1. Transmittal Letter from Mayor McGinn
2. Notice of Appointment of Bernadette C. Agor Matsuno
3. Oath of Office
4. Resume
5. Background Check
6. Confirmation Questions and Answers

7. Letter of Expectations

1. Transmittal Letter from Mayor McGinn

Mike McGinn, Mayor

City of Seattle

May 2, 2011

The Honorable Richard Conlin

President, Seattle City Council

Seattle City Hall, 2nd Floor

Seattle, Washington 98104

Dear Council President Conlin:

I am pleased to transmit to the City Council the following confirmation packet for my appointment of Bernadette C. (Bernie) Agor Matsuno as the Director of the Department of Neighborhoods.

. The materials in this packet are divided into two sections:

A. Bernadette C. (Bernie) Agor Matsuno

This section contains Ms. Matsuno's appointment and oath of office forms, her resume, and the press release announcing her appointment.

B. Background Checks

This section contains the Mayor's Office report on Ms. Matsuno's background check.

Ms. Matsuno has been serving as the Interim Director of DoN since February 1, 2011, where she led the transition following the departure of the previous Director, stabilized operations, improved staff confidence in department leadership and improved morale. Ms. Matsuno served as Interim Director in 2006 under Mayor Nickels, and she was the Deputy Director of DoN in 2007. Ms. Matsuno also served as Director of the department's Community Building Division from 2004 to 2006.

Ms. Matsuno is a graduate of Seattle University, with a Bachelor of Arts, Community Services and has a Master's degree in Social Work from the University of Washington.

Ms. Matsuno has had great experience in the Department of Neighborhoods since its inception and her experience will help all city departments engage and partner with the public in improving our communities. She is a terrific asset to the City of Seattle, the City Council and the Mayor and I urge you to confirm her.

If you have any questions about the attached materials or need additional information, please contact Tim Killian, Council Liaison to the Mayor at 233-3886.

Sincerely,

Mike McGinn

Mayor of Seattle

2. Notice of Appointment of Bernadette C. Agor Matsuno
City of Seattle Notice of Appointment Name: Bernadette C. (Bernie) Agor Matsuno X Executive Appointment

Appointed to: Director, Department of Neighborhoods Date of Appointment: April 19, 2011 Authority (Ord., Res.): Term of Office

From: Confirmation To: End of Mayor's Current term or Mayor's Discretion per SMC 3.35.020

Comments:

Authorizing Signature:

Name and Title of Officer Making Appointments: Mike McGinn, Mayor

Confirmed by the Following Vote at City Council

In Favor:

Against: Date: Attested by: Title:

3. Oath of Office

STATE OF WASHINGTON

COUNTY OF KING

I, Bernadette C. Agor Matsuno, confirm that I am the person appointed on April 19, 2011, and confirmed by the City Council on________, to the position of Director of the Department of of Neighborhoods, City of Seattle, in the State of Washington, and that I possess all the qualifications prescribed for said position by the Charter of the City of Seattle; that I will support the Constitution of the United States; and the Constitution of the State of Washington; and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Seattle; and that I will faithfully conduct myself as the Director of the Department of Neighborhoods.

_____________________________ Bernadette C. Agor Matsuno

Subscribed and sworn to before me (affix seal) this ____________

__________________________________ Monica Martinez Simmons, City Clerk

6. Confirmation Questions and Answers

July 11, 2011

The Honorable Mike O'Brien, Chair

Seattle Public Utilities & Neighborhood Committee

Seattle City Council

Seattle City Hall, Second Floor

Dear Councilmember O'Brien:

Below please find my responses to the Seattle City Council's questions submitted on June 29, 2011 for my confirmation process. I look forward to discussing these questions before the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee on July 12, 2011.

Personal

1) What is your vision of the Department of Neighborhoods?

Response:

Twenty-three years ago when the Office of Neighborhoods was established, we recognized that neighborhoods are the heart of Seattle -where we develop the character of our City. Today I still believe that's true. Neighborhoods are the places where people show their pride through community projects, work to improve the day-to-day lives of each other, and create a vision for their future. To ensure that neighborhoods remain the heart of Seattle, DON provides resources, services, and programs that encourages and supports community building and assists the community in developing their collective voice for the purpose of influencing decision-making that impacts their lives. DON supports activities that encourage self-help, as well as partnerships between neighborhoods and the City; and the department serves as an additional resource for connecting the Executive, Seattle City Council, and other departments to community.

Given this vision, I hope to achieve the following goals during my tenure:

For the community: To develop a culture of partnership between community members and City government; to increase meaningful community engagement by diverse populations in city projects, initiatives, policy and decision-making processes; to be a trusted resource for neighborhood organizations and community to get information and engage with City government.

For City government: To be a trusted resource and team member; to provide community information; and to provide expertise on outreach for other city departments.

For the department: To revitalize and sustain department culture where staff are supported, creativity is encouraged, risk-taking (within reason) is permissible; to strengthen team spirit and reinstill the 'can do" attitude; accountability, at all levels of the organization, is the norm; to recognize that there is hierarchy, but we do not have to act hierarchical; to be a family-friendly work place where life-and-work balance is encouraged and supported;

In essence, I want to return DON to a time when we were nationally described as "Best City Department" because we were responsive, less bureaucratic, and a valuable resource for creating and supporting neighborhoods and City partnerships.

2) What is your leadership style?

Response:

? I'm proactive: I anticipate what's coming down the pike and try to get out in front.

