or accountability to, the residents at large.110 These issues demonstrate that these existing groups do not understand, represent, or concern themselves with the needs and concerns of the community as a whole for which they claim to speak These two approaches are designed in the "vending ma- chine" mode of engagement. It finds citizens complacently ac- quiescing to pay an allotted amount of taxes and fees and in re- turn receiving a corresponding value of services from their local governments.I1 I In this regard, local governments view citi- zens as passive consumers rather than as active participants in the community decision-making process. Although some of the approaches mentioned above seek community input, neighbor- hood groups still do not have an official, institutional role in city government policy-making. In these models, local govern- ment officials often merely gather information from these groups rather than engage them in designing or crafting city policies. Moreover, these groups do not interact with one an- other as part of a larger, deliberative approach to local gov- ernment decision-making. Finally, some scholars see the suburbs and common inter- est communities (CIC)1 12-with their accompanying homeown- ers associations-as models for public participation. 113 While 108. Id. at 634-35. 109. Id. See generally ROBERT MICHELS, POLITICAL PARTIES: A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE OLIGARCHICAL TENDENCIES OF MODERN DEMOCRACY 15 (1958) (describing the "iron law of oligarchy" theory that political and governmental or- ganizations will inevitably be taken over by self-perpetuating elites). 110. See MICHELS, supra note 109. 111. See Hansell, supra note 16, at 9. 112. CICs are residential developments-planned unit developments, condo- miniums, and cooperatives-where all units are subject to private land use cove- nants, conditions, and restrictions and are governed by a private homeowners as- sociation. CICs are separate, yet complementary entities to local government that supplement the goods and services that cities, counties, and other local govern- ments provide to residents. 113. See generally Robert C. Ellickson, Cities and Homeowners Associations, 130 U. PA. L. REV. 1519 (1982) (arguing for more local control to neighborhood homeowners associations); Ellickson, supra note 31, at 75 (making the case for Block Improvement Districts and Neighborhood Improvement Districts based off of the popular Business Improvements Districts); Liebmann, supra note 24; [Vol. 79 154 2008]CIVIC REPUBLICANISM some research suggests that citizens participate more in sub- urbs than in cities,114 other scholars suggest otherwise.115 Moreover, suburbs are not microcosms of large, diverse cities. Rather, they are homogenous-in terms of race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status-and oftentimes represent the "favored quarter" of regional populations. 116 Similarly, CICs are limited in terms of their universal usefulness as a model of civic en- gagement because they are largely limited to the affluent who can afford to opt out of ordinary government goods and ser- vices.117 As Wayne Hyatt notes, such communities are often "enclaves of wealth and privilege" that are coercive, not volun- tary.118 Moreover, attendance and participation in homeown- Robert H. Nelson, Privatizing the Neighborhood: A Proposal to Replace Zoning with Private Collective Property Rights to Existing Neighborhoods, 7 GEO. MASON L. REV. 827, 832 (1999) (same). The basis for these positions stems from a defense of property-a common mantra that underlies many decentralization arguments. However, local government and our conception of community involve far more than merely defending individual property rights. 114. Briffault, "What About the 'Ism?", supra note 20, at 435. 115. See Oliver, supra note 11, at 190 (noting that more affluent neighborhoods may experience lower civic participation due to "fewer social needs"). 116. ORFIELD, supra note 31, at 1 (detailing the successes of the "favored quar- ter"); Cashin, supra note 19, at 1897 (noting that suburbs represent approxi- mately 25% of a region's population, but that this quarter of the population suc- ceeds in obtaining or securing the largest share of the region's infrastructure improvements). 117. See Timothy Egan, The Serene Fortress: A Special Report; Many Seek Se- curity in Private Communities, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 3, 1995 (citing Canyon Lake, California, as an example of a private, incorporated city that is not open to the public); see also Canyon Lake Home Page, http://www.cityofcanyonlake.com. This is also to say nothing of the potential impact such a privatization revolution would have on existing cities and their ability to maintain a tax base to provide goods and services to those remaining in their boundaries who could not afford to opt out in this manner, especially the poor. Moreover, cities are quite limited in their powers to begin with, so the powers that could be decentralized to local substruc- tures of government are also, by definition, limited. Lowe, supra note 88, at 183; see also Richard C. Schragger, Can Strong Mayors Empower Weak Cities? On the Power of Local Executives in a Federal System, 115 YALE L.J. 2542, 2556-64 (2006) (noting the cities' lack of power in our federal system). In addition, to the degree that such models seek to privatize local land use decision-making, they may run afoul of the legal protection that ensures that the government cannot transfer its police power. See Steven J. Eagle, Privatizing Land Use Regulations: The Problem of Consent, 7 GEO. MASON L. REV. 905, 919 (1999) (citing Carlino v. Whitpain Investors, 453 A.2d 1385, 1388 (Pa. 1982)); see also Clayton P. Gillette, Regionalization and Interlocal Bargains, 76 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 190, 224 (2001) ("Local government law retains a significant nondelegation doctrine that limits its deci- sion-making authority to locally elected officials."). 118. Wayne S. Hyatt, Common Interest Communities: Evolution and Reinven- tion, 31 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 303, 311-12 (1998) ("[B]ecause the range of housing 155 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW ers associations tend to be low.119 When residents do engage with one another, it is often over petty disputes such as paint- ing one's house a particular color, not maintaining one's lawn properly, or some other violation of a covenant. 120 Given the restrictiveness and conformity of CICs, it is no surprise that collective action rarely occurs and that participation is low. 121 In this regard, while suburbs or CICs may prove valuable as supplemental efforts to broader civic engagement initiatives, they ultimately fail to fill the void in our democracy and local government decision-making process. The failed and limited programs of the past demonstrate that for meaningful and lasting change to occur, diverse stake- holders from across a community must establish collaborative relationships through a dialogic process to help reach consen- sus on the public good. Such efforts must be proactive and sus- tained, rather than reactive and crisis-driven. They must be structured as a formal part of the local government policy- and decision-making process so as to provide genuine access and to inform decision-makers about the needs and wants of the com- munity as a whole. Systemic changes, long-term planning, and responsive policy-making-all hallmarks of good local govern- ment--can only be accomplished through a paradigmatic shift in civic engagement. 122 The remainder of the Article explores the advent of neighborhood councils, which embrace many of the values of civic republicanism and may signal such a shift in paradigm for local governance. IV. NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS A. Structure With the failure of past attempts at increasing public par- ticipation, local governments have created promising new sub- structures that aim to engage community stakeholders, both choices is limited, individuals become subject to community association govern- ance by necessity rather than by fully informed choice."). 119. Clayton Gillette, Court, Covenants, and Communities, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 1375, 1403 (1994). Such lack of involvement may stem from homeowners' general satisfaction in such homogenous communities where expectations and standards of living are somewhat predetermined. 120. Id. 121. Hyatt, supra note 118, at 360-61. 122. Potapchuk et al., supra note 30, at 4. [Vol. 79 156 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM with one another and, ultimately, as part of the policy- and de- cision-making process: neighborhood councils.12 3 The New York City Charter's explanation of its neighborhood councils provides a representative overview of the purposes of these en- tities: neighborhood councils exist "for the planning of commu- nity life within the city, the participation of citizens in city gov- ernment within their communities, and the efficient and effective organization of agencies that deliver municipal ser- vices in local communities and boroughs."'124 Although the structure and work of neighborhood councils vary from city to city, their general goals are the same: to bring together a broad cross-section of the community to deliberate over various laws, policies, and decisions ranging from land use and transporta- tion matters to goods and service delivery and then to inform the formal local government decision-making process with their input. 125 Many questions naturally arise when considering whether and how a local government should adopt neighborhood coun- cils. How will neighborhood council boundaries be defined and who should be allowed to participate? Should neighborhood council leadership be elected or appointed? Should they be formal or informal entities within local government? Should neighborhood councils be advisory or have decision-making au- thority? How neighborhood councils are formed and structured will make a significant difference in terms of the community's perception of their legitimacy and effectiveness. 1. Size and Boundaries Cities differ as to what constitutes an appropriate size for a neighborhood council. The City of Simi Valley, California, created four neighborhood councils with approximately 25,000 123. While the official names of these entities vary from city to city, I use the term "neighborhood council" to describe them as whatever name a city chooses, the entities are very similar, if not identical, in nature. 124. N.Y. CITY CHARTER ch. 69 § 2700 (1989). Most cities create neighborhood councils by ordinance or through their city charter. See BERRY ET AL., supra note 20, at 58 (noting that cities, like Portland, Oregon, created neighborhood councils by ordinance). Other cities, such as Washington, D.C., created neighborhood coun- cils in their city charters. 125. See, e.g., Benest, supra note 102, at A7 (explaining the purpose of Brea, California, neighborhood councils); Salsich, supra note 91, at 717, 719-20 (de- scribing Atlanta, Georgia, and Washington, D.C., neighborhood councils). 2008] 157 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW residents per district. 126 In Los Angeles, California, neighbor- hood councils average approximately 38,000 residents within their boundaries.127 On the larger end, in New York City fifty- nine neighborhood councils each represent an average of 125,000 residents. 128 Some cities have attempted to give flexi- bility to communities in defining and shaping neighborhood councils in order to allow for better representation of natural neighborhoods. For example, the neighborhood council system in Los Angeles is set up to address matters such as boundary designation, structuring the neighborhood councils and their boards of directors, and drafting by-laws for each community that seeks to form such an entity. 129 New York City also drew its neighborhood councils' boundaries to satisfy certain criteria, such as conformity with historic neighborhoods and communi- ties, suitability for the delivery of services, and population eq- uity. 130 Early studies show that in order for neighborhood councils to be effective, local governments should limit the scope of neighborhood councils to geographic areas with relatively small populations. 131 At the same time, they should remain flexible so as to permit boundaries that track existing neighborhoods. Smaller neighborhood councils allow for meaningful face-to- face interaction between community stakeholders engaging in a dialogic process, while flexibility allows such entities to re- main true to natural communities with shared interests. 126. See Coll Metcalfe, Neighborhood Councils Put Their Stamp on City Issues, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 30, 1998, at B8. 127. JULIET MUSSO ET AL., UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA URBAN INITIATIVE, NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS IN Los ANGELES: A MIDTERM STATUS REPORT 1 (2004), http://urban.usc.edu/maindoc/downloads/ncmidterm.pdf. 128. See Richard Briffault, The New York City Charter and the Question of Scale, 42 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 1059, 1064 (1998). New York City operates on a bor- ough system. However, the large size of the boroughs-both geographically and in terms of population-necessitated another approach to true community participa- tion in local governance. See id. at 1063. Consequently, in 1961, the City of New York created neighborhood councils-which they term community districts and boards-to gain more meaningful neighborhood participation in the operation of the city. See id. The City restricts neighborhood councils from encompassing more than 250,000 residents in order to bring these entities closer to the commu- nity than the boroughs. See id. 129. MUSSO ETAL., supra note 127, at 4. 130. See Frederick A. 0. Schwarz, Jr. & Eric Lane, The Policy and Politics of Charter-Making, 42 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 723, 823 (1998). 131. BERRY ET AL., supra note 20, at 49 (concluding that successful neighbor- hood councils covered smaller geographic regions that kept their representative populations between 2,000 and 16,000 people). [Vol. 79 158 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM 2. Who May Participate? Eligibility to participate in neighborhood councils is often a hotly debated topic. Traditional participation theory views in- dividuals as being part of only one community: the one in which they live. 132 And like most government entities, neighborhood councils are inevitably structured according to geography. However, many cities have attempted to be more inclusive in their neighborhood council participants. In Los Angeles, neighborhood councils can define for themselves the diversity of their general membership. Definitions of eligible community stakeholders vary widely among Los Angeles neighborhood councils but often include "any individual who lives, works, owns a business or owns property" within the neighborhood council's boundaries; those who participate in educational, religious, non-profit, or community organizations; and members of senior groups, cultural groups, environmental groups, fraternal organizations, and military/veteran organiza- tions.133 In Portland, Oregon, individuals from neighborhood associations, churches, hospitals, businesses, and other seg- ments of the community may participate in neighborhood coun- cils. 134 In Atlanta, Georgia, residents and those who own prop- erty, run a business, or work within the neighborhood councils' boundaries are eligible for membership and voting rights within these entities. 135 Determining who constitutes community stakeholders, and thus who may participate in neighborhood councils, becomes a critical question for the effectiveness and longevity of the coun- cils. To gain legitimacy in the community and the broader city, neighborhood councils must speak for a broad array of stake- holders and their views-not just residents who live within the boundaries, but others that have stakes in the community as well. Accordingly, cities should consider adopting a self- selection process whereby communities determine which 132. See Richard Briffault, Who Rules at Home?: One Person/One Vote and Lo- cal Governments, 60 U. CHI. L. REV. 339, 413-14 (1993). 133. MUSSO ET AL., supra note 127, at app. 1.126. While membership of neighborhood councils tends to be dominated by residents (homeowners and rent- ers), businesses, religiously-affiliated organizations, educational organizations, and representatives from social services also constitute significant percentages of the membership. Id. at 9. 134. BERRY ET AL., supra note 20, at 66. 135. Salsich, supra note 91, at 717. 20081 159 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW stakeholders can participate in their neighborhood council. This approach allows for a more holistic definition of "commu- nity" in building neighborhood councils. Such horizontal inte- gration in the community allows a diverse cross-section of stakeholders-homeowners, tenants, community leaders, com- mercial property owners, social service leaders, police represen- tatives, students, educators, merchants, and others with vested interest in the quality of life in the neighborhood-to partici- pate in neighborhood councils.136 It thereby provides for a more representative entity for the entire stakeholder commu- nity. Moreover, the self-selection process joins different per- spectives, bodies of expertise, bases of knowledge, and access to resources in the community. This more inclusive vision is not unprecedented in local government scholarship. Gerald Frug and Richard Thompson Ford advocate for more expansive stakeholder inclusion on the local level-one that departs from our normal conceptions of residency voting and representation-through cross-border vot- ing whereby non-residents could vote in local elections in areas where they do not reside. 137 This view stems from the realities of urban living: because many major metropolitan areas are densely populated, decisions in one neighborhood may impose externalities on surrounding communities. As such, a more in- clusive definition of community stakeholder should make sense, especially for neighborhood councils in densely popu- lated cities. 136. Horizontal integration would also include neighborhood councils them- selves communicating and engaging with one another to address citywide issues which transcend more than just the metes and bounds of a particular neighbor- hood council. Los Angeles attempts to achieve such horizontal integration through its Congress of Neighborhoods, which aims to serve as a larger delibera- tive forum for neighborhood councils to address citywide issues such as spending priorities for city services, transportation, development, and other quality of life matters. MUSSO ET AL., supra note 127, at Appendix 1. 137. Richard Thompson Ford, The Boundaries of Race: Political Geography and Legal Analysis, 107 HARV. L. REV. 1841, 1908-09 (1994); Gerald Frug, Decenter- ing Decentralization, 60 U. CHI. L. REV. 253, 297 (1993). Of course, there is a question of just how broadly a community might want to define itself. For exam- ple, Erwin Chemerinsky notes that during his time as chairman of the Elected Charter Reform Commission for the City of Los Angeles, the commission debated the merits of including undocumented immigrants as part of neighborhood coun- cils. Erwin Chemerinsky, Further Reflections of a Framer: The Los Angeles Char- ter Reform Experience, 3 GREEN BAG 2D 125, 132 (2000). [Vol. 79 160 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM 3. Leadership-Appointed or Elected? Another controversy arises as to whether the leadership of the neighborhood councils should be elected or appointed. Neighborhood councils also have boards of directors that help administer the work of the group. The number of directors var- ies depending on the neighborhood council, ranging from five to more than fifty.138 Moreover, some neighborhood councils des- ignate certain director seats for particular stakeholder groups; others hold general at-large elections or elections based on dis- tricts within the neighborhood council's boundaries; and many adopt a combination of two or more of these or other ap- proaches.139 Other neighborhood councils have their directors appointed by elected officials. 140 Both models of appointing or electing directors run into normative and/or legal problems. For example, a policy of elected officials appointing members to neighborhood councils runs counter to the notion of a local independent body that is truly representative of its community and that is more organi- cally formed. Moreover, in such a model, appointed members to these councils may feel loyalty and ties to the elected official appointing them, thus preventing them from unfettered advo- cacy and representation of their neighborhoods. On the other hand, electing directors to neighborhood councils' boards may fit the community-centered model of neighborhood councils better in terms of being more authentic 138. For example, neighborhood councils' boards of directors in Los Angeles range from five to fifty-one members, with an average of approximately twenty. MUSSO ET AL., supra note 127, at app. 1. In New York City, neighborhood council boards range from thirty to fifty members. See Briffault, supra note 128, at 1064. In Portland, Oregon, neighborhood council boards contain between nine and twenty-three members, while Washington, D.C.'s has eight members each. 139. See Ted Rohrlich, Neighborhood Power Is Key to Charter Debate, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 19, 1998, at Al (half of St. Paul's neighborhood councils elected their representatives by district, while half elected them at large, and some councils allocated board positions to particular representative groups, while others did not); Salsich, supra note 91, at 719 (Washington, D.C., neighborhood council direc- tors are elected every two years by single-member districts comprised of two thou- sand residents). 140. Benest, Creating Neighborhood Connections, supra note 105, at 7 (Simi Valley City Council appoints members to the neighborhood councils' boards); see Briffault, supra note 128, at 1064 (discussing how in New York City, council members and borough presidents appoint community activists, developers, neighborhood leaders, political supporters, and other community members to these boards for two-year terms). 