Update on the Portland Online Townhall Meeting

We should begin with a heartfelt thank you for participating in the first meeting at Souk. Looking back on that gathering, I believe it was beneficial to discuss our understanding of the City's contest. While it was excellent to have Ralph join us from the Bureau of Planning, I believe it provided an opportunity to openly voice our concerns without the contest organizers being present. That being said, we should be clear in stating that their decision not to attend was more an issue of poor timing for them than of disinterest. They (Laurel Butman, Jeremy Van Keuren, and Phillip Holmstrand from the City of Portland; Roy Kaufmann and Skip Newberry from Mayor Adams' office) have been following the discussions on Twitter, by way of various blogs, and through other media channels. They are listening and they are learning.

After having viewed the video of the Souk meeting, Laurel Butman requested a meeting for last Thursday, July 30th with Johnny Levenson. She wished to provide some additional context for what the City had initially intended (by issuing the contest) and to plan for a community-wide (all interested parties) meeting in early September. Johnny asked that I join him.

I should clarify that the meeting on the 30th was not intended to work behind the scenes of the larger group that assembled at Souk, but rather to chart a course for moving effectively forward. In addition to Johnny and me, the meeting included Roy and Skip, Laurel and Phillip. Jeremy has been in touch with Johnny and me via e-mail.

In a nutshell, I was a bit surprised by how concerned the City was by the reaction to the contest. They realized that the scope of their request was poorly defined (and written) and that they hadn't anticipated the negative response by the creative community. They intended to engage the community, not polarize it. Furthermore, it was clear that they didn't know who to consult prior to issuing the contest. This admission alone confirms the importance of our various groups working together and presents a unique opportunity to do so. We have much to accomplish together.

The City has revised their language related to the contest and has further redrawn the scope of the "challenge" being issued. There is a new page posted and they are working through drafts that more clearly stipulate requirements for submitting and better address the concerns addressed above. See that page here: http://www.portlandonline.com/support/index.cfm?c=50638

The early draft language works to define the scope of the project as concepts or drawings for a "Banner" rather than suggesting a full site redesign. It stipulates that professional firms have been awarded work in auditing CMS, site architecture, social media, and that other full-fledged RFPs will be issued for design and development in the future. The draft works to clarify issues of artwork ownership and awards, although that language is still being revised. The City has asked for initial draft feedback from AIGA Portland and we have provided it to them. Whether they adopt this counsel is entirely up to the City, but we maintain hope. I would like for the City to make this draft available to our expanded group, to everyone really, but we understand their hesitation in attempting to assuage the myriad voices involved. The new document is slated to be posted by the end of this week.

As stated earlier, the City wants to participate in an open meeting on this issue and others in early September. With YOU and anyone who wishes to attend. AIGA Portland will work with them to ensure that it happens as promised and select a space where a large group can participate and provide feedback. They wish to engage and we hope you'll spread the word and take the time to engage, as well. Laurel Butman, from the City, stated four goals for that meeting and we agree that they are a good place to begin:

1) An opportunity for the City to hear from the creative community and listen to various perspectives
2) A chance for the City to clarify and dispel misapprehensions about this project and projects planned for the future
3) An opportunity to use the banner solicitation effort as a "case study" to discuss future improvements
4) A beginning to a discussion of a creative community "bill of rights" and to establish best practices for working together.

I expect further questions, and AIGA Portland--whether it's Johnny or me--will do our best to respond in a most timely manner. I sincerely hope I've not created more questions than I've attempted to address.

Let's keep this issue at the forefront of our thinking and work together to establish a strategy for what PortlandOnline.com can be. More so, there are many initiatives that can benefit from these collective efforts. This is an opportunity for a true partnership and the City has expressed sincere interest in what we can contribute as a community. It is merely a beginning.

Eric Hillerns
Vice President, AIGA Portland