? I listen: I hear from different voices/perspectives and take the best of everything to arrive at a decision.

? I'm decisive, yet willing to alter my position when new or previously unknown information comes to light.

? I admit when I'm wrong, incorrect, or have made a mistake, but I learn from it and move on.

? Lastly, I lead by example and do whatever needs to be done, whether it's setting up tables and chairs for a community event or being an advocate for the department with the Mayor or Council.

When I asked a staff member about my leadership style, she responded, "I would describe you as a democratic leader since you typically involve one or more employees in the decision-making process, and you hold the final decision-making authority. This style is a sign of strength that I believe staff respect."

3) What would you say is the biggest failure you've had in your career? What did you learn from that?

Response:

I wouldn't use the word failure to describe anything in my 32+ year public service career; "major learning experience" would be more descriptive. I didn't pursue my initial career interest which was to work as a high school counselor. Instead I became a pre-sentence counselor with a public defender agency. It was very difficult work; reactive in nature with few rewards. But things have come full circle for me -as a volunteer, I work with high school students as part of the College Access Now (CAN) program at Franklin High School. It fits how I lead listening and coaching to help youth create their future (by furthering their education after high school) rather than waiting for the future to just happen.

4) Please highlight projects in which you have played a role in neighborhood and community collaboration on issues that the neighborhood initially felt hesitant or skeptical about?

Response:

Although not defined as projects per se, below are examples where I played a role in bringing "peace" to issues -both related to the Neighborhood Matching Fund Program (NMF).

When the RSJ initiative was created by a previous administration, departments were given the opportunity to operationalize RSJ in ways that were consistent with their mission and purpose. Since DON had the NMF as a resource to community groups and there was interest is using the Fund to support RSJ projects, a decision was made to set aside a small amount of dollars for these projects. Earmarking NMF for specific kinds of projects was not normal practice and some community members viewed this action as a "take away," i.e. the set-aside meant that there would be fewer dollars for non-RSJ projects and not all groups would be eligible to receive RSJ funding. To alleviate these concerns I decided to speak directly with individuals, as well as groups who were not supportive of this action. The message was simple: this was not a take-away of dollars; any group interested in doing a RSJ project would be considered for funding; and for groups that were not familiar with the NMF as a community resource, calling out RSJ projects seemed to be an effective strategy for connecting them to the NMF, DON, and City government. Sharing the fund with more communities in Seattle was a good thing and the right thing to do. Many conversations took place; some were easy, others more challenging, but eventually the displeasure subsided. I believe that talking with naysayers, plus the lack of adverse impacts, were factors that alleviated this situation.

Another example relates to the citizen review process that is used to make funding recommendations for the NMF's Large Project awards. For years the Citizen Review Team (CRT) conducted interviews with applicants for the purpose of learning more about the projects being proposed. The interview provided "face time" with the applicant which is an important factor for assessing the quality of the project and likelihood of successful implementation. Over time the interview process began to feel like an interrogation (from the perspective of the applicants), and in some instances, the relationship between the CRT and applicants seemed adversarial. This was not the intent of the applicant interview.

This dynamic needed to change. I knew it wouldn't be easy because reviewers liked the interview process; it was familiar and there was a belief that the CRT should have the "upper hand" in the process. By talking with key individuals -people who were very familiar with the NMF and the review process, former reviewers and applicants, NMF committee members (an advisory body of the CNC), and CNC and District Council leadership -my team decided to create an "open house" model to take the place of the interviews. Before implementation, my team and I met with key individuals to explain the rationale for making a change, presented the concept, and invited questions, comments, and suggestions for creating the open house model. Although tweaked over the years, the open house is still used today as the vehicle for learning more about the projects and their organizers in a more applicant-friendly environment.

This kind of change was possible because my team took the time to meet with key individuals who became supporters of the new model and were willing to spread the word to other community members. In our line of business, having community members speak to their peers is much more effective than DON doing the talking alone.

Lastly, to illustrate DON's role in helping City departments reevaluate their thinking, I'll refer to two projects: the Fremont Troll and the Meadowbrook wetland. Both projects were initiated, planned, and implemented by the community and supported with an NMF award, but initially not supported by city departments. Both departments took the position that "those projects are not something we do, so they shouldn't happen on property we control; we don't maintain art; and we don't maintain wetlands..." But with the community advocating for these projects and DON facilitating the conversation between excited communities and reluctant and uncertain City departments, these projects happened and represent the start of a paradigm shift between the city and community that has endured to this day that of a city/community partnership in addressing neighborhood priorities.

5) What challenges and complexities would you anticipate as Director of the Department of Neighborhoods? How might you address those challenges and complexities?

Response:

A major challenge is convincing community members that the City remains committed to supporting a neighborhood-driven agenda, especially with our reduced budget and fewer DON services and resources available.

To address the challenge, the following will occur:

a) Re-define the work of the Neighborhood District Coordinators. They will continue to work as teams to serve a region. And they will build and maintain strong relationships with community members and City government to ensure that information flows both ways, and that actions taken -whenever possible -align with City policy and community wishes.

b) Neighborhood Matching Fund will move closer to an outcomebased model, especially for projects intended to help people;

c) With the need for more P-Patch community gardening space, I will work with other departments and the P-Patch Trust to creatively maximize the City's land to add more gardens;

d) Lastly, I will maintain a longstanding cultural characteristic of DON to be proactive and ahead of the curve, instead of reactionary.