2008] 161 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW and representative of the broad cross-section of community stakeholders. However, the election of neighborhood councils with decision-making authority-discussed further below- creates serious legal issues stemming from the United States Supreme Court's decision in Avery v. Midland County, which extended voting apportionment rules for state legislatures to local governments. 141 In Avery, the Court held that locally rep- resentative bodies with decision-making authority over those within its boundaries must adhere to the one person/one vote doctrine, although it also indicated that special-purpose sub- structures of local government that focused on certain constitu- ents more than others might be exempt from the rule. 142 The key to this seeming paradox is the "Supreme Court's basic premise ... that residents of a jurisdiction have an equal right to participate in the election of their local government so long as they are comparably affected by that government." 143 Nev- ertheless, the Supreme Court has almost always limited the right to vote only to those citizens who physically reside within the jurisdiction, pointing out that such residency requirements are necessary "to preserve the basic conception of a political community." 144 Moreover, the Voting Rights Act would require neighborhood councils to contain an equal number of residents, the non-dilution of minority strength and balance, and the compactness and other qualities designed to ensure fairness and avoid discrimination against one segment of the popula- tion. 145 141. Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 480-84 (1968); see also Briffault, supra note 132, at 397. 142. Avery, 390 U.S. at 480-83; see Kessler v. Grand Cent. Dist. Mgmt. Ass'n, Inc., 960 F. Supp. 760, 770-74 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (holding that the one person/one vote doctrine was inapplicable to the Grand Central Business Improvement Dis- trict elections because of the district's limited purpose); see also Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355, 368 (1981) (holding the one person/one vote doctrine inapplicable to wa- ter reclamation district elections); Sayler Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719, 725-730 (1973) (upholding a California statute limit- ing the right to vote to only landowners within the district). 143. See Briffault, supra note 132, at 397. 144. See Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 82 (1978) (uphold- ing a state law limiting the right to vote to only those residing within local gov- ernment boundaries). 145. See generally Briffault, supra note 132. The Voting Rights Act would also require the redistricting and redefining of neighborhoods every ten years. Such redistricting could not be done solely on the basis of race. Instead, it must include communities of interest, although minority voting rights must not be diminished in the process. Id. at 403-04. [Vol. 79 162 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM In this regard, the prescriptions of the Voting Rights Act and other legal limitations would render self-selected bounda- ries for elected neighborhood councils an impossibility. Also, cities would incur significant costs by sponsoring neighborhood council elections and keeping the process consistent with the Voting Rights Act. Finally, formal elections would only allow registered voters to engage in the selection of the neighborhood council members. Given the aforementioned attempts at com- munity-wide inclusiveness, this prescription would most likely limit the true representative nature of neighborhood councils by limiting those who choose their members. Accordingly, neighborhood councils should have either appointed boards of directors or elected boards with no decision-making authority. 4. Advisory or Decision-Making Entities? For the reasons just described, cities have understandably tended to shy away from granting any decision-making author- ity to neighborhood councils.146 When cities adopt neighbor- hood councils, the debate about whether to grant such entities decision-making authority or make them advisory is oftentimes heated and controversial. On the one hand, formally empow- ered neighborhood councils pose many problems. As Richard Briffault points out, "[m]ore powerful community-based gov- ernments would certainly add to already protracted process of approving certain contracts and zoning changes, and would probably make it more difficult for city government to take ac- tion."147 Neighborhood councils with land use authority may reject many, if not all, development projects.148 Many of these projects may serve important city purposes-thus exacerbating the NIMBYism problem.149 This protective approach to land 146. BERRY ET AL., supra note 20, at 159-60 (detailing how Portland's neighborhood councils advise city officials about community development matters, among other issues); id. at 160-61 (noting how St. Paul's neighborhood councils advise city officials on land use, zoning, and planning matters); Salsich, supra note 91, at 719-20 (noting that Washington, D.C., neighborhood councils advise city officials on planning, social service, transportation, and other public policy issues that affect their communities). 147. Briffault, supra note 128, at 1066. 148. Id. 149. Michael Wheeler, Negotiating NIMBY: Learning from the Failure of the Massachusetts Siting Law, 11 YALE J. ON REG. 241, 244-50 (1994). Another prob- lem related to NIMBYism arises in the likelihood that neighborhood councils with such powers would not consider the loss of sales tax revenue that would come 20081 163 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW use decision-making could easily stunt development and growth in the city, which-despite the already problematic is- sues that many cities face-is undesirable. In addition, a city would have to bear substantial legal liability for the actions of decision-making neighborhood councils, even if higher authori- ties could review such actions. Finally, neighborhood councils with decision-making authority significantly increase the city's costs related to the permitting and the planning processes. 150 On the other hand, questions arise as to whether commu- nity stakeholders will engage in substructures of local govern- ment like neighborhood councils if they do not have decision- making authority. Richard Briffault, Gerald Frug, and other prominent local government scholars argue that average citi- zens will not engage in civic participation unless such decen- tralized substructures of government have legal power.151 Brif- fault posits that citizens will perceive advisory entities as ineffective and thus not worthy of their time and effort. 152 If few in the community participate, then neighborhood councils will fail like past efforts at civic engagement. However, it is not necessary that neighborhood councils have de jure decision-making power. To be sure, citizens will not participate in neighborhood councils and other forms of public participation if they believe that their efforts will not change or craft public policy.153 But so long as advisory neighborhood councils wield sufficient de facto political power to affect governmental outputs-laws, decisions, policies, etc.- from denying development projects. Cities depend on expanded tax revenue from such projects to fund city services and supplement the city's budget. A city council or planning commission will be more likely to balance these competing considera- tions and thus better serve the interests of the city as a whole. 150. Briffault, supra note 128, at 1066. If a neighborhood council acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and thus must base its decisions upon evidence in the re- cord and subsequent legally adequate findings, the neighborhood council will in- crease costs by requiring staffing by city planning departments, city attorneys of- fices, and other city departments involved in the land use process. Many projects coming before neighborhood councils will require environmental review, requiring additional professional staffing. Neighborhood councils would have to comply with conflict-of-interest laws, as well as maintain sufficient safeguards to protect the city from liability. 151. See Briffault, supra note 128, at 1066 ("Significant grass-roots participa- tion would require real grass-roots power."); Frug, supra note 8, at 1070 ("No one is likely to participate in the decisionmaking of an entity of any size unless that participation will make a difference in his life."). 152. Briffault, supra note 128, at 1066. 153. Id. [-Vol. 79 164 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM community stakeholders would still have an incentive to par- ticipate. Indeed, some neighborhood councils have been very suc- cessful without the delegation of legal and governmental deci- sion-making authority. 154 Just as lobbyists and interest groups exert great power and influence over local government deci- sion-making, so too can advisory neighborhood councils garner similar effective influence without having formal decision- making authority. In an advisory role, neighborhood councils can inform city elected officials and administrative staff of their wants, needs, and interests with regard to goods and service delivery. Neighborhood councils can also hear land use devel- opment proposals and make non-binding recommendations to planning commissions, city councils, and other city entities which adjudicate land use decisions. In this regard, if properly integrated into local government decision-making-discussed below-neighborhood councils can gain sufficient influence and political power to attract community stakeholders to join and participate. 5. Formal or Informal Roles in Local Government? Most cities have created neighborhood councils as formal, legal substructures of their local government and embedded them as part of the administrative process in city decision- making (despite being advisory). 155 This type of vertical inte- gration situates neighborhood councils within the local gov- ernment decision-making hierarchy and power structure of elected officials, administrators, and bureaucrats. Moreover, this structure provides neighborhood councils the opportunity to provide input on and influence decisions that affect their 154. BERRY ET AL., supra note 20, at 177-80 (noting neighborhood councils' considerable impact on local governmental outputs). 155. See, e.g., CHARTER OF THE CITY OF Los ANGELES § 900-14 (2000) (formally incorporating neighborhood councils into city government and various decision- making processes--on an advisory basis-such as the land use and planning proc- ess, the delivery of city services, and city budgetary issues); Benest, supra note 102, at A7 (noting Simi Valley's incorporation of neighborhood councils into the land use approval process); Briffault, supra note 128, at 1063 (same for New York City). But see BERRY ET AL., supra note 20, at 58-59 (noting that though created by city ordinance, St. Paul neighborhood councils are not agencies of the city and instead are incorporated as 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations and operate under their own set of by-laws). 2008] 165 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW communities.156 As an official part of local government, many neighborhood councils receive budgets and staff in order to ful- fill this role. 157 For neighborhood councils to succeed, local governments should follow this blueprint when adopting these substructures of local government. Communication between stakeholders and government decision-makers-as described previously- has been historically marked by distance, inefficiency, and varying degrees of irrelevance. As formal entities in city gov- ernment structure, neighborhood councils link community stakeholders to these decision-makers and thus allow for mean- ingful and timely feedback on local government laws, policies, and decisions. In this regard, by incorporating neighborhood councils into their respective governmental structures and de- cision-making processes and by providing them with funding and staff in order to fulfill their envisioned role, cities provide neighborhood councils with institutional legitimacy, credibility in the community, and more influence in their local govern- ment. B. Neighborhood Councils as a Model of Civic Republicanism While local governments may be the most fertile ground for involving average citizens in government decision-making, they are currently structured in a manner that cannot provide a meaningful level of civic participation, except perhaps in the 156. This structure may also suggest that neighborhood councils ought to be coterminous with city council districts. On the one hand, strict adherence to this approach may be problematic as city council districts often do not correspond pre- cisely with stakeholders' perceptions of the metes and bounds of different commu- nities that might be logical boundaries for neighborhood councils. In this sense, certain communities that share common interests may be divided up into more than one neighborhood council because the community overlaps two or more city council districts. On the other hand, matching neighborhood councils with exist- ing city council districts allows for more clear channels through which neighbor- hood councils-and their members--can influence local government decision- makers. 157. See, e.g., BERRY ET AL., supra note 20, at 113 (detailing how Portland pro- vides funds for neighborhood councils and offers them the use of city staff mem- bers); Benest, supra note 102, at A7 (explaining how Simi Valley provides a full- time staff person to offer technical assistance to neighborhood councils); Salsich, supra note 91, at 719 (noting that part of the reason for neighborhood council suc- cess in Washington, D.C., stemmed from the funds provided by the District for their operation). [Vol. 79 166 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM smallest of cities. Cities have grown so populous that without substructures of government to facilitate such civic engage- ment, direct public participation has become less and less fea- sible. However, as detailed in Part III, those prior attempts at public participation through substructures of local government have failed or had only minimal, limited results. Neighborhood councils have the potential to fill this void and infuse civic republicanism into local governments by creat- ing the opportunity for meaningful civic participation. Neighborhood councils engage stakeholders with one another so that they might deliberate over pending local government decisions and matters facing their communities. They bring together a broad cross-section of the community, spanning a more diverse group of stakeholders than currently constitutes the local political landscape. Community stakeholders will ideally approach the process with openness to others' points-of- view instead of pushing their own pre-formulated self-interest. However, it is possible that when community stakeholders con- verge, they may initially disagree virulently. The key to the dialogic process is that the engaged stakeholders, through ar- guing, discussion, persuasion, and the like, ultimately reach agreement on what is best for all those involved. Those who engage in neighborhood councils will likely "form or transform [participants'] preferences and opinions in light of that undertaking," especially when exposed to diverse and oftentimes opposing views.158 Through this transforma- tive dialogue, participants will gather and process information provided by others in discerning the best policy or course of ac- tion, even if it winds up contrary to their initial preferences. By interfacing with a broad cross-section of their community, neighborhood council participants will begin to see that local government decisions have impacts on others in their commu- nity and will lead to a better sense of community interconnect- edness. In fact, the self-interested participants may even find themselves transformed by the deliberative process and thus become more altruistic after their interactions with other stakeholders. But even those stakeholders who approach the deliberative process with only their self-interest in mind will be forced to act reasonably and strategically in order to garner 158. Fung & Wright, supra note 12, at 20. 2008] 167 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW support from others involved in the process and thus further their ultimate goals. By providing this opportunity for involvement to the broader community, neighborhood councils also engage those normally disenfranchised from the local government decision- making process. As the influence of these entities stems from the broad consensus of the community, neighborhood councils mitigate against the importance of money and power in the group setting and allow for cross-class collaboration. The de- liberative process is based, in theory, on reason, persuasion, and openness, instead of the traditional political advantages of power, money, and connections. In this regard, neighborhood councils and the dialogic process more evenly level the political playing field for those who have been traditionally disenfran- chised, as well as for average citizens vis-A-vis the interest groups that currently dominate local government. When local governments incorporate citizen participation in policy- and decision-making through neighborhood councils, they take seriously the right of citizens to have a meaningful role in shaping policies that will have an impact on their lives and communities-a key tenet of civic republicanism. Neighborhood councils also promote discussion among elected officials, local government administrators and bureaucrats, and the community with regard to local policies and decisions. By embedding neighborhood councils as formal entities within cit- ies and as a necessary, albeit advisory, part of the decision- making process, local governments provide incentives for com- munity stakeholders to see decisions effectuated because of their role in the process, instead of having them handed down by a distant local government.159 As part of an enduring gov- ernmental entity, neighborhood council members can monitor the implementation of local government actions in which they participated. This ability should increase local government ac- countability. Moreover, such neighborhood council monitoring should also increase local government transparency, minimiz- ing the threat of capture by interest groups which feed off of the current lack of transparency in city government. In addition, the dialogic process of neighborhood councils and their formal role in the decision-making process should generate superior local government policies, laws, and deci- 159. Fung & Wright, supra note 12, at 26. [Vol. 79 168 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM sions than the less reflective alternatives of the managerial form of local government,160 the insulated decision-making process currently in place, and aggregate voting. 161 By involv- ing citizens in the crafting of policies and programs, local gov- ernments better suit the needs and priorities of their citi- zens.162 Community stakeholders understand the needs, opportunities, priorities, and special dynamics at work in their neighborhoods in ways that professional non-residents at- tempting to craft and implement policies may not. Neighbor- hood councils thus allow for those most directly affected by lo- cal government decisions and policies to influence the process by sharing their knowledge and experience with each other and, ultimately, the decision-makers. While the public has other avenues for expressing its views-writing letters to elected officials, speaking at an open meeting of a city's deci- sion-making body, attending a community event, etc.-many individuals do not feel as though their views are taken into consideration in any meaningful manner. In contrast, the meaningful and qualitative community input from neighbor- hood councils results in more connected, directed, responsive, and representative governmental outputs. Such outputs in- clude more targeted public expenditures, more informed deci- sion-making, enhanced delivery of goods and services, and laws and policies that more closely address the interests of the community. To this end, the success of neighborhood councils will likely be judged by their impact on local government decision- 160. The council-manager form of local government has an elected city council that vests-by appointment-administrative power, responsibility, and discretion in a professional city manager. See Schragger, supra note 117, at 2548. 161. Such involvement becomes more necessary with the sense that central- ized, categorical efforts have failed to promote positive change. Indeed, the infu- sion of civic republican-inspired neighborhood councils into our local governments are necessary "because of the failures of both representative democracy and gov- ernmentally mandated citizen participation" and because categorical approaches to problem-solving have ignored interrelations among needs and circumstances of individuals. See Chaskin & Garg, supra note 18, at 633. 162. See id. at 632. By taking an active role, local communities no longer ac- cept the reductionist label of client, customer, or interest group. See William R. Potapchuk, Building Sustainable Community Politics: Synergizing Participatory, Institutional, and Representative Democracy, NAT'L CMC REV., Fall 1996, at 54, 55. Instead, residents reprise their role as key deliberators on public affairs is- sues. In conjunction with the local government and the private sector, neighbor- hood groups work effectively to improve the quality of life for all members of the community. See Hansell, supra note 16, at 9. 2008] 169 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW making. In New York, elected officials and other local govern- ment decision-makers followed the advice of their neighborhood councils approximately eighty percent of the time. 163 Neighborhood councils are similarly influential in other cities as well.164 Yet in a signal that such entities will not solely be powerful NIMBY forces, city officials approved a large shopping mall in Portland and a racetrack in Birmingham in the face of neighborhood opposition because of perceived greater regional interest that overrode the community's resistance. 