City shelves NRP's "framework"

BY DENNIS GEISINGER
published Sept. 2

In what Corcoran Neighborhood Organization (CNO) Interim Director Eric Gustafson termed “a whopper of a public hearing,” on Aug. 20 the Minneapolis City Council’s Committee of the Whole voted to postpone further discussion of its proposed “Framework for the Future,” its attempt to reinvent the city’s 20-year-old inner-city investment mechanism, the Neighborhood Revitalization Project.
“Standing room only,” said Gustafson, “and 35 speakers including a Hennepin County commissioner [Gail Dorfman] and three state legislators [Sen. Patricia Torres Ray and Reps. Karen Clark and Diane Loeffler], all speaking against the Framework for the Future with loud applause after each speaker,” Gustafson said.

“Certainly, the council chamber was full,” said City Council President Barbara Johnson. “There were a lot of familiar faces,” Johnson said.
According to posted minutes from the committee’s regular meeting held the next day, “[We] Postponed discussion on potential actions [on the NRP Work Group Final Report] for one cycle, to the 9/11/2008 Committee of the Whole meeting.” The committee’s special meeting on Aug. 20 had been called specifically “to receive public comment on the content of the report received from the NRP Work Group [The Framework for the Future of NRP].” The committee of the whole could have acted at that time to send the “Framework” report to the full City Council for a vote.

“I don’t think we’ll act on the report until the full Council meeting scheduled for Sept. 26,” said Johnson.

The CNO board of directors had earlier directed a letter to the City Council expressing many of the criticisms that neighborhood groups throughout the city have expressed about the proposed Framework for the Future. Specifically, the letter addresses what it says are provisions in the plan that are vague and lack definition.

The proposed $3 million to be spread among the some 61 registered Minneapolis neighborhood groups for their individual staffing and operating costs is seen as woefully insufficient.

“Each neighborhood would receive approximately $49,180,” said CNO. “The average salary for an executive director with a budget less than $500,000 in Minnesota in 2006 was $54,724 and the average salary for a community organizer in the metro area in 2006 was $40,755, according to the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits’ 2007 Salary and Benefits Survey,” the CNO stated.
Another bone of contention is the time frame in which the City would allow neighborhoods to seek funding for projects that address “resident-defined” concerns. This is an issue that many neighborhood activists see as one of control, much like the Framework’s proposal for appointments to a new “Community Advisory Board.” This organ, which under the City’s plan would control where and how most of available money for neighborhood projects would be spent, is seen by the City to be half-appointed by the City Council and the mayor.

“The Community Advisory Board should be an independent board and should not be overseen by the City or the City Coordinator’s Office,” according to CNO’s letter. “This was a widely-shared criticism of the draft ‘Framework’ as well. The NRP Work Group’s response … that ‘the majority of the work group agreed that it was preferable to make the program fully a part of the City’ is not surprising since five out of six work group members are council members or mayoral staff” the letter said.

“This scenario does not describe a resident-driven program,” said CNO.
When asked if she was surprised by the reaction to her group’s proposed redesign of NRP, Council President Johnson said, “No. There are many people in the city who are strong advocates for the program.”
And when asked if she saw the strong criticism as a setback for the Framework for the Future?

“No,” said Johnson again. “We have to continue to move forward to make the program financially viable and responsible.”