6) What opportunities do you see for improving collaboration between the Department of Neighborhoods and other City departments? Will you continue to lead the interdepartmental teams, or will this role be accomplished via the executive office, or both?

Response:

Leading interdepartmental teams, either in partnership or for the Executive, is a function that is appropriate for the Director. I will lead them when asked, especially when the work of the team is directly related to DON. There may be times when the leader role would be more appropriately handled by another DON staff member, but I am committed to providing this resource when needed.

Leading an IDT is just one way to improve collaboration between DON and other City departments. But given that DON is not a capital department, the more important way involves a two-step process: a) having strong, positive and trusting relationships with my peers (other Directors), and b) by modeling this behavior, being explicit with my team about building similar relationships at the staff level. In either case, we'll do what we say we're going to do and do so in a timely fashion.

Given the nature of DON, much of the work we do for and with communities is done in collaboration with other City departments. For example, we are currently working with several departments to explore the possibility of consolidating some of the City's granting functions toward the goal of having a single entry point for communities seeking funding for community projects. In addition, we are combining efforts to improve the City's tree canopy with several City departments and supporting small scale anti-violence projects with the Seattle Youth Violence Prevention Initiative (SYVPI). Outside examples include collaborating with Seattle Public Schools to replace or improve playgrounds, turn playgrounds from "grey to green," and beautify and make school entrances more welcoming. Our collaborations with private funders like the Seattle Foundation has resulted in the Foundation making awards to projects solely based on DON's support with a Neighborhood Matching Fund award.

These collaborations have worked because DON builds upon the strengths of its partners and is sensitive to their constraints. And our goal is to arrive at a win-win solution for all involved parties.

Finally it's important to remember that all departments are working toward the same goal and that we're partners in moving an agenda forward. We bring different perspectives to a project or initiative, but once we agree on the result we're after, we must move in concert. And recognizing that when there are "hiccups" along the way, our collective job is to problem solve, then keep going.

7) What is the most publicly controversial issue you have dealt with in your career? What role did you have in the situation and how did you contribute to resolution of the issue? What were your negative as well as positive experiences, and what could you have done differently?

Response:

My approach is to resolve issues quietly and behind the scenes, so I am providing an example of how I dealt with a challenging and controversial situation in the workplace. In the early'80s, I was working for a state law enforcement agency as a civilian. Their training academy was planning to include a cultural awareness module in its training program for new recruits, and I was asked to design the curriculum for the Asia American section understanding that the actual training would be conducted by the agency's staff that was not diverse. You can imagine my reaction to the idea of giving the assignment of conducting a training session about the Asian American experience to a non-Asian training officer.

To give some background, my superiors were sworn personnel who believed that 1) a person with strong skills, such as a trainer, could teach any subject; and 2) law enforcement was a paramilitary organization and as such, orders were to be followed. Essentially I was given an order to produce the curriculum, than hand it over.

So I only partly followed the 'order.' I produced the training materials and explained that I would share them when an Asian American instructor was brought on board. There were several tough discussions with my superiors: I was accused of being the problem/not being a team player/didn't understand how paramilitary organizations got things done, etc.

Eventually the situation was resolved. I won the argument, the recruits received excellent training (from credible trainers), and the agency began to "get it." I think the light bulb went off when I asked what their reaction would be if I suggested someone like me to train/talk about the police officer experience! Although not a publicly controversial issues, this is an example of my style for dealing with challenging situations -to do what is right and courageously push for the best solution.

Department of Neighborhoods Internal

1) How would you propose changing the Department's operations or focus to better include members of these communities in DON programs, and in neighborhood planning in general?

Clarification:

For the purpose of answering these questions, I assume you are referring to traditionally under-represented communities or those not normally involved in interactions with government. Another clarification to make is that DON is not responsible for neighborhood plan development. DPD has the technical expertise to prepare neighborhood plans that are part of the City's comprehensive planning effort. DON partners with DPD and is responsible for assisting with community outreach and public engagement related to neighborhood planning.

Response:

Historically, DON has understood that government (and our programs and services in particular) needs to get beyond those who are comfortable and already skilled at interacting with the City. We know that there are communities who -for a variety of reasons -have little or no experience working with government, yet are in great need of its services or have thoughts/opinions about the range of City issues. The challenge is "how does the City have meaningful engagements with these communities?" There needs to be a bridge between under-represented communities and the City, and DON plays that role.

For example, when DON was the Office of Neighborhoods in the late 1980's, we were very concerned about low-income neighbors and their ability to access the Neighborhood Matching Fund. The Fund was designed as a resource for neighborhood organizations, primarily run by volunteers, to initiate, plan and implement improvement projects in their neighborhood in partnership with the City. Many lower income neighborhoods did not have longstanding organizations that were capable of utilizing the Fund. So, much of the Department's early work focused on organizing and the building of organizations that could become the voice of the neighbors and the community it represented and successful applicants to the NMF.

Reaching-in to under-represented communities is another core value of DON, and we act upon this value in a number of ways. To promote our programs or services, or to invite participation on our boards or committees, staff goes to the communities "to where the people are." Using translators when necessary, we inform and encourage the use of DON and other city resources and often we will have follow-up meetings to reiterate a message.