165 Neighborhood council success in influencing local govern- ment decision-making may stem, in part, from an openness on the part of elected officials, administrators, and bureaucrats to involve them in this process. 166 If neighborhood councils are taken seriously by local officials and incorporated into the deci- sion-making process, such public participation should beget improved trust and confidence in local government by commu- nity members. In fact, the authors of Rebirth of Urban Democ- racy note that in the five cities they studied, the public had great confidence in neighborhood councils and that city officials had great respect for these entities as well. 167 In this regard, by providing proper avenues for citizen participation, local gov- ernments can function better and increase the satisfaction level of their citizens. Moreover, if neighborhood councils are a meaningful part of the local government decision-making proc- ess, then communities will be more likely to accept the out- 163. Patrick McGreevy, Appointed Charter Panel Weighs Reforms, L.A. DAILY NEWS, Feb. 12, 1998, at N6; see also Rohrlich, supra note 139 (noting neighbor- hood council successes in New York City, Portland, and Birmingham). 164. BERRY ET AL., supra note 20, at 150-67 (discussing the successes of the neighborhood councils they studied); City of Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, Neighborhood Councils' Accomplishments, avail- able at http://www.lacity.org/done/accomplishments/donenewsflash_c94014787 10222003.pdf (last visited Oct. 10, 2007) (detailing many individual and collec- tive successes of neighborhood councils in Los Angeles). 165. Rohrlich, supra note 139. 166. BERRY ET AL., supra note 20, at 57-60, 65-67 (noting that local govern- ment officials in Portland, St. Paul, and other cities actively sought feedback from neighborhood councils on various pending matters). 167. See id. at 18 (stating that "[t]he neighborhood-based participation systems in the five core cities of our study fulfill a model of democracy substantially differ- ent from the representative democracy that exists in most American cities"); see also MUSSO ET AL., supra note 127, at 7 (noting that City of Los Angeles employ- ees and community members viewed the neighborhood councils and their work favorably). [Vol. 79 170 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM comes of the process, even when an outcome is contrary to the input they provided. 168 While their success may lead to more legitimacy in the community, neighborhood councils may also increase social capital in communities, something that has dwindled in recent years. 169 Through the dialogic process, neighborhood councils should bolster a sense of community among stakeholders as well as clearer group identification. By bringing diverse stake- holders together to interact and discuss their respective needs and interests, neighborhood councils can promote tolerance be- tween these different groups and break down walls of exclusion that homogeneous communities create. 170 Individuals participating in neighborhood councils will likely also gain a sense of pride from helping better their com- munity and taking responsibility for improving the quality of life for themselves and their neighbors. As stakeholders en- gage in the local government decision-making process, they will learn more about the needs of different segments of their com- munity, as well as the interests of the community as a whole. This community education process can help inform stake- holders of the political and governmental issues, thus minimiz- ing the necessity and desirability of relying on mass propa- ganda for the bases of political and governmental viewpoints and decisions. Therefore, civic engagement through neighbor- hood councils can lead to a more politically educated and adept electorate and, perhaps, better voter turnout at the local level immediately and at the state and federal levels in the fu- ture.171 For with a better understanding of not only the gov- 168. J. Vincent Buck, The Impact of Citizen Participation Programs and Policy Decisions on Participants' Opinions, 37 W. POL. Q. 468, 468 (1984). 169. See generally PUTNAM, supra note 4, at 19 ('Where physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals-social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them."). 170. See Gerald E. Frug, City Services, 73 N.Y.U. L. REV. 23, 35-36 (1998). On the other hand, as discussed further below, neighborhood councils could lead to balkanization and NIMBYism where participants focus only on their community and not the city as a whole. 171. While the current focus of neighborhood councils should be within the lo- cal government in which they are formed, the long-term possibilities for regional and inter-governmental influence are promising. See David J. Barron, The Com- munity Economic Development Movement: A Metropolitan Perspective, 56 STAN. L. REV. 701, 703 (2003) (explaining that "neighborhood solutions ultimately must be integrated into a reform program that attends to the metropolitan-wide relation- ship between distressed communities, the more prosperous jurisdictions that sur- 2008] 171 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW ernment and political system but also the needs and wants of other community members, through this involvement ordinary citizens may begin to see their ability to effect change through their participation and their voting. C. Potential Pitfalls for Neighborhood Councils Neighborhood councils do not come without risks of signifi- cant unintended consequences and potential pitfalls. Some may claim that neighborhood councils are just another mis- guided utopian solution to a problem that cannot or need not be solved. Indeed, public choice theorists may posit that neighborhood councils and the dialogic process will never change what they see as human nature: rational actors will al- ways pursue their self-interest, even when interacting with other community stakeholders. Critics will claim that this vi- sion for the deliberative process is naively optimistic and will inevitably lead to more private deal-making. But even if this is the case, when viewed from a public choice theory perspective, this result is not untenable. As mentioned before, the current local political and gov- ernmental opportunities for average citizens and those disen- franchised in society are limited, if not non-existent--either by design or because the barriers to entry and costs of collective action are prohibitive. By creating a forum for engagement, those who are not currently as invested in the local government decision-making process can not only have their voices heard, but also help influence results by being placed at a relatively equal status with those who currently wield more power. For example, in the neighborhood council forum, a developer will have to interact with, and perhaps make deals with, members of the community that he or she currently need not face until public hearings on land use decision-making. By the time such hearings happen, there is very little likelihood of derailing such a development project. Neighborhood councils thus encourage more stakeholders to come to the table with their respective views. From a public choice theory perspective, these groups will negotiate and compromise to find a solution that advances their respective self-interests and is palatable to all. At the round them, and the regional growth, transportation patterns, and labor patterns that span them"). [Vol. 79 172 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM same time, this more inclusive set of stakeholders informing the decision-making process should correspondingly lead to more representative policies mirroring the community's wants and needs. This model for neighborhood councils presumes that com- munity stakeholders will have the time and fortitude to sustain potentially intensive involvement in the deliberative process. This issue may well determine the success or failure of neighborhood councils. One of the strongest criticisms of civic republicanism is the idealized notion that all community stakeholders will have the time and means to be able to engage in a deliberative democracy.172 In our increasingly complex and demanding society, it may well be too much to ask of many community members-especially the poor-to give up time that could otherwise be spent working, spending time with family, or pursuing other interests.173 On the other hand, stake- holders may find that participating in neighborhood councils gives them a sense of empowerment to counter the alienation and anomie they may feel with regard to their community and local government. Moreover, if community members see that their involvement in neighborhood councils leads to more rep- resentative decision-making, such results may motivate aver- age citizens to find time in their busy lives for such public par- ticipation. While it is no doubt true that not every community mem- ber will join or engage in their neighborhood council, one hun- dred percent participation is not the goal for increased civic en- gagement. Nor is it even practical, especially when considering that neighborhood councils will almost certainly face a free rider problem.174 Instead, neighborhood councils need to build a critical mass of community stakeholders to engage in this en- 172. W. Bradley Wendel, Nonlegal Regulation of the Legal Profession: Social Norms in Professional Communities, 54 VAND. L. REV. 1955, 2035 (2001). 173. Some may point to evidence that residents in common interest communi- ties tend not to participate in associational meetings or affairs as evidence of citi- zens lack of time and/or interest in participating in a deliberative process. Gil- lette, supra note 119, at 1403. However, lack of participation in common interest communities may easily be explained as residents choosing to join a conformed, homogeneous community so that they would not have to engage in neighborhood decision-making. Id. 174. As Robert Dahl points out, if a town held a ten-hour meeting and every participant was afforded ten minutes to speak, only 60 people could participate. ROBERT DAHL, AFTER THE REVOLUTION?: AUTHORITY IN A GOOD SOCIETY 52 (1990). 20081 173 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW deavor of shared decision-making in order for the benefits of increased public participation to accrue. The authors of The Rebirth of Urban Democracy note that neighborhood councils can be successful with only about ten percent of their represen- tative population participating regularly. 175 As Frank Michel- man posits, for meaningful civic engagement, the opportunity for political dialogue need only be open to all, not necessarily exercised by all. 176 Neighborhood councils may also suffer from the cart- before-the-horse syndrome. The logic goes that if neighborhood councils are given legitimacy and influence in our local gov- ernment system, then community stakeholders-especially those that currently refuse to engage in the decision-making process-will join and engage in neighborhood councils. But neighborhood councils can only gain such legitimacy and influ- ence if they serve as representative voices for their respective communities. This proxy can only occur if a broad cross-section of the community participates in the dialogic process. Accord- ingly, elected officials, city administrators, and community leaders will need to conduct significant and meaningful out- reach efforts to educate the community as to what the city's neighborhood council system envisions and entails and to en- tice those currently disengaged community stakeholders to join and participate early on in the development of neighborhood councils. The small size of neighborhood councils as envisioned in this Article should help provide incentives for such stake- holders to join. As Richard Briffault notes, smaller governmen- tal units reward participation by increasing the likelihood that an individual's input will help influence a decision or policy. 177 By rewarding participation in this manner, neighborhood coun- cils can provide tangible incentives for non-engaged stake- holders to participate-both initially and continually. This notion of outreach by governmental and community leaders also presupposes a willingness on the part of these en- trenched political players to share the power that they wield over the decision-making process. In this regard, neighborhood councils may meet fierce opposition from those who tradition- 175. BERRY ETAL., supra note 20, at 95-98. Despite this turnout, half to three- quarters of residents in these cities knew of their neighborhood councils and thought that their efforts helped shift the balance of power in the city. Id. 176. Michelman, supra note 61, at 1503-04. 177. Briffault, Local Government, supra note 20, at 1124. [Vol. 79 174 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM ally hold much of the power in local governance: city bureauc- racies, lobbyists, business interests (particularly developers), and other special interest groups. As mentioned above, unless elected officials and city administrators embrace this new form of substructure of local government, neighborhood councils' chances of success will be considerably diminished. Even if local government officials are welcoming of such civic engagement, a neighborhood council may be susceptible to capture by private interests, resulting in its serving less as a conduit for discerning the needs of the community and more as yet another governmental entity that advances an individual interest over the collective interest. In particular, those with more wealth or power may attempt to use these advantages to dominate and control neighborhood councils. To diminish the effectiveness of these rent-seekers, neighborhood councils must involve a broad cross-section of community stakeholders and must place all stakeholders on equal footing within the delib- erative process. Moreover, by ensuring that neighborhood councils are transparent and accountable-through a city de- partment working with these entities-such rent-seeking can be minimized, if not eliminated. Neighborhood councils can also avoid this capture concern by ensuring that they are ac- countable to the communities they serve. High visibility and an openness to a broad range of stakeholders in the community will help accomplish the transparency and accountability nec- essary to mitigate against interest group capture. If they cannot capture neighborhood councils, interest groups or other self-interested parties may forum shop by seek- ing to influence the political process in other ways-for exam- ple, by going directly to elected officials or local government administrators. However, after they have participated in the process, one of the functions of neighborhood councils is to monitor local government decision-making and policy imple- mentation. Such involvement should help to limit the ability of interest groups to capture the government process if they failed in doing so at the neighborhood council level. For this monitor- ing effect to occur, elected officials and other government deci- sion-makers must accord neighborhood councils the influence and respect in the local government structure that this Article envisions. If they do so, interest groups may learn the impor- 2008] 175 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW tance of engaging in the deliberative process to gain support for their projects, interests, or other matters. 178 While one of the goals of neighborhood councils is to bring stakeholders together to deliberate over matters facing their communities, the empowerment of communities in this manner may exacerbate the balkanization of localities where communi- ties focus only on their own individual needs and not the city as a whole. Moreover, there is also the Madisonian concern that smaller, local governments are more subject to factions and the tyranny of the majority. 179 As James Lowe notes, "[c]ompletely eliminating supervision of decentralized units by central gov- ernments and the courts would open the door both to discrimi- nation and tyranny within the unit and to inequality and dis- crimination between units."'180 In this regard, structuring neighborhood councils as part of the local government system also has merit from a checks and balances standpoint that helps minimize these concerns. For example, a city could check a racially discriminatory neighborhood council by withholding its funding until it complies with the broad policy objectives for neighborhood councils. The city could even decertify such a neighborhood council if its nonconformance persists. Having an administrative staff within the city to help facilitate and oversee neighborhood councils also helps mitigate against such problems, as the staff can report and address neighborhood councils that act illegally or inconsistently with the city's pa- rameters for neighborhood councils. Moreover, if neighborhood councils are a formal part of city government, the city can work to coordinate horizontal integration between neighborhood councils by bringing them together periodically to talk with one another and learn about what each other is doing, as well as what impacts one council's actions might have on others. This 178. Some note how developers have realized the importance of obtaining sup- port from the community when applying for entitlements and other land use ap- provals. See, e.g., Gabriel A. Espinosa, Building on Brownfields: A Catalyst for Neighborhood Revitalization, 11 VILL. ENVTL. L.J. 1, 24 (2000). 179. See THE FEDERALIST No. 10, at 49 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961); see also Rose, supra note 98, at 855 (a "body drawn from too small or too homogeneous a constituency may be dominated by a single interest or faction"). But see Ellickson, supra note 31, at 89 (arguing that the larger the size of gov- ernment, the more difficult it is for citizens to monitor its decisions and policies, thus making larger governments more prone to capture by interest groups). 180. Lowe, supra note 88, at 183. [Vol. 79 176 CIVIC REPUBLICANISM type of collaboration should also mitigate against balkaniza- tion. Some of these concerns have already materialized in cities like Los Angeles. Accusations of electioneering, lack of com- munity outreach, and excessive Board of Director influence have marked the early years of neighborhood councils in Los Angeles.181 Other problems with Los Angeles' neighborhood council system include a lack of funding for the entities, a lack of diversity in terms of stakeholders, and the need for better communication between neighborhood councils.182 And while neighborhood councils in Los Angeles seem to be connecting community members with one another and their local govern- ment, average neighborhood council meetings draw fewer than fifty people.183 Nevertheless, despite these challenges, the neighborhood council structure-as evidenced by some of its successes thus far-has the potential for a long-term impact on local government. CONCLUSION It is important to remember that "[s]ince the earliest days of the Republic, the maintenance of political participation by its citizens has been viewed as essential to the preservation of free government."'184 Yet our government suffers from a lack of civic engagement. Neighborhood councils provide a new oppor- tunity to reinvigorate community involvement in local govern- ment decision-making and shift from a winner-take-all process to a dialogic one that embodies civic republican values. As de- tailed above, there is evidence of some short-term successes in that regard. The question, of course, is whether such a trans- formation in local government can be duplicated in more cities and then sustained in the long term. Neighborhood councils have the potential to effect such a transformation in ways that we have not seen since the early days of our nation. Even if they fail to live up to the lofty goals of civic republicanism, neighborhood councils still serve a valu- 181. See MUSSO ETAL., supra note 127, at 3. 182. See generally JULIET MUSSO ET AL., REPRESENTING DIVERSITY IN CoMMuNiTY GOVERNANCE: NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS IN LOS ANGELES, Urban Policy Brief, University of Southern California Urban Initiative 1 (2004). 183. MUSSO ET AL., supra note 127, at 5. 184. Liebmann, supra note 24, at 336. 20081 177 188 UNIVERSYIY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 79 able purpose in changing-even if to a lesser degree-local gov- ernment culture. By involving in the decision-making process people who are otherwise shut out of the current local govern- ment system, neighborhood councils bring more stakeholders and their views, wants, and interests to the bargaining table that public choice theory describes. Even if the community does not think and act in the common good as civic republican- ism would envision, the infusion of broader viewpoints and in- terests still would lead to more representative decision-making as new political players and the currently entrenched ones ne- gotiate in the political marketplace of public choice theory. In this regard, neighborhood councils have the potential to make a marked difference on local government through increased civic engagement that is-if not transformative-more democratic. 178 The Journal of Economics and The Journal of Economics and Politics Politics Volume 27 Issue 1 Article 1 2022 Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems: An Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems: An Empirical Study of Community Councils in Cincinnati, Ohio Empirical Study of Community Councils in Cincinnati, Ohio Julie Cencula Olberding Northern Kentucky University, olberdingj@nku.edu Darrin Wilson Northern Kentucky University Stefanie Swiger Northern Kentucky University Follow this and additional works at: https://collected.jcu.edu/jep Part of the American Politics Commons, Other Political Science Commons, Other Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Public Affairs Commons, and the Urban Studies Commons Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Olberding, Julie Cencula; Wilson, Darrin; and Swiger, Stefanie (2022) "Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems: An Empirical Study of Community Councils in Cincinnati, Ohio," The Journal of Economics and Politics: Vol. 27: Iss. 1, Article 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59604/1046-2309.1047 Available at: https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carroll Collected. