Re: [UC] which bad thing?
Anthony West wrote: Let us frame it as a true dichotomy instead. why even insist on a dichotomy? I've just finished reading a bunch of posts by various people on this list who have come up with a variety of responses about 'where to go from here,' and it sure doesn't look like options need to be mutually exclusive. here's what I've got so far, a quick scrape from posts made on the list since the morning's announcement: - - - - - - - - Community members raised three motions, all of which passed with scarcely a dissenting voice. (glenn:) We, at the first Thursday meeting, insist that UCD make full disclosures of policies and processes to facilitate transparency and accountability appropriate for a special services district. Freda made the motion to retain John Fenton. Sharrieff made the motion to facilitate a community forum about this issue so that the community might ask all questions directly to UCD. The UC-Review has volunteered to moderate the community meeting with a suggested location of Rosenberger Hall. It would be wise for representatives of the Board of UCD to participate as well as the trustees committees of the institutions represented. 20 people signed to participate in a committee to organize the meeting. I certainly hope that stakeholders in the UCD, both institutional and individual will attend and that there can be some productive feedback. If the major share holders of a special service district really want community engagement, in the future; we must be included in honest and transparent processes and the organization must have accountable and competent leadership. So, UCD: what's wrong with agreeing that Fenton had made a mistake, and letting him get back to his excellent work a bit wiser? How do we thank John Fenton? Can his job and reputation be saved? Should we save his job? lose UCD? settle for what we get (and thus deserve)? How do we prevent the further co opting of UC by Politics, Penn? Do we support any person or initiative at UCD? I think the shareholders and we resident stakeholders would be better served if they got rid of the existing Board and Executive staff and rehired John to focus on the street cleaning. One possible outcome could be, hypothetically, for all parties who can't imagine life without John Fenton to create a corporation, the University City Clean-n-Safe Co., and to pool the money they would otherwise have given to UCD into this new organization. http://www.uta.edu/faculty/mputnam/SPCH3309/Notes/EthicalTheories.html a link to an interesting piece from the University of Texas on corporate ethics and corporate governance. Much of it is relevant to the issue current in UC on UCD The problem now is who really coordinates the UCD and to whom is it answerable. - - - - - - - - - UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeam®] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Blackwell calls to save Fenton's job
S. Sharrieff Ali wrote: The motion carried and was without opposition to have a community meeting organized by concerned community residents. I made the motion and volunteered to make sure the meeting happened. 20 people signed to participate in a committee to organize the meeting. ... The idea was not to rely on the UCD or Penn to organize a meeting. ... The UC-Review has volunteered to moderate the community meeting with a suggested location of Rosenberger Hall. It would be wise for representatives of the Board of UCD to participate as well as the trustees committees of the institutions represented. sharrieff, here's an initial contribution to the proposed community meeting, developed openly here onlist [and still open to revision]. a set of responsibilities for us and ucd: - - - - - - - - - - - 1: ucd is primarily accountable to us, the public, not to ucd - - - - - - - - - - - 2: ucd's performance/actions should be evaluated/investigated/monitored on an ongoing basis by an agency independent of ucd - - - - - - - - - - - 3: we should develop the means whereby ucd communications are public, timely and proactive - - - - - - - - - - - 4: ucd's boundaries should be clearly defined and maintained - - - - - - - - - - - 5: ucd should remain scrupulously neutral in public questions/disputes/contests, not taking sides or even appearing to take sides. - - - - - - - - - - - 6: ucd officers/staff should not serve on the boards of neighborhood organizations. - - - - - - - - - - - 7: regular public forums should be held to generate a set of principles, best practices, etc. that would examine and improve ucd as a public service organization. - - - - - - - - - - - 8. ucd should use its resources to facilitate/broker compromise among competing neighborhood stakeholders rather than using resources to implement solutions for one type of stakeholder. ie, win/win not win/lose [example: ucd brokers Trees/HelpWithPropertyTaxes rather than takes sides in Trees/NoTrees on kyle's block. ucd becomes uniquely positioned as an agent for equality rather than an agent for divisiveness.] - - - - - - - - - - - .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeam®] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
[UC] All of UC goes on sale this Saturday!
