March 10 Living Cities Policy Committee Meeting

1. March 10 Living Cities Policy Committee Meeting March 3, 2011

2. Review of Committee Role & October Meeting (1:30-1:45) Discussion of Influence Network Strategy (1:45-3:00) Patton Boggs Federal Policy Update (3:00-3:45) Staff Update on Current Influence Activities throughout Living Cities (3:45-4:30) Agenda for March 10 Policy Committee Meeting

3. Leadership & Influence Research & Development LocalIntegration Living Cities Strategies

4. Insure that the impact of Living Cities' work extends beyond the work itself Take a ‘balcony’ view of all LC work and external environment to ‘connect the dots’ and identify opportunities to extend impact Assess and build organizational capacity to extend impact of LC work Strategic Role of Committee

5. Provide guidance and assess LC influence work organization-wide, including issues/opportunities arising from external environment, and report annually to the Board Build and maintain influence network to extend impact, and assess network’s value to the organization Committee’s Impact within LC

6. Influence work is most appropriate when, taken as a whole, it has a multiple number of the following characteristics: Has potential to create change in the policy environment that will have a significant impact on issues of programmatic importance (people, place, and economic opportunity) Encourages alignment of policies across local jurisdictions or across levels of government (federal, state, local) Encourages integrated consideration of issue areas (e.g., transit and housing) Encourages alignment of government, private-sector, and philanthropic efforts and resources Takes advantage of unique characteristics and strengths of our collaborative October 2010 Meeting: Approved Guidance to Committees/Working Groups on Extending the Impact

7. Organize high-impact convenings Conduct Boot Camps Form other partnerships with government Issue reports/briefs Design new investment vehicles Engage on specific legislation in rare situations Proposed Toolbox for Committees and Working Groups

8. Make it easier to have impact beyond the work and keep ahead of trends/horizons: Expand LC distribution channels for our knowledge/ideas Stay current on new trends/perspectives Increase capacity of public sector to innovate/collaborate Expand LC's relationships across the political and geographic spectrum Extending the Impact: Establishing an 'influence network' of people & organizations

9. Undertake “permanent activities” for the organization (like 2x year PMI) to cement key relationships Enable activation for opportunistic activities (like boot camps) often proposed by working groups/committees Facilitate partnering on papers, convenings, or other activities proposed by this committee or other working groups/committees Ways to Use the Network

10. What does the desired network look like? What are our existing gaps and what signature partners could fill those gaps? What are signature activities to do with signature partners? Key Issues for Building Influence Network

11. GovernmentBusinessThought Leaders Local - PMI/HKS Ad hoc Liberal - CAP State - Ohio Moderate - Brookings Federal - Ad hoc Conservative – None Geographic - None Defining the Network: Current Relationships & Gaps

12. Harvard’s Kennedy School and our Project on Municipal Innovation (PMI) is best-developed network partner 35 mayoral chiefs of staff that convene twice a year at Harvard PMI has extended our organizational impact by: expanding dissemination of our ideas increasing our knowledge of relevant trends increasing public sector’s ability to innovate expanding our relationships Network Partners: Local Government Level

13. No systematic partnerships at state level Some ad hoc engagement at state level (Ohio work) Possible partners: National Governors’ Association State-level version of PMI for gubernatorial chiefs of staff/joint sessions with PMI Network Partners: State Government Level

14. Significant ad hoc engagement - 3 Boot Camps and Council on Environmental Quality How can partnerships with administration be made more strategic, and build capacity of the federal government to collaborate? Should systematic engagement with Congress be a priority, or should that influence take place indirectly through network of national-level thought leaders? Network Partners: National Government Level

15. Currently no systematic engagement Possible partners? Business Roundtable Committee for Economic Development TechNet U.S. Chamber of Commerce Network Partners: Business Community

16. Broaden this network to increase access and diversify perspectives informing our work? Moderate spectrum? Bipartisan Policy Center and New America Foundation Conservative spectrum? Manhattan Institute, American Enterprise Institute Geographic diversity? High-quality state-based think tanks like Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and MassInc Network Partners: Thought Leaders with Ideological and Geographic Diversity

17. What are highest priority areas for developing new partnerships? Do we need partners in all identified areas (e.g., state-level, business, geographic diversity)? Should we have national-level initiatives other than with thought leaders? What organizations/partners should we prioritize doing ‘due diligence’ on? Are there less traditional kinds of partnerships (e.g., relating to new media or emerging organizational forms) that we should be thinking about? Key discussion questions

18. (Slides to be provided separately) Patton Boggs Presentation

19. Working Groups: Transit-Oriented Development (Boot Camp and follow-up) Green Economy (CEQ convening) The Integration Initiative Capital Absorption Work Update on LC Leadership and Influence Activities