Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
NAG agrees to pay rental fee
by Midtown George, published on August 19, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Storyline: Neighborhood Advisory Group
On Monday night, the city’s budget crisis came close to altering the date and location of the monthly meeting of the Area 1 Neighborhood Advisory Group (NAG).
The NAG meets in the evening, 6:15 – 8:30 p.m., on the third Monday of each month at the Ethel MacLeod Hart Center, a community center administered by the city’s Parks and Recreation Department.
The attendees are representatives from neighborhood associations, businesses, and citizen-activists. They all assemble in the Center’s Redwood Room to hear city officials speak on issues relating to city policies and services, developers present building plans, and other issues of interest.
Due to the city's budget crisis, the Neighborhood Services Department alerted the NAG that the Hart Center would no longer be available as a location for meetings. The city could not afford to keep the Center open after 5:00 p.m., unless there is a paid reservation for the meeting room.
The Neighborhood Services Department had been hosting the meetings. If the NAG wanted to continue to meet at its usual date and time, the NAG would have to pay for a rental fee for use of the meeting room, at a charge of $35 - $75 per hour.
When the issue came up on the agenda there was general discussion as to why the NAG met on Mondays, to allow interested parties to attend the Tuesday night City Council meetings, and/or Commission meetings held on Wednesdays and Thursdays.
The NAG has been meeting at the same location and date for 15 years, therefore there was no support for moving the location, or changing the date of the meetings.
When Director of Neighborhood Services, Vincene Jones, asked for suggestions for a solution, offers came from around the room from neighborhood associations, businesses and City Councilmember Steve Cohn to cover the rental fee for a monthly meeting. Enough pledges were received to cover six months of rental fees. Sacramento Press offered to cover six months of rental fees.
This may be repeated in the future, citizens stepping forward to cover costs that were once paid by the city.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
The main reason the Sr. Center incurs costs for the NAG is that the center chooses to pay a janitor to be there is to clean up after us and and lock up after NAG attendees leave. While the janitor is there, he does other work around the center which could be done during the day. I had recommended via email to at least 7 attendees when this issue first came up and all replied in the affirmative (one did not reply at all), that we should go back to our orignal arrangement years ago with the city when Charlsey Cartwright and I, subsequently, were NAAG chairs . The city was experiencing severe budget deficits then too. Bill Edgar was City Manager.
Our arrangement was that attendees would clean up after ourselves, turn off the utilities and one or more Neighborhood Services staff were issued keys to lock up (we each witnessed that the janitorial tasks were done correctly ). NO JANITOR WAS NEEDED THEN AND NOW.
Further, the city's Neighborhood Response Team meets there every two months just before the NAG. We are supposed to pay for that, George? All of us are adults and we can do the clean up job as well as a janitor. The center can issue keys to staff for lock up--they are as responsible as the janitor. After all, the Parks Dept is accepting volunteers to work in other park buildings and there is no good reason why the Dept. cannot accept our voluntarism at the Senior Center.
People who meet with city staff and developer representatives to discuss city issues that affect Area I residents should never be forced to pay for such a meeting.
The NAG is a forum not an entity.
Perhaps this would have been better:
The demonstrated value of the NAG was clear and present Monday night.
Vincene began the discussion around the fact that Sacramento Press had graciously stepped forward with a 6 month commitment and followed that by saying we only would need an additional 5 pledges to cover the cost. What was left out was the ongoing discussion and previous history of where the community would voluntarily provide the janitorial and locking up services in conjunction with a city staff person having the required key.
When that point was brought up, Vincene explained that she had not been able to make contact with the necessary parties to pursue that option hence she could not offer it Monday night, however she realized that that was a primary option that the group wanted to pursue.
With the exception of SacPress and council member Cohn, none of the NA reps that were present were in a position to authorize the payment, they simply stated they would take the proposal to their respective Boards....Overwhelmingly
Everyone is stepping up to make sure that the NAG lives on.
If you haven't been there before...It's open to everyone!
Unlike Leadership meetings put together by city staff, the NAG agenda is set by a partnership of both volunteer community and city staff members.
You just need to show up!
I have been in Council meetings where hundreds spoke out against a proposal, only to have the Council vote unanimously to approve something the vast majority of citizens opposed.
So tell me, what is the use of having a NAG other than making community members "feel" like they have input.
It would be difficult to create public pressure in that atmosphere, but I have seen issues that are presented as problems at NAG taken up by neighborhood associations or other public groups which have effectively challenged government and business.
Just google NAST or read about the block party concert series on this site.
The City is not interested in what citizens have to say, but they sure want to APPEAR to be interested; they want citizens to "FEEL" as though they have input.
Jim, when you say the "city is uninterested," who or what department do you mean? It has become apparent that current city management is not interested, if not hostile to the NAG. But that does not mean all departments and all staff or council members are uninterested. Fargo was very interested and either she or one of her staff frequently attended. Same for Cohn and his district director. Ortiz (when councilwoman) Hammond, Fong (and or staff) have sometimes attended. All did listen and became educated from a resident perspective regarding various city services.