You're already getting your spare change together for the de Sales Parish Porch Sale and the Clark Park Peoples' Flea Market this Saturday, so you might as well keep on heading West where the Concerned Citizens of the 5000 Block of Osage Ave. will be holding a block-wide porch sale! It's from 9am to 3pm, and there'll be some serious bargains, some proceeds of which will go to the block association. Volunteer referees will be on hand for any UC-list-generated fisticuffs. Of course, if you really want to get your tithe on, I have it on good authority that the Latter Day Saints will be having an event all day in Malcolm X Park. So once you've snapped up some goodies at the Osage porch sale, you can make your way over to the park to ensure that Amy Gutman hasn't indentured a couple of wayward students into tacking a Mitt Romney poster to every tree in the place. Once again: Block-wide porch sale in the 5000 Block of Osage Ave. Saturday June 9th from 9am to 3pm. See you there! Andrew You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
RE: [UC] Blackwell calls to save Fenton's job
Thanks Ray, I will introduce them at the organizing meeting. S -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:10 AM To: University City List Subject: Re: [UC] Blackwell calls to save Fenton's job S. Sharrieff Ali wrote: The motion carried and was without opposition to have a community meeting organized by concerned community residents. I made the motion and volunteered to make sure the meeting happened. 20 people signed to participate in a committee to organize the meeting. ... The idea was not to rely on the UCD or Penn to organize a meeting. ... The UC-Review has volunteered to moderate the community meeting with a suggested location of Rosenberger Hall. It would be wise for representatives of the Board of UCD to participate as well as the trustees committees of the institutions represented. sharrieff, here's an initial contribution to the proposed community meeting, developed openly here onlist [and still open to revision]. a set of responsibilities for us and ucd: - - - - - - - - - - - 1: ucd is primarily accountable to us, the public, not to ucd - - - - - - - - - - - 2: ucd's performance/actions should be evaluated/investigated/monitored on an ongoing basis by an agency independent of ucd - - - - - - - - - - - 3: we should develop the means whereby ucd communications are public, timely and proactive - - - - - - - - - - - 4: ucd's boundaries should be clearly defined and maintained - - - - - - - - - - - 5: ucd should remain scrupulously neutral in public questions/disputes/contests, not taking sides or even appearing to take sides. - - - - - - - - - - - 6: ucd officers/staff should not serve on the boards of neighborhood organizations. - - - - - - - - - - - 7: regular public forums should be held to generate a set of principles, best practices, etc. that would examine and improve ucd as a public service organization. - - - - - - - - - - - 8. ucd should use its resources to facilitate/broker compromise among competing neighborhood stakeholders rather than using resources to implement solutions for one type of stakeholder. ie, win/win not win/lose [example: ucd brokers Trees/HelpWithPropertyTaxes rather than takes sides in Trees/NoTrees on kyle's block. ucd becomes uniquely positioned as an agent for equality rather than an agent for divisiveness.] - - - - - - - - - - - .. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN [aka laserbeamR] [aka ray] SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES. It is very clear on this listserve who these people are. Ray has admitted being connected to this forger. -- Tony West You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] which bad thing?
This might be a long-shot, but is there any way that the community could take the concept of a NID/BID and steal John Fenton? It would be an administrative nightmare for someone (would I do it?? I'm not sure). My objections to the NID/BID were with the organizational structure and its control by the larger entities around us who, I felt, were trying to force little guys to pay while they continued to run it to their own pleasure. I feel like now is the idea time to act-- here's a guy (John Fenton) who has proven that he can provide clean and safe. I've seen large companies run with a whole new business concept based on the presence of a highly competent employee before. In addition there is a structure in place to form a new clean and safe company -- the NID/BID. I'm not sure exactly how it would work, but we could form our own entity (call it a CID) funded by the promises to pay of community people and businesses that would have been the source of the NID/BID. We have 300 signatures in favor of John right now. We could hire/rent from the current UCD as many ambassadors and machines that we needed (as long as the UCD agreed to have this quasi-partnership with us). We would hire John to run the CID entity. I am certain that we could do it less expensively and more inclusively (even truly serving the outer-lying areas of our boundaries). I think it could work for two reasons: first, the moderates (as I consider myself) could step up and show support for an entity that provides clean and safe in UC. Our self-run and self-funded would overcome all of my objections to the NID/BID (relating to control by the larger entities and their proclivity to overspend and mismanage). I feel as if it's time to show real support for the good aspects of UCD (most specifically their excellent hire of John Fenton). Secondly, if Penn/UCD/Drexel/Campus Apts really want to push off some of the operating expense of the UCD on the residents/beneficiaries then they would, in the end, support our new community based and funded CID. (They would balk initially at the concept of losing control, but in the end it will accomplish what they're really after at the same time that it might operate more efficiently without the U of P restrictions and requirements). It's a long-shot and I'm not sure it works without John Fenton. He would have to sign his future on with a crazy dis-functional community, but the time to do it would be now (I'll bet he's looking and will find a new job within a week or two). I personally feel that there is a strong support (as Nixon used to say the silent majority) for this kind of entity, but we've all been waiting for the chance to support it without the baggage that the Big Boys bring to the table. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[UC] The UCD Board and community reps
Folks, something else came out yesterday that is very indicative of the underlying problem with UCD. The Councilwoman told everyone that her staff member, Marty, was removed from the UCD Board. Later, Glenn Bryan, with whom she has worked, was also either removed or not permitted on the Board. We don't know anything about how Penn real estate and its corporate partners choose this body and they can change it at will. Mr. Lewis Wendell, at one point yesterday, asserted that all the civic associations have Board members on the UCD Board. A civic association leader leaned over to me and gave me a little hearsay. She suggested that the UCD picked or suggested the civic association representatives and not some internal voting process after some discussion by the members. Has anyone anything else to add about the civic associations' representative choosing process? Are their people in the associations that have UCD Board representatives that can confirm or deny if there were appropriate discussions to choose your representatives? Did you find out that you had a Board representative but had not heard of any process for choosing? Can anyone describe an internal choosing process? I know that with all of the UCD initiatives, it is a very strict UCD policy that UCD handpicks the community representatives and may close out all stakeholders suspected of not rubber stamping the planned agenda. So although I haven't been on the Board of any of the civic associations except FOCP, the brief story from the civic association leader sounds believable to me. In one of their first initiatives, the revitalization of Clark Park, I experienced this closing out of stakeholders as I was repeatedly barred from the steering committee. At the time, I was leader of one of the largest organized stakeholder groups in the park. Park groups were generally uninvited or barred from the steering committee. If anyone can add to the understanding of choosing UCD community reps, thank you. Cedar Park, Spruce Hill Civic Association, Powelton Village, Garden Court and Walnut Hill have a representative listed on the UCD web site. Can anyone from SHCA, for example, talk about the discussions to send Barry. Did anyone run against him? What was the vote count? When was the vote? Sincerely, Glenn