Another example of DON creating a bridge for people is referred to as the "friend of the community" approach which we've used for the Neighborhood Matching Fund. A "friend" is someone who is bicultural and bi-lingual, and more importantly, someone who is trusted within the community. A group may be newly-formed, English may not be their first language, and/or there could be some reluctance or concern about being involved with a government entity. So having a friend is helpful. Once identified, the friend guides and coaches the group toward the development of a strong application and successful project. With assistance from the community's friend, the group gains valuable experience for accessing City resources and is more confident about interacting with government in the future.

The creation of DON's Planning Outreach Liaisons (POLs) is yet another tool for reaching into under-represented communities. In many ways a POL plays a similar role as the "friend of the community," although the primary focus is on neighborhood planning. POLs are members of their respective communities and serve the purpose of bringing conversations about neighborhood planning to their members, ensuring that refugees, immigrants, seniors, renters, and young people's voices are heard and reflected in the plan updates.

DON will continue to use technology to solicit and gather information from community members. I recognize the potential of blogs, Facebook, Twitter, listserves, etc., as vehicles for reaching and engaging the diversity of people within our communities. A combination of personal and cyberspace relationships can be powerful for the department and City government, so pursuing this goal is desirable.

Finally, DON -with our Neighborhood District Coordinator Program in the lead -is looking to become a resource to other City departments that are planning to do outreach and public engagement work. As advisor and coach, our goal is to assist departments in developing and carrying out its outreach strategy.

DON is the link or bridge between the City and under-represented communities, and has demonstrated by the above examples, a commitment to be an effective connector. Involving all communities in the work of the City is an ongoing challenge and even tougher when budgets are tight. However, under my leadership, DON will continue to acknowledge this challenge, work harder to hear from those whose voices are quieter, and continue to seek creative ideas for involving under-represented communities.

2) What are your major goals for the Department of Neighborhoods? How will you involve staff and community members in defining these goals and means to realize them?

Response:

In keeping with the vision described in my response to the first question in the Personal section, the following are DON goals I/we hope to achieve during my tenure. These are not goals identified by me alone; they also reflect the work of staff.

For the community: To develop a culture of partnership between the community and City government; to increase meaningful community engagement by diverse populations in city projects, initiatives, policy and decision-making processes; to be a trusted resource of City information for neighborhood organizations and the community at large.

For City government: To be a trusted resource and team member; to provide relevant community information to the City; and to provide expertise on outreach for other city departments.

For the department: To revitalize and sustain department culture where staff are supported, creativity is encouraged, risk-taking (within reason) is permissible; accountability, at all levels of the organization, is the norm; to strengthen team spirit and reinstill the 'can do" attitude; to recognize that there is hierarchy, but we do not have to act hierarchical; to be a family friendly work place where life-and-work balance is encouraged and supported;

DON also recently went through a process to define our role and value in the community. I believe this statement says it all: Seattle Department of Neighborhoods strengthens the city of Seattle by actively engaging all communities. Through our programs and services, we meet people where they are, and support neighbors working toward a more cohesive community that celebrates diversity, encourages citizen engagement, and creates a more livable city.

3) How will you address issues of the evolving workforce of the future, such as filling positions vacated by aging City workers, and welcoming more people of color, women, and people with disabilities into the workforce where they may not have been represented in large numbers?

Response:

DON has employed a diverse work force since its early years of existence. Currently, the average age of DON employees is 46 years, with a range of 25 to 66 years of age. With a number of employees approaching retirement age or contemplating retirement (20+ years), a major concern is the loss of institutional memory. It would be ideal to have younger, less experienced employees shadow or job share with those close to retirement for the purpose of retaining some of the institutional wisdom that might soon be lost. The idea of sharing or imparting wisdom before leaving a position is good for the retiree, the recipient, and of course, the organization.

DON employee data: 45% identify as White; 8% identify Hispanic/Latino; 24% are African American; 20% Asian/Pacific Islander; and 3% Native American. DON is 71% female; 23% male. Two employees are differently-abled; one has a hearing impairment and the other is sight impaired and both have professional positions. Historically and currently, DON has a very strong record for recruiting and employing a diverse workforce. We value employee diversity and are proud of the fact that DON "walks the talk."

One area that can be improved is gender balance at the management/leadership level.

4) How will you implement post-neighborhood planning Policy Docket resolutions and recommendations?

Response:

DON will serve as a facilitator in coordinating responses to Policy Docket resolutions and recommendations. During the last phase of neighborhood planning 10+ years ago, the department served as a coordinator for responses for many of the Policy Docket resolutions and recommendations in order to ensure that the intent of neighborhoods were represented in both policy and CIP recommendations. Because many of the recommendations are CIP-related, DON's role will be as coordinator to report back to the Council, but the implementation responsibility will be by the appropriate CIP department.

Department of Neighborhoods in the Community

1) The Department of Neighborhoods must strike a balance between (a) harnessing energy/ideas of neighborhood residents and businesses and (b) implementing a City-wide vision and priorities. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Response:

Working with the various constituencies that are active in the community can be a challenge but more often is an opportunity. Being exposed to innovation and new ideas and finding ways to connect people within government and within the community to implement those ideas is an opportunity that, while not unique to DON, is certainly something we both encourage and encounter. I think one of the better known examples is Neighbor Appreciation Day which grew out of a letter to the Mayor more than 20 years ago and is now celebrated citywide. The City encouraged the idea and originally sponsored events, but it is now an activity that communities "own" throughout the city and that many city departments actively promote and participate in, i.e. Fire department open houses and Park community center events.

