Packet Special 2019 0507 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

A: City Engagement Several of the Trust's core members are appointed city officials form the Mayor's office, the city attorney's office, the City of Columbus Department of Neighborhoods, and other administrative divisions. The Trust regularly works to engage with the City through the City's CARE (Community Resilience) Coalition and the City's Community Relations Commission. Perhaps the Trust's most successful engagement effort was running the Midland Simulation with Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther, representatives from the Trust, and members of Mayor Ginther's staff (including police and cabinet -level officials). During the debrief City officials discussed the importance of developing relationships, building trust, and planning in advance of community crisis. City leaders brainstormed methods to enhance internal communications, work with other groups in the community, work with groups who make significant demands during a crisis, and engage in more broad -based community planning efforts. B. Stakeholder Engagement The Trust regularly considers how to expand stakeholder engagement asking, "who is not at the table" during monthly Trust meetings. A pair of fall 2017 meetings are one example of the Trust's efforts to expand stakeholder engagement. Participants were encourage to consider how the local organizations and government could engender trust across communities within the community. Designed to spur conversation about community division and identity, the Trust used the Divided Community Project's Community Preparedness and Assessment Test.° Some CPAT results were particularly striking. When asked if the community has "an identity that cuts across any community divisions and deals constructively with differences," zero respondents replied "yes, the identity is clear." When asked whether the community is "ready to deal with volatile situations stemming from community division," and if the community "deals constructively with division when compared to other communities," seventy-five percent of participants responded "this needs more focus and attention." None responded "this is one of our community's strengths" Likewise when asked if the community has "an early warning system to communicate about developing concerns" all participants responded "this needs more focus and attention" C. Working Groups The Future Concerns / Communication Joint working group and the Readiness working group are both active. The Future Concerns / Communications joint working group initiated their work in January 2018, inviting community stakeholders to identify how the community is listening for and responding to divisive issues. Participants agreed that the "future concerns" working group should "try to put itself out of business", perhaps by weaving ideas for listening into currently existing structures. But new participants expressed some caution about the CCT, wondering how to connect suburbs to the Trust's conversations, whether the right people were listening to Trust conversations, and whether the Trust was "too establishment" to truly listen in the community. Others noted that many members of the community simply do not have the capacity to attend yet another meeting to express their concerns, particularly in light of prior community inaction. As a result of the joint working groups' initial efforts, the group asked university officials to help identify: How have communities across the country "institutionalized listening" - how are communities sustainably and intentionally listening to residents? 2. How is the Columbus community currently listening through civic and non -for -profit structures? A group of four law students in a clinical mediation course interviewed five experts in community engagement as a preliminary effort to begin answering the joint working group's questions presenting their findings at the May 2018 Trust meeting. The students organized their research into four themes: engaging broad stakeholder participants, multi - sector support, leveraging technology, building and maintaining trust. Trust members were empowered by the student presentation and asked university -affiliated members to conduct additional research. Perhaps more importantly, the students' work helped the Trust discuss how to move its work forward. In the summer of 2018, the Trust intends to convene a conversation between leaders of city and non -governmental organizations to consider how to improve —or what is missing from —their collective listening efforts. PLAN IN ADVANCE The Trust's Readiness working group is charged with developing a community plan in advance of civil unrest. Kicking off the Readiness working group's efforts, the Trust invited Tim Heaphy, the author of the Independent Review of the 2017 Protest Events in Charlottesville, Virginia,5 to spur the group's thinking about how to begin broad -based planning in advance of civil unrest. Heaphy's presentation focused on what went wrong, drilling in on three themes: 1) poor communication between law enforcement and other agencies; 2) Charlottesville Police Department's misplaced confidence in its ability to adequately manage large events; and 3) a lack of trust between_ police and community members. Prior failures to protect public safety