[UC] Kudos to Guy Laren and Arlene Matzkin
After an inauspicious start at a porch enclosure in one of the area's oldest close-to-original-condition buildings (4323 Spruce Street), the owner -- Guy Laren -- has essentially redone the job from start to finish. There was a lot of criticism of the original design. And, warranted or not, depending on your viewpoint, it got fairly down and dirty. Fortunately, Arlene Matzkin -- a local architect with an interest in the visual aesthetics of the area -- took it on herself to present Guy with drawings showing a design that complimented the structure. At no small expense, Guy essentially tore down much of the original enclosure and implemented Arlene's plan. It's not quite finished yet. But it looks great. It shows what can happen with a spirit of cooperation. There's a lesson in it for the community at large in the present debate about QUANGOs. Always at your service ready for a dialog, Al Krigman ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[UC] The halcyon days
http://philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=12923 http://www.clarkpark.info/Volunteer.htm You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
[UC] Donations for the Parish Porch Sale
Hi, All, Do you have good usable items that you no longer need? You can donate them to the St. Francis de Sales Parish Porch Sale today (Friday) from 9am to 5 pm at the school auditorium at 47th Windsor Ave. Enter by the side door from the school yard that is close to Farragut St. Thanks in advance. Fran AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Re: [UC] The halcyon days
Oh no! Leave it as it is. 2004 was it when we're talking about the halcyon days with John Fenton. Keep it up in his memory. I found it today when looking for a picture of him. Googled John Fenton UCD, and it came up. (But is that actually John Fenton or Andy Cole?) Interestingly, he doesn't show up anywhere else, which fits with Guy's Afghani operative story. So (if it's him) that one picture is the exception that proves the rule. When you take it down, he'll go down the memory hole. - Kirk On Jun 8, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Brian Siano wrote: Kirk Wattles wrote: http://philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=12923 http://www.clarkpark.info/Volunteer.htm I have _got_ to update that page. In the meantime, there's this volunteer activity from December: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGX0iYgJBlM -- Kirk Wattles [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Reality check
Glenn's report is false. John Fenton has not been fired. His employer, Lewis Wendell stated that clearly at the meeting Glenn attended. Seventy people heard him say that. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: Glenn To: Anthony West ; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check Look at what West suggests: But to bash it for steps it was virtually compelled to take ... that strikes me as unfair and stupid. He is asserting according to this wanker manual that he made up, that UCD was compelled to immediately fire John Fenton and lock him out. West, did the manual require UCD to lie about a 2 week suspension? Does the wanker manual demand that they immediately impose a gag order on Mr. Fenton and bar him from talking to his former employees or anyone else?
Re: [UC] The halcyon days
Kirk Wattles wrote: Oh no! Leave it as it is. 2004 was it when we're talking about the halcyon days with John Fenton. Keep it up in his memory. I found it today when looking for a picture of him. Googled John Fenton UCD, and it came up. (But is that actually John Fenton or Andy Cole?) Interestingly, he doesn't show up anywhere else, which fits with Guy's Afghani operative story. Je regrette to say that it's not a photo of Fenton. If you mean the guy in the yellow shirt, it's Andy Cole. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] which bad thing?
Lomb21, do you have a name? Of course there is a way -- if the community is prepared to pay for it. And it'll be a big bill -- in the millions of dollars. Even if you assume UCD contains waste, etc., you're still talking about recreating a substantial agency. The businesses that would have been the source of the NID/BID would largely consist of Penn and Drexel, in dollar volume. That's because these businesses are huge in this neighborhood and dwarf other economic activities. We do not have a broad-based business sector in University City; we have what you see around you. So in funding your CID, you face a narrow range of choices. Either you accept you're working with Penn, and plan to work amicably with Penn, because you need Penn's money just as badly as Ray does; or you figure out how you're going to persuade some other entities in the community to come up with a reliable funding stream derived from another source. In the first choice, you've essentially recreated UCD. Acknowledge that, then, and live with it, I'd suggest. The problem with the second choice is why Ray's list of suggestions went nowhere, so he has to keep reposting it. Ray doesn't know how to live without Penn money himself. Likewise, he has no idea how any substantive community agency in University City could be funded without Penn money. Neither do I. When somebody proposes a practical plan to do so, based on real-world experience, we'll all take a close and respectful look at it, I'm sure. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This might be a long-shot, but is there any way that the community could take the concept of a NID/BID and steal John Fenton? It would be an administrative nightmare for someone (would I do it?? I'm not sure). My objections to the NID/BID were with the organizational structure and its control by the larger entities around us who, I felt, were trying to force little guys to pay while they continued to run it to their own pleasure. I feel like now is the idea time to act-- here's a guy (John Fenton) who has proven that he can provide clean and safe. I've seen large companies run with a whole new business concept based on the presence of a highly competent employee before. In addition there is a structure in place to form a new clean and safe company -- the NID/BID. I'm not sure exactly how it would work, but we could form our own entity (call it a CID) funded by the promises to pay of community people and businesses that would have been the source of the NID/BID. We have 300 signatures in favor of John right now. We could hire/rent from the current UCD as many ambassadors and machines that we needed (as long as the UCD agreed to have this quasi-partnership with us). We would hire John to run the CID entity. I am certain that we could do it less expensively and more inclusively (even truly serving the outer-lying areas of our boundaries).