The challenge of working with community constituents given the limited resources human and financial -is real in government. All City departments have to be strategic as to which ideas are nurtured and incubated as well as ensuring that the work is part of a citywide vision and that we are able to achieve measurable outcomes. We accomplish this in a variety of ways -our outreach and engagement strategies, prioritizing that work as part of our departmental accountability agreement, and department-wide and programmatic work plans.

I think a good example for DON is the topic of sustainability and how we both assist other departments in their sustainability efforts and implement our own in tandem with community groups that are part of a citywide commitment:

? Food waste bins and kitchen kits provided by SPU and CFL lights provided by City Light are distributed through the Neighborhood Payment and Information Services locations.

? Our P-Patch program is a model of sustainable practices supporting the locavore movement and building community in 75 PPatches throughout the city.

? The Neighborhood Matching Fund has supported numerous efforts within the community that address sustainable policies and practices, e.g. support for the Seattle Community Farm.

? Compliance with City energy codes and sustainability goals is often challenging for owners of historic buildings. Our historic preservation program works cooperatively with DPD to find ways to meet our citywide goals and to preserve historic properties.

2) The City of Seattle has a number of different departments that are actively involved with neighborhood-related activities. Please describe how you have worked with diverse stakeholders in the past. Please describe who did what and how you collaborated.

Response:

DON has a specific role designated by the Land Use Code in the Major Institution Master Planning (MIMP) process and School Departure and School Use Advisory Committees (SUAC). There are always differing viewpoints among the constituencies represented by the committee members, the institutions (or School District), and the surrounding neighborhoods. I consider the outreach and engagement component of our responsibilities to be extremely important in forming committees to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in these issues. The most recent example is the formation of a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Virginia Mason Hospital Master Planning process where DON was charged with working with Virginia Mason in selecting the CAC members. In addition to the legally required outreach mailing to property owners and residents within 600 feet, we worked closely with Virginia Mason, community groups, and hospital users to ensure that the committee was diverse not only in terms of demography, but also in terms of viewpoints.

Another example of our neighborhood-related work with other departments includes our partnership with the Office of Emergency Management to implement Seattle Neighborhoods Actively Prepared (SNAP) program in the north Delridge neighborhood. Building on this collaboration and in recognition of the fact that all neighborhoods must prepare, DON and OEM are discussing another collaborative effort to encourage community-wide emergency preparation.

DON's effectiveness as a community building organization is largely dependent on our ability to collaborate and establish partnerships with the community and other City departments. We have to do this work well.

3) DON has a very good reputation for using community-organizing models to involve citizens in decision-making. Yet, it is often not possible for many of our citizens to attend public meetings. Seniors, single parents, non-English speakers, the working poor, or even those who must work long hours and most of the younger generation seldom go to meetings or public hearings. It is unfortunate, but those who have the time and energy to devote to advocating for their own community, may themselves not be very representative of that community. We cannot assume that because some citizens don't attend meetings that they don't care, nor have opinions. What should be done to address this problem?

Response:

DON has a good track record because of the many strategies we've employed over the years to involve citizens in our programs and services. There is no secret to getting people informed, involved or engaged: you "meet people where they are" and invite them to participate. And this strategy is most effective when an individual (or in this case, DON) has a reputation for reachingin to communities and engaging people in a way that is respectful, appropriate, and sensitive to cultural factors; and it takes time to create and maintain strong people relationships.

Examples of how DON has operationalized the "meet people where they are approach" include: having knowledge of organizations or cultural institutions and asking to come to them to share or receive information; having relationships with trusted community members and asking them to convey or solicit information; developing strategies, like the Neighborhood Matching Fund's "friend of the community" partnerships for accessing City resources; creating models like the Planning Outreach Liaisons (POLs); and utilizing technology to complement in-person contact.

I think with all audiences we need to be sensitive to people's interest and time constraints. If we are asking people to give up their time to participate in a City-driven process regardless of venue -we should be much clearer about the following: a) purpose/why is it important to hear from them; b) establish clear boundaries/parameters for using the information provided, i.e. not all ideas/thoughts/opinions will influence the outcome of the process; c) identify the anticipated outcome or result; d) tell people how much time we will need from them; e) act (or decide to take no action) within a reasonable amount of time; and f) actively communicate the actions taken.

Although this approach might not be possible in all situations, we should attempt to have clearer and shorter processes for involving residents in decision-making.

4) Effective participation in government and, in the reverse, distrust of government can often be linked to failed public process. The failure can be a result of: not receiving/understanding meeting announcements, lack of clarity about the goal (inform, consult, receive input?) of the meeting, lack of record keeping, follow-up, or accountability for commitments made in that meeting. What role does the Department of Neighborhoods have to insure that all City departments use effective techniques for public meetings?

Response:

DON is not in a position to "ensure that all City departments use effective techniques for public meetings." Even SOCR, which provides Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement (IOPE) training for City staff, cannot insure that the training will be fully implemented by those who attend. But DON and SOCR have discussed a partnership relationship that could increase the likelihood of a department improving its IOPE work.

DON's has proposed and is looking to pilot an outreach and public engagement service tailored to the needs of City departments. The proposal identifies our Neighborhood District Coordinators (NDCs) as key players in the development and implementation of a department's outreach or public engagement work. The proposal builds upon and takes advantage of the coordinators strong relationships with community members, as well as their knowledge of neighborhood politics. By working with coordinators, an outreach or public engagement plan with a clear purpose and expected outcomes would be created. Starting with the IOPE Toolkit as a resource, the plan would identify strategies for conducting outreach or public engagement work, resources (people, materials, etc.) needed. and a timeline to implement the plan. If there is a need to bring additional staff resources to the effort, DON and SOCR could call upon past and current Change Team and Core Team members to assist with implementation . Throughout the implementation phase, DON Coordinators would function as coach and advisor to the department, ensuring that department staff is supported as they undertake the effort.

