Notes of the June 22, 2015 Community Meeting about Boys Totem Town

The meeting was called to order by D1 President Paul Sawyer at 6:35p. Paul welcomed the 40+ people present in the gym at Battle Creek Rec Center and introduced Ramsey County Commissioner, Jim McDonough.

McDonough talked about the changes which have taken place and will be taking place in Ramsey County Corrections, specifically in the Juvenile Corrections Division. These changes in administration reflect the demographic changes in Ramsey County generally, with a large number of baby-boomers at or near retirement. This change reflects an opportunity for community members interested in good paying careers in corrections and other aspects of county government. Michelle Finstad is the new coordinator of Juvenile Services.

McDonough then gave a history of Boys Totem Town and the recent efforts to evaluate the alignment of the facility and programming at the institution. Boys Totem Town originated 101 years ago and has been at the current location since the 1930s. But recently the number of young men at the facility has decreased and the staff had become aware of some problems with the match between needs and opportunities. A consultant was called in and made the recommendation that the mismatch be addressed by building a new facility that supports the programming currently in place. The options it proposed were that a new facility be built at the current location or at a new location, and that consideration be given to merging the programming with other similar operations – other counties. So for the past several months, Ramsey and Hennepin County Juvenile residential facilities have been discussing whether it makes sense and is possible for them to merge their programs to the benefit of both populations. This has been phase 1 – what would be the reasons to say yes or no, and what would be the deal killers? The results of phase 1 have been presented to a steering committee that includes County Commissioners from both counties, and juvenile judges from both counties. This steering committee voted unanimously to go on to phase 2, to be completed by November of this year. Phase 2 will get us to the actual decision point of saying yes or no to the merger itself. There seems to be more of a commitment from both boards to get more people working on this merger possibility. Ramsey County currently doesn’t deal with sex offenders or girls at Boys Totem Town, but Hennepin County does – Ramsey County recognizes that adding these services to its programming would be a huge benefit. Both systems are in agreement philosophically and programmatically, but they will continue to look at funding and administration. There is also a recognition that some kids don’t go to either system and are sent to Red Wing or out of state but we know that keeping them closer to home is better, so they will be looking at potentially including them locally as long as they can have the support structure for the kids as they move toward re-integration with the society.

McDonough recognizes that the D1 local community is supportive of Boys Totem Town as it is. But there are some realities that are coming clear. His commitment is that when the counties decide yes or no to merge, it still won’t be decided where the facility will be but it is highly likely that it would not be at current site. So in November will be the point where we need to begin talk about reuse of the current site and creating a community process for this discussion.

McDonough promises, “We will not move off that property or sell it until the community has a decision of what it wants to do with the site.” He is committed to coming back to the community at each point along the way so that the community knows where things stand and how the county will help it deal with the changes

Phase 1 report summary – looked at governance (County knows how to do joint mergers – has done several of them); The County doesn’t want to see the kids back in the corrections system, want to see them in mental health, chemical dependency and other programs to help them; they know that keeping kids as close to home as possible, but more support is needed in the community if the youth are not kept confined; we know that the deeper into the system kids go, the more likely they are to come back into the criminal justice system later. We also are aware that there are a lot of cost-sharing with merger so the funds can be invested back into the kids or to other parts of county services or in tax relief.

The question of leaving or staying – County board took a long look last year at its mission in light of the fact that Ramsey County has the largest area of racially concentrated poverty in the state. This is a huge issue and the disparity is at the heart of the Ramsey’s concern – the kids in BTT are coming disproportionately from this area of racially concentrated poverty – so the County’s number 1 mission is to deal with this concentration of poverty and the disparities that arise from it. Corrections is a human services field – not a public safety field within the County structure.

Questions from the community:

Where would the merged facility be if not at the current site? – The County is not at the point of deciding that. It would not be at either current location in Ramsey of Hennepin County. It would be a brand new facility at a brand new site.