Re: [UC] Kudos to Guy Laren and Arlene Matzkin
Geez Al, Thanks for outing me. I hope your approval of my design aesthetic does not mean that I'll need to be changing the facade for a third time.. I was hoping that the kids could wear shoes to school again next week. Guy ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [UC] which bad thing?
Thanks for getting back. My name is Guy Laren. I have been disappointed by all of the negative energy on the Listserv lately by both groups of people who have one seemingly unifying goal and passion-- a love of UC. I thought that my proposal to create this NID (or my proposed CID) by funding it the same way that Penn had proposed (the model already exists in someone's archives). If I remember exactly the amount that would be raised was less than $1,5 million per year. I believe that we could get commitments for that amount by going to the very people who would have been taxed by the NID and then get people who are currently contributing to the UCD and get close to that figure in a very short time (might have to borrow some of it on peoples' promise to pay). Then we would have our CID/NID/BID, but it would be run by the community. I see this type of entity as a community based one from the start. I like to use the anaylogy of colonial times, because it is where many of our models for this community/village stuff started. If there were a threat in a colonial village the leaders would find a way to get the Villagers to commit to enhanced patrols. I'm sure they would do the same for health issues. In UC's case we have the City providing for heath and security, but it is inadequate. Shouldn't the community run their own supplemental services? It sounds daunting, but one of the special aspects of our community is the surplus of intelligent and committed residents. Guy Laren ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Starting up a new Business Improvement District [was: Re: [UC] which bad thing?]
Lomb21 is the landlord Guy Laren. His is not a bad idea, but you've certainly pointed out the impractical parts of it, Tony. We already tried this in 1987-88: it was called the University City Special Services District, or the UCSSD. You'll still see some of the green and purple UCSSD decals on the doors of supporter households around the neighborhood. A board of community volunteers ran it for about 6 months - so there were no administrative costs, no office expenses except for mailings requesting donations - just the equipment, supplies and workers who cleaned the sidewalks. We didn't have a safety crew. We solicited donations from every landlord, business owner, institution and homeowner in University City. Some of the landlords contributed. Enthusiastic homeowners contributed. The institutions did not contribute. The most energetic landlord, hosting all of our meetings and calling all of his colleagues for their support, was Dan DeRitis - at the time, at Campus Apartments. After many of our letters asking for donations went unanswered, four of us went door to door to every storefront in the neighborhood to ask businesses to help out. Many of the folks we met in the stores claimed not to be the business owners, not to know who the owners were or how to get in touch with them, and/or not to understand what we were saying. Few business owners were interested in what happened in the wider neighborhood - or even a few doors down the street from their storefronts! The most enthusiastic business supporter, hosting several receptions to encourage donations, was Daniel Liberatoscioli, owner of the Restaurant School. After about 6 months, UCSSD had to shut down the operation because we didn't have enough donations to complete our trial year. Was the time wrong? Were we the wrong volunteers? Would a new crew be more successful? Or is it simply the case that when it's a volunteer effort, too many beneficiaries are willing to let somebody else pay for it? Based on my very hands-on experience with the UCSSD, I don't think a volunteer effort is viable. I support the UCD and the BID because they are structured to avoid the pitfalls of voluntary working and donating. It would take a VERY concentrated effort by a VERY dedicated group of volunteers, and VERY strong community financial support (which we have not seen for either UCSSD or UCD) to pull off even a bare-bones sidewalk cleaning operation. Guy, if you can do it, that's great. - Melani Lamond In a message dated 6/8/07 10:20:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lomb21, do you have a name? Of course there is a way -- if the community is prepared to pay for it. And it'll be a big bill -- in the millions of dollars. Even if you assume UCD contains waste, etc., you're still talking about recreating a substantial agency. The businesses that would have been the source of the NID/BID would largely consist of Penn and Drexel, in dollar volume. That's because these businesses are huge in this neighborhood and dwarf other economic activities. We do not have a broad-based business sector in University City; we have what you see around you. So in funding your CID, you face a narrow range of choices. Either you accept you're working with Penn, and plan to work amicably with Penn, because you need Penn's money just as badly as Ray does; or you figure out how you're going to persuade some other entities in the community to come up with a reliable funding stream derived from another source. In the first choice, you've essentially recreated UCD. Melani Lamond, Associate Broker Urban Bye, Realtor 3529 Lancaster Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19104 cell phone 215-356-7266 office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113 office fax 215-222-1101 ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
[UC] What They're Really After [Was] which bad thing?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] which bad thing? Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 06:32:41 EDT ... if Penn/UCD/Drexel/Campus Apts really want to push off some of the operating expense of the UCD on the residents/beneficiaries then they would, in the end, support our new community based and funded CID. (They would balk initially at the concept of losing control, but in the end it will accomplish what they're really after... I personally believe that what the institutions and the corporate landlords are really after is the power to control the direction of the neighborhood, and would indeed balk if a substitute that they did not control came into being. Your idea would put them to the test. Karen Allen You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Whoo boy.
