Read on Twitter
So I promised a thread about why the City and County of Denver's reliance on registered neighborhood organizations perpetuates injustice. (Hmmm, let me write a quick letter to my city councilors about the group living amendment. Then we've got the whole rest of the evening.) 1/
(Looks like one of my councilors had already emailed me, so I didn't need to email her. And those who know where I live will know which one she is.) (distraction)/
So Denver allows groups of residents to band together to advocate for their interests. The city gives a lot of consideration to the views expressed by such organizations. (I suppose it's easier than having to do widespread public engagement.) 2/
The rules for creating such an organization are quite lax. An RNO can overlap other RNOs that already exist. There's one RNO - Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation or INC - that has the same boundaries as the city & county, so it overlaps with every other RNO, current or future. 3/
INC is rather unusual in that it exists to be an organization of organizations. Individual biological persons can't be members of INC, only affiliates. Only other (obviously smaller, more local) RNOs can be voting members of INC - and only if they've paid their INC dues. 4/
So that's one problem: some RNOs charge membership fees, and only members in good standing (that is, current on their dues - some have requirements that accounts be brought current up to 90 days before elections) to vote. For a public election, that would be a poll tax. 5/
But RNOs serve as a means to bring public opinion to the City & County. They suffer from another problem of violating the concept of one-person, one-vote. Since overlapping RNOs are permissible, yet Denver does nothing to require or encourage RNO formation, it's possible ... 6/
... that one Denver resident lives in an area represented by two local RNOs (not counting INC), and thus by two voting members of INC. Another resident - maybe only living a few blocks away - may be in an area where no local RNO has been established. 7/
They're still within the county-wide jurisdiction asserted by INC, but have no vote in it. 8/
OK, so where do RNOs form, and who belongs to them? Well, people who have to work two or three jobs to get by generally don't have time to spend attending RNO meetings. Nor do people who have to worry about child care (especially single parents). 9/
So current RNOs typically over-represent people who are financially comfortable and probably have a 9-5 Monday-Friday job - or retirees. My neighborhood, Cole, is pretty much bilingual. But when I've attended my RNO meetings, business was transacted primarily in English. 10/
The founders spoke English, the officers know English, the people who show up speak English. While they've tried to publish a bilingual newsletter, they rely on donations and merchandise, so there's not much budget for translation. 11/
Google translate is of course free, and an excellent example of the maxim "you get what you pay for." Essentially RNOs are unrepresentative the same way that caucuses are, and for many of the same reasons. 12/
However, since Denver places disproportionate weight on the opinions of RNOs, especially INC, Denver makes decisions that primarily benefit established interests at the expense of vulnerable and historically oppressed groups. 13/
So, if Denver wishes to rely on RNOs as a means of gathering public opinion, Denver should go all in: Put them in the city charter. delineate RNOs so that each Denver resident is represented by one and only one local RNO. Have RNO elections done on the same ballot ... 14/
... as city councilors and our strong mayor. Denver's statistical neighborhoods meet that one-and-only-one requirement. There may be a use for RNOs that represent a group of RNOs - particularly if they correspond to city council districts so that councilor's calendars ... 15/
... aren't swamped with lots of smaller meetings. However, INC, being city wide, would now be essentially redundant with the city councilor. Maybe our two at-large councilors would find them useful. But INC would likely see their relative (disproportionate) power reduced ... 16/
,,, and so they'd likely be opposed to such a proposal. The same would apply to members of historically privileged groups - who largely compose the leadership of RNOs - might well illustrate the adage that equality feels like oppression - a loss of power. 17/
So established RNOs may support or oppose such a proposal, depending on how well of a job they've done representing all of their constituents, or just the privileged ones who can pay dues and attend meetings (& leadership meetings to plan general membership meetings). 18/
Interestingly enough, the new @NCofDenver is organized as I've suggested. Collectively, the individual coalitions that correspond to city council districts cover the whole City & County (of course, since council districts must). No dues. 19/
There are some openings for initial leadership positions, until elections (not through the city ballots - that would take an ordinance change) can be held. Please support efforts to make RNOs more democratic and city government more responsive to the whole population. 20/20
