Estimated reading time:   6 minutes, plus the report

The Premise: 
Create engagement and inclusion among Arcata’s minority community, to contribute to the General Plan update.

The Outcome:
13 non-white people were involved. Total.

The engagement that was done involved only 13 non-white people. This very small group included:

 

Only THREE persons identifying as Mexican-American, Mexican, Latinx, or Chicane.

 

Only FOUR people identifying as African-American or Black.

 

Only TWO people identifying as Indigenous.

 

Only TWO people identifying as Asian.

 

What in the world kind of “inclusion” is that?

The City of Arcata strongly supports racial equity and inclusion. There is considerable evidence that the City’s actions have produced commendable results. This is all good.

For the update of the City’s General Plan, the aim was to include the viewpoints of people who all-too-often are marginalized. That aim is good.

But when we look at what actually happened, we find the engagement that was attempted involved only 16 people and just 13 non-white people. This very small group included:

• • Only THREE persons identifying as Mexican-American, Mexican, Latinx, or Chicane.
  • Only FOUR people identifying as African-American or Black
  • Only TWO people identifying as Indigenous
  • Only TWO people identifying as Asian
  • TWO persons who identified as West Indian/MultiCultural/Black and Mixed – Black/Samoan/White.
  • THREE persons who identified as White.

I ask you:  Reader, if you wanted to engage the BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and People of Color] or with the Latinx community, couldn’t you do a better job than this?

1. 13 people as “inclusion”? That’s a failure.
2. The Levels of Duplicity
3. What David Loya wrote in his staff report
4. What Scott Davies told the City Council
5. The Report:  Racial Equity Policy Facilitation Services for the Arcata General Plan and Gateway Plan Updates. Fall 2022

.

13 people as “inclusion”? That’s a failure.

This study and subsequent report is something I regard as a complete failure in reaching out to people who matter. In my view, if the City of Arcata is truly interested in the views of the marginalized community, this work should be re-done. We know how to publicize a study like this to ensure that there is actual community involvement. But that was not done in this case — quite clearly.

This was done under the nice title of “Racial Equity Policy Facilitation Services for the Arcata General Plan and Gateway Plan Updates.” Now that it’s done, this pesky matter of needing to do community outreach can be checked off that list.

Except I say: No. It is not checked off. There has been essentially no engagement of the what is described as the marginalized community members. Any kind of survey results from a sample pool of sixteen people would be laughable — except that this is not funny.

If the City of Arcata is truly interested in the views of the marginalized community, this work should be re-done.

 

And done right this time.

That this was not done properly can be regarded as a failure of the Community Development Director. As soon as it was known that Equity Partners was basing their engagement report on interactions with just 16 people, he should have said “Do something different! This is not acceptable to us.” But it seems he did not, and he accepted this sham  of a report.

Equity Partners likely did what they were contracted to do. I have not seen their contract for this work. I would like to think they alerted the Community Development Director as to the inadequacy of what they were doing. 

If the City Council chooses to accept this situation, I would regarded as extremely poor judgment on their part. This is shameful — and doubly shameful that it is seen as acceptable. What in the world kind of “inclusion” is this? 

Let’s put this another way: 
If I were tasked with establishing communication with the Latinx members of our community and if I couldn’t achieve the engagement of at least 100 people, I’d consider that a failure on my part. Adding in all BIPOC community members should make that task easier. And I would do what was needed until I had what I’d consider an adequate representation of this segment of Arcata.
.

The Levels of Duplicity

What David Loya wrote in his staff report

David Loya, Arcata’s Community Development Director, spoke to this report in his staff report for the October 24, 2023, City Council – Planning Commission joint study session. He wrote (bold emphasis added):

“In addition to the broad engagement to increase access to marginalized community members, the City contracted with Equity Partners to hold a focus group outreach to more deeply address racial equity and social justice. The stakeholder group had an emphasis on diverse perspectives in our community. Specifically, the stakeholders were community members representing multiple identities across race, culture, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age, ability, and family  makeup.”

The Community Development Director’s staff report goes on:

“This engagement directly informed several policies in the Draft General Plan 2045.”

Based on what is in the Equity Partners engagement report, I would like to know just which of the “several policies” this engagement “directly informed” as a result of conversations with such a tiny sampling of the minority community in Arcata.
.

What Scott Davies told the City Council

Scott Davies, Planning Commission Chair, at the July 19, 2023 City Council meeting, as part of “Verbal Report from the Planning Commission Chairperson on the Planning Commission’s Recommendations for the City’s General Plan Updates.”
[Note: BIPOC = Black, Indigenous, and People of Color]

“Our commitment to racial equity went deeper than language review. Staff has been working with Blanck and Oram “Equity Partners” who convened a stakeholder group to provide input on lived experience of BIPOC community members. Policy was drafted to be responsive to the feedback received, then the policy was vetted with the same group.”

I fail to see how the policy could be drafted and then vetted with the same group. When did this happen?  This report is dated April 2023, and was not available to the public, it seems, until August 2023. The working draft of the General Plan is dated July 11, 2023 — that is, before this racial equity report was available. Did actual meetings take place where this vetting occurred?

I also have a difficult time seeing what policy was “drafted to be responsive to the feedback received.” It would be very helpful if these policies could be pointed out. While there certainly are policies that relate to racial equity, to say that some policy was drafted as a response to the feedback received seems unlikely. I’d like to know just what Chair Davies is referring to.

.

Racial Equity Policy Facilitation Services for the Arcata General Plan and Gateway Plan Updates
Fall 2022

31 pages. Prepared by Sharrone Blanck & Meridith Oram of “Blanck & Oram equity partners, LLC”

This report is dated “Fall 2022.” There is no other date on the report. The date on the PDF file of the report is April 24, 2023. It is currently located on the City of Arcata website on the Strategic Infill Redevelopment Program / Engagement Information page. It is not known when this was put on the City’s website — perhaps in August, possibly September, of 2023.

From the “Executive Summary” – page 2:

“In eight hours of virtual group meeting time, equity partners facilitated conversations with 16 community members that addressed the areas of culture, employment, health, housing, mobility, recreation, and transportation. The voices of community members of color were prioritized with opportunities for white-identifying community members to share as well. Sessions were not recorded, but a City employee took notes during each session to capture all that was shared. In addition to live sessions, equity partners surveyed the group related to each topic area covered.

Irrespective of the topic discussed, the lack of physical, mental, and emotional safety and the creation of designated places for cultural celebration and community building were identified as the greatest needs. Systems of accountability were also highlighted by participants as essential community needs to prevent discrimination and offer support and recourse when it does occur.”

From “Process” – page 5. Highlighting added.

All sessions were held virtually to accommodate participants caring for babies and children, families, and tending to evening routines while also being able to give input and share experiences. Attendance in all sessions was not obligatory; instead, participants were compensated $50/hour for up to eight hours of attendance at meetings. The hourly rate was intentional so people could attend as much as they could and not lose out on income or the opportunity to share experiences, wants, or needs if they could not attend all sessions.

Viewing on a cell phone? Press the – or + buttons to get the report to fit on your screen.