What effect would leaving make on the community garden and compost site adjacent to BTT site? Response: The County is committed to increasing composting and finding locations for compost sites is difficult so it is highly unlikely that this would move. But it is important that these concerns be a part of the community discussions about reuse of the site.

The local Somali community is in need of a community gathering space, and a space for that community to come together with other parts of the local community. They urge that creation of a community gathering space be located at this site should BTT leave. This would be a reuse that would strengthen the community. Response:  This should also be a part of the community discussions after November.

The Highwood Plan – created in the 1990s – had a lot of community input at that time. It states that the space should remain as public open space. Response: Consideration of these old plans must be a part of the community discussions after November. This will be a community decision about reuse.

There was a lengthy discussion of the reasons why the population at BTT has decreased but also why it is overwhelmingly made up of youth of color. The question was asked whether the numbers are lower there because kids are going deeper into the system. Response: Crime is down nationwide, juvenile crime is also down, but we also recognize that youth are better served with lower recidivism rates if they are kept closely connected to their families and community (with extensive support). A large portion of the kids in the system have mental health issues and we know that a corrections setting is not an appropriate setting for treating mental health issues. We do not want the corrections system to become a recruiting ground for gangs. We also need to recognize that Saint Paul’s population is actually increasing, and that the young aged portion of the population is increasing even faster. Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of these youth are born into areas that have concentrations of poverty. We must deal with the disparities that arise from this.

Comments were made that even though crime is down, our prisons are still full so we are still sending too many people to prison.

Timing for all this should be considered as November being the starting point of a community process that will define community priorities. District 1 will be asked to lead this community process (but will need added resources to do so…)

Meeting was adjourned at 7:40p.

Gold Line Comments and SunRay-Suburban Small Area Plan

The Saint Paul Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed Gold Line Station Area Plans, the Gold Line Zoning Study, associated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Saint Paul Bicycle Plan, and de-certification of the Sun Ray-Suburban Small Area Plan on Friday July 24, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 40 of the City Hall/Courthouse at 15 Kellogg Boulevard West.

Information on the proposed plans, plan amendments, and property rezonings to be considered by the Saint Paul Planning Commission can be found atwww.stpaul.gov/GoldLineSAP or by contacting Bill Dermody at Bill.Dermody@ci.stpaul.mn.usor 651.266.6617.

To provide official comments to the Planning Commission on the proposed plan amendments or rezonings, attend the July 24^th public hearing, or send written comments by 4:30 p.m. on July 28^th to Bill.Dermody@ci.stpaul.mn.us or Bill Dermody, Planning and Economic Development, 25 W. 4^th Street, Suite 1400, Saint Paul MN 55102.

MPCA Environmental Justice Plan – share your feedback.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would like your feedback on its draft environmental justice framework, the state's plan for reducing pollution, increasing livability and preventing harm in historically overburdened communities. Environmental justice means that all people – regardless of their race, color, national origin or income – benefit from equal levels of environmental protection. It also means that we actively seek out the involvement of people who may be affected, increasing our work in certain neighborhoods and communities around the state.

For more information and a copy of this plan, please visit www.pca.state.mn.us/ej

Please provide your feedback by July 15, 2015. 

Written comments may be submitted to ned.brooks@state.mn.us.  You may also attend a meeting to learn more about this plan and offer your comments in person.  Meetings will begin with an overview of the plan followed by a discussion and comment period.  Meetings are scheduled for:

•Tuesday June 23, 4:00 – 6:00

Rondo Community Outreach Library, 461 Dale St. N., St. Paul, 55103

Minutes of the D2A Steering Committee 6/15/15

In attendance: Lisa (D2), Leslie (D5), Nicole (D4), Christine (D3), Jens (D8), Chia and Betsy (D1)

Agenda approved with one minor shift of topics.

Minutes approved; Ground Rules reviewed – Ouch rule was revisited with the suggestion that it be used to address issues as they occur.

