Further, many people argue, rightfully so, that the NRP group does not represent the neighborhood. For example, a critical issue now facing many neighborhoods is that the members of the governing nonprofit body do not reflect the makeup of the neighborhood. Thus (and I offer these simply as examples), in a neighborhood such as North Phillips, which is 65% people of color, the board of the NRP group is roughly 65% white. In addition, the board is primarily made up of homeowners, when in fact the neighborhood is overwhelmingly made up of renters. These are real tensions that were, in fact, the focus of criticism of NRP in the Phase I Evaluation. Accordingly, consider the import of the question "do you have neighborhood support" when in fact it really means "do you have the support of the NRP group?"
These are the subtleties that accompany the shift of power in many ways from elected officials to local nonprofit corporations. In making that shift, the local nonprofits, if they are not acting honestly, portray themselves as "governmental" in one arena but as a "nonprofit" in others. Thus, accountability is fudged. For instance, I have been told by Ventura Village (I use VV simply because it is the group I deal with) that they will not provide the addresses of the properties receiving $4,000 homestead grants because NRP considers such information "private" government data. Now, I can press for the information through nonprofit statutes (after all, the properties were drawn and announced at a public VV meeting), but if there is a refusal I have to think about the worth of pursuing it through the nonprofit statute and court intervention. That seems a steep price to pay for basic information as to who actually receives publicly funded grants, particularly to determine if the entire neighborhood is receiving its fair share of funds.
In the end, I think everyone can agree that there needs to be much more transparency in the way NRP groups operate. As a challenge, I'd like to see all neighborhood groups post their budgets, minutes, spending, proposals, etc. on line or elsewhere so that the neighborhood (yes, the neighborhood) can see what the NRP group is doing with public money. Everyone seems to agree that, as David states, "neighborhood organizations must be fully accountable when spending public money," but the subtle reality of assuring that idea through existing law is problematic, as is the public/nonprofit nature of the NRP relationship with local groups. Gregory Luce
North Phillips
David Brauer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">I don't know which part of the thread this came from, because it is so
tangled, but the statementThis is the crux of the issue, because the NRP contracted organizations
are more than just "contractors" with the government. Particular
governmental functions have been delegated to them, and they appear to
flex wide-ranging powers, including approval of zoning variances,
approval of purchases of MCDA land, <snip>
....is incorrect. Neighborhood organizations do not approve zoning variances
or MCDA land approval. That power is exclusively held by the democratically
elected City Council and MCDA board of commissioners (the city council).
Neighborhood organizations do make recommendations to the council about such
matters, but those recommendations have little if any legal weight. Council
members can use them or ignore them. They treat neighborhood recommendations
as a slightly rich data point, because there is deliberation and testimony
among a number of neighborhood folks, but my experience is that council
members also listen to smaller subgroups (immediate neighbors) or other
interests within a neighborhood regardless of what the neighborhood board
may recommend.distribution of public funds, etc.
At what point do they become political subdivisions, subject to the
minimal due process concerns, open meeting laws, data practices, that
traditionally accompany government action? I'm not sure if this question
has been answered in the past, but it does need to be determined today.
I believe neighborhood organizations must be fully accountable when spending
public money, and state law governing non-profits is the place that sets the
standards. (I hope Scott Benson, et. al. return to their efforts to give
neighborhood organizations discreet non-profit status reflecting their
differences from the United Ways of the world.) The there is a parallel
chain of responsibility going back to democratically elected city officials.
Every penny of NRP money spent out here is audited by the city, and every
action plan approved by the NRP governing board, which is democratically
chosen. The contractors have the checks traditionally accompanying
government action.
The point is, if you don't like what the neighborhood group is doing (i.e.,
records aren't open, voting procedures are screwed up), lobby the city not
to do business with it. Michael asks, "At what point do they become
political subdivisions, subject to the minimal due process concerns, open
meeting laws, data practices, that traditionally accompany government
action?" The "tradition" is covered by state non-profit law- a check that a
senior legislative body (the state legislature) has decided is appropriate.
The check on government action are with the government that contracts with
them in the first place.
David Brauer
Kingfield - Ward 10
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
