Anyone can propose a CIB project. Proposers come to make their case at the CIB subcommittee level. The subcommittee meets for two months to review projects, and takes a tour of the projects at the end. Over the years, citizens have pinned down a very rigorous system of review for the projects submitted - weighing them each carefully and awarding points based on their merits in something like 30 categories. The subcommittee prioritizes the projects and hands that on to the overall CIB Committee
Th CIB Committee takes the subcommittee prioritization of projects, tweaks them makes monetary recommendations to the Mayor, who then passes that onto the Council for approval. Then, the Mayor has the authority to extract from the budget any project he or she doesn't like.
Like so much else district councils do, the CIB Committee can only make recommendations - the Mayor, and the City Council can change or tinker with the recommendations. And even the Mayor's appointees to the CIB Committee, as I found out, can disagree strongly with his/her priorities. Under St. Pau's system, how carefully the Committee's work is considered ultimately depends on who our elected representatives are, and how accountable we all hold them.
Should the CIB committee's recommendations stand without tinkering? Would there be a way to make their recommendations stronger under the current system? I think the overriding sense of the CIB committee I served with was an honest disappointment that the recommendation wasn't taken seriously. Looking at the positive, there is at least there is a group of citizens who makes a determination, and can then hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. Other cities aren't so lucky. (For more info see http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/ofs/cib/)
***
DISTRICT COUNCILS, CIB, and STAR versus NRP:
I'm not qualified to speak on the intracacies NRP's process. NRP doesn't fund exactly the same things as district councils, the CIB process or STAR grants. But there is overlap among all.
But I can say the overriding difference is this: in Saint Paul, district councils historically only "make recommendations" - they are advisory. Seldom are district councils mentioned in any official capacity. District councils recommend through the CIB process, and can make informal recommendations regarding STAR grant priorities. As such, the power of district councils in St. Paul really depends on how strongly they organize to promote their vision or agenda, and then work through the appropriate officials to make it a reality.
In Minneapolis, NRP funds are effectively given to each neighborhood to prioritize and actually distribute, within certain constraints. Its a bit more akin to having many mini-city councils across the City. Sometimes the constraints on giving out the money are political in nature - such as a current requirement that something like 45% of the NRP Phase II money go to support affordable housing. Of course, this decentralization has some downsides too, and a critique of Minneapolis' decentralization (in general) can be found in this week's StarTribune (http://www.startribune/opinion).
***
A VERY DIFFERENT APPROACH: CHICAGO.
A while back I also worked for a group in Chicago whose founding purpose was to reform the Capital Improvement Program's prioritization process in that City. As you can imagine, in Chicago, with its legendary machine politics, the power dynamics are quite different. Until 15 years ago, there weren't even any significant public hearings on the Capital Improvement priorities there. Without scrutiny, the Mayor's projects rose easily to the top. Chicago Aldermen and Alderwomen dole out money ward by ward, disproportionately to political allies.
Where citizen particpation and district councils are institutionalized into both City's structure here, and funded by the City, in Chicago, the modified ward machine still rules, and is occasionally held in line by groups of especially feisty neighborhood organizations. But despite the feistiness that existed neighborhood by neighborhood, there wasn't a "superstructure" for the kinds of Citywide reform that would have improved accountability on a broad level. The exception being the organization I worked for (http://www.ncbg.org), and a couple others.
Acccountability isn't built into the system the way it is here. Chicago's system, with its lack of accountability and dependence on local power produces a predictable and disturbing result. City investments tend to concentrate disproportionately in the wealthier areas of the City, starving the poorer (and often predominantly minority) neighborhoods of the most basic funds they need to thrive. Industry doesn't locate in places where a prevalence 12' viaducts routinely prevent transportational access. A neighborhood without streetlights, or with giant holes in the sidewalk tends to fall apart even more.
A secondary threat in Chicago is that Capital Improvement money becomes "pork barrel" money. That is (I suspect) one key reason why we decided to inject public scrutiny into the process here, and rightfully so.
***
The district council role in the CIB process is specifically outlined in City Code - the power to appoint a committee that has the power to recommend. Technically, of course, nothing is stopping them district councils stepping up to the plate now to make coordinated recommendations right now.
But without a nice bump in funding, and a new structure for involvement in this budgeting that came in some official capacity, district councils engaging a larger budget process wouldn't produce a meaningful result.
But if its important to enough knowledgeable citizens to conceive of such a process, and actively take on the advocacy for creating it, there is no reason that conversation couldn't begin right now.
Bob Spaulding Downtown Saint Paul
_____________________________________________
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/