Review and Discussion of the Partnership Baseline Inventory – The factor receiving the rating (4.9 out of 5) was that this project is occurring in a favorable political and social climate for it to be successful. The factor receiving the lowest rating (2.6 out of 5) was the partnership has an appropriate cross section of members. The next lowest was that there are sufficient funds, staff, materials and time for the group to accomplish what it intends to.

The group noted that all basic factors for beginning the project are ranked highly (between 4.0 and 4.9) – it is timely, important, we share overall goals. The other factor that rated highly is flexibility (although adaptability was rated lower – do we feel there is a difference between these two characteristics?). The comment about sufficiency of resources was “Are there ever enough resources?”

What does it mean that the factor of “appropriate cross section of members” ranked low? The discussion centered on the wildly different meanings we had applied to this – did it refer to the steering committee itself or to the project as a whole and the Community Action Team (CAT) in particular? Does it imply the gender and ethnicity of the steering committee or the range of district councils represented? This relates to the question of whether we are legitimate leaders in the community. (NOTE: and also relates to why we separated the substantive work on the dialogues themselves –responsibility of the CAT – from the logistics of the project – responsibility of the Steering Committee). Can having the district councils be seen as legitimate leaders in the community around issues of equity be a goal for us? How can we celebrate our accomplishments in social change? Does this issue have a relationship to the Ambassador Group? There was talk in that group about sun-setting as ambassadors and moving into a “marketing” aspect of getting the word out more broadly about what we are doing.

It seems that it is the middle range of factors (3.0 – 3.9 ratings) where we don’t actually know how they truly rate until we are further into the project. Evaluation of these factors may be most telling of our success as a team when we do the post-project survey.

One of the fundamental issues we have as Steering Committee members who are staff members of organizations is how we communicate what we are doing to our organizations. How do we cut through the fray at board meetings to give this the emphasis it needs. This seems to be another example of how immediate issues take precedence over long-term concerns. We need to help each other think of how we can relate this work back to our own work in the community. The SUGGESTION was made that we use our check-in at the start of these Steering Committee meetings to help with identifying how we relate back to our day-to-day work.

Additional question – how does the Steering Committee relate to recruiting efforts? There is concern that recruiting start soon. The project proposal assumed that the bulk of the recruiting would be done by the CAT with the Steering Committee providing organizational contacts to assist as recruiting partners. This point will need to be considered on an on-going basis.

Project Coordinator Report (Chia) – CAT meetings: the last meeting had a decline in participants (from 21 to 14) and this affected the review of the curriculum. Chia CONCLUDED that a single group of people should be drafting the modifications of the curriculum for review and acceptance by the larger group. The Steering Committee ASKED that there be some follow-up with non-returning participants to find out why. We also noted that although the last meeting was held in the Western District Police offices, no one from that part of town attended. The next meeting will be at Rondo Library so we will do more outreach since the facilitators will be chosen at that meeting.

There was some extensive discussion about how best to send out meeting invitations and reminders. JENS offered to meet with Chia to talk about setting up a google account for this project that can easily display a calendar. NICOLE offered to send out reminders or links that can help establish the relevance of the meeting, e.g., what we did last time, how it relates to current events, through D4’s Constant Contact account. To be included in a project account, accessible to all is a basic toolkit explaining what to expect at meetings, what the goal of the project is, how communication will happen, etc. A Reminder to members to send items for the calendar and other content for the google account to Jens.

Additional concerns were about setting the dates soon for the dialogues themselves. Chia noted that the CAT decided at the last meeting that the dialogues would take place on a weekday night (Monday being the preference) and that the police dialogues start in September. These need to be at an appropriate time for youth during the school year. And there needs to be an appropriate outreach to youth, as well.

Betsy and Chia noted that there was some pushback from the police attendees at the last meeting about clarity of our goals in the CAT. We will continue to work on this clarification so that everyone is on the same page. There was some discussion about the need to build trust within that group since few of the CAT members were initial dialogue participants.

