What We Do

Comment

Comment by Adriana Velez on May 28, 2010 at 11:30am

Notes from the May 10 Structure meeting:

1. What is BFC's relationship with the neighborhood groups?

Groups are hungry for structure and leadership; but they also want to be empowered and have voting rights.

People at the meeting seemed to want a kind of well-supported autonomy for the neighborhood groups. They want neighborhood groups to choose their own projects, working style, even nomenclature, but there is also a need among many groups for some mentoring and guidance in everything from coming up with projects to clear processes for carrying out projects. People want to walk away with a clear idea of how to participate in BFC. It was suggested that BFC can support groups through training and a "tool box" book, with examples of projects and instructions for accomplishing these projects.

BFC leadership should be connecting people to activities, events, interests, policies, desires. BFC leadership's function is to envigorate the neighborhood groups and enable their work. Members want more visibility for the groups, so they can find out what other groups are doing and share ideas and strategies; this is another way that BFC leadership can support neighborhood groups.

In exchange people are willing to answer to a short list of requirements, for example, reporting on activities to BFC, signing a charter/pledge for neighborhood groups outlining rights and responsibilities.


2. What aspects of BFC do people most want to have a say about?

People want to have a say about what projects they select and how they run their groups, even if this means using different nomenclature for their groups than other neighborhood groups are using.

Members also want a say in policy priorities and processes, but they feel they need more education in how policy connects with their group projects and with everyday life in general. There's always a desire to "have a say" in just about everything--in theory. But it looks like it's not enough to just be open to member input--we have to find multiple ways of enabling that input and we have to educate people about the factors involved in their decisions. Once again this is the longer, harder route towards change, but it should also ensure a deeper commitment and "buy in" on everything BFC does.

Our previous policy work has not been completely transparent and has done a poor job of generating more than superficial buy-in from neighborhood groups. Policy projects have been "top-down"--in other words, they have been initiated by the steering committee or by an individual speaking on behalf of BFC and the Neighborhood Council has then approved these projects. But organizers haven't necessarily understood the policy statements, don't always see connection between their work and policy initiatives, are not inspired by current policy initiatives, feel like responding to these initiatives is a bit of an imposition, and are frequently unaware of what policy folks are doing in the name of BFC.

Want to see policy work originate on neighborhood group level. We can do this by continuing to nurture neighborhood group projects and then taking a step back to see what common priorities emerge. BFC leadership can serve as a lens that focuses on the big picture that emerges from neighborhood projects. We also need to work on educating more members on making the connection between the personal and the political--how real life connects with larger policy issues. Once more members start making those connections for themselves they will be in a better position to set our policy agenda.

We have discussed a few different ways we can shepherd policy work among neighborhood organizers, or create a space to discuss and decide on policy work. For example, we could hold annual policy summits during which a policy agenda is set by consensus. In this case, BFC would need to figure out requirements for NGs to attend policy meetings so we get enough organizers to adequately represent the voice of the membership. We also need to

Comment by Adriana Velez on May 28, 2010 at 11:29am

Bijian and Winton participated in our 5/24 online chat. Below are highlights from the conversation:

Bijian: Ithink that the purpose of an neighborhood group would be to 1) Be aware of these action/events (of other groups working on food issues) 2) put them into contact with folks who can help them with their goals

what is special about bfc that i have noticed is that even though everyone is in Brooklyn, there are still very distinct neighborhood that have specific needs

that should be a requirement, to have some syncronized outreach methods, but then freedom for neighborhood groups to outreach in ways that are useful in their own eye

Winton: wants everyone to "have a say" but has a hard time specifying what exactly people should have a say about; feels comfortable with Steering Committee having the final say.

Winton also likes pay-in membership: Right, I think people want to be a part of whatever we got going on here. Its exciting and long overdue. If there's a small price attached to that people will pay it especially if means you get a say

We talked about how we could accommodate people of different incomes and mentioned the Slow Food model, in which they offered a limited pay-what-you-wish membership drive matched by a donor.