Out of all the responses, I think it most interesting that this imposter of Glenn could still be listening to everything that we type about him/her, and could still be responding under a different assumed name. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything said before or now. No opinion of the subject whatsoever, just finding it slightly amusing. Dan Myers On 6/6/07, Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Glenn wrote: Let me explain the arrogance of the poster. The poster was trying to frame me. I have been very clear that I blame UCD policy and secrecy for recent media reports and not Councilwoman Blackwell or John Fenton. The hubris of the poster shows as he tries to destroy my credibility, of course, but also make it look like I was trying to embarass the councilwoman too. I have no idea who this committeeperson poster is-- tho I suspect that I'm a suspect. But the _reason_ that Glenn's name turned up in that message's header is extremely simple. Committeeman did what many of us probably do-- to post to the list, we reply to an existing note. Sometimes we change the subject line. But, as has been pointed out before, the message header _still contains_ the note it replies to-- thus, the presence of the text string glenn in the header. In other words; just as this was not evidence that Glenn was spamming the list, it is also not evidence that someone was trying to frame him. (It would be a pretty unreliable way of framing anyone, anyway.) You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. -- to the power of breathing, Dan Myers Intuitive Masseur 215.901.0899
Re: [UC] What They're Really After [Was] which bad thing?
There is substantial evidence that what you say is true, but I'm willing to believe that they just want the clean and safe and would cede the power if it got done by the comuntiy. But if my idea served to out their real intentions, then it would be nice to know them sooner rather than later. Guy ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [UC] The Penn meeting
In a message dated 6/8/07 12:36:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anybody notice the mention of Glenn Moyers account of the meeting. There's a mention of a Glenn Bryan. Could this be Committeeman7? Under Glennsdesktop? He certainly could have insider information, right? Dan Myers Interesting detail, but let me be the first person to vouch for Glenn Bryan. I've known him for many, many years. I can't imagine that he would ever, ever do such a thing as post anonymous messages on a listserv. He is not lacking in principles - and as was pointed out yesterday, he's a fine musician, too! Melani Lamond Melani Lamond, Associate Broker Urban Bye, Realtor 3529 Lancaster Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19104 cell phone 215-356-7266 office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113 office fax 215-222-1101 ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
RE: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps
From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:44:12 -0400 Has anyone anything else to add about the civic associations' representative choosing process? YES! As you all probably know, I'm Treasurer of Cedar Park Neighbors, and have been so since 1996. I cannot speak as to the procedure by which our current UCD representative, Dorothy Berlind, was seated, or when her term is due to expire, because I honestly have no recollection or knowledge. I can, however, speak to historical events that occurred back in 2000 and 2001. I am not saying that the process is still being used because, again, I honestly do not know. In 2000-2001, the University City Community Council was very active. UCCC is a coalition of community associations and special interest groups. I along with Mike Hardy and Melani worked on writing the bylaws when the group formed around 1997. By 2000, the members were Powelton Village, Cedar Park, Garden Court, Walnut Hill, Squirrell Hill, and Spruce Hill, along with groups like UC Historical Society, UC Pride, and Friends of Clark Park. Spruce Hill resigned from the group because of the controversy over what was to become the Penn-Alexander School catchment area. During 2000-2001, there was a major controversey between UCCC and UCD because UCD insisted that each community association send the names of three people as nominees to the UCD Board, and UCD would then select which of the three would represent that association. The then-President of Squirrell Hill was one of the vocal members of the UCCC, and he was adamant, as was I and others, that UCD was not going to select who was going to represent the community associations. When it came time for CPN to decide, I and another CPN Board member who was active in UCCC insisted to the CPN Board that we should not send three, and have UCD select our representative, but instead send only the representative that we wanted. I was out-voted because the opinion was put forth that it was better to have a seat at the table and three nominees was then requested. I and my co-militant nominated each other as two of the nominees, but were out-voted. Again, this is what I know about the original UCD community rep selection process. Whether that is still the case today I don't know. But I will go on record as saying that that was what was done in 2000-2001. Karen Allen From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:44:12 -0400 Folks, something else came out yesterday that is very indicative of the underlying problem with UCD. The Councilwoman told everyone that her staff member, Marty, was removed from the UCD Board. Later, Glenn Bryan, with whom she has worked, was also either removed or not permitted on the Board. We don't know anything about how Penn real estate and its corporate partners choose this body and they can change it at will. Mr. Lewis Wendell, at one point yesterday, asserted that all the civic associations have Board members on the UCD Board. A civic association leader leaned over to me and gave me a little hearsay. She suggested that the UCD picked or suggested the civic association representatives and not some internal voting process after some discussion by the members. Has anyone anything else to add about the civic associations' representative choosing process? Are their people in the associations that have UCD Board representatives that can confirm or deny if there were appropriate discussions to choose your representatives? Did you find out that you had a Board representative but had not heard of any process for choosing? Can anyone describe an internal choosing process? I know that with all of the UCD initiatives, it is a very strict UCD policy that UCD handpicks the community representatives and may close out all stakeholders suspected of not rubber stamping the planned agenda. So although I haven't been on the Board of any of the civic associations except FOCP, the brief story from the civic association leader sounds believable to me. In one of their first initiatives, the revitalization of Clark Park, I experienced this closing out of stakeholders as I was repeatedly barred from the steering committee. At the time, I was leader of one of the largest organized stakeholder groups in the park. Park groups were generally uninvited or barred from the steering committee. If anyone can add to the understanding of choosing UCD community reps, thank you. Cedar Park, Spruce Hill Civic Association, Powelton Village, Garden Court and Walnut Hill have a representative listed on the UCD web site. Can anyone from SHCA, for example, talk about the discussions to send Barry. Did anyone run against him? What was the vote