Mayor Johnson attended briefly but more to make his points rather than listen. One of his staff attended once too--at least when I was there. What remains to be seen is whether the Mayor or his staff, as mayor now or under a "strong mayor" concept, will attend to obtain residents' perspective.
Some feel that he or his staff have made a poor showing so far. What do you think, Jim?
As for Johnsons staff, as well as the other Council Members staff I have had interaction with, they are always polite and friendly, but those interactions have not translated into any meaningful outcomes.
Back in the day, 85-97 when I was active in the City, in my opinion the Council did listen to Neighborhood Associations (NA'S) and especially they listend to the Sacramento County Alliance of Neighborhoods. (SCAN)
I have a different perspective on the City than most, after having been very active, moving away and coming back. I believe there has been dramatic changed in the recent years and that NA's have little or no voice in the business of the City, and apparently SCAN is all but defunct form what I hear.
We always had very good rapport with Joe Serna and other council members, and we could see the results of our report through action by the council. Since I moved back to Sac after having been gone for 12 years, there appears to have been a dramatic shift in the philosophy of the Council and their willingness to work with the community. I believe that much of this has to do with the creation of the Neighborhood Services Department. (NSD) While the Idea of the NSD may have been well meaning at the time of the creation, it has placed a layer of bureaucracy between the Council and the community.
From what I can see, the Council is only interested in doing the biding of the developers. Now to make something clear, I am NOT against development, our community needs it for housing, shopping, jobs, economic growth etc, as long it is done in a sustainable fasion; well here in Sacramento it is not. It apperas rather apparent that the developers have usurpt the democratic process by purchasing council members by campaign contributions.
For me, the question now is, how does the community take back the political power that was sold to the developers.
With your stated involvement (SCAN, etc.) I should remember your name but it does not ring a bell with any of us. But you may remember me. Do you happen to be using a pseudonym?
I strongly disagree about the "layer of bureaucracy" separation a result of NSD. It has actually brought us closer in Area1, and I think most of us here while you were gone agree. I remember well the distance between our councilmen prior to NSD
But you are right about the dramatic shift in philosophy--but not so much with council but with city management. You have to remember that developers brought this city management here from Portland. I need say no more as to how that quickly and adversely changed the level of communication and cooperation between staff in most all departments and residents..
I hear your veiled attack on Ray Kerridge, this has NOTHING to do with Kerridge. The developers do not finanince Kerridge, they do finance the Council, and long before he was around. I'm not sure if you were aware, Kerridge takes his marching orders from the Council.
The fact that your happy with the Council, and you believe they listen to the community, tells me enough.
You stated:
"developers brought this city management here from Portland. I need say no more..." Who else where you talking about if it was not for Kerridge?
Please, I'm dying to know.
Oh yeah, and you are wrong, Kerridge was hired by the CIty Council.
You dislike developers? Hey join the crowd Dale! But guess who controls every single Council member who you think are doing such a great job? And whom by the way, controlled this City LONG BEFORE Kerridge was here. (hint: they build things)
Hey wait a second...on second thought you might be onto something...hmm the developers brought him here and FORCED the Council to hire him.... OK If you want me to accept that I will...It proves my point...developers control the Council.
Meanwhile, a growing Central City Alliance of Neighborhoods had been meeting on Saturdays in a private home taking on these issues. It needed more space. Then came the city Area concept. and Neighborhood Services. CCAN evolved into NAG which became the advisory group to alleviate that suspicion by seeing if the new manager were sincere . One way was to bring issues to the city's attention via the NAG. Because of the NAG we found that he was. The attendance increased considerably because it was found to be an excellent forum for exchange of ideas and city development projects, etc.
Now a step back. Originally, under the city's fiscal problems then, NAG was granted permission to meet in the Sr. Center on Mondays with the center issuing one or more keys to city staff for opening and closing plus our cleaning up whatever litter we may have left. There was no need for a janitor to clean up after us or to close up, i.e. no costs to the Sr. Center other than utilities.
Then at some point the Sr. Center decided to incur the cost of paying a janitor to close up and clean up pizza boxes, water cups, etc. That was nice BUT we didn't ask for and don't NEED janitorial services. Now that the city is hurting financially, like it was when in the mid 1990's, the history of our volunteering to perform the janitorial duties has been lost. Volunteerism is happening in other parks (Sr. Center is part of Marshall Park), so why not here too?
Further ,we are not the only group that meets in the Sr. Center on that Monday--NRT (Neighborhood Response Team) also holds its meetings there prior to the NAG--recently every other month rather than each month. BUT that city arm is not being asked to pay for the janitorial presence and services. Very interesting.
So there is no good reason why we cannot go back to the original meeting arrangements with no charge to NRT and NAG by volunteering to take over the janitorial duties. Many feel that the reason this simple approach is not happening is that the city wants to eliminate the NAG by imposing costs--particularly since the NRT costs are being ignored in the swirl of controversy. I have been strongly assured that the city does not want to eliminate the NAG.
So why is the city not making a fast simple decision.? Why all of the controversy and misunderstanding when such a simple historical solution is possible? We all wonder why.