DON does not have the staff resource to do all of the City's outreach or public engagement work, but we are willing to assist departments. By creating this service, DON hopes that departments will become more skilled and comfortable with performing these functions on their own.

5) Communities spent thousands of hours with hundreds of participants to develop community based comprehensive planning. Although the Executive and the City Councils that approved these cannot obligate the current or future Councils in funding the priorities and specific projects identified in these plans, does the DON have an obligation to respect and facilitate these priorities? If communities desire to re-examine the plans, how will DON facilitate review and redevelopment of these "living documents"?

Response:

DON, like all City departments, does what it can to implement neighborhood plans. DON, however, is not a capital department; our resources for actual plan implementation are limited. The only DON resource currently available for neighborhood planning projects is the Neighborhood Matching Fund, and it continues to be a resource for small-scale plan updates, as well as project implementation. Note: Early Implementation Funds (EIF) were allocated to each planning area following the Council's adoption of the neighborhood plans in the late 1990's. These funds were distributed by DON.

Regarding the reexamination of an existing plan, DON, in collaboration with DPD, will entertain a request to update a plan and may decide to undertake some level of update if there are the resources to do so. DON is not resourced to do technical planning; DPD is the technical planning arm and DON's contribution to the effort comes in the form of conducting outreach to engage communities in the update process, particularly under-represented communities. The creation of the Planning Outreach Liaison (POL) model is an outgrowth of the DON/DPD partnership focused on neighborhood planning updates.

Realistically speaking, DON runs the risk of elevating community expectations if we advocate strongly for plans to be updated knowing that resources are severely limited for undertaking a planning process or implementing plan elements in the near future. Any community request for a plan update will be brought to the attention of the Executive, as well as the Council, for guidance and direction.

6) It is the nature and culture of government to do much of their administrative work in meetings and in conjunction with each other as working professionals. The general public is rarely at the table. City departments, however, do work with a number of non-profits and organizations where the executive director is either at the table or accessible. Do you then think it is appropriate for DON to be the advocates for citizen groups or individuals?

Response:

There is a fine line between advocating for the interests of community groups and ensuring that the community perspective is heard and considered when making decisions. I believe that the role of DON is the latter.

DON supports and encourages community groups to advocate on their own behalf the notion of self-help. This practice stems from the belief that communities are strongest and most effective when they speak for themselves -to government, developers, other public, private, or non-profit entities -to anyone proposing to take action that would impact their neighborhood or community. So DON's role is to assist communities in developing their collective voice -one that is representative of a broad range of people in the community.

If the collective voice is lacking, then DON's role is to bring to the discussion the varied thoughts and opinions heard from community members on a particular topic. Again, the purpose is not to advocate; the purpose is to ensure that community perspective is part of the discussion.

Department of Neighborhoods and Budget

1) Many of Seattle's neighborhoods are in a period of significant transformation via increased use of and demand for neighborhood resources (streets, sidewalks, parks, libraries, Ppatches, etc.), real estate speculation, housing development, gentrification and changing neighborhood demographics. What specific strategies and policy initiatives would you propose to help guide neighborhood development, to further include groups not historically represented in neighborhood management/development and to help preserve the distinct cultures (e.g., the "feel") of each of Seattle's neighborhoods? What role do you see for the Department of Neighborhoods or for the City as a whole, in neighborhoods undergoing this type of change?

Response:

As with all the programs and services of DON that have been described in earlier answers, we meet people "where they are." Our outreach and engagement activities help people connect with their neighbors and with City government. The Neighborhood Matching Fund will continue to provide resources for those who want to improve their neighborhood and preserve its essence. Our Historic Preservation and Major Institutions Programs will continue to engage community members on boards and committees so they can participate in changes to their neighborhoods. Our Neighborhood Service Centers will continue to provide hands-on, locally-based support and information so that people feel connected to City government and its resources. Our District Coordinators located in the neighborhoods actively work to engage community members and serve as a resource, advisor and liaison. And our P-Patch Programs, whose foundation is to connect and engage community members, continues to grow.

2) Considering your responses to the questions above, can you describe and discuss what you see as the top issues facing the Department of Neighborhoods and the Neighborhood Matching Fund?

Response:

The top issues ultimately come down to financial resources. With the many budget reductions we've had, the staff has been very judicious, creative, and resourceful. I see more opportunities to work with my peers (other Directors) to break down the silos, create processes, share resources, and develop new ways to help community members feel more informed, more empowered and more engaged with the City and with each other.

3) How will you ensure that Council members and their staff get all the information they need from Department of Neighborhoods to make policy and financial decisions?

Response:

Our past and current practice is to provide information upon request and in a timely fashion. I understand the importance of providing or sharing information for the purposes stated above, but there may be some situations that require consultation with the Executive. The Council can be assured that such consultation and the transmittal of information will occur as quickly as possible.

4) Will DON try to increase resources available for better large project management in neighborhood plan implementation?

Response:

It is not my intent to request new funding or re-direct funding for the purpose of adding staff to support large scale projects involving SDOT or Parks. I prefer to retain the department's NMF project management staff at the current level or restore staffing to the previous level.