Re: [UC] The Penn meeting
Anybody notice the mention of Glenn Moyers account of the meeting. There's a mention of a Glenn Bryan. Could this be Committeeman7? Under Glennsdesktop? He certainly could have insider information, right? Dan Myers PS making speculations is fun, proving them is difficult! I hope not to offend anyone with this post, especially not to implicate Mr. Bryan in this matter, considering he's already fired too. On 6/7/07, *Glenn* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me give you some of the information from the Penn meeting. First, Councilwoman Blackwell told us that John Fenton was immediately barred from UCD headquarters and ordered not to discuss the controversy with employees or anyone else. She told us that Mr. Fenton has been forced to resign and has been given a six-month severance. She told us that Mr. Levy from CCD and the UCD Board member from SHCA were involved with the decision. She tried to be involved in the decision about Mr. Fenton but was very angry about the treatment she received from UCD. She also told us that her staff person, Marty, was removed from the UCD board as was Glenn Bryan. She echoed the complaints coming from many of us that UCD is not accountable. I introduced one of the motions that I believe carried without dissent: I believe I said: We, at the first Thursday meeting, insist that UCD make full disclosures of policies and processes to facilitate transparency and accountability appropriate for a special services district. Freda made the motion to retain John Fenton. Sharrieff made the motion to facilitate a community forum about this issue so that the community might ask all questions directly to UCD. It was quite clear that while the institutional folks remained quiet, the community sentiment was clearly that both Mr. Fenton and Councilwoman Blackwell were being targeted for blame while the UCD was not forthcoming. On several occasions, the councilwoman received applause. Mr. Lewis Wendell read the previously released statement. He did not give a progress report about the internal investigation or any information about an expected date to release findings. If I can be helpful to answer any other questions on list I will try to help. Sincerely, Glenn Moyer -- to the power of breathing, Dan Myers Intuitive Masseur 215.901.0899
Re: [UC] What They're Really After [Was] which bad thing?
In a message dated 6/8/07 12:14:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I personally believe that what the institutions and the corporate landlords are really after is the power to control the direction of the neighborhood, and would indeed balk if a substitute that they did not control came into being. Your idea would put them to the test. Karen Allen Ross, feel free to chime in here and remind us of the fantasy life of market forces, but this is still a capitalist economy, and what controls the direction of a neighborhood is its popularity and desirability, often expressed in monetary ways. The fact that the city's largest private employer plus several other distinguished institutions of higher learning and several hospitals are located next door does indeed impact on the popularity and desirability of University City. If people don't like these business and educational entities, they won't pay the price to live here. But these entities surely attract landlords and other business entities who find a market in the entities' workers and students. These entities also attract residents who appreciate life in a diverse and sophisticated community. Some would call this interaction market forces. The viability and sustainability of University City is intertwined with its employment and educational opportunities and with us, its residential welcoming committee. Though, we're not always very welcoming. Not sure if that's good or bad, but I don't think it's indifferent or irrelevant. Melani Lamond Melani Lamond, Associate Broker Urban Bye, Realtor 3529 Lancaster Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19104 cell phone 215-356-7266 office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113 office fax 215-222-1101 ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
RE: [UC] The Penn meeting
I will join Melani on this one. It is not Glenn Bryan for sure. .and it is not me..(as someone suggested off-list), I think everyone knows I don't need to say anything anonymously. Can we please get off of the who is committeeman7 thing. It is really a waste of time. Number one: will the real committeeman7 please stand up? If not, we will forever delete your e-mail when it hits the list. GAME OVER. S -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 12:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] The Penn meeting In a message dated 6/8/07 12:36:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anybody notice the mention of Glenn Moyers account of the meeting. There's a mention of a Glenn Bryan. Could this be Committeeman7? Under Glennsdesktop? He certainly could have insider information, right? Dan Myers Interesting detail, but let me be the first person to vouch for Glenn Bryan. I've known him for many, many years. I can't imagine that he would ever, ever do such a thing as post anonymous messages on a listserv. He is not lacking in principles - and as was pointed out yesterday, he's a fine musician, too! Melani Lamond Melani Lamond, Associate Broker Urban Bye, Realtor 3529 Lancaster Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19104 cell phone 215-356-7266 office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113 office fax 215-222-1101 ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps
Thank you very much. That was a very interesting account. Let me make sure I get it right..Was it the Board choosing the three candidates and not the full membership? Then afterwards, UCD, chose which of the three choices would actually serve. Does anyone know, was the process Karen described for CPN the same as the other civic associations had? Send three Board choices for UCD to choose? Thanks Karen, this is important information. Glenn - Original Message - From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 12:47 PM Subject: RE: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:44:12 -0400 Has anyone anything else to add about the civic associations' representative choosing process? YES! As you all probably know, I'm Treasurer of Cedar Park Neighbors, and have been so since 1996. I cannot speak as to the procedure by which our current UCD representative, Dorothy Berlind, was seated, or when her term is due to expire, because I honestly have no recollection or knowledge. I can, however, speak to historical events that occurred back in 2000 and 2001. I am not saying that the process is still being used because, again, I honestly do not know. In 2000-2001, the University City Community Council was very active. UCCC is a coalition of community associations and special interest groups. I along with Mike Hardy and Melani worked on writing the bylaws when the group formed around 1997. By 2000, the members were Powelton Village, Cedar Park, Garden Court, Walnut Hill, Squirrell Hill, and Spruce Hill, along with groups like UC Historical Society, UC Pride, and Friends of Clark Park. Spruce Hill resigned from the group because of the controversy over what was to become the Penn-Alexander School catchment area. During 2000-2001, there was a major controversey between UCCC and UCD because UCD insisted that each community association send the names of three people as nominees to the UCD Board, and UCD would then select which of the three would represent that association. The then-President of Squirrell Hill was one of the vocal members of the UCCC, and he was adamant, as was I and others, that UCD was not going to select who was going to represent the community associations. When it came time for CPN to decide, I and another CPN Board member who was active in UCCC insisted to the CPN Board that we should not send three, and have UCD select our representative, but instead send only the representative that we wanted. I was out-voted because the opinion was put forth that it was better to have a seat at the table and three nominees was then requested. I and my co-militant nominated each other as two of the nominees, but were out-voted. Again, this is what I know about the original UCD community rep selection process. Whether that is still the case today I don't know. But I will go on record as saying that that was what was done in 2000-2001. Karen Allen From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:44:12 -0400 Folks, something else came out yesterday that is very indicative of the underlying problem with UCD. The Councilwoman told everyone that her staff member, Marty, was removed from the UCD Board. Later, Glenn Bryan, with whom she has worked, was also either removed or not permitted on the Board. We don't know anything about how Penn real estate and its corporate partners choose this body and they can change it at will. Mr. Lewis Wendell, at one point yesterday, asserted that all the civic associations have Board members on the UCD Board. A civic association leader leaned over to me and gave me a little hearsay. She suggested that the UCD picked or suggested the civic association representatives and not some internal voting process after some discussion by the members. Has anyone anything else to add about the civic associations' representative choosing process? Are their people in the associations that have UCD Board representatives that can confirm or deny if there were appropriate discussions to choose your representatives? Did you find out that you had a Board representative but had not heard of any process for choosing? Can anyone describe an internal choosing process? I know that with all of the UCD initiatives, it is a very strict UCD policy that UCD handpicks the community representatives and may close out all stakeholders suspected of not rubber stamping the planned agenda. So although I haven't been on the Board of any of the civic associations except FOCP, the brief story from the civic association leader sounds believable to me. In one of their first initiatives,
Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps
From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED],UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:20:50 -0400 I'm sorry Karen. One other question. You mentioned the discussion about better to have a seat at the table I find it odd but understandable. Was there any suggestion that UCD would deny you a seat at the table if you just gave them one CPN choice? If you can recall, why did CPN board members have that suspicion? Glenn The general understanding, both in the UCCC debate of the issue, and with CPN, was that we had to send three nominees. I don't know whether there was ever any explicit statement from UCD that sending one would result in denial, but that was definitely inferred from UCD's insistence to have three nominees. To answer your other question, it was the CPN Board, not the membership, who did then, and does now vote on issues concerning the organization. The membership elects the Board, and the Board, in turn, acts on the membership's behalf. So yes, the Board was making the decision to not send just one, to send three, and who the three would have been. Karen Allen You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
RE: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps
What Karen posted is correct as far as I know and was used as a mechanism for the UCD and specific interest to eliminate particular organizations or individuals from participating in the UCD Board activities. Essentially, if the UCD didn't want you there it wouldn't matter if your community association put your name forward. It was unlikely out of 3 names the Board wouldn't find someone of their philosophy. Q: Why did the community stakeholders allow UCD to propose something so undermining to our interest? The UCD operations and Board activities are anti-trust, violate the standards of ethical behavior, and are not worthy of community support. S -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 1:03 PM To: KAREN ALLEN; UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Thank you very much. That was a very interesting account. Let me make sure I get it right..Was it the Board choosing the three candidates and not the full membership? Then afterwards, UCD, chose which of the three choices would actually serve. Does anyone know, was the process Karen described for CPN the same as the other civic associations had? Send three Board choices for UCD to choose? Thanks Karen, this is important information. Glenn - Original Message - From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 12:47 PM Subject: RE: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:44:12 -0400 Has anyone anything else to add about the civic associations' representative choosing process? YES! As you all probably know, I'm Treasurer of Cedar Park Neighbors, and have been so since 1996. I cannot speak as to the procedure by which our current UCD representative, Dorothy Berlind, was seated, or when her term is due to expire, because I honestly have no recollection or knowledge. I can, however, speak to historical events that occurred back in 2000 and 2001. I am not saying that the process is still being used because, again, I honestly do not know. In 2000-2001, the University City Community Council was very active. UCCC is a coalition of community associations and special interest groups. I along with Mike Hardy and Melani worked on writing the bylaws when the group formed around 1997. By 2000, the members were Powelton Village, Cedar Park, Garden Court, Walnut Hill, Squirrell Hill, and Spruce Hill, along with groups like UC Historical Society, UC Pride, and Friends of Clark Park. Spruce Hill resigned from the group because of the controversy over what was to become the Penn-Alexander School catchment area. During 2000-2001, there was a major controversey between UCCC and UCD because UCD insisted that each community association send the names of three people as nominees to the UCD Board, and UCD would then select which of the three would represent that association. The then-President of Squirrell Hill was one of the vocal members of the UCCC, and he was adamant, as was I and others, that UCD was not going to select who was going to represent the community associations. When it came time for CPN to decide, I and another CPN Board member who was active in UCCC insisted to the CPN Board that we should not send three, and have UCD select our representative, but instead send only the representative that we wanted. I was out-voted because the opinion was put forth that it was better to have a seat at the table and three nominees was then requested. I and my co-militant nominated each other as two of the nominees, but were out-voted. Again, this is what I know about the original UCD community rep selection process. Whether that is still the case today I don't know. But I will go on record as saying that that was what was done in 2000-2001. Karen Allen From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:44:12 -0400 Folks, something else came out yesterday that is very indicative of the underlying problem with UCD. The Councilwoman told everyone that her staff member, Marty, was removed from the UCD Board. Later, Glenn Bryan, with whom she has worked, was also either removed or not permitted on the Board. We don't know anything about how Penn real estate and its corporate partners choose this body and they can change it at will. Mr. Lewis Wendell, at one point yesterday, asserted that all the civic associations have Board members on the UCD Board. A civic association leader leaned over to me and gave me a little hearsay. She suggested that the UCD picked or suggested the civic association representatives and
Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps
I'm sorry Karen. One other question. You mentioned the discussion about better to have a seat at the table I find it odd but understandable. Was there any suggestion that UCD would deny you a seat at the table if you just gave them one CPN choice? If you can recall, why did CPN board members have that suspicion? Back around the time that I was on the board at FOCP, 2001, and just after, I clearly recall a couple of people suggesting that UCD be allowed to do what it wanted or they might pull out. I was then objecting to the negative image they were creating about Clark park. I clearly got the message that some were in some way intimidated that UCD might pull out and that they were explicitly told this. I remember that I was supposed to feel guilty about risking the master plan with my insistance of inclusion of park stakeholders. I heard some nasty stuff about a local attorney who introduced a motion to rescind the Clark Park master plan. Essentially, that was at the heart of the ad hominems I heard. That he was jeopardizing everyone's hard work. It's helpful to compare our thoughts and experiences. Glenn - Original Message - From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 12:47 PM Subject: RE: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:44:12 -0400 Has anyone anything else to add about the civic associations' representative choosing process? YES! As you all probably know, I'm Treasurer of Cedar Park Neighbors, and have been so since 1996. I cannot speak as to the procedure by which our current UCD representative, Dorothy Berlind, was seated, or when her term is due to expire, because I honestly have no recollection or knowledge. I can, however, speak to historical events that occurred back in 2000 and 2001. I am not saying that the process is still being used because, again, I honestly do not know. In 2000-2001, the University City Community Council was very active. UCCC is a coalition of community associations and special interest groups. I along with Mike Hardy and Melani worked on writing the bylaws when the group formed around 1997. By 2000, the members were Powelton Village, Cedar Park, Garden Court, Walnut Hill, Squirrell Hill, and Spruce Hill, along with groups like UC Historical Society, UC Pride, and Friends of Clark Park. Spruce Hill resigned from the group because of the controversy over what was to become the Penn-Alexander School catchment area. During 2000-2001, there was a major controversey between UCCC and UCD because UCD insisted that each community association send the names of three people as nominees to the UCD Board, and UCD would then select which of the three would represent that association. The then-President of Squirrell Hill was one of the vocal members of the UCCC, and he was adamant, as was I and others, that UCD was not going to select who was going to represent the community associations. When it came time for CPN to decide, I and another CPN Board member who was active in UCCC insisted to the CPN Board that we should not send three, and have UCD select our representative, but instead send only the representative that we wanted. I was out-voted because the opinion was put forth that it was better to have a seat at the table and three nominees was then requested. I and my co-militant nominated each other as two of the nominees, but were out-voted. Again, this is what I know about the original UCD community rep selection process. Whether that is still the case today I don't know. But I will go on record as saying that that was what was done in 2000-2001. Karen Allen From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:44:12 -0400 Folks, something else came out yesterday that is very indicative of the underlying