Qualifications: outgoing personality, sales experience a plus, presentable appearance, articulate

Pay: $.75 per signature, One hour training @$15 per hour.
Duties: go to events, farmer's markets and street fairs and collect signatures for Charter Amendment ( nothing to do with Tim Eyman)
Hours: Flexible, days or nights, definetly Sat. and Sun during the day.

Contact: moc.liamg|1sniktawerd#moc.liamg|1sniktawerd, send resume with availability.

Since there was no printed agenda and no perceptible meeting process, as an outsider, I couldn't know what the meeting was about, where it might be going or how I might be included. I felt like an unwelcome bystander with no access to the power in the organization and no rules for me to follow to attain that access. Instead, what I saw was a free-flowing conversation among three or four people who already knew what each other were talking about. Finding it cliquish, I left, not wanting to return. It's possible to be trained in managing groups like this. It's also possible to improve diversity. There has to be commitment to do that, though, and I doubt that the people I saw on those occasions would be so committed. The mission is important, as is the community this group purports to represent. Unfortunately, it feels like it would be a waste of my time to try to be involved as it now stands.

I won't belabor my point.

what is the link that you can't open? all i can find is a link to a pdf, but maybe it was updated?

So I've waited four days for an answer. I'm downloading a 163Mb installation package now. In half an hour I'll be able to run the installer. I'm unfamiliar with Open Office, but that's OK because I'm savvy. Then I can read your Bylaws.

Could you make it any less convenient? I'm just saying.

Will you please make them available as text, html, or pdf?

Thanks!

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

Bring your questions and concerns!

Scott or someone — maybe we could talk beforehand?

Sally
684-8802

People should have respect enough for their neighbors to not go off on random rants, go off topic whenever they feel like it, complain for the sake of complaining, and attack others' ideas or intent. Such people should be pulled aside immediately at meetings and reminded of the meeting rules and why they exist. Repeat offenders should be barred from a set number of future meetings.

The meetings I have been to have been fairly homogeneic. I don't see much representation outside of that for white folks between the ages of 25 and 55, despite that the neighborhood is clearly a mix of ethnicities. When the meetings are more representative of the neighborhood, the degree of potential conflict will likely rise, due to cultural and language differences. It will be more important than even to be prepared for this, when it happens.

If people are offering translation services for free, for community projects, please post their contact information.

Thanks for reading.

Our community is so full of ideas and wonderful projects I would love to see this neighborhood group eventually end up as a forum where people/ other neighborhood groups could come and get neighbors inspired to work with them. The challenge is to create a sustaining forum that is inclusive. Speaking up about the bylaws & coming to enough meetings so that when the bylaws are ratified your voice will count is of utmost importance!

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”.