Why did Seattle stop formally recognizing its neighborhood council system?

February 1, 2024

1987: program origins #

In 1987, Seattle City Council created the City's neighborhood council system (the "Neighborhood Planning and Assistance Program") via Resolution 27709.

This resolution initiated three new City programs – neighborhood district councils, the City Neighborhood Council, and the Neighborhood Matching Fund – and also created a new City office, the Department of Neighborhoods, to manage their administration.

Neighborhood district councils #

Neighborhood district councils were chartered to provide a forum for discussion of local issues, and connect three key groups: district residents, members of existing neighborhood organizations, and departmental representatives of the City of Seattle.

12 districts were established, based on the areas served by existing community centers operated by the City; by 2015, 13 districts were recognized. District councils were provided with meeting space, limited administrative staffing (one neighborhood coordinator to 1-2 district councils), and a small amount (~$1,000) of discretionary funding.

Governance practices varied between district councils, as no specific governance requirements were established under Res. 27709. All district councils’ bylaws specified having elected officers, but some used formal meeting rules (i.e. Roberts' rules), while others met more informally.

City Neighborhood Council #

The City Neighborhood Council was chartered to provide recommendations and advice to the City, especially on budget discussions & neighborhood grant disbursement. It was composed of one representative sent from each district council.

Neighborhood Matching Fund #

Both district councils and the City Neighborhood Council formally reviewed and ranked grant applications for the "Neighborhood Matching Fund", a City-administered fund that provided matching dollars for neighborhood improvement, organizing, or projects developed and implemented by community members. (The City retained discretion as to which projects got funding.) Some of this money was specifically earmarked for "neighborhood-generated planning efforts."

2009: Auditor finds that district councils and the City are failing to meet their original objectives #

In response to inquiry from the public and City Council, the Office of City Auditor conducted a review of the district council program. Their 2009 report, "Seattle District Council System Needs Renewal," concluded that the district council system "no longer met its chartered objectives." This report noted three key challenges to the success of district councils:

1. Policy debates on councils ultimately weakened council cohesion & public participation.

   "When district councils take policy positions on City issues it has, in some cases, undermined the councils’ primary purpose of networking and problem solving, and led to divisiveness and erosion of broad participation."

2. District councils didn't reflect the demographics of their districts, but City efforts to improve diversity interfered with councils' autonomy.

   • The Auditor noted that district council membership "[struggled] to [...] reflect the geographic, racial, cultural and economic characteristics of the district." However, it also observed that attempts by the City to increase the diversity of council membership ultimately interfered with their independence:

   "The City has become involved in district council governance, especially with membership issues, in an effort to make the councils more diverse. This role was not prescribed in the enabling resolutions [...] and works against preserving the district councils’ independence, which was a clear objective of the resolutions."

3. The City no longer performed its duties required under the original district council charter.

   "The City does not [...] perform several of the [its responsibilities], including maintaining a mailing list of community organizations, assisting in the production of neighborhood newsletters, and maintaining an interdepartmental committee to optimize responsiveness to the concerns of neighborhood organizations."

2013: following the creation of City Council districts, scrutiny towards the role of neighborhood councils #

In 2013, 66% of Seattle voters approved a charter amendment establishing geographic districts for 7 of 9 City Council seats; previously, all of Seattle's city council positions had been elected at-large. Supporters of the amendment argued that having Council districts would allow more accurate representation of Seattle's neighborhoods in City Council decision-making. The first districted City Council elections were held in 2015.

In November 2015, City Council directed the Department of Neighborhoods (the department responsible for administration of the district council program) to ”reorient their programs around the new City Council District structure with [...] a goal for more equitable community engagement”, and requested a series of reports on the Dept.'s progress towards this objective.

Over the course of 2016, Dept. of Neighborhoods director Kathy Nyland delivered two reports corresponding to this request from Council. In her first report, she noted shortcomings with regards to council representativeness, meeting fatigue, and limited success with engaging broad swaths of the public.

• in a non-scientific survey, "residents attending District Council meetings tend to be 40 years of age or older, Caucasian, and homeowners." She contrasted this with Seattle's population, whose median age was 36, 34% are people of color, and 48% own their residence (while 52% rent.)
• "Meeting fatigue on the part of both community members and department staff is real. The City offers residents many opportunities to engage via advisory councils and citizen or community advisory groups on a variety of issues."
• "Too often a small number of engaged residents are asked to attend multiple meetings on a variety of subjects, answering the same questions over and over for different departments, leaving them to ask why City departments don’t talk to each other more and do a better job of coordinating meetings."
• "DON needs to re-envision our approach to public engagement; re-think how to best connect with underrepresented communities; and retool our strategies to reach a broader cross-section of Seattle’s population, including ethnic and cultural groups, seniors, youth, home-owners, and renters."

2016: termination of relationships with district councils & transition to Community Involvement Commission #

In July 2016, Mayor Ed Murray issued an executive order directing the Department of Neighborhoods to develop a new citywide framework and strategic plan for community engagement. The order also directed the termination of the City’s existing official ties to district councils, once a new community engagement framework had been approved.

In November 2016, the Seattle City Council created a new Community Involvement Commission (CIC), under the management of the Dept. of Neighborhoods. The CIC was chartered to make recommendations to the Mayor, City Council, and City departments on the development of plans, policies, regulations, strategies, and community grant funding processes that advance equitable public engagement and civic participation in the City of Seattle.

The CIC is composed of 16 members:

• 7 appointed by City Council
• 7 appointed by the Mayor
• 2 appointed by the other commission members

Importantly, the CIC does not represent or speak on behalf of specific communities or groups in public input processes. Rather, its objective is to advise each of the City's departments on their community involvement plans, procedures, and practices.

Present-day #

• Today, the CIC is Seattle's only advisory body on public engagement practices.
• The Neighborhood Matching Fund remains in operation, offering matching grants of up to $50,000; grant proposals are now ranked by a body of volunteer "community reviewers".