Diane Wanner met with Chia to run through the Everyday Democracy training materials. Alicia (D3), Maychy (D5) and Thaoke (D2) have agreed to be trainers for the facilitators.

The group meeting to discuss the PED/District council dialogues had their first meeting. D2, D3, D5, D14, D8/16, along with Bill D from PED (and Chia) attended. Their next meeting will be June 25^th. They are looking at the intersection of the work that the district councils and PED do – so this will appear in the curriculum.

Parks and Rec conversation – We have had some difficulty scheduling a meeting with the Director. We had a discussion about how best to move that process along. (NOTE: since the meeting, Hahm’s office has gotten back to us and the initial meeting has been set between Director Hahm, Deputy Director Korum and our group for Tuesday, June 23 at 1p at the Parks offices – suite 400, 25 W. 4^th Street).

Review of SP Foundation Funding – With Diane’s pull-back from participation in the administration of this grant, D2 has had to take on administration as well as fiscal agency duties. Lisa proposed a modified budget to the committee that shifts funding so that the goals of the proposal are met, but there is some funding to help cover staffing costs that D2 is having to take on. Lisa, Nicole and Jens WILL MEET with Theresa to talk about the proposal as it relates to portions of the voting project. Once there is agreement there, Lisa will speak with Lori at SP Foundation to talk about necessary modifications.

Next Meeting – Next meeting was proposed to by July 20, however three members have conflicts. A SUBSTITUTE DATE needs to be set.

Boys Totem Town Update June 22

On June 22 at 6:30p (at Battle Creek Rec Center, 75 S. Winthrop) there will be an update from Ramsey County about Boys Totem Town. Ramsey County and Hennepin County have been talking about a possible merger of their juvenile residential facilities and this will be a meeting to hear how those talks are progressing.

At this point, it is the Council's understanding that no decisions have been made about what to do with the site of Boys Totem Town. This meeting on Monday will be a chance to hear where things stand and ask questions if you have them. We hope there will also be some sense of a timeline for us all...

Please join us for this presentation and discussion.

Outdoor Worship and Picnic July 5, 2015

SAVE THE DATE!  Grace Lutheran Church, 1730  Old Hudson Road, St. Paul, MN will celebrate the Independence Day holiday with a 10:30 am outdoor worship service in the church parking lot. Following the service we will have an old-fashioned picnic with hot dogs, chips watermelon, cookies, lemonade and coffee.  The event will include fellowship, games and food.  Neighbors and friends are welcome.  The more the merrier.    

June 1 Notes of the Community Action Team - Dialogue to Action

In attendance: Micah (D1), Andrew (D1), John B (P), Steve T (D4), Timothy T (D1), Chia L. (D1/2), Betsy L. (D1/11), Diane W(C/D16)., Kurt H.(P), Tong T.(D4), Nicole P.(D4/11), Roger A (D5), John S (D4), Myra S. (D1), Clara W. (D4)

Introductions – We had several new attendees for this meeting, but most people continued to be from the eastside, despite our holding the meeting on the western side of town.

Review of ground rules – we reiterated that we should feel safe to challenge each other, Another way this has been stated is that we create a safe space to be uncomfortable, that is a safe place to BE challenged.

We had a review of the work groups that were set up. There was the group to put together a history of SP Police. There is a website created by the St Paul Police Historical Society (a group of current and retired officers. This is a nonprofit organization set up to document and preserve the history of the department, including artifacts such as uniforms. They sponsor events with historically accurate uniforms and a museum exists on the second floor of the main department, although this is not generally open to the public. In the museum they have documents from statehood to present. This will be a valuable source of information for the work group. But the Action Team could also ask for other data around police activities.

There is the social media team – facebook, twitter. Andrew will initiate this work once we have some basic content to create the page.

There was the Parks group to start discussion with Parks department about entering into dialogues. Initial contact has been made to meet with Mike Hahm, Parks Director.  His office will get back to us after their department meeting this week about a meeting. A pre-meeting to plan for meeting Hahm may be necessary.