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Economics and Politics by an authorized editor of Carroll Collected. For more information, please contact mchercourt@jcu.edu. 179 Systems of neighborhood governance have been developed in major cities across the United States and around the world as an organizational strategy to engage citizens more directly in local government. Scholarly articles on neighborhood governance systems – sometimes called “neighborhood councils,” “community councils,” and “citizen advisory councils” – have examined their formation, roles, activities, and effectiveness. The main purpose of our study is to extend the research on neighborhood governance systems by examining community councils in Cincinnati, Ohio. In particular, our study furthers the research by Li et al. (2019) of neighborhood councils in Los Angeles that addressed the question: What makes neighborhood associations effective in urban governance? These authors focused on relationships between the performance of governing boards and the effectiveness of neighborhood councils overall. In Cincinnati, community councils are nonprofit organizations developed to strengthen connections between neighborhoods – specifically, the citizens living in them – and city government by enhancing communication, engagement, participation, and representation. According to the City of Cincinnati web site, “Community councils are a crucial link between the City and its many unique neighborhoods, and each council is as unique as the neighborhood it serves. These organizations ensure that neighborhood development responds to the needs and goals of its citizens. The councils are also a vehicle for communication and engagement throughout neighborhoods” (City of Cincinnati, n.d.). A more succinct description of a community council in this city is: “a group of volunteers chosen by residents to complete projects, engage with outside interests and interface with city government on issues that impact their communities” (Monks, 2021). Our study explores community councils in Cincinnati more deeply, using the Li et al. (2019) multi-dimensional framework and methodology to analyze the relationship between 1 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 180 governing board performance and community council effectiveness. It represents one more step toward furthering our knowledge and understanding of neighborhood governance systems. This scholarly exploration seems to be as relevant and important now as it was 10 years ago, possibly for similar reasons. In their article on the “neighborhood council experience” in Los Angeles, Musso et al. (2011) wrote, “With faith in government waning, cultural diversity spiraling, and fiscal stress straining the ability of policy makers to address the policy challenges accompanying these developments, the salience of (re)connecting citizens with government takes on renewed urgency today. Nowhere is this more the case than in urban America …” (p. 102). Literature Review: Neighborhood Governance Systems Formation and Development In one of the early articles on neighborhood governance systems, Kathi and Cooper (2005) discuss the barriers to citizen participation in governance in metropolitan areas. Of course, governmental bodies in the United States operate in the context of a representative democracy, for which citizens elect representatives to act on their behalf on any number of issues. Kathi and Cooper (2005) assert that the diversity of citizens and the scope of issues make it more challenging for government bodies to accurately represent their needs, specifically in larger cities. Additionally, governments in the United States function in an administrative state; that is, once a law or policy is enacted, professional administrators are often tasked with decision-making and implementation to carry it out efficiently and effectively. “Under the ethos of the administrative state, the citizen was treated as a client or constituent. There was a minimalist approach to citizen participation” (Kathi & Cooper, 2005; p. 561). 2 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 181 In contrast to representative democracy, a deliberative democracy seeks to encourage citizens and government to work together in a collaborative fashion. One strategy to achieve deliberative democracy at the local level is to develop a neighborhood governance system, such as neighborhood councils or community councils. This approach seemed to gain popularity among city governments at the end of the 20th Century (Kathi & Cooper, 2005). For example, in 1974, the City of Raleigh created citizen advisory councils (CACs) with a mandate to work on three broad problems – housing, transportation, and governmental accountability. CACs were “designed to involve all areas of the City in a formal citizen participation structure … whereby City government might use this avenue as one means of involving citizens in the decision- making process” (Holder, 2020). It should be noted that the Raleigh City Council voted to eliminate its CACs in 2020 because, as reported, some council members believed these entities did not represent residents well and they tended to resist new development (Holder, 2020; Levine, 2020). But supporters have argued that CACs have provided Raleigh residents with “valuable opportunities to share public information, defend against over-development, and engage diverse swaths of the community in municipal decision-making” (Holder, 2020). In Los Angeles, voters adopted a city charter amendment in 1999 that developed a system of neighborhood councils designed “to decentralize the city’s planning, service delivery, and budget processes” (Kathi & Cooper, 2005; p. 563). The charter amendment, though, did not guarantee that neighborhood councils would be successfully formed in all communities in Los Angeles. Jun (2007) examined how various community contexts or factors impacted the formation of neighborhood councils, including community diversity, community preferences relative to the larger city, and community capacity such as existing organized groups and local branches of city organizations. 3 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 182 Neighborhood councils, community councils, and similar entities have been formed in other major cities in the United States including Atlanta, Honolulu, Oxnard, San Diego, Tacoma, and Washington, DC. In Canada, a system of “community leagues” exists in cities such as Edmonton and Quebec City. In fact, Edmonton adopted community leagues in 1917 to address social challenges due to rapid growth at the time, making it one of the first cities in the world with such a system (Sancton & Young, 2009). Beyond North America, there are additional neighborhood governance systems in Montevideo, Uruguay (Serdült & Welp, 2015), Tehran, Iran (Barati et al., 2012), and Shanghai, China (Chen et al., 2009). Roles and Activities Again, the overarching purpose of neighborhood governance systems, such as neighborhood councils and community councils, is to strengthen connections between citizens in these communities and the local government. “Urban governance establishes the conditions for citizens to channel their voices and participate in local policy issues. Neighborhood associations, which bridge the relationship between citizens and local government, are essential elements of neighborhood governance” (Li et al., 2019, p. 1). Within this purpose, neighborhood or community council members can discover and share information about city government policies, programs, and proposals with their communities. Information-sharing can happen via regularly- scheduled neighborhood or community council meetings, traditional newsletters, e-newsletters or group email messages, web sites, and social media. In addition, these council members can communicate their neighborhood’s concerns, challenges, and ideas with city officials – both elected leaders and government administrators. In some cities, neighborhood governance systems provide advisory recommendations related to the comprehensive plan and/or various policies, programs, and services. Further, they may receive 4 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 183 funding from the city government for the development and management of neighborhood projects such as public parking areas, community gardens and green space, public murals and art, neighborhood parades and other events, and so on (City and County of Honolulu, 2021; City of Atlanta, n.d.; City of Cincinnati, 2021; City of Tacoma, 2020; DC.gov, n.d.; Kathi & Cooper, 2005; Musso et al., 2006). According to Musso et al. (2006), the neighborhood council system in Los Angeles opens up the lines of communication and creates opportunities for collaboration with the city government in a few different ways. One way is creating more emotional attachment among neighbors to their community and to the other people living in it. This enables an environment where community members can form relationships and then rally their fellow citizens to issues that directly affect their neighborhood. Further, neighborhood councils can develop “bridging social capital,” which are “network relationships that connect groups and cross cleavages with respect to race, class, or political interest” (Musso et al., 2006; p. 85). Also, a neighborhood council system can broaden networks among these organizations, which leads to better dissemination of information; that is, information can be distributed outward to multiple neighborhood councils at once rather than simply “up and down.” Finally, neighborhood councils can create new ties with city council and create openness with city council members (Musso et al., 2006). In another article, Musso et al. (2011) focused on the “neighborhood council experience” in Los Angeles, identifying lessons for practitioners and researchers about successful implementation, particularly in terms of enhancing participatory opportunities and building social capital in order to advance “strong democracy” (p. 102). One lesson is that participation in local government can be vulnerable because of the changing political climate; therefore, a 5 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 184 neighborhood council should be set up for the long term and be able to withstand any turnover in the city’s leadership and administration (Musso et al., 2011). In addition, citizens and administrators come to the table with a different set of knowledge and attitudes. Thus, two-way capacity building is required to ensure both groups are on the same page; for citizens, their knowledge of government should be enhanced in a way that is not confusing or intimidating. Also, these researchers concluded that universities and foundations – due to their perceived neutrality – can support reforms in the area of neighborhood councils and citizen engagement. Organizational Effectiveness As mentioned earlier, Li et al. (2019) examined the organizational effectiveness of neighborhood councils in Los Angeles with a particular focus on the governing boards that lead and manage them. The authors developed a conceptual framework and hypotheses that emphasize the various constituents in urban governance who have different perspectives on neighborhood councils and their effectiveness. This multi-dimensional approach recognizes that neighborhood councils “do not work to deliver tangible goods and services but to facilitate democratic processes and connect citizens to the administrative system of the city” (Li et al., 2019, p. 3). Specifically, the authors assessed the degree to which the three aspects of governing board performance (internal capacity, attention-action congruence, external networking) are related to the three dimensions of neighborhood council effectiveness (promoting civic engagement, resolving neighborhood issues, advising about city policies). The following summarizes the governing board performance measures and the expected relationships with neighborhood council effectiveness (Li et al., 2019): 6 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 185 • Internal capacity involves various resources of the governing board including skills, time, effort, and money. The overarching hypothesis is that the governing board’s internal capacity is positively associated with neighborhood council effectiveness. • Attention-action congruence measures the governing board’s stance on an issue relative to the action it takes to address that issue. Congruence is greater when a board identifies a potential problem in the community and then takes action by contacting the appropriate government agency. The hypothesis is that the governing board’s attention-action congruence is positively associated with neighborhood council effectiveness. • External networking represents board members using their existing connections and working to build new ones in service to their community. The hypothesis is that the governing board’s external networking is positively associated with neighborhood council effectiveness. Li et al. (2019) conducted a survey of neighborhood council board members to gather data related to these three hypotheses. Valid responses were collected from 80 different neighborhood councils, and most board members indicated that their neighborhood councils are moderately effective. In terms of the hypotheses, internal capacity was positively associated with all three dimensions of neighborhood council effectiveness – promoting civic engagement, resolving neighborhood issues, and advising about city policies. Attention-action congruence was positively associated with perceived effectiveness in terms of advising about city policies. Finally, external networking was positively associated with perceived effectiveness in terms of resolving neighborhood issues and advising about city policies (Li, et al., 2019). 7 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 186 Overall, this literature has enhanced our collective understanding of neighborhood governance systems, particularly neighborhood councils in Los Angeles. Using these studies as a foundation, we turn our attention to another neighborhood governance system in a different city – community councils in Cincinnati, Ohio. Case Study: Community Councils in Cincinnati, Ohio City of Cincinnati The City of Cincinnati was settled in 1788 in southwestern Ohio, along the northern side of the Ohio River. It is considered to be the economic and cultural center of the Cincinnati metropolitan area, which is the largest area in Ohio and the 29th largest in the United States (Horn, 2018). More than 300,000 people live in the city proper while 2.2 million people live in the metropolitan area, which includes counties in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. The city has operated with a council-manager form of government since progressive reforms in the 1920s, and the council consists of nine members who are elected at-large rather than by wards or districts. More recently, the city government has evolved to become a more hybrid form due to city charter revisions that resulted in “a strong mayor” who can refer legislation to council, veto decisions by council, and recommend city manager hiring and firing to the council (Horn & Coolidge, 2021). While most city departments interact with neighborhood and community groups on a regular basis, the Department of Community and Economic is specifically assigned the task of neighborhood development. The department operates the Neighborhood Support Program (NSP), which provides annual grants to community councils for leadership activities, communications, beautification, educational activities, and other needs (Invest in Neighborhoods, 2017b). 8 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 187 Additionally, the department operates the Neighborhood Enhancement Program, which is “a 90- day collaborative effort two between City departments, neighborhood residents, and community organizations” (City of Cincinnati, n.d.). The purpose of this program is to assist residents in two select neighborhoods each year with code enforcement, crime, neighborhood clean-up, and sustainable living. Community Councils For this initial study of community councils in Cincinnati, we discovered background information via city documents and web sites as well as reports by local organizations and media outlets. It is important to emphasize that Cincinnati community councils are not part of Cincinnati city government. “Community councils are nonprofit voluntary organizations that weigh in on city matters, but exist separately from the city government and follow different rules” (City of Cincinnati, Cincinnati Community Council Boundaries, 2022). At the time of this study, 48 community councils existed in Cincinnati. The official titles for many of these entities include the phrase “community council,” but some use a different phrase or word such as “neighborhood council,” “neighborhood association,” “residents council,” “town meeting,” “civic league,” “assembly,” or “forum” (Community Council Directory, n.d.). Only one ordinance in the city of Cincinnati addresses community councils, according to a Cincinnati Enquirer article (Knight, 2017). Passed in 1989, the ordinance says community councils must be nonprofit organizations that follow nonprofit laws, such as not endorsing political candidates or ballot initiatives, and they cannot deny membership based on sex or race (Knight, 2017). In addition, the ordinance mentions that the city provides an annual stipend to each community council through the NSP and that residents in each neighborhood vote on how to spend the stipend. In recent years, the NSP stipend has been about $7,000 per community 9 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 188 council, and it has been used for initiatives related to community safety, events, and beautification (Knight, 2017). As nonprofit organizations, community councils can apply for grants from foundations and other funders, and they can acquire charitable donations from individuals via their web sites, social media campaigns, special events, and other fundraising efforts. The city government recognizes only one community council per neighborhood, although there are other types of neighborhood-based organizations with different but related purposes including community development corporations (CDCs) and business district associations. Invest in Neighborhoods (IIN) is another nonprofit organization in Cincinnati that is known as “the council of councils.” Its mission is to “empower community councils and their resident members, volunteers, and related community organizations to contribute to civic life and advance the quality of life in Cincinnati’s neighborhoods, by increasing capacities and competencies, assisting with resources, and promoting civic engagement” (Invest in Neighborhoods, 2017a). IIN furthers this mission through programs aimed at technical assistance, leadership development, and resource development. In addition, the organization also manages and hosts the Neighborhood Councils Action Coalition, which promotes collective action across the neighborhoods, particularly around the city’s legislative and administrative processes that impact neighborhoods (Invest in Neighborhoods, 2017c). The coalition holds meetings once a week, which are open to community council board members and committee chairs. Sample and Data In developing and implementing our study, we partnered with IIN since it convenes and works with community councils. We began by developing an online survey instrument based on 10 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 189 the Li et al. article (2019). We piloted the online survey with IIN board members, many of whom currently serve on the governing boards of various community councils or have served on them in the past. While we used Li et al.’s survey instrument as a guide, we recognize there was a limitation to it, which needs to be recognized. The survey captures both independent and dependent variables. An alternative method would have been to collect dependent variables from sources other than the board member survey, such as data on NSP funding and building permits. However, these data are not consistently organized at the neighborhood level and/or shared by the City of Cincinnati or other sources. We followed Dillman’s “gold standard” for survey implementation: pre notification, notification, and post notification. IIN staff sent these messages to their list, which at the time consisted of 187 governing board members of community councils. During this time, we were scheduled to participate in the Cincinnati Neighborhood Summit, organized by IIN, in March 2020. Most board members attend this one-day annual event, so we had planned to present preliminary results and collect additional survey responses via laptops computers and paper-and- pencil surveys. The 2020 Neighborhood Summit was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but eventually most of the sessions were implemented in an online format during the remainder of 2020, including our session. In the end, 82 board members representing 28 community councils completed the online survey. But some responded only to the few initial items on the survey, so we removed them from the dataset. The final count was 72 respondents, so the response rate was 38.5% (i.e., 72 of 187 board members). Further, the respondents represented 58.3% of community councils (i.e., 28 of 48 councils). 