From: Cylvia Hayes

Sent: Sat Apr 06 19:55:06 2013

To: 'Tolvstad Karen * HCS'; 'LEE Robert * HCS'

Subject: RE: Need your thoughts on approach to Version 4

Importance: High

Hey you two,

Actually I think this is quite a ways off.  I agree that we need to have a conversation.  I am available all day tomorrow after 10am. 

Thanks,

C

Cylvia Hayes

First Lady of Oregon

cylhayes@gmail.com

(503) 373-7489

From: Tolvstad Karen * HCS [mailto:karen.tolvstad@state.or.us]

Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 6:30 PM

To: Cylvia Hayes; LEE Robert * HCS

Subject: Need your thoughts on approach to Version 4

Cylvia and Robert -

I just read draft 3. I didn't specifically comment on draft 2 since I was unavailable. So, some of my suggestions are not on the new things in this draft.

But I thought before we talk about how to proceed, the three of us should compare our thoughts. We should get back to her in one voice if we want her to take it to draft 4. Or we could also compare our notes and thoughts and have me and Robert and make the final revisions and adjustments. In some cases, my thoughts and questions aren't wordsmithing, but content will take us. Regardless of which approach takes us to the final version, please go over my thoughts on the first half and weigh in. I have thoughts on the second half (mainly what all belongs and what doesn't and in what detail in the intro), but don't have time to type them up right now. Robert and I both have time to dedicate tomorrow.

My thoughts/questions:

I think the first paragraph is a bit too sunny and seems to be written from the "us". The us who are "inherently optimistic" and were "brought up to believe we can achieve anything". Will that make us seem out of touch? Will service providers and public servants balk because almost no one they spend their lives trying to help would put themselves in that position? ( Or is that okay because it will appeal to many business and community leaders we are trying hard to connect with and get to pay attention? )

Pg 2

In this introduction which is to be inspiration/unifying/visionary and a call to action, I wouldn't note the detail that population growth expectations is primarily among people of color.

It still seems like we've given too much emphasis to small business and entrepreneurship. At least upfront. Seems like the small business paragraph on page 2 should move or be watered down.

In the next paragraph I don't like "fighting amongst ourselves". I'm also not sure if in a unifying effort we should reference people having been marginalized or overlooked. That is a conclusion that many, if not most, “on the other side” don’t believe to be true. Seems us vs. them. Also seems zero sum game-ish.

Pg 3

I think we need to qualify the prosperity cabinet a little. I think we definitely need to call it out, but given that it won't likely be in place until a lot of the service redesign work is done, I don't think we can call it a done deal. We want it to be a recommendation of the committee - the goal is not just to lead the initiative, but to provide better, smarter, more integrated governance over the siloed, output-oriented system we have now.

Second paragraph “occupying our citizen selves” is odd to me.

Do we really have the specific goal to widen access to resources for those struggling to feed and shelter themselves? With a set (or declining) pool of resources, does that mean we’re widening access and giving everyone less? Seems at conflict with the delivery redesign concept. Is that in the 10-year plan…was that part of our earlier draft or that a stakeholder suggestion?

Upstream and drowning metaphor feels awkward.

Pg 4

Don’t care for “ugly” feeling.

No such thing as affordable housing “facilities”. And I’m not sure what we’re referring to here. The days of big public housing are gone. While housing authorities still have some public housing, for the last 20 years, the majority of government housing assistance has gone into subsidizing the building of privately owned units so the owners can (and have to) offer can have lower rents.

We list food banks and affordable housing. Those are two small pieces of the service delivery network. This section in general seems uninformed and uninspired. I think we either need to build it up or do away with it. We list three measures under that section. Are they really “the three”? Raising awareness, prioritizing funding and EITC ? It seems like maybe this is left over from earlier writing before there was actually a real initiative. (?) Or are these three things really the cornerstone?

“Prioritizing state funds for critical support programs”. Does that mean making hard decisions and putting things in priority order? I’m not clear if it means that, or if that means prioritizing funds for support programs versus other kinds of programs (i.e. asking for more money for safety net). It sound a bit more like the latter to me.

Earned Income Tax credit doesn’t seem to fit with the other two bullets or under the heading “meeting current needs.”

Section seems uninformed and uninspired to me.

Page 5

Don’t care for “unusual suspects”.

Would omit Federal Reserve for several reasons.

Skipping my comments/questions on the second half and jumping to the end, I would say the last thing advocates, public servants, service providers, legislators, taxpayers or community leaders want to hear in a Prosperity Plan is that we're hiring a press secretary!

How do my thoughts compare with yours?