ATTACHMENT E

CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF “CO-SPONSORSHIP”

Lack of clarity governing the benefits of “Co-Sponsorship”

Each year staff fields a number of questions from the public regarding the benefits associated with Co-Sponsorship, some of which stem from the policy’s lack of clarity:

Would it benefit a Neighborhood Association to gain “Co-Sponsorship” status? Does becoming a “Co-Sponsored” Group improve an organization’s odds of receiving “Outside Group Funding?” Does Co-Sponsorship afford a group free use of City facilities? Why is it that some outside organizations, not currently Co-Sponsored, receive many of the same benefits afforded those officially Co-Sponsored? (See “Increasingly awkward disparities…”below).

The confusion regarding Co-Sponsored benefits is exacerbated by the current tiers of Co-Sponsorship (full, affiliated and associated), which do not make a lot of sense given that they are based on the percentage of members who are Sunnyvale residents. For example, there may be a large Co-Sponsored Group with membership of 50% Sunnyvale residents that serves significantly more Sunnyvale residents than a smaller Co-Sponsored Group comprised of a 100% Sunnyvale resident membership; yet, the smaller group receives better benefits!

Confusion regarding the relationship between “Co-Sponsored” Groups and the City

Co-Sponsored Groups are by definition independent organizations, and while they provide a community service or inform the public about City services, they do not represent City-provided services. The City is neither responsible nor accountable for a Co-Sponsored Group’s activities or actions. Similarly, Co-Sponsored Groups are not accountable to the City for much of what they do.

Staff believes that the term “Co-Sponsorship” occasionally serves to mislead the public in this regard. Many parents of youth engaged in Co-Sponsored sports have assumed that the City monitors and exercises control over issues ranging from coaching decisions to fingerprinting of volunteers, but the City does not. Adult participants in various Co-Sponsored groups have complained to the City regarding issues ranging from the price of membership to the rules of participation, yet the “Co-Sponsorship” policy precludes the City from involving itself in these matters.

Staff believes it is appropriate that it not be involved in the affairs of independent organizations. In this regard, it is simply the term “Co-Sponsorship” that is problematic, since it seems to connote to the general public an equal partnership. In some cases, however, staff believes the agreement between the City and the independent organization should address more issues than the framework of Co-Sponsorship allows. A "Special Agreement" would provide this option.

Staff’s proposed umbrella “Partnerships” policy would help to clarify the relationship between various groups and the City, allowing the City to establish different types of relationships with different types of groups depending on specific circumstances, ranging from very simple to quite complex.

Questions regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the “Co-Sponsorship” process

When the City’s Co-Sponsorship Policy was first created, there were relatively few groups involved with the program, and it was fairly simply administered.

What used to be a rather simple exchange of paperwork, however, has become a rather involved network of activities requiring many hours of attention by staff, Commissions, and Co-Sponsored groups. Applicants, staff, and the Commissions are required to wade through this process each year. In some cases, this may be warranted. In other cases, however, staff believes the process is unnecessarily complicated and that it could be simplified tremendously given that many of these groups are well-established and endure minimal changes in operation from one year to the next. In these cases, multi-year agreements are probably in order. In other cases, the benefits afforded the Co-Sponsored Group are covered by another City policy and Co-Sponsorship is really redundant.

Some groups (most recently the Sunnyvale Tennis Club) have left Co-Sponsorship on their own accord, not because they do not want a relationship with the City, but because they have determined they can maintain their desired relationship with the City in a far simpler fashion than through Co-Sponsorship. Many other groups, which have never been Co-Sponsored, enjoy similar benefits to those received by Co-Sponsored Groups without going through the Co-Sponsorship process.

Increasingly awkward disparities between how “Co-Sponsorship” is administered and how the City handles other forms of partnerships with outside agencies and independent organizations

Part of staff’s dilemma is in determining how to deal with independent organizations seeking resources or support from the City outside of the Co-Sponsorship Policy. Staff finds it difficult to focus solely on Co-Sponsored Groups, since one of the problems that has evolved is the inconsistent treatment of similar groups, some of which are Co-Sponsored, others of which are not.

§         Some independent organizations not currently Co-Sponsored receive many of the same benefits afforded Co-Sponsored Groups—other independent organizations, with no obvious distinction in terms of the service they provide the community—do not;

§         Some Co-Sponsored Groups have received benefits not afforded them by the Co-Sponsorship process without any formal agreement;