5) One of the responsibilities of DON is to provide assistance to neighborhoods, through the City Neighborhood Council (CNC) representatives, in understanding the City budget process. The purpose of this is to enhance the ability of neighborhoods to influence decisions on the City budget that affect their own areas. What value and what difficulties do you see in displaying the City's capital and operating budgets on neighborhood district basis? What types of recommendations or decisions do you think it would be appropriate for the CNC to make on the annual City budget? How will you encourage ongoing budget and program advice from groups like the CNC? How can dialogue be facilitated and the existing organizations (such as CNC/Districts) be efficiently used as sounding boards?

Response:

Unfortunately I cannot speak authoritatively about the value or difficulties of displaying the City's budget information by districts. This is a question that CBO is better suited to address. I can speculate, however, about the possible advantages and disadvantages of presenting the City's budget in this way.

Before displaying information in this manner, it would have to be tracked and collected by district. This may be easier to do with the City's capital budget, but could be challenging for the general fund, since it may illustrate that City resources are not equally distributed across the city or disbursed according to population size. For that reason, the presentation would have to include easily understood rationale for budget decisions that appear to be unfair or unequal. In addition, this type of presentation of budget data by district could be the precursor to voters suggesting that their tax dollars be earmarked for their districts!

I believe the CNC and district councils (DC) have an appropriate role related to the City's budget. Both bodies, like any other organization or individuals, can identify their budget priorities and submit them to the Executive and Council for consideration during the budget development and approval processes. I think it may be unrealistic for either body to play a more direct role in developing the City's budget. And why would these bodies be provided greater involvement in the budget process versus other organizations or interest groups, such as human service providers, housing advocates, environmentalists, business community, etc?

Finally, using the CNC and DCs as sounding boards is a good idea, but they should not be the sole venue for gathering feedback. Both are organizations with members who represent members of another body. Theoretically, DC and CNC representatives speak on behalf of the folks they represent, so sufficient time must be allowed for the CNC and the DC representatives to poll their organizations before presenting an opinion of their group. Most groups meet only once a month, so the process of gathering and reporting information may not be timely.

DCs and the CNC have been interested in using technology to solicit and collect input from community members. For those who are wired and tech savvy, this could be a more effective tool for communicating within the district, across districts, with the CNC, and maybe the City too. The biggest challenge, however, is creating and maintaining the system so that communication is timely and up-to-date.

6) What steps would you take to encourage more people of color to become active in civic issues? How does this fit into the mission of DON? Is this climate of severe budget cuts, what is the source of revenue for the Mayor's "new direction"?

Response:

DON is in the business of encouraging civic participation by as many people as possible. And if we define civic participation broadly, there probably are many more people active in a variety of issues -not just those identified by the City. To encourage people to become more active, we need to do better at: a) telling the story/conveying the message about the importance of becoming active (people have many interests and limited time, so defining "what's at stake" is critical); b) be respectful of people's time and make sure the time spent is worthwhile and productive; c) go to where people are and think creatively about appropriate ways to reach and hear from people; and d) be clear and up front about the use of their input (i.e. all things suggested may not be acted upon), and/or establish parameters for civic engagement (i.e. we would like to hear suggestions and advice, but decisionmaking will reside elsewhere). DON should support and encourage residents to be actively involved (to the degree they can) in a community or City issue of their choice because civic engagement is highly valued.

Possible Reorganization

The Mayor has announced that the Department of Neighborhoods may reorganize to include additional functions, perhaps such as those currently housed in the Mayor's Office of Economic Development and/or other smaller City departments. From your perspective, what are some of the key opportunities and challenges that might arise from such a proposal?

Response:

In early May the Mayor announced that a feasibility study would be undertaken to examine five offices for potential operational and administrative efficiencies to better serve the public. Budget savings and span of control issues were also to be examined. The offices and departments are: Neighborhoods, Office of Economic Development, Office of Housing, Office of Arts & Cultural Affairs, and the Office of Sustainability and Environment. At a later date, DPD/Planning Division was added to the mix.

Undertaking this examination revealed a number of challenges, as well as opportunities. On the positive side, some form of consolidation could result in operational efficiencies such as the sharing of administrative functions like, HR, PIO/Communications, administrative support, and possibly management functions too. Efficiencies might also be realized by combining like or similar functions, such as grant-making, outreach, or public engagement activity. On a larger scale, consolidation could result in providing the City with a resource to lead and coordinate placebased community development work within a single department. The assumption here is that a team approach to community development work may be smoother and more easily accomplished when the lead staff are part of the same department and the department is charged (and resourced) to do this work.

Challenges also exist. Since reorganization or consolidation are scary words and cause a good amount of angst, one wonders if savings and efficiencies -to better serve the public -will be realized and whether it's enough to make the effort worthwhile. There is the very real fear of job loss, as well as the concern that any organizational change will result in less efficiency, meshing of work cultures that are very different (resulting in loss of talented staff), and unhappy constituent groups who would feel that their access to the Mayor and Council was being diminished. Finally, consolidation or reorganization is time consuming and requires a lot of work, as in redefining jobs and making the people changes that might be necessary.

At this point the initial phase of the feasibility study is complete. My role as leader of the study is also done since I presented -about a month ago several "next step" options for the Mayor to consider. They include:

? No change; offices/department remain as they are and continue their current operations.

? Full consolidation; five offices/departments become one.