11 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 190 Demographic data were collected from the respondents. Based on this data, the majority of respondents to this survey lived in their neighborhood for at least ten years, owned their home, were at least 50 years of age, white, non-Hispanic, female, had at least a bachelor’s degree, were employed, and had a household income of at least $80,000. Our respondents were very similar demographically to the respondents in Li, et.al (2019), with the exception that our respondents were predominately female. Additionally, the demographics of the majority of our respondents are similar to the demographics of nonprofit board members nationwide; that is, our respondents do not represent the diversity of the communities they serve, which is a microcosm of the broader nonprofit sector. “Diversity on nonprofit boards falls short of reflecting the overall diversity of the United States” (Osili, et.al., 2018, p. 6). Measures The dependent variables in this study are designed to measure perceived effectiveness of community councils overall. We examined effectiveness according to the three dimensions identified by Li et al. (2019): promoting civic engagement, resolving community issues, and advising about city policies. We asked respondents about their community council’s effectiveness in these areas over the past year using a 5-point Likert scale. The 5-point Likert scale ranged from 1=“Not Effective at All” to 5=“Extremely Effective”. Following Li, et.al. (2019), we categorized seven survey items into the three dimensions of community council effectiveness. Promoting civic engagement consisted of three items: (1) enhancing the sense of community or “togetherness” in the neighborhood, (2) improving the sense of pride in the neighborhood, and (3) including diverse interests in the neighborhood. Resolving community issues had one item, working to address the needs and problems in the 12 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 191 neighborhood. Finally, advising about city policies included: (1) advising city on land use, (2) advising the city on local service needs, and (3) advising the city on citywide policies. The first independent variable, internal capacity, was measured by taking the average score from a 5-point Likert scale, 1=“Strongly Disagree” to 5=“Strongly Agree”, on how well respondents felt their community council board was able to: (1) define goals clearly, (2) run meetings smoothly, (3) form consensus effectively, (4) manage conflict constructively, (5) maintain leadership stability, (6) recruit and manage volunteers effectively, (7) acquire grants and other funds as needed to support programs and activities, (8) manage financial resources effectively in terms of budgeting, accounting, and reporting, (9) encourage questions and discussion at meetings, and (10) mediate difficult conversations. The second independent variable, attention-action congruence, is the average distance on a 5-point Likert scale between how often the governing board discussed particular issues and how often they have been in contact with the issue’s corresponding city government department. The issues examined were: (1) crime, law enforcement, and public safety, (2) planning, zoning, and land use, (3) building permits, inspections, and enforcement, (4) development, redevelopment, and revitalization, (5) recreation centers, pools, and golf courses, (6) parks and greenspace, (7) streets, parking, sidewalks, and bike paths, and (8) garbage collection, yard- waste collection, snow removal, and street sweeping. This classification is intended to be broad, as each neighborhood may face issues specific to its community and/or issues similar to other neighborhoods. Additionally, this classification captures the frequency of specific issues as well as the frequency a broad topic is discussed. The corresponding city departments were: (1) Cincinnati Police Department, (2) City Planning, (3) Buildings and Inspection, (4) Department of Community and Economic Development, (5) Cincinnati Recreation Commission and/or a 13 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 192 recreation center, (6) Cincinnati Parks, (7) Department of Transportation and Engineering, and (8) Department of Public Services. The 5-point Likert scale was from, 1=“Never” to 5=“Always”. The third independent variable, external networking, is based on how often the governing board has been in contact with individuals or organizations external to the community council. The options were: (1) Mayor of Cincinnati and/or his staff, (2) One or more Cincinnati City Council members and/or their staff, (3) City Manager and/or direct staff in his office, (4) City administrators or employees other than the City Manager (e.g. city planners, police officers, park officials), (5) Invest in Neighborhoods board members or staff, and (6) Other community organizations (e.g. schools, libraries, development corporations, local businesses, other community councils). A 5-point Likert scale was used: 1=“0 times (no contact)”, 2=“1-2 times”, 3=“3-4 times”, 4=“5-6 times”, and 5=“More than 6 times”. We averaged the scores for all options to use as the external networking variable. There are two control variables, years of governing board membership and size of governing board. Unlike Li, et.al. (2019), we chose to use the respondent’s length of service on the governing board, but with the same rationale. As individuals spend more years of service to the board, they are likely to gain more experience, through networking with stakeholders and learning more about board governance (Chambre & Fatt, 2002). Additionally, there are situations where community councils operate for many years, then become dormant, and later are re- established by newer residents and/or older residents. Thus, it is not always possible to know the exact number of years that some councils were in existence. Years of board membership was coded based on how many years of service: 1=“4 years or less”, 2=“5-9 years”, 3=“10-14 years”, 4=“15-19 years”, and 5=“20 years or more”. The second control variable, size of board, was used 14 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 193 to account for how many people served on the governing board. The assumption is larger boards will have more connections to stakeholders and resources to help the board be more effective (McPherson, 1983; Newton, 1982). Unlike the other control variable, years of board service was not coded. We used a hierarchical ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to analyze community council effectiveness. The control variables were entered in the first step and the independent variables entered during the second, for all three regression models. In order to avoid problems with heteroscedasticity, standard errors were weighted in the three models. Additionally, to test for common source bias, dependent and independent variables obtained through the same survey, we performed Harman’s single factor test (Harman, 1976). The estimated variance for the three models were 30.97%, 30.39%, and 28.033%, all below the 50% threshold, indicating no common source bias. Findings According to the descriptive statistics, shown in Table 1, the dependent variables promoting civic engagement, resolving community issues, and advising about city policies, had means of 3.25, 3.49, and 2.90 respectively. This suggests that respondents, on average, felt their community councils are relatively effective in promoting civic engagement and resolving issues. However, respondents indicated that their community councils are less effective with regard to advising about city policies relative to the two other dimensions of community council effectiveness. 15 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 194 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Dependent Variables Variables Mean SD Minimum Maximum Promoting Civic Engagement 3.25 0.92 1 5 Effective Togetherness 3.61 1.051 1 5 Effective Pride 3.33 1.075 1 5 Effective Diverse Interests 3.20 1.05 1 5 Resolving Community Issues 3.49 0.92 1 5 Advising City Policy 2.90 0.94 1 5 Effective Land Use 2.83 1.095 1 5 Effective Services 3.14 0.997 1 5 Effective City-Wide 2.69 1.071 1 5 Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for the survey items underlying the independent variable known as internal capacity. This variable had a mean of 3.87, suggesting that respondents felt the internal capacity of their boards was relatively high. The highest scores on the individual items were on the board’s ability to encourage participation at meetings, manage finances, and maintain leadership stability. While still above average, recruiting and managing volunteers, acquiring funds, and setting clear organizational goals had the lowest scores. 16 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 195 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Internal Capacity (Independent Variable) Variables Mean SD Minimum Maximum Internal Capacity 3.87 0.770 1.3 5 Board Goals 3.63 0.941 1 5 Board Meetings 4.03 0.934 1 5 Board Consensus 4.00 0.872 1 5 Board Conflict 3.78 0.996 1 5 Board Leadership 4.10 0.996 1 5 Board Volunteers 3.28 1.103 1 5 Board Funds 3.56 0.977 1 5 Board Financial Management 4.14 0.939 1 5 Board Participation 4.93 0.865 1 5 Board Mediation 3.78 1.051 1 5 The second independent variable, known as attention-action congruence, measures the overall difference between the frequency of a governing board discussing a community issue and the frequency of them contacting the relevant city department. As Table 3 indicates, the overall mean of attention-action congruence was 0.80 within a range of 0 to 4. This statistic suggests that there was high association between issue discussion and action taken. Across all community councils, the issues most frequently discussed were crime, community events, and development, while the most frequent departments contacted were police, recreation, and planning. 17 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 196 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Attention-Action Congruence (Independent Variable) Variables Mean SD Minimum Maximum Attention-Action Congruence 0.80 0.470 0.25 2.88 Discussed Crime 4.58 0.801 2 5 Discussed Planning 3.49 0.984 1 5 Discussed Permits 3.04 0.901 1 5 Discussed Development 3.82 0.793 2 5 Discussed Recreation 3.31 1.171 1 5 Discussed Parks 3.34 0.999 1 5 Discussed Streets 3.61 0.897 2 5 Discussed Waste 2.59 0.904 1 5 Discussed Events 4.36 0.756 2 5 Discussed Youth 3.39 1.140 1 5 Contacted Police 4.36 0.869 2 5 Contacted Planning 3.35 0.896 1 5 Contacted Buildings 2.93 0.937 1 5 Contacted Development 3.07 0.900 1 5 Contacted Recreation 3.73 1.171 1 5 Contacted Parks 3.01 1.127 1 5 Contacted Transportation 3.30 0.991 1 5 Contacted Public Services 2.87 0.844 1 5 Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics for the survey items underlying the third independent variable known as external networking. The overall mean of 2.81 indicates that community councils were relatively weak in networking with external stakeholders, on the whole. Community councils rarely contacted the Mayor (or staff) or the City Manager (or staff). However, councils contacted government departments and other organizations beyond the ones listed more frequently. 18 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 197 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for External Networking (Independent Variable) Variables Mean SD Minimum Maximum External Networking 2.81 0.79 1.5 4.67 Contacted Mayor 1.94 0.873 1 4 Contacted Council 2.96 1.194 1 5 Contacted Manager 1.93 0.944 1 5 Contacted Administration 3.55 1.301 1 5 Contacted IIN 2.88 1.299 1 5 Contacted Other 3.61 1.251 2 5 The average years of board membership was very low with a mean of 1.62, between less than 4 years of service and 5 to 9 years of service (see Table 5). The size of board membership ranged from 4 members to 17 members, with an average of slightly larger than 10. Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Board Characteristics Variables Mean SD Minimum Maximum Years of Board Membership 1.62 0.90 1 5 Size of Board 10.23 3.43 4 17 Table 6 shows the correlations between the model’s variables. Similar to the findings of Li, et.al. (2019), the three dependent variables of community council effectiveness were correlated to one another at 0.77, 0.66, and 0.57 respectively. The statistically significant correlations between the dimensions of community council effectiveness suggest that the dimensions are accounting for different aspects of organizational effectiveness. As for the independent variables, there were very few strong correlations. 19 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 198 Table 6 Correlation Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Promoting Civic Engagement 1 2. Resolving Community Issues 0.770* 1 3. Advising City Policy 0.664* 0.565* 1 4. Internal Capacity 0.792* 0.740* 0.463* 1 5. Attention-Action Congruence 0.061 0.097 0.030 0.066 1 6. External Networking 0.233 0.227 0.294* 0.229 0.065 1 7. Years of Board Membership -0.083 -0.016 -0.167 0.061 -0.095 -0.054 0.017 1 8. Size of Board -0.072 0.039 -0.045 -0.076 -0.074 0.024 -0.072 0.207 1 *p<.05 20 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 199 Three regression models were run, each using one of the three dependent variables measuring the community council’s effectiveness: promoting civic engagement, resolving community issues, and advising about city policies (Table 7). The first model – with the dependent variable of promoting civic engagement – had an R2 of 0.665 and was statistically significant at the p<.001 level. The only independent variable with a statistically significant relationship with civic engagement was internal capacity (β=0.89, p<.001). This suggests a community council board’s leadership and management abilities – such as forming consensus, running meetings, and encouraging participation – are very important to the community council’s effectiveness in promoting civic engagement. As a reminder, promoting civic engagement consists of three underlying items: enhancing sense of community or “togetherness”; improving sense of pride; and including diverse interests. Table 7 Regression Results Promoting Civic Engagement Responding to Community Needs Advising City on Policy Internal Capacity 0.888*** 0.787*** 0.546*** (0.104) (0.097) (0.140) Attention-Action Congruence -0.085 0.094 -0.051 (0.128) (0.132) (0.277) External Networking 0.095 0.064 0.221 (0.093) (0.103) (0.134) Years of Board Membership -0.120 -0.049 -0.188 (0.085) (0.088) (0.100) Size of Board -0.01 0.040 0.030 (0.023) (0.024) (0.032) Constant -0.113 -0.144 0.203 (0.538) (0.543) (0.773) R2 0.665 0.648 0.344 F statistic 19.217*** 17.793*** 5.061*** Note. Standard errors in parentheses *p>.05, **p>.01, ***p>.001. 21 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 200 The second regression model – with the dependent variable of resolving community issues – had an R2 of 0.648 and was statistically significant at the p<.001 level. As with the first model, the only independent variable with a statistically significant relationship with resolving community issues was internal capacity (β=0.79, p<.001). The third regression remodel – with the dependent variable of advising about city policies – had an R2 of 0.344. Of course, this is a lower explanatory power than the other two models, but it was statistically significant at the p<.001 level. Once again, the only independent variable statistically significant was internal capacity (β=0.55, p<.001). This highlights the importance of building the internal capacity of a governing board to increase the likelihood of organizational effectiveness overall. Not denoted in the regression output table was the statistical significance of years of board membership at the p<.10 level. The negative relationship between the two variables indicates that the longer someone serves on a governing board, the less effective they see the community council in advising about city policies. Discussion and Conclusion During the past 15 years or so, a body of research has been forming around the phenomenon of neighborhood governance systems. Most scholarly articles have looked at their formation, roles, and activities while a few studies have begun to examine outcomes and effectiveness. As mentioned, many studies have focused on the neighborhood council system in Los Angeles, partly because key scholars in this research area are based at the University of Southern California. But research has been emerging of additional cities in the United States and 22 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 201 other countries. Our study extends this research to the neighborhood governance system of community councils in Cincinnati, Ohio. The results in our study align with earlier studies of other neighborhood governance systems. Specifically, the governing board’s internal capacity is positively associated with all three measures of community council effectiveness. Recall that the internal capacity variable consists of underlying survey items related to forming consensus, running meetings, encouraging participation during meetings, managing finances, and so on. In other words, governing boards that are more competent with these leadership and management responsibilities tend to experience stronger outcomes in terms of promoting civic engagement, resolving neighborhood issues, and advising about city policies. That said, our study did not find a significant relationship between the two other aspects of governing board performance (attention-action congruence and external networking) and any of the three measures of community council effectiveness (Li, et al., 2019). A specific statistic worthy of discussion is the relatively low mean for the community council effectiveness measure of advising about city policies. The mean was 2.90 for advising about city policies, relative to 3.25 for civic engagement and 3.49 for resolving community issues. Recall the measure on advising about city policies consists of underlying survey items related to advising city officials on land use, local service needs, and citywide policies. Additionally, lower scores on contacting the Mayor (or staff) and City Manager (or staff) are noteworthy. These statistics for advising city officials may represent limited engagement overall due to structural factors with city government. One structural factor may be at-large elections for city council members, which do not encourage deep involvement with certain neighborhoods or communities. It also may be related to the strong mayor at the time – when the survey was 23 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 202 conducted – acting as “a major player not only in setting policy but also in the nitty-gritty work of specific projects” in neighborhoods such as Over-the-Rhine (Horn & Coolidge, 2021). The relatively low measure of community council advising could be explored further, possibly facilitated by IIN with support from local foundations and universities, per the recommendation by Musso et al. (2011). The descriptive statistics demonstrate that community councils in Cincinnati have certain strengths in the internal capacity of their governing boards, such as running meetings and managing financial resources. But there are areas that could be improved such as defining goals, managing conflict, recruiting and managing volunteers, and acquiring grants and resources. With its mission to increase community councils’ capacities and competencies, IIN can devote attention to these identified areas in the coming years. Local foundations and even the City of Cincinnati could assist by providing IIN with additional resources to enhance workshops, training, and so on. This idea relates to another “lesson” in Musso et al. article (2011) that neighborhood councils or community councils have an ongoing need for capacity-building. A key takeaway from this study is around the organizational structure of community councils in Cincinnati; specifically, these entities are independent nonprofit organizations, distinct from city government. Thus, Cincinnati’s City Council could not vote to disband community councils, as Raleigh’s City Council did with citizen advisory councils (Holder, 2020; Levine, 2020). This takeaway also relates to the Musso article (2011), which concluded that neighborhood governance systems should be structured to allow for endurance through political and administrative changes. In the shadow of Raleigh’s dissolution of CACs, it seems even more timely and important for additional studies of neighborhood governance systems. We encourage interested scholars to study additional neighborhood governance systems in other cities to further 24 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 203 our collective understanding of their formation, structure, roles, activities, and effectiveness. Again, neighborhood governance systems currently exist in major U.S. cities like Atlanta, Honolulu, San Diego, and Washington, DC as well as international cities like Tehran and Shanghai. As with our research of community councils in Cincinnati, these studies could replicate the research that has focused on neighborhood councils in Los Angeles. A shorter-term goal of this extended research may be to identify similarities, differences, and best practices. A longer-term goal may be to complete a more expansive study that cumulates and analyzes data across many cities with neighborhood governance systems, particularly in terms of the overarching goals of engaging citizens in governance, enhancing their sense of efficacy, and even increasing their trust of government. Disclosure Statement: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest that relate to the research, authorship, or publication of this article. 25 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 204 References Barati, Z., Samah, B.A., & Ahmad, N. (2012). Sense of community and citizen participation in neighborhood councils in Iran. Journal of American Science, 8(1), 655-661. Chambré, S. M., & Fatt, N. (2002). Beyond the liability of newness: Nonprofit organizations in an emerging policy domain. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(4), 502-524. Chen, B., Cooper, T., & Sun, R. (2009). Spontaneous or constructed? Neighborhood governance reforms in Los Angeles and Shanghai. Public Administration Review, 69, S108-S115. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40469080 City and County of Honolulu. (2021). Neighborhood Boards. http://www.honolulu.gov/nco/boards.html City of Atlanta (n.d.). Neighborhood Planning Unit (NPU). https://www.atlantaga.gov/government/departments/city-planning/office-of-zoning- development/neighborhood-planning-unit-npu City of Cincinnati. (2022). Community Councils. https://insights.cincinnati- oh.gov/stories/s/Community-Councils/csw6-ps2a/ City of Cincinnati. (n.d.). Neighborhood Enhancement Program. https://www.cincinnati- oh.gov/community-development/neighborhood-development/nep/ City of Cincinnati. (2022). Cincinnati Community Council Boundaries. https://data.cincinnati- oh.gov/Thriving-Neighborhoods/Cincinnati-Community-Council-Boundaries/6aci-7ivg/ City of Tacoma. (2020). Neighborhood Council Program. https://www.cityoftacoma.org/cms/one.aspx?pageId=21111 Community Council Directory. (n.d.) