There have been postings by new contributors to the effect that
neighborhood associations who don't have the governmental quality of
representing everyone are in violation of the NRP law. This argument is
based on the law as it currently stands not on some wished for future
neighborhood government.
Unfortunately, the argument is based on wishful thinking for a future
neighborhood government rather than being grounded on the reality of the
law as it stands now.
No law has been violated either in its letter or in its spirit.
When intrepreting anything in the law, you cannot pluck out isolated
words and phrases. You must look for and find the connections of one
part to another. It really is a web and not randomly placed words and
phrases that can be plucked out with the announcement, "Voila -- I have
found the law."
In this case, those arguing that the law has been violated are
perpetually confusing the NRP mandated process to adopt and "action
plan" with the activities of the fiscal agent to implement that action
plan. The law provides for both and you have to be observant about
which process is being dealt with.
Minnesota Statutes section 469.1831 provides the NRP law. The
provisions of that section frequently refer to participation by
"neighborhoods." That's not surprising, after all it is a "Neighborhood
Revitalization Program." It does require broad and deep participation
in the "neighborhoods."
Notice that nowhere in the NRP law does it say "neighborhood
organization." That's because few of the activities mentioned are to be
performed by the "neighborhood organization." Those functions are to be
performed, in the words of the statute itself, "whenever possible" by
the "neighborhood."
In our neighborhood, those functions are performed by the neighborhood
entirely separate from the neighborhood organization. It is is faithful
to the "whenever possible" mandate of the law.
So, where does the neighborhood organization specifically come in under
the NRP law?
As a matter of fact, neighborhood ORGANIZATIONS are not named in the
law. To find them, you must look at Subdivision 6, paragraph (e), item
(3). It says that the NRP policy board may, "(3) enter into contracts,
leases, purchases, or other documents evidencing its undertakings."
Among those it contracts with are the fiscal agents (the neighborhood
organizations) who are contractors implementing portions of the
neighborhood's Action Plan.
I would conjecture that some will argue that it wasn't really to the
whole neighborhood but just the organization in disguise.
But what will probably be argued as just a disguise, I present as a
legitimate effort to involve everyone. Consider the following that was
done for a recent re-allocation meeting:
(1) Invitations were mailed USPS 1st Class to every address in
the neighborhood
(2) Advertisement were run and signs and handouts located at
several neighborhood gathering spots.
(3) Complete information packets on the re-allocation and how
to propose alternatives were distributed to everyone in the
neighborhood.
(4) Multiple preliminary meetings were held to explain it all
(several were organizational but one was deliberately
structured to be non-organizational).
(5) The actual re-allocation meeting was held at another site
to try to avoid any misimpression that the organization was
involved.
(6) There was no sign-in of organizational members.
(7) I may be organizational president but I played no role in
presiding at that meeting. I was in the "audience" like most
everyone else.
It has been complained mightily that many of those attending were the
same people who were active in the neighborhood association.
So what?
It wasn't for lack of trying to get everyone there. And not even those
who seem to find fault in surplus can deny that there were people
attending that meeting who have been seen neither before nor since at a
neighborhood organization meeting.
The conspiratorial minded even argue that everything is controlled by
the 40-member board of our neighborhood organization. That number has
even been extended, to the amusement of many, to say that there are 80
people available to exercise control counting the spouses of all the
board members. That is a dangerous argument in this neighborhood. I
know of none who would ever claim to control a spouses' vote. In any
case, if we could produce 80 people on command to a meeting, what the
conspiratorially minded call a "plot" I'd call a really good turnout of
the neighbors. That argument, more than any other, I think demonstrates
that some people view the world through grung-covered glasses.
In the end, my neighborhood organization fully complies with both the
letter and the spirit of the NRP law. I personally find it insulting
when it is stated or implied that I and the organization I head do not
have the highest respect for the rule of law.
Steve Cross
Prospect Park
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
