Many thanks to the person who translated the announcement of the Community Group meeting into Spanish.
Grammar is a little spotty here and there, but the warmth shone through. Way to go.

How's about adding as possible: Vietnamesse, Amharic and Somali? The folks are here. Outreach is a good thing.
Probably won't get that much turnout unless there's personal contact, but at least it puts it out there.

Again, thanks.

C City..zen

I suggest the Columbia Citizens Collaborative. Not only is it more alliterative than any other Seattle neighborhood group out there, I think it gets to the core of what makes the neighborhood a great place to be.

For outreach, nothing beats face time and person-to-person invitations to each meeting. Flyers help, posters help, and emails help — but they're helpful mostly as reminders instead of as motivators. For a large, well attended kickoff meeting, a door-to-door neighborhood canvass is really the only way to get a broad turnout. There should be a few defining ideas, beyond the idea of the group itself. The canvass should turn up some ideas about neighbors' priorities.

From an initial large attendance, a group is likely to distill down to its more committed members. We can learn a lot from neighbors who have already been in that role. Grover, Andrea, Marj, Marina, and others should certainly weigh in with their ideas about how to best build a group.

I am so sorry that we missed the meeting. We were out-of-state at the time. Sounds like we missed a good discussion.

May I add one idea? Has the group considered an old-fashioned "bulletin board" of some sort down along Rainier Avenue? This may be a nice way to spread the word: catch newcomers or even old-timers who are not so plugged-in to the digital efforts. I know there may also be complications to this idea (where to put it, how to maintain it, etc.), but I just wanted to throw it out there for consideration.

Perhaps use the thing that is already down on Rainier for flyers?
Perhaps one of our own, dedicated to this group effort?
Perhaps with help from the recently-opened Historical Society? (I think that is what it is called.)

In my mind, neighbors and businesses would eventually get used to having the bulletin board, always read it when they happen to be nearby, and hey, maybe it would increase attendance and participation to planned events.

- Jenn

Quick suggestion: Focus on getting community leaders and well-known personalities to come to these events.
Their personal networks will likely get the word and follow them to these events. No need to reach everybody —
just key individuals. Church leaders, Buddhist temple leaders, local newspaper owners, school staff, business owners, etc. One thing I notice with all of these local neighborhood meetings is that ethnic groups are not properly represented. I feel that they will show up if they trust the meetings are worthwhile, and they will believe they are worthwhile if someone they trust is going to the meetings and recommending the meetings.

It's really encouraging seeing so many of the critical issues our neighborhood faces being thoughtfully addressed by this group. I hope to be able to contribute some work in the near future, but for now I just wanted to say thanks and keep up the good work!

Thank you to the folks who have worked on pulling together some draft bylaws.

Abbreviated name: For me, C4 evokes images of explosions, combat, and destructive reactions. 4C, in contrast, connotes insight and vision. If Columbia City Community Council is to be the group's name, and if we need to further abbreviate CCCC, then I’d propose 4C.

Focus: I’d hope that members of this group would think of themselves as a collaborative body organized to build power here and work on projects within Columbia City. For my part, I’m interested in participating with neighbors in community-driven projects. I don’t see wrangling with the Southeast District Council as a particularly meaningful or fruitful focus for the CCCC.

Conflict of interest: I’d be interested in seeing how other community councils address questions of interest conflicts. If all members participate in good faith and presume that their peers are doing likewise, then this provision makes sense. But past experience makes me concerned with how it’s to be fairly applied. For instance —

• In questions of future development, would the realtors among us have a pecuniary interest uncommon to other members? Not necessarily, but this provision might be construed to say so.
• If someone lives next door to a problem (crime in a park, say, dangerous traffic on an arterial, or the blank wall of a future six-story development), then would they have a personal interest not common to other members? I think maybe, but that should never prevent them from advocating for a community-based solution.
• My concern here is also personal and borne out by recent experience. I’m a land use planner at the City, where I review applications for development (mostly north of the Ship Canal). In past community meetings, a few neighbors have repeatedly interrupted me in midsentence to challenge me about my professional role. They see a conflict of interest – I respectfully and firmly disagree. In neighborhood questions involving City-administered public process, will such people be allowed to prevent me from participating in this group?

If this provision is to remain, I think it should be clearly spelled out how members are to be voted off the island.

Boundaries: As an area to focus our efforts, the described neighborhood boundaries seem to be appropriate, except I think 50th Ave S would be a better eastern boundary and I think Rainier Vista should also be included.

Membership: Inclusion of interested participants is a good theme. Membership should certainly be open to anyone who lives within walking distance of the landmark district — say, within ½ mile. The draft bylaws don’t state that members must live within the boundaries — that strikes me as a good thing. If there’s a driving urge that draws proactive people to a group like this, it’s a common interest in working together within the neighborhood. We should avoid arbitrary limits to membership that might make otherwise engaged neighbors feel unwelcome.

Voting: Attendance prerequisites for voting seem to be a difficult thing to monitor, to document, and to enforce. If there must be an attendance requirement for voting, I suggest it should be a single meeting within the last six, rather than two in twelve. In any case, votes should be necessary only when there is clear disagreement and consensus isn’t possible. I don’t know how that idea jibes with Robert’s Rules.

And here are some typos:
• page 2, paragraph 2, ln 3: “members of the Board” should be “members”,
• page 2, paragraph 5, ln 2: “of the Alliance” should be “of the organization”.

The bylaws meeting WILL NOT be on Monday, December 10th at Lottie's. There are some scheduling conflicts. We'll let you know what day this coming week we'll get together. Doug

i have to say that i was initially excited to participate in this group and to be a part of community efforts. But after attending one meeting i was so upset i don't think i will ever go back. i could not believe the level of anger and nastiness that was present. this is not the kind of neighborhood effort i want to be a part of. i hope other meetings will not be so alienating because if they are this will truly not be an inclusive group. good luck. i wish this group well but don't think i will ever go back.

We'll be getting together tonight at 6:00pm at Lotties.

Columbia City Community Council Meeting, 7/7/08, 6pm at the Columbia City Library, basement meeting room.

— Presentation by City Councilman Nick Licata
— Planning for outreach and summertime events

Bring your questions and concerns!