U may help revise the plan for neighborhood organizations.
A Minneapolis City Council committee voted Monday to revise a controversial proposal to change how the city's 70 neighborhood organizations operate.
Neighborhood leaders worried about increase governmental control and potential funding cuts had criticized the plan, which has been years in the making and was released earlier this year. The vote followed a lengthy public hearing dominated by residents who criticized the plan as a threat to the groups' survival and a missed opportunity to support their work.
The city now plans to bring in the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota to revise Neighborhoods 2020, an initiative to restructure the organizations once their current source of municipal funding dries up next year. The full City Council is expected to vote on the collaboration next week.
"We have a good framework but there's still more work to do," said Council Member Phillipe Cunningham, the chair of the engagement committee that held Monday's hearing. "We're ... building on it in a different way and making sure we're addressing some gaps."
Read entire article HERE.
Here's the voting from the Public Health, Environment, Civil Rights, and Engagement Committee proceedings May 6, 2019. Item 1. Neighborhoods 2020 framework recommendations:
1. Passage of Resolution approving the Neighborhoods 2020 framework recommendations.
Gordon moved to amend the framework with the following changes: 1. Establishing the minimum neighborhood allocation at $25,000; 2. Establishing Neighborhood Day as a voluntary option for
neighborhood organizations to hold their annual board elections; and 3. Establishing a preference that community-based organizations
that receive funding from this program are encouraged to partner with
a neighborhood organization but will not be barred from receiving
funding as long as the work completed meets our City’s racial equity
goals. On voice vote, the motion passed.
Gordon moved to approve as amended.
On roll call, the motion failed. Aye: Gordon, Jenkins, and Schroeder (3) Nay: Cunningham, Cano, and Johnson (3)
The council is showing signs of maturity! Traces of Engagement and partnership are leeking through. Is there hope?