Efforts are underway in Minneapolis’ City Hall to improve the way city departments engage the community to provide input on city decisions. In February 2004 the City of Minneapolis Ways and Means Committee directed the City Coordinator’s office, through the Communications Director, Gail Plewacki, to:

1. conduct an internal inventory of community engagement activities coordinated by the city departments,
2. propose a Community Engagement Process Model that would document and standardize those activities between departments (if possible), and
3. develop a job description for a Community Engagement Coordinator position that would report to the Communications Director.

The consultants John Persico and Peg Peck-Chapman were hired to provide the Community Engagement analysis, report, and recommendations. In August and September, 2005, the consultants convened a series of focus groups are to gather input from different stakeholders groups about those recommendations (to include city staff, city officials, citizens and residents, and community leaders).

The Draft Minneapolis Community Engagement Process Guidebook is a document that outlines a process for city departments as they coordinate community engagement activities. A summary report was also developed by the consultants that outlines four key policy issues that the CE process framework surfaces:

1. Establishing specific outcomes of engagement
2. Creating policies to support achievement of engagement goals
3. Creating new mechanisms for resident ideas to be considered, and
4. Determining Council oversight of Community Engagement.

The report advances the City’s discussion on community engagement by defining what activities qualify (and don’t qualify) as community engagement. The recommendation proposes that: Community engagement always involves an impending city government decision.

The guidebook, while only addressing the activities of community engagement undertaken by city departments, recognizes only a portion of the broader range of community engagement activities within the city. In addition to the city departments’ efforts to get input on city decisions, other components include:

It is difficult to understand the larger system by only looking at a part of it. How will these other components inform, collaborate, or respond to the departments’ recommended process?

How does the community engage the city on issues such as the budget, or other priority setting decisions? The term "engagement" suggests a two-way conversation, which can be strengthened when it has actual influence over key decisions. The city has an opportunity to create meaningful opportunities for community input, or limit that input to

How will the city departments accomplish the goal of greater participation by underrepresented people? It will depend on the relationships the city has to underrepresented communities, not on a structure or process. It will take a commitment to supporting the involvement of those that typically are not involved. Addressing the obstacles that have historically prohibited their involvement. If the city is truly committed to this goal, it will require asking a lot of hard questions, and a willingness to share power among a wider group of interests.

A related question is whether minority views will also be documented to accompany majority views. A major deterrent for many underrepresented groups is the assumption that their voice is outnumbered, and therefore irrelevant. If there were a way to give them voice, there may be a greater willingness to participate.

How is the city departments’ community engagement process related to NRP? The draft report is silent in regard to how departments would coordinate with the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. Are we creating two bifurcated systems for community engagement?

How will the information collected through community engagement be used, and how will it impact city decisions? Will the departments report back to the community about what decisions were made, and why? Accountability will be needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the city’s community engagement processes. If the process doesn’t change the product, why go through the process?

As the City of Minneapolis undertakes this important work of reflection and recommendations for ways to strengthen its community engagement processes, it will be critical to bring community partners into the discussion. During this election season, the candidates are primed for articulating the principles that will be needed for community engagement to succeed. Whether the ideas are set in action will be the true test.