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qJcxl5qqQf2WyGWK6PjXcytyGqz13gJFL25A MEKGkNY/edit#gid=407899492 Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., & Christian, L.M. (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 4th ed., New York: Wiley. DC.gov. (n.d.). Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. https://anc.dc.gov/page/about-ancs Holder, S. (2020, February 6). Raleigh wants to raze and rebuild the community meeting. Bloomberg CityLab. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/why-raleigh- s-citizen-advisory-groups-got-silenced 26 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 205 Horn, D. (2018, May 24). Census: Population tops 300K again in Cincinnati, surges in most suburbs. Cincinnati Enquirer. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/05/24/cincinnati-population-census- estimates-say-its-over-300-000-again/638122002/ Horn, D., & Coolidge, S. Analysis: How John Cranley became Cincinnati's most powerful mayor in a century. Cincinnati Enquirer. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/02/08/cincinnati-mayor-how-john-cranley- became-citys-most-powerful-mayor/4330755001/ Invest in Neighborhoods (2017a). About Invest in Neighborhoods. https://www.investinneighborhoods.org/about-invest-in-neighborhoods/ Invest in Neighborhoods (2017b). Neighborhoods Support Program. https://www.investinneighborhoods.org/nsp/ Invest in Neighborhoods (2017c). Neighborhood Councils Action Coalition. https://www.investinneighborhoods.org/ncac/ Jun, K.-N. (2007). Event history analysis of the formation of Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils. Urban Affairs Review, 43(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087407302123 Kathi, P.C., & Cooper, T.L. (2005). Democratizing the administrative state: Connecting neighborhood councils and city agencies. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 559–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00483.x Kathi, P.C., & Cooper, T.L. (2007). Connecting neighborhood councils and city agencies: Trust building through the learning and design forum process. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(3-4), 617–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2007.12001501 Knight, C. (2017, December 6). Cincinnati's Community Councils: FC Cincinnati stadium vote showcased hidden power - and perils. Cincinnati Enquirer. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/06/cincinnatis-community- councils-fc-cincinnati-stadium-vote-showcased-hidden-power-and-perils/908887001/ Levine, M. (2020, February 10). Raleigh votes to disband neighborhood councils to boost equitable development. Nonprofit Quarterly. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/raleigh-votes- to-disband-neighborhood-councils-to-boost-equitable-development/ Li, H., Wen, B., & Cooper, T.L. (2019). What makes neighborhood associations effective in urban governance? Evidence from neighborhood council boards in Los Angeles. The 27 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 206 American Review of Public Administration, 49(8), 931–943. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019854160 McPherson, M. (1983). An ecology of affiliation. American Sociological Review, 48(4), 519-532. Monks, M. (2021, February 3). How much say do Cincinnati's Community Councils have in City Hall? Cincinnati Public Radio. https://www.wvxu.org/post/how-much-say-do-cincinnatis- community-councils-have-city-hall#stream/0 Musso, J.A., Weare, C., Oztas, N., & Loges, W.E. (2006). Neighborhood governance reform and networks of community power in Los Angeles. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282586 Musso, J., Weare, C., Bryer, T., & Cooper, T.L. (2011). Toward “strong democracy” in global cities? Social capital building, theory-driven reform, and the Los Angeles neighborhood council experience. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02311.x Newton, K. (1982). Is small really so beautiful? Is big really so ugly? Size, effectiveness, and democracy in local government. Political Studies, 30(2), 190-206. Osili, U., Zarins, S., Bergdoll, J., Kou, X., Grossnickle, T., Schipp, D., Canada, A., Ardillo, T., Ernst, L., Knutson, J., Colman, A., & Walker, V. (2018). The impact of diversity: Understanding how nonprofit board diversity affects philanthropy, leadership, and board engagement. https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/15239/board- diversity180220.pdf Sancton, A., & Young, R.A. (2009). Foundations of Governance: Municipal Government in Canada's Provinces. University of Toronto Press. Serdült, U., & Welp, Y. (2015). How sustainable is democratic innovation? Tracking neighborhood councils in Montevideo. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 7(2), 131- 148. 28 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 207 Appendix A: Survey Instrument for Community Council Board Members Your Community Council 1. As you may know, the City of Cincinnati has 48 Community Councils that represent neighborhoods within the city’s boundaries. With this relatively large number of Community Councils, it is expected that there is variation in terms of board size, meeting attendance, key activities, and so on. We’d like to learn more about all of these Community Councils in order to improve and strengthen them. We’d like to learn more about the Community Council in which you’re involved. To start, please indicate the group for which you serve as a board member. o Avondale Community Council o Bond Hill Community Council o California Community Council o Camp Washington Community Council o Carthage Civic League o Clifton Town Meeting o College Hill Forum o Columbia Tusculum Community Council o Corryville Community Council o CUF Neighborhood Association o Downtown Residents Council o East End Area Council o East Price Hill Improvement Association o East Walnut Hills Assembly o East Westwood Improvement Association o Evanston Community Council o Hartwell Improvement Association o Hyde Park Neighborhood Council o Kennedy Heights Community Council o Linwood Community Council o Lower Price Hill Community Council o Madisonville Community Council o Millvale Residents & Community Council o Mount Adams Civic Association o Mount Airy Town Council o Mount Auburn Community Council o Mount Lookout Civic Association o Mount Washington Community Council o North Avondale Neighborhood Association 29 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 208 o North Fairmount Community Council o Northside Community Council o Oakley Community Council o Over-the-Rhine Community Council o Paddock Hills Assembly o Pendleton Community Council o Pleasant Ridge Community Council o Riverside Civic & Welfare Club o Roselawn Community Council o Sayler Park Village Council o Sedamsville Civic Association o South Cumminsville Community Council o South Fairmount Community Council o Spring Grove Village Community Council o Walnut Hills Area Council o West End Community Council o West Price Hill Community Council o Westwood Civic Association o Winton Hills Community Council 2. What is the total number of people who serve on the board of your Community Council? ____ 3. In 2019, what was the AVERAGE number of people who attended your Community Council meetings including board members? In other words, what was the typical attendance at your Community Council meetings last year? o 1 = 10 people or fewer o 2 = 11 to 20 people o 3 = 21 to 30 people o 4 = 31 to 40 people or more o 5 = 41 to 50 people o 6 = 51 people or more 4. In 2019, what was the LARGEST number of people who attend one of your Community Council meetings? ___ 30 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 209 Effectiveness 5. Community Councils in Cincinnati – and similar neighborhood councils across the country and around the world – help bridge the relationship between citizens and local governments. These community and neighborhood councils play important roles in “urban governance,” which is the institutional arrangements through which citizens voices are channeled, collective decisions are made, and services are delivered to address community needs and problems. For each area identified below, select the response that best reflects your perceptions of the effectiveness of your Community Council. (Please respond to all items.) In terms of this aspect, I believe that my Community Council is … 1 = Not at all effective 2 3 4 5 = Extremely effective ▪ promoting citizen participation in government. ▪ enhancing the sense of community or “togetherness” in the neighborhood. ▪ improving the sense of pride in the neighborhood. ▪ working to address needs and problems in the neighborhood. ▪ including diverse interests in the neighborhood. ▪ advising the city on land use. ▪ advising the city on local service needs. ▪ advising the city on citywide policies. Internal Capacity 6. Generally speaking, the INTERNAL CAPACITY of public and nonprofit organizations, including Community Councils, is the basis upon which they can implement programs and achieve goals. Please indicate the degree to which you agree (or disagree) with the following statements about the internal capacity of your Community Council. (Please respond to all items.) o Strongly disagree o Disagree o Neither agree or disagree o Agree o Strongly agree My Community Council … ▪ defines goals clearly. ▪ runs meetings smoothly. 31 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 210 ▪ forms consensus effectively. ▪ manages conflict constructively. ▪ maintains leadership stability. ▪ recruits and manages volunteers effectively. ▪ acquires grants and other funds as needed to support programs and activities. ▪ manages financial resources effectively in terms of budgeting, accounting, and reporting. ▪ encourages questions and discussion at meetings. ▪ mediates difficult conversations. External Networking 7. The EXTERNAL NETWORKING component of a Community Council is the extent to which board members are in contact with community stakeholders such as elected leaders, city administrators or employees, and other individuals and organizations in the community and city. In this section, select the response that best reflects how often you and/or other board members have been in contact with such community stakeholders during the past month. (Please respond to all items.) During the past month, board members (including myself) were in contact with this group of stakeholders … o No contact with these community stakeholders o 1 to 2 times o 3 to 4 times o 5 to 6 times o More than 6 times ▪ Elected leaders in the City of Cincinnati (e.g., mayor, city council members) ▪ City administrators or employees (e.g., city manager, city planners, police officers, park officials) ▪ Invest in Neighborhoods (IIN) board members or staff ▪ Other community organizations (e.g., schools, libraries, development corporations, local businesses, other Community Councils). Issue Attention 8. The ISSUE ATTENTION component of a Community Council is the degree to which board members focus their time and energy on various issues in the neighborhood. In this section, select the response that best reflects the degree to which your Community Council discussed each issue below during the past calendar year – January through December 2019. (Please respond to all items.) During the past calendar year, my Community Council discussed this issue … o Never 32 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 211 o Rarely o Occasionally o Frequently o Always ▪ crime, law enforcement, public safety ▪ planning, zoning, land use ▪ development, redevelopment, revitalization ▪ recreation centers, pools, golf courses ▪ parks and greenspace ▪ streets, parking, sidewalks, bike paths ▪ garbage collection, yard-waste collection, snow removal, street sweeping ▪ community events and activities ▪ youth-focused activities Action 9. The ACTION component examines the extent to which Community Council board members have been in contact with city departments and agencies. In this section, select the response that best reflects the extent to which your Community Council board members were in contact with each city department during the past calendar year – January through December 2019. (Please respond to all items.) During the past calendar year, board members (including myself) contacted this government agency … o Never o Rarely o Occasionally o Frequently o Always ▪ Cincinnati Police Department ▪ City Planning ▪ Department of Community and Economic Development ▪ Cincinnati Recreation Commission and/or rec centers ▪ Cincinnati Parks ▪ Department of Transportation and Engineering ▪ Department of Public Services Demographic Information As part of this research, we are trying to get a better understanding of the individuals who serve on Community Council boards in the City of Cincinnati. Please help us by completing the 33 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 212 questions in this section of the survey. As a reminder, the information that you provide is anonymous; in other words, you do not provide your name, and the data will not be identified with you. Also, the survey results will be presented in an aggregated form; that is, the data will not be reported out at the individual or Community Council level. 10. How many years have you lived in your neighborhood? o 4 years or less o 5 to 9 years o 10 to 14 years o 15 to 19 years o 20 years or more 11. How old are you? o Under 18 years old o 18 to 29 years old o 30 to 39 years old o 40 to 49 years old o 50 to 59 years old o 60 to 69 years old o 70 years old or older 12. Which of the following best represents your race or ethnicity? o White o Black or African American o Asian o American Indian or Alaskan Native o Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander o Two or More Races o Unknown 13. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin? o No o Yes 14. To which gender identity do you most identify? o Female o Male o Transgender o Something else 34 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 213 15. To which sexual orientation do you most identify? o Straight (not gay, lesbian, or bisexual) o Gay or lesbian o Bisexual o Something else 16. Do you consider yourself a person with a disability? o No o Yes 17. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? o Less than a high school diploma o High school degree or equivalent (e.g., GED) o Some college credit, no degree o Associate degree (e.g., AA, AS) o Bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA, BS) o Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MS, MEd) o Professional degree (e.g., MD, DDS, JD) o Doctorate (e.g., PhD, EdD) 18. How would you describe your current living situation? o I own my residence. o I rent my residence. o Other (please explain: ________) 19. What is your current employment status? o Employed full time (32 hours per week or more) o Employed part time (up to 31 hours per week) o Unemployed and currently looking for work o Unemployed and not currently looking for work (e.g., stay-at-home parent) o Retired o Student o Military o Unable to work 20. What is your current household income? o Less than $20,000 o $20,000 to $39,999 o $40,000 to $59,999 o $60,000 to $79,999 35 Olberding et al.: Extending Research of Neighborhood Governance Systems Published by Carroll Collected, 2022 214 o $80,000 to $99,999 o $100,000 to $119,999 o $120,000 to $139,999 o $140,000 or more 36 The Journal of Economics and Politics, Vol. 27 [2022], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://collected.jcu.edu/jep/vol27/iss1/1 DOI: 10.59604/1046-2309.1047 215 RESEARCH PAPERS Understanding the Roles and Contributions of Neighborhood Organizations in Civic Governance Melissa A. Mathews 1 Accepted: 25 May 2021/Published online: 15 June 2021 International Society for Third-Sector Research 2021 Abstract An area of ongoing debate is whether neigh- borhood organizations contribute to civic governance by enabling citizen influence in government, mobilizing con- stituents, and improving policy outcomes through localized knowledge, community organizing, and civic engagement. This article presents the findings of a study to understand the roles and contributions of neighborhood organizations in civic governance. The research design consisted of an exploratory and qualitative case study of individual inter- views with 46 board presidents who described the roles of their neighborhood organizations within communities, in relationship to a city, and whether, and to what extent, they contributed to civic governance. Study participants char- acterized their neighborhood organizations’ roles according to three core themes: developing community and improv- ing the neighborhood, educating and engaging citizens, and representing and advocating for the neighborhood. The findings reveal significant resource limitations that con- strain civic engagement and participation capacities. Thus, as a result of the findings, I contend that there are several opportunities to strengthen their roles and contributions in civic governance. Keywords Neighborhood organizations Civic governance Voluntary Civil society Introduction More than a century ago, Mary Parker Follett (1918/1998, 245) anticipated that neighborhood organizations were important for democratic governance, improving policy outcomes, and advancing democratic legitimacy: First, every neighborhood must be organized; the neighborhood groups must then be integrated, through larger intermediary groups, into a true state. Neither our cities nor our states can ever be properly administered until representatives from neighborhood groups meet to discuss and thereby to correlate the needs of all parts of the city, of all parts of the state. Scholars also have observed that nonprofit organizations are ‘‘sites for the constitution of citizens’’ (Clemens,2006, 216) and civic associations function as ‘‘great free schools’’ of democracy (Tocqueville 1835/1956, 914), which are foundational to civil society (Chaskin,2003; Cnaan,1991). Presently, Follett’s (1918/1998) vision of local governance is being realized in the USA as evidenced by an increase in the number of municipal–community partnerships, city- wide citizen participation systems, and voluntary associa- tions that connect citizens to municipalities. Neighborhood organizations mediate between individual and public, nonprofit, and private interests, enable citizen influence in government, mobilize constituents, balance economic power, and improve policy outcomes through localized knowledge, community organizing, and civic engagement. An area of ongoing debate, however, is whether neigh- borhood organizations consistently, effectively, and sub- stantively contribute to civic governance, which also serves to address weaknesses in democratic governance through local representation (Berry et al.,2002; Jun & Musso, 2013). Additionally, the debate is centered on whether &Melissa A. Mathews Melissa.Mathews@csulb.edu 1 Graduate Center for Public Policy and Administration, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840, USA 123 Voluntas (2021) 32:821–829 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00369-z 216 neighborhood organizations can sufficiently resolve dif- ferences between competing constituent interests, facilitate participatory decision-making processes, and represent citizen preferences to elected officials and city adminis- trators. Indeed, studies have found that board member elections are characterized by low voter involvement and exclusionary tendencies (Cnaan,1991; Jun & Musso, 2007), and boards predominantly consist of affluent, well- educated, White, and older homeowners (Guo & Musso, 2007; Li et al.,2019; Weare et al.,2009). Although civic engagement and participation are foundational for com- municating citizen preferences and local conditions to city administrators and elected officials (Berry et al.,2002; Box,1998), it is acknowledged that socioeconomic biases can exacerbate longstanding inequities in governance (Jun & Musso,2013; Ostrom,1999). For example, given the economic segregation of cities, and the resultant competi- tion over neighborhood resource allocation, there can be increased local fragmentation that constrains neighborhood organizations’ municipal influence (Martin & Holloway, 2005). Additionally, neighborhood organizations have the potential to coopt constituent support and serve board members’ private interests instead of transcending neigh- borhood boundaries and contributing to civic governance. While there is an established body of scholarship regarding the representational characteristics of neighbor- hood organizations, the literature does not sufficiently examine voluntary neighborhood organizations that are not part of formal municipal citizen participation systems. