I am writing to address a few areas of discussion. Under our new funding scenario, population is a much, much more important factor in determining funding. Under the reform formula, 75% of money gets distributed based on population. The remaining 25% is split between poverty, non-english speakers, and jobs. Participants would have preferred to include race in the formula (perhaps in the place of "non-english speakers"), but the City Attorney would not allow it, because of legal precedents.
The funding angle has recieved much attention, but it was only a part of our many, many hours of work. The question about inclusivity that Matt and Tim have raised is an important one, one the district councils spent a lot of time answering: how can the district councils do a better job of reflecting the communities they serve? How can we track our progress and remain accountable in this way, year by year? Like our peer institutions, we continually grapple with these questions, working to get closer to the ideal each day. We identified two areas every council should be required to track: the number of racial minorities and the number of renters particpating in the various aspects of district council work. Then, we asked each council to identify other areas in which to ensure inclusivity. That allow councils to respond to their own unique situations - whether they need more business owners, women, immigrants, whatever - to remain reflective of their community. This work is the first step in institutionalizing a committment to inclusivity across the councils. Further, and notably, the councils worked on measures for accountability. These ensure tracking of fiscal, administrative and community accountability measures by the City and interested community members. Chuck Repke raised excellent issues about funding equity - particularly on the basis of population, and to his strong credit, he knew exactly when it was time to be satisfied with the result of his work. While he raised what were very difficult issues to discuss, his contribution is notable. We struck a balance that is a realistic solution that balances a myraid of different needs, and moves the councils forward together as a system. I also believe Chuck's district (District 2) SHOULD be a major winner under a revised formula, as it has one of the largest, poorer, and more diverse populations, which is more difficult to organize and serve. Most of the community councils across the city, in neighborhoods rich and poor, feel the same way. Almost everyone I have talked with has been pleased, amazed and happy with the results of our work. We achieved near-universal concensus on an issue that has been hovering over the councils for years. Diane Gerth's context puts our work in just the right light. We have invested so much in this process as district councils, and have come so amazingly far in the process, that we need to keep focused to making this well-reasoned and well-regarded body of work into reality. Bob Spaulding Work in Mac-Groveland and live in Downtown Speaking for myself _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