We proceeded to a review of Police guide from Everyday Democracy based on the small group discussions from last month. We had a reminder that these dialogues between city departments – police and parks – and community members are being started to find areas of mutual collaboration for creating a safer and more inclusive city. We broke into small groups again to look at the separate sessions then came back together to present our impressions of each week’s curriculum.

Session 1: We added questions to different sections to get at experiences and how they influence thoughts and behaviors. This session is meant to get to know attendees and to talk about stereotyping in both its positive and negative forms as well as how these influences interactions among people.

Session 2: This session can look at the effect of media and addressing the question of why there seems to be so much attention on the negative interactions between police and the community. How do we define opportunities to have true relationships when the media presents one picture only and this is reinforced by the militarization of the police? How do such discussions effect interactions? We should probably include discussion of the prison system. Discussion centered on what we hope becomes on-going such as, training. The question was raised about how you build trust within the community at large. Communities need to understand how police learn to be involved with communities of color – are the current methods effective? How does hiring of officers work? Is it important to have the police reflect the community and if so to what degree? We need to understand how a person’s upbringing effects interactions – how do families talk to children about the police? How does the stress of the job effect officers’ interactions with people, particularly people of color? What support is provided to police for the job they do? We need abundant opportunities to listen to other people’s views. Within this session we may need to add new views to the scenarios that reflect this line of questioning. We ultimately nee to address the disconnect between expectations and the reality of experience.

Session 3: What expectations do we have of each other? We need to watch the language of “citizens” in this curriculum. We want to make sure there is consistency of language and make some changes that make language more inviting. Describing yourself – identifying yourself (is this discussion kind of late in the process?? Is this a part of building trust? Should it come earlier?) We need to add the question of what makes communities unsafe in the first place? We also want to add to part 4 what did people learn and how did that change our thoughts?

Session 4: Look at different ways to view police and community relations and then address how we improve the existing relationships. We will want to focus on specific things; a lot of things are currently happening with the police department – how do we expand the group of people who are aware of these things? 6 views are presented – do some things need to happen – We should focus on actionable items for approach 1 – figuring out what will generate discussion. What do residents need to know to evaluate whether the police are being accountable for their behaviors? What are actions that actually fit in with the way people live? Education is necessary around how the legal system works and how the police system works. We should add a section that is about defining what is your view… The issue was raised again about how to match officers to community when we are talking about individuals with a whole range of dimensions to define ourselves along. How DOES or SHOULD the police department reflect the community? How do we get people to relate to each other?

Session 5: This session was hard to critique without having first discussed the other sessions. Instead this group focused on challenges the project will face: how do we bring people to the table (and keep them there)? There are things the police can’t do, and then education is necessary around why this is the case.  People don’t want to come talk to the police usually unless there is a high profile incident. How do we advertise to recruit for the fall sessions so that we are approaching this proactively? How do the police feel about extending a hand when it is so often rejected? What role does having a hot topic play in this recruiting? We need to define a proactive dialogue – how can we assure that this type of dialogue is attractive? Need to have a reason to come together. How do we use tragedy in this instance – do we use it? How do we highlight the positive things that happen? How do we deal with perceptions?  The important thing is to define a limited number of actionable items – 2-3 action items that are small and clear. We will also need good solid facilitation. The project needs to remain flexible to accommodate things that occur as we move forward. How many groups/discussions take place around this? (note the different levels of action possible) What do we have the capacity to handle?

We followed this with a discussion of where will we have these dialogues and when and who is going to come? We need to keep it doable and up beat. We decided that a week night is preferable to weekends, probably between 6-8p. Locations preferred were Arlington Hills, Wellstone Center and Rondo Library. We will need to see what is available and what can accommodate both break-out rooms and larger space. Locations need to be accessible by bus and other means.

Questions still to be answered - How are we representative? How do we recruit?

Facilitators will be chosen in July.

Next meeting is July 6 at 5:30p at Rondo Library.