? Two other hybrid options that include some level of consolidation, and some programs/offices remaining the same

When the Mayor indicates his preferred option for consolidation, work will resume to determine the organizational structure and corresponding budget necessary for the new or modified department/office. Since the five organizations have already submitted their budget proposals for 2012 -reflecting an 8% reduction from 2011 -it's likely that budget will need to be redone if the organization is part of a consolidated unit. Any proposal for consolidation will be part of the Mayor's 2012 budget submittal to Council in the fall.

Respectfully Submitted by:

Bernie Agor Matsuno, Acting Director

Seattle Department of Neighborhoods

Cc: Honorable Members of the Seattle City Council

Honorable Mayor Michael P. McGinn

Deputy Mayor Darryl Smith, Mayor's Office

Ethan Raup, Director of Policy & Operations, Mayor's Office

SOCR is very interested in having Change and Core Team members "practice" what they've learned as a result of RSJ training or experience as Team members. Loaning team members to departments for a limited amount of time serves two purposes: team members put into practice strategies they've learned and departments gain more expertise for conducting their outreach or public engagement activity.)

7. Letter of Expectations

Seattle City Council

July 26, 2011

Bernadette Agor Matsuno

Interim Director

Seattle Department of Neighborhoods

700 5th Ave, Suite 1700

Seattle, WA 98104

Re: City Council Expectations for Bernadette Matsuno, Acting Director of the Department of Neighborhoods

Dear Ms. Matsuno:

This letter has been placed in Clerk File 311602, which contains the Mayor's request for your confirmation as Director of the Department of Neighborhoods (DON). To be successful, a director needs to work constructively with both the Executive branch and the City Council. A positive working relationship requires a director to be responsive to Council needs and priorities.

To that end, as part of the Council's confirmation review process, we want to communicate to you our expectations for your job performance if you are confirmed. The Council expectations (listed below) are intended to enhance your accountability to the Council. The expectations also provide a basis for Council evaluation of your performance if and when the Mayor reappoints you for another term in the future. Council expectations are intended to add to the Mayor's expectations and your responsibilities established in Seattle Municipal Code.

I. City Council General Expectations for Bernie Matsuno as Director of DON

A. Relationship with Council . Ms. Matsuno is expected to maintain a constructive working relationship with the Council, as demonstrated by:

1. Prompt and complete responses to Council information inquiries.

2. Pro-active updates on policy development, operational concerns and financial matters of significance, so that the Council is informed of significant changes or controversies before the information reaches the media and/or before the Executive submits a request for Council action.

3. Dependable implementation of formal policy direction provided by the Council.

4. Assistance in the research and development of Council policy initiatives.

B. Management Skills . Ms. Matsuno is expected to demonstrate strong management skills, with particular focus on the following Council priorities:

1. Public communication

a. Conduct inclusive outreach to relevant stakeholders.

b. Implement a strong ethic of customer service.

c. Make information available so that the public can track the department's performance in delivering services.

2. Organizational management

a. Coordinate productively with other City departments.

b. Maintain strong working relationships with other governmental entities.

c. Operate within budget constraints and proactively manage expenditures.

d. Provide a fair and equitable approach to the award of City contracts.

3. Personnel management

a. Develop and maintain strong morale among employees.

b. Provide an inclusive work environment that offers equitable opportunities for all.

c. Address issues of succession planning and the professional development of existing staff.

4. Service delivery, including both routine operations and emergent situations

a. Ensure that on-going, day-to-day services are provided effectively and efficiently, and that the department tracks its performance in delivering such services.

b. Make certain the department is able to deal with localized emergencies or service disruptions and has thoroughly planned how to manage its operations in case of a City-wide emergency.

II. Specific Expectations for Bernie Matsuno as Director of DON for 2011 -2013

During the term from 2011 to 2013, Ms. Matsuno is expected to implement (and provide regular progress reports on) the following Council expectations:

A. Budget. Ensure the department's budget is managed responsibly and efficiently to achieve City's top policy objectives. Identify opportunities to streamline processes and to deliver high quality programs in context of increasingly challenging budget environment.

B. Community and Equity. Balance goals of the department to optimize efforts to build community capacity, maintain existing community assets and strengths, and ensure equity of access to City decisionmaking and prioritization.

C. Neighborhood Matching Fund. Continue to promote collaboration between the City and community through the Neighborhood Matching fund. Continue to work with the community members to leverage city dollars and empower the residents to enhance and strengthen their own neighborhoods.

D. Public Engagement and Outreach. Continue efforts to conduct outreach, improve the public's access to information, and increase effective interaction and engagement between the public and City officials. This includes looking for innovative ways to engage the public in neighborhood projects and continuing to empower residents of Seattle. In particular, focusing on more of Seattle's underrepresented residents. This also includes working closely with the community on the neighborhood planning updates and keeping the Council apprised of the needs in the neighborhoods.

E. Race and Social Justice. Advance the City's Race and Social Justice Initiative. Focus on Department of Neighborhood policies and practices to ensure that all residents have access to City resources, understand decision-making processes that are important to neighborhoods, and have an effective voice in those decisions.

The City Council looks forward to working cooperatively with you to ensure that DON continues to achieve the highest standards of public outreach, engagement with the community, and collaborative approaches to achieve City policy objectives.

Sincerely,

Richard Conlin, President Seattle City Council Mike O'Brien, Chair Seattle Public Utilities & Neighborhoods Committee

cc: Michael McGinn, Mayor, City of Seattle

Seattle City Council Members

4