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to understand the roles and contributions of neighborhood organizations in civic governance. Specifically, I sought to understand how study participants conceptualized their roles within their com- munities, in relationship to the city administrators and elected officials, and whether, and to what extent, neigh- borhood organizational leaders perceived that they con- tributed to municipal processes. It is important to examine these neighborhood organi- zations to better understand their potential contributions to local governance and assess whether there are particular contingencies that might constrain their capabilities for engaging a more active populace. This article contributes a much-needed qualitative dimension, which is grounded in professional practice, to the debate about what constitutes effective civic engagement, and the findings advance an understanding of how to strengthen the civic participative capacities of neighborhood organizations. I argue that scholarship that seeks to understand civic governance should attend to the role of these intermediary organiza- tions in realizing more democratic outcomes. To situate this study within the field, I first review the literature that is focused on the representative and participatory roles of neighborhood organizations, which is followed by a description of the research methods. Thematic findings from the qualitative interview data are then presented with a discussion of the results that concludes with suggestions to improve civic participation and recommendations for future research. Literature Review Studies about the roles and contributions of neighborhood organizations in civic governance are focused on neigh- borhood constituent representation, their roles mediating between citizens and municipalities, and perceived legiti- macy and effectiveness of neighborhood organizations. It is important to note that there is a lack of consistent or shared terminology within the literature regarding neighborhood organizational types that range from (a) nonprofit neigh- borhood councils, which are formally recognized as part of municipal citizen participation systems, to (b) neighbor- hood organizations, which are voluntary and community- based organizations. Therefore, specific neighborhood organizational types are referenced throughout this review to accurately reflect the literature and advance a better understanding of potential contextual influences on their roles within communities and with regard to municipalities. The first stream of the literature about the representative aspect of neighborhood organizations illustrated that board members were not descriptively representative of neigh- borhood demographics (Chaskin & Greenberg,2015; Jun & Musso,2007; Martin & Holloway,2005; Musso et al., 2007) and boards predominantly consisted of affluent, well-educated, White, and older homeowners (Guo & Musso,2007; Weare et al.,2009). Moreover, increased racial and ethnic diversity among neighborhood residents did not result in improved demographic diversity of boards of directors (Martin & Holloway,2005), which pointed to potential racial and ethnic biases in board member recruitment and selection (Jun & Musso,2007). A more recent study confirmed that the majority of neighborhood boards still consisted of relatively affluent, well-educated, White, and older men (Li et al.,2019). Additionally, board members reported a higher socioeconomic status compared to neighborhood residents and they were elected by a minority of the residential population (Cnaan,1991). The agenda-setting activities of neighborhood councils also were influenced by board demographics and lower- income communities prioritized neighborhood mainte- nance and capacity to a greater degree compared to municipal level issues (Jun & Musso,2013). By contrast, board members from higher-income neighborhoods more frequently addressed land use and zoning issues compared to councils representing lower-income neighborhoods (Polsby,1980). Community boundaries also were invoked 822 Voluntas (2021) 32:821–829 123 217 by leaders to establish the representative roles of neigh- borhood councils and strengthen neighborhood identities (Martin,2003); however, these strategies increased orga- nizational insularity and conflicts between citizen and business interests (Chaskin,2003; Jun,2012; Martin & Holloway,2005; Meyer & Hyde,2004). Moreover, when there were greater numbers of community-based organi- zations and neighborhood boundaries were invoked to establish neighborhood organizations’ representative roles, there were increased accounts of intra-neighborhood con- flict and factionalism (Martin,2004; Meyer & Hyde,2004). This first stream of the literature regarding the represen- tative roles of neighborhood organizations revealed how localized neighborhood governance processes can con- tribute to or exacerbate class biases in civic governance. A second stream of the literature was focused on neighborhood organizations and their roles mediating between citizens and municipalities (Chaskin & Greenberg, 2015; Marwell,2004; Musso et al.,2011) to disseminate information, facilitate civic engagement, foster public deliberation, and develop shared values and social ties (Harris & Milofsky,2019). The intermediary roles that neighborhood councils enacted were described as com- plementary bonding and bridging relationships to mobilize constituents (Musso et al.,2006). Overall, neighborhood organizations were found to be either (a) parallel to civic governance providing alternative goods and services, (b) separate yet complementary filling gaps in goods and services, (c) integrated as an extension of a city, or (d) in- dependently serving as advocates for constituencies and influencing policy processes (Chaskin & Garg,1997). Lastly, neighborhood organizations were more active in municipal coproduction processes compared to other types of community-based organizations and they served as critical access points for civic governance (Lelieveldt et al., 2009). Musso (1999) advanced an argument for local gover- nance through municipal civic participation systems yet noted that neighborhoods that were less affluent and influential did not receive equal municipal attention, which contributed to inefficient or inequitable public service provision. Neighborhood organizations also were suscep- tible to fluctuating political support and new city admin- istrative leadership (Musso et al.,2011), thus decreasing bureaucratic responsiveness to citizens (Bryer,2009; Bryer & Cooper,2007). As a result, and despite the presence of strong citywide networks, neighborhood councils remained peripheral to civic governance and reported a substantial range of organizational capacities and activities, which decreased the effectiveness of their intermediary roles (Musso et al.,2007). For example, residents from higher- income neighborhoods directly accessed municipal resources instead of using neighborhood organizations as intermediaries (Lenk et al.,2002; Matejczyk,2001; Sil- verman,2003). A third stream of the literature focused on the legitimacy and effectiveness of neighborhood organizations and their roles as government control mechanisms by connecting individuals to municipalities (Paxton,2002). For example, conflicts between neighborhood organizations and cities were seen as inevitable and appropriate for improving municipal accountability (Dierwechter & Coffey,2010). Several studies, however, found that residents strongly preferred that neighborhood organizations foster positive relationships with elected officials and city administrators (Hur & Bollinger,2014) and, consequently, they deferred to municipal decisions (Dierwechter & Coffey,2010; Hur & Bollinger,2014; Matejczyk,2001). Neighborhood capacity-building initiatives by cities were critical for effective civic engagement (Chaskin & Garg,1997), and the establishment of municipal civic participation systems further improved the quality of citizen participation and reduced conflicts between private sector, municipal, and citizen interests (Berry et al.,2002). For example, citywide issues were more frequently addressed by neighborhood councils (Chaskin,2003; Chaskin & Greenberg,2015) and formal municipal recognition increased civic engagement (Bryer,2009; Bryer & Cooper,2007; Silverman,2003). The most effective municipal civic participation systems delegated substantive authority to neighborhood organiza- tions, adopted citizen participation policies, incentivized coproduction, and formally recognized neighborhood rep- resentation (Berry et al.,2002). There also were divergent evaluations by elected offi- cials, city administrators, and residents regarding the effectiveness of neighborhood organizations (Chaskin, 2003; Dierwechter & Coffey,2010; Hur & Bollinger,2014; Jun & Shiau,2012). Neighborhood organizations were considered to be only moderately effective in civic gov- ernance (Li et al.,2019), yet committed neighborhood activists who leveraged neighborhood and city resources contributed to their overall effectiveness (Andrews et al., 2010). Also, neighborhood organizations that represented residents with higher socioeconomic status reported greater access to organizational resources and subsequent effec- tiveness (Mesch & Schwirian,1996), which highlights critical inequities that influenced their roles and contribu- tions in civic governance. This third stream of the literature underscored the value of formalized civic participation systems that established linkages between citizens, neigh- borhood organizations, and city representatives to confer legitimacy and improve citizen participation processes. Overall, scholarship was focused on neighborhood constituent representation, the mediating roles of neigh- borhood organizations, and their perceived legitimacy and effectiveness. Although there was a small stream of Voluntas (2021) 32:821–829 823 123 218 research on neighborhood organizations’ intermediary roles, it was not clearly understood to what extent they contributed to civic governance. This presents a limitation for advancing an understanding of how to improve public participation; therefore, the purpose of this study was to bring us closer to understanding how neighborhood orga- nizations can engage a more active populace in municipal governance processes. Methods I used an exploratory and qualitative case study design that was situated in an interpretive paradigm, which examines individuals’ subjective interpretations within contextual settings. Specifically, I sought to understand how study participants conceptualized their neighborhood organiza- tions’ roles within their communities, in relationship to the City, and whether and to what extent they contributed to civic governance. This interpretive analysis adds a critical qualitative dimension to extant scholarship that predomi- nantly utilizes quantitative methods to examine neighbor- hood constituent representation, the mediating roles of neighborhood organizations, and their perceived legitimacy and effectiveness. Moreover, these streams of the literature do not examine board presidents’ perceptions of their neighborhood organizations’ roles and contributions in civic governance, which limits opportunities to improve professional practice and public participation in municipal governance processes. This study was conducted within a mid-sized munici- pality that is part of a major metropolitan region of the West Coast in the USA. The primary case-level data of this study consisted of individual interviews with 46 board presidents of neighborhood voluntary organizations with no to limited operating budgets. The majority of the par- ticipants were between 55 and 74 years of age, and 30 participants held bachelor or graduate degrees. There were 29 female board presidents and 17 male board presidents and 28 participants identified as White, eight participants identified as African American or Black, seven participants identified as Hispanic or Latino, two participants identified as Asian, and one participant identified as Latina and Native American. The Neighborhood Resource Center (NRC), which is part of the City’s Housing and Neighborhood Services Bureau, publishes an annual list of neighborhood groups who elect to share their contact information with the NRC approximately once every two years. I excluded 25 orga- nizations from the initial list of 82 neighborhood groups because they did not organize activities at the scale of the neighborhood and, instead, primarily focused on crime prevention or block club social events and at a significantly smaller scale. Therefore, 57 neighborhood organizations were selected for inclusion because they (a) organized neighborhood events, (b) had active boards of directors, and (c) communicated with neighborhood constituents several times per year. I elected to do this to control for potential internal organizational or external environmental field influences and enable a more robust interpretation of the findings. An important component for qualitative case study research is data saturation. Therefore, fieldwork concluded at the point where little new information was gained from additional interviews and each new interview revealed similar thematic areas and patterns regarding participants’ interpretations of their organizations’ roles within neigh- borhoods and the City. The Institutional Review Board granted ethical approval of this study, and before each interview, participants signed an informed consent form. The interviews were conducted at community centers, participants’ homes, and neighborhood coffee shops, and the duration of each interview was approximately one hour in length. The following questions guided the semi-struc- tured interviews followed by conversational probes to illicit thick data and grounded descriptions of the partici- pants’ role perceptions: (a) describe your neighborhood organization’s role and activities, (b) tell me how you engage your constituents, and (c) describe whether, and to what extent, your organization participates in civic gover- nance. NVivo software was used to facilitate data analyses, manage transcribed texts of the audio recordings, and organize my coding processes. I used an inductive approach for analysis to build concepts through codes and themes, illuminate relationships between core themes, and highlight the contextuality of the study phenomena. Specific coding strategies included holistic, in vivo, and process coding (Saldan˜a,2013) followed by pattern coding to develop core themes (Miles & Huberman,1994). To strengthen the trustworthiness of the findings, I organized a two-hour focus group session following the conclusion of the study and developed an open-ended survey for partic- ipant feedback as a form of member checking. This study was informed by a conceptual framework for participatory representation (Guo & Musso,2007)to position leaders of neighborhood organizations as con- stituent delegates. Specifically, this standpoint highlights the relationship between neighborhood organizations and their community members according to their communica- tion processes and constituent involvement in civic gov- ernance. The participatory representation framework particularly is relevant for examining whether neighbor- hood organizations engaged in participatory processes and representative practices in their neighborhoods and with the City. Moreover, this framework enables an examination of how neighborhood organizations educate and develop 824 Voluntas (2021) 32:821–829 123 219 citizens’ political and civic governance skills (Guo & Saxton,2010). Findings Study participants described their neighborhood organiza- tions’ roles within communities and their relationships with city administrators and elected officials. Moreover, they also discussed whether, and to what extent, their neigh- borhood organizations were contributing to civic gover- nance. Three main themes were prevalent in the findings according to my analysis of the study participants’ inter- view data: (a)developing community and improving the neighborhood, (b)educating and engaging citizens, and (c)representing and advocating for the neighborhood. Themes are in italic font throughout this section. Developing Community and Improving the Neighborhood Study participants indicated that a primary focus of their associations was to clean up and beautify their neighbor- hoods, which was characterized as part of developing community and improving the neighborhood.However, many board presidents also noted challenges for realizing neighborhood improvement projects due to a lack of suf- ficient resources and city support. Study participants pro- vided examples of projects that were either unsuccessful or stalled due to a lack of funding or city councilmember support. For example, one participant noted that when they were working with city administrators that they used an incremental approach to ensure that they were able to make progress on neighborhood improvement projects: There’s a trick, it’s doing things a step at a time, because if we were to say ‘‘Hey, look, we want to do a garden. We’re going to need a bench from you. We’re going to put in some trees,’’ they would be like, ‘‘Whoa. No. No.’’ Another board president observed that neighborhood organizations were centrally situated to lead improvement projects and commented: ‘‘We have a beautification program. I believe part of a good neighborhood is you want it to look good.’’ Overall, study participants described problems with securing neighborhood volunteers and substantial resource limitations although cleaning up and beautifying their neighborhood remained a priority as summarized by one board president: ‘‘It’s all about what we can do to make this neighborhood much better than what it is.’’ As part of developing community and improving the neighborhood,participants also described that they were creating relationships among residents and businesses. For example, one board president stated: ‘‘We’re looking at building community in the neighborhood and creating connections.’’ The strengthening of intra-neighborhood connections was conceptualized as a means to improve the quality of life, establish ties between residents and busi- nesses, and leverage strategies for community organizing. For example, one participant observed that ‘‘The neigh- borhood that knows each other is going to thrive, because you look out for each other in a whole lot of different ways.’’ Another board president reflected on the impor- tance of community development and commented: I think what we’re doing is changing the nature of relationships in a neighborhood, and by doing that with different groups that have different legacies here, different threads here—some are short threads, some are long threads, and so you have to get—again, that fabric analogy of getting as many long threads connected to short threads so that it can be reinforcing. Overall, when asked to describe their neighborhood organizations’ roles, study participants delineated that developing community and improving the neighborhood was an important function of their roles as a result of their intermediary positions situated between the City and neighborhood residents and businesses. Educating and Engaging Citizens The second major theme entailed educating and engaging citizens by (a) finding and involving neighborhood resi- dents and businesses in community and city projects and (b) sharing information and learning about municipal policies and processes. Similar to the first core theme, board presidents characterized their roles as intermediary between the neighborhood and the City, and that they sought to educate and engage community members for more effective civic participation. For example, one par- ticipant stated: ‘‘The whole point of the outreach we do is to empower our residents to feel like they have a friend in City Hall.’’ Another participant noted that their neighbor- hood organization served ‘‘to engage, inform and then empower, so helping people to feel empowered that they can make a difference.’’ Neighborhood leaders conceptu- alized their organizations as the ‘‘lowest level of govern- ment’’ and pointed to the importance of civic education: ‘‘It’s citizen building, because we have forfeited that ability—if we the people don’t have a say.’’ Moreover, board presidents stated that participation in neighborhood organizations was important to democratic governance as emphasized by one board president: ‘‘How can you dream about living in a democracy and don’t take part? Those two Voluntas (2021) 32:821–829 825 123 220 things are contradictory. You have to take part. That’s your responsibility.’’ Another study participant reflected that: ‘‘You cannot have an automatic democracy; you have to get out there and participate.’’ Study participants stated that an important part of edu- cating and engaging citizens was sharing information and learning about municipal policies and processes. For example, board presidents commented that convening neighborhood meetings served to educate residents and business leaders on city processes: ‘‘So, we reach out and bring in the experts to educate us on issues that pertain to everybody. They know if they come to our meetings, they learn something.’’ Another board president reflected that it was important to help residents understand their political influence and roles as city government constituents: And I see that as a hindrance to exercising our fun- damental democracy, because people don’t under- stand. You know, I tell people ‘‘You’re the City. They work for you, and any time you don’t like what they’re doing, you have an obligation to go tell them.’’ Additionally, participants noted that by sharing information and learning about municipal policies and processes, residents were better able to advocate for and actualize neighborhood improvement strategies. One board president stated: ‘‘They say knowledge is power. I say, ‘No. Applied knowledge is power.’’’ Overall, participants consistently described educating and empowering citizens as an important function that neighborhood organizations were fulfilling relative to civic engagement and participation. Representing and Advocating for the Neighborhood The third major theme that emerged from the analysis of interview data indicated that they were representing and advocating for the neighborhood on behalf of residents and businesses. For example, one board president described a recent meeting between neighborhood organization mem- bers and their city councilperson to address a zoning issue: And meeting with our councilwoman she said, ‘‘Could you live with this?’’ And we said, ‘‘We could live with that, but not with that.’’ So, when we went to the Council, everything that we talked about she put forth, and that’s now in the ordinance. Board presidents indicated that they also partnered with other neighborhood organizations to better advocate on behalf of their neighborhoods. For example, one participant stated that a fundamental priority was ‘‘helping to move information between various governmental organizations and the neighborhood organizations, and to communicate between the neighborhood organizations, because what occurs in one neighborhood might also affect another one.’’ In addition to advocating for the neighborhood, participants sought to represent the neighborhood at the city level as characterized by one board president: ‘‘It’s important that neighborhood organizations become a neighborhood resource, we become the go-between between our elected officials and the City where we know where to go, who to contact, how to do it.’’ The majority of study participants characterized their organizations as supportive of the City although several board presidents reflected that they often disagreed with city administrators and elected officials. For example, one participant commented that ‘‘We do try to play ball with the City. We’re not trying to be adversarial, because we don’t feel like that gets you anywhere. Some residents would prefer us to be more adversarial.’’ However, another board president stated: ‘‘We don’t want to be thought of as an arm of the council office, because we have a lot of issues with them. Sometimes we agree, but more often than not, we disagree with the City.’’ Several study participants also described circumstances whereby they were directly accessing the City and influ- encing civic governance rather than working in relationship with their city councilmembers: ‘‘We’ve become the sur- rogate representative for the neighborhood, and we don’t even go through the councilmember anymore, we’re wasting our time. We take care of the issues directly with the City, and we go around the councilmember.’’ It is important to highlight that all study participants indicated that they were ‘‘apolitical’’ and pointed out that ‘‘it is necessary to effectively advocate for our neighbor- hoods.’’ Overall, board presidents were concerned about whether their neighborhood organizations were adequately representative of neighborhood residents. For example, one board president stated that ‘‘It comes back to having people on the Board that may not represent all constituencies in the neighborhood.’’ However, study participants indicated that their efforts were well intentioned as summarized by a board president: ‘‘Even if we haven’t talked to every single one we’re representing, because we just don’t know everybody’s thoughts, we have to believe that our decisions are the best for the community.’’ Discussion and Conclusion This article presents study findings with respect to the roles and contributions of neighborhood organizations in civic governance and participants conceptualized their roles as (a)developing community and improving the neighbor- hood, (b)educating and engaging citizens, and (c)repre- senting and advocating for the neighborhood. First, board presidents noted that they were developing community and 826 Voluntas (2021) 32:821–829 123 221 improving the neighborhood by cleaning up and beautify- ing their neighborhoods, creating relationships among residents and businesses, and improving residential safety and the quality of life. Study participants characterized this as fulfilling municipal service provision needs and per- forming functions that the City should manage. It is important to note, relevant to Chaskin and Garg’s (1997) characterization of four types of neighborhood–city rela- tionships, that study participants perceived that they were addressing municipal service gaps and advocating on behalf of neighborhood constituents, and that they were not providing alternative services or serving as an extension of the City. Although participants conceptualized their neighborhood organizations as centrally situated to lead improvement projects and indicated that community building was important for civic engagement, they cited examples of inequitable public service provision, which might be a result of relative neighborhood affluence and concurrent degrees of political influence (Musso,1999). Second, neighborhood organizations were educating and engaging citizens by sharing and learning about municipal governance, and connecting residents and busi- nesses to neighborhood activities and city processes. Scholars have described the intermediary roles of com- munity-based organizations as disseminating information and developing shared values and social ties to facilitate civic engagement and foster public participation (Harris & Milofsky,2019). However, while board presidents noted that they were developing connections among residents and businesses, they emphasized that these activities were for social purposes only, which contrasts with previous research findings that revealed a relationship between social ties and civic engagement (Mesch & Schwirian, 1996). Additionally, study participants characterized their neighborhood organizations’ roles as an entry level or critical access point for democratic governance, and these findings are in line with research concerning community- based organizations as intermediaries between citizens and local governance (Chaskin & Greenberg,2015; Harris & Milofsky,2019; Musso et al.,2011). Board presidents emphasized that they held meetings for neighborhood constituents to learn about and participate in municipal processes. However, this study also found that these neighborhood organizations were constrained to realize their potential as schools of democratic governance (Cle- mens,2006, 216; Tocqueville 1835/1956, 914) due to the more episodic and voluntary nature of these organizations and a lack of formal recognition or legitimization by the City. Board presidents also identified challenges with the effectiveness of their roles due to a lack of sufficient neighborhood volunteers and limited board member capa- bilities for civic engagement. These findings contribute a new dimension to the literature for considering how neighborhood organizations, which are not part of munic- ipal civic participation systems, can be strengthened to more effectively contribute to civic governance through community education and development. Lastly, board presidents emphasized that they were representing and advocating for the neighborhood by getting involved in municipal processes, representing constituents, and linking the neighborhood to the City. Participants again framed the neighborhood organizations as intermediaries between the neighborhood and the City and described subsequent challenges with ensuring the right balance between supporting and opposing city administrators and elected officials. This finding contrasts with other studies that found that residents perceived conflicts between neighborhood organizations and cities as appropriate and inevitable (Dierwechter & Coffey,2010; Matejczyk,2001). Instead, the participants in this study preferred sustaining positive relationships with city coun- cilmembers and administrators (Hur & Bollinger,2014)to advance their neighborhood organizations’ goals and that they mostly deferred to municipal decisions. Another study found that neighborhood organizations that were more oppositional experienced more problematic zoning issues (Matejczyk,2001), which suggests that exhibiting greater deference to city decisions might be a strategy that neighborhood organizations employ to leverage future political influence. Overall, board presidents described an extensive range of civic participative capacities, which Musso et al. (2007) found to decrease the overall effec- tiveness of neighborhood organizations’ roles in municipal processes. To summarize, board presidents described significant resource constraints that impeded their abilities to fully participate in local governance. Municipal support for neighborhood capacity-building initiatives is instrumental for enhanced civic engagement (Chaskin & Garg,1997), and the establishment of municipal civic participation systems further improves the quality of citizen participa- tion (Berry et al.,2002; Bryer,2009; Bryer & Cooper, 2007; Silverman,2003). Moreover, the most effective municipal systems delegate substantive authority to neighborhood organizations, adopt citizen participation policies, incentivize coproduction, and formally recognize neighborhood representation (Berry et al.,2002). There- fore, the neighborhood organizations in this study certainly would benefit from increased municipal support, greater legitimacy, and a formalized citywide system for civic participation as a starting point for strengthening their contributions to civic governance. A limitation of this study was the examination of neighborhood organizations from within one municipality rather than comparing multiple cities and types of Voluntas (2021) 32:821–829 827 123 222 neighborhood organizations. However, this limitation also provides a direction for future research to extend this exploratory case study by utilizing a multiple case study design to compare voluntary neighborhood organizations to neighborhood councils, which are part of municipal civic participation systems, and identify potential organizational and contextual contingencies. A second limitation pertains to the sample population of board presidents, and future research should examine whether there are divergent interpretations between neighborhood organizational board members, constituents, city administrators, and elected officials concerning neighborhood organizations’ roles and contributions in civic governance. Despite these limita- tions, this study advances a better understanding of neighborhood organizations and their roles within com- munities, and in relationship to municipalities. The study findings delineate specific actions to improve professional practice and strengthen neighborhood organizations through community education and development to more effectively contribute to civic governance. Moreover, this exploratory and qualitative research also serves to illumi- nate particular phenomena that can be used for predictive, descriptive, and normative purposes as part of theory development. Although it remains to be clearly understood the extent to which neighborhood organizations overall engage a more active citizenry, this study reveals latent potentials for neighborhood organizations as substantive intermedi- aries between citizens and cities, and opportunities to strengthen their roles and contributions in civic gover- nance. These findings also are relevant to global perspec- tives concerning the roles of voluntary associations in civil society to improve democratic governance processes, enhance governmental accountability and policy outcomes, and advance democratic legitimacy. Neighborhood orga- nizations are well positioned to ameliorate accounts of declining public participation, and we have an obligation to examine ways to both strengthen their roles and contribu- tions in civic governance and advance representative democratic systems. It is my hope that this article adds to the conversation regarding neighborhood organizations’ roles in mediating increasingly complicated, systemic, and mutable public problems. In honor of the legacy of Mary Parker Follett (1918/1998) who suggested that neighbor- hood organizations be integrated into municipal and state governance processes, we should aim to foster this same vision for scholarship and professional practice alike. Declarations Conflict of interest The author declares that she has no conflict of interest. References Andrews, K. T., Ganz, M., Baggetta, M., Han, H., & Lim, C. (2010). Leadership, membership, and voice: Civic associations that work.American Journal of Sociology, 115(4), 1191–1242. Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., & Thomson, K. (2002).The rebirth of urban democracy. Brookings Institution Press. Box, R. C. (1998).Citizen governance: Leading American commu- nities into the 21st century. Sage. Bryer, T. A. (2009). Explaining responsiveness in collaboration: Administrator and citizen role perceptions.Public Administra- tion Review, 69(2), 271–283. Bryer, T. A., & Cooper, T. L. (2007). Challenges in enhancing responsiveness in neighborhood governance.Public Perfor- mance & Management Review, 31(2), 191–214. Chaskin, R. J. (2003). Fostering neighborhood democracy: Legiti- macy and accountability within loosely coupled systems. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(2), 161–189. Chaskin, R. J., & Garg, S. (1997). The issue of governance in neighborhood-based initiatives.Urban Affairs Review, 32(5), 631–661. Chaskin, R. J., & Greenberg, D. M. (2015). Between public and private action: Neighborhood organizations and local gover- nance.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 248–267. Clemens, E. S. (2006). The constitution of citizens: Political theories of nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.),The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 207–220). Yale University Press. Cnaan, R. A. (1991). Neighborhood-representing organizations: How democratic are they?Social Science Review, 65, 614–634. Dierwechter, Y., & Coffey, B. (2010). Assessing the effects of neighborhood councils on urban policy and development: The example of Tacoma, Washington.The Social Science Journal, 47, 471–491. Follett, M. P. (1918/1998).The new state: Group organization the solution of popular government. The Pennsylvania State Univer- sity Press. Guo, C., & Musso, J. A. (2007). Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A conceptual framework.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 308–326. Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2010). Voice-in, voice-out: Constituent participation and nonprofit advocacy.Nonprofit Policy Forum, 1(1), 1–25. Harris, M., & Milofsky, C. (2019). Mediating structures: Their organization in civil society.Nonprofit Policy Forum, 10(2), 1–11. Hur, M., & Bollinger, A. G. (2014). Neighborhood associations and their strategic actions to enhance residents’ neighborhood satisfaction.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1–22. Jun, K.-N. (2012). Escaping the local trap? The role of community- representing organizations in urban governance.Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(3), 343–363. Jun, K.-N., & Musso, J. A. (2007). Explaining minority representation in place-based associations: Los Angeles neighborhood councils in context.Journal of Civic Society, 3(1), 39–58. Jun, K.-N., & Musso, J. A. (2013). Participatory governance and the spatial representation of neighborhood issues.Urban Affairs Review, 49(1), 71–110. Jun, K.-N., & Shiau, E. (2012). How are we doing? A multiple constituency approach to civic association effectiveness.Non- profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 632–655. Lelieveldt, H., Dekker, K., Vo¨lker, B., & Torenvlied, R. (2009). Civic organizations as political actors: Mapping and predicting the 828 Voluntas (2021) 32:821–829 123 223 involvement of civic organizations in neighborhood problem- solving and coproduction.Urban Affairs Review, 45(1), 3–24. Lenk, K. M., Toomey, T. L., Wagenaar, A. C., Bosma, L. M., & Vessey, J. (2002). Can neighborhood associations be allies in health policy efforts? Political activity among neighborhood associations.Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 57–68. Li, H., Wen, B., & Cooper, T. L. (2019). What makes neighborhood associations effective in urban governance? Evidence from neighborhood council boards in Los Angeles.American Review of Public Administration, 49(8), 931–943. Martin, D. G. (2003). ‘‘Place-framing’’ as place-making: Constituting a neighborhood for organizing and activism.Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(3), 730–750. Martin, D. G. (2004). Nonprofit foundations and grassroots organiz- ing: Reshaping urban governance.The Professional Geographer, 56(3), 394–405. Martin, D. G., & Holloway, S. R. (2005). Organizing diversity: Scales of demographic change and neighborhood organizing in St. Paul, MN.Environment and Planning, 37, 1091–1112. Marwell, N. P. (2004). Privatizing the welfare state: Nonprofit community-based organizations as political actors.American Sociological Review, 69(2), 265–291. Matejczyk, A. P. (2001). Why not NIMBY? Reputation, neighbour- hood organisations and zoning boards in a US midwestern city. Urban Studies, 38(3), 507–518. Mesch, G. S., & Schwirian, K. P. (1996). The effectiveness of neighborhood collective action.Social Problems, 43(4), 467–483. Meyer, M., & Hyde, C. (2004). Too much of a ‘‘good’’ thing? Insular neighborhood associations, nonreciprocal civility, and the pro- motion of civic health.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quar- terly, 33(3), 77S-96S. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). . Sage. Musso, J. A. (1999). Federalism and community in the metropolis: Can Los Angeles neighborhoods help govern gargantua? Administrative Theory & Praxis, 21(3), 342–353. Musso, J. A., Weare, C., Bryer, T., & Cooper, T. L. (2011). Toward ‘‘strong democracy’’ in global cities? Social capital building, theory driven reform, and the Los Angeles neighborhood council experience.Public Administration Review, 71(1), 102–111. Musso, J. A., Weare, C., Elliot, M., Kitsuse, A., & Shiau, E. (2007). Toward community engagement in city governance: Evaluating neighborhood council reform in Los Angeles. University of Southern California. Musso, J., Weare, C., Oztas, N., & Loges, W. E. (2006). Neighbor- hood governance reform and networks of community power in Los Angeles.The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 79–97. Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons.Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 493–535. Paxton, P. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship.American Sociological Review, 67(2), 254–277. Polsby, N. (1980).Community power and political theory. Yale University Press. Saldan˜a, J. (2013).The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications. Silverman, R. M. (2003). Citizens’ district councils in Detroit: The promise and limits of using planning advisory boards to promote citizen participation.National Civic Review, 92(4), 3–13. Tocqueville, A. de (1835/1956).Democracy in America. New American Library. Weare, C., Musso, J., & Jun, K. N. (2009). Cross-talk: The role of homophily and elite bias in civic associations.Social Forces, 88(1), 147–173. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Voluntas (2021) 32:821–829 829 123 224 City of Missoula, Montana Item to be Referred to City Council Committee Committee: Committee of the Whole Item: Missoula Neighborhood Councils Assessment Plan Date: February 12, 2021 Sponsor(s): Heidi West Prepared by: Kelly Elam Ward(s) Affected: ☐ Ward 1 ☐ Ward 2 ☐ Ward 3 ☒ All Wards ☐ Ward 4 ☐ Ward 5 ☐ Ward 6 ☐ N/A Action Required: Approve the recommendations set forth from Keegan Flaherty, Flaherty Consulting Firm. Recommended Motion(s): I move the City Council: I move the City Council approve the recommendations set forth from Keegan Flaherty, Flaherty Consulting Firm. Timeline: Referral to committee: February 22, 2021 Committee discussion: February 24, 2021 Council action (or sets hearing): N/A Public Hearing: N/A Deadline: N/A Background and Alternatives Explored: History: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Missoula established Neighborhood Councils in 1996 to strengthen and encourage citizen participation in local government and to improve communication between citizens and City officials. In July 2020, the City of Missoula Office of Neighborhoods transitioned leadership; and as a result, engaged in a needs assessment from August to October 2020. The process included a review of organizational documents and stakeholder interviews detailed and analyzed in this report. Missoula Neighborhoods retained Keegan Flaherty of Flaherty Consulting to facilitate the needs assessment process. As a first step in that process, organizational documents were reviewed to understand the structure of the Neighborhood Councils. Next, the consultant conducted nineteen confidential interviews with Neighborhood Council leadership to further understand the current landscape. After the conclusion of a review of organizational documents and interviews, the consultant analyzed the results for 225 common trends. This report synthesizes the information provided by internal and external stakeholders, providing Missoula Neighborhoods a comprehensive assessment outlining key findings and recommendations. In the initial stages of the assessment, Flaherty Consulting, worked with the Missoula Neighborhoods staff to identify and clarify the information to gather from the process, and what purposes that information was to serve. Having discerned the Missoula Neighborhoods goals for the assessment, Flaherty Consulting next considered the best sources for each type of desired information, and developed a framework for the data-gathering process. That framework included three categories of stakeholders: City Council Representatives, Neighborhood Forum members, and neighborhood council constituents. Flaherty Consulting then used two central components for gathering data from each category: Key Findings: 1. There are varying beliefs regarding the purpose and value of the Neighborhood Councils. 2. It is perceived that Neighborhood Councils and Leadership Teams do not represent the diversity of neighborhood residents. 3. Current Neighborhood Council processes create barriers for encouraging citizen participation. 4. Communications between City Government, Neighborhood Forum, and Neighborhoods Councils is disconnected. Recommendations: 1. Evaluate the current Office of Neighborhoods resources to facilitate a more inclusive and engaging Neighborhood Council program. 2. Disseminate a community survey that touches on quality of life and engagement process that makes an implicit effort to include citizens who are historically left out. 3. Add additional Councils to the Neighborhood Councils to ensure underrepresented citizens are implicitly included in discussions, processes, and decisions. 4. Reframe the Neighborhood Council vision and purpose to identify shared values with city government, residents, nonprofits, community organizers, businesses, and developers. 5. Develop a City of Missoula led communications campaign aimed at informing citizens about the purpose of the Neighborhood Councils and increasing engagement. 6. Develop streamlined communication pathways for City Council, Neighborhood Forum, Neighborhood Councils, and Citizens. 7. Create a common architectural framework for Neighborhood Councils that fosters diversity and invites participation. Missoula Neighborhoods is proposing the Community Forum and City Council to approve and endorse the recommendations of the strategic assessment findings. 226 Financial Implications: Links to external websites: 227 Memorandum REPORT TO:Study Commission FROM:Caeleb Heinen, Recording Secretary Mike Maas, Ex Officio SUBJECT:Future Education Discussion and Needs for April 24 Meeting MEETING DATE:April 15, 2026 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Education process and needs for April 24 for the following topics around community representation and involvement: wards/districts neighborhood associations advisory boards Including discussion on beginning decisions relating to the above topics. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:This is an opportunity for Study Commissioners to discuss what further materials or education they will need on the aforementioned topic. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None identified ALTERNATIVES:As per the Study Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:None identified Report compiled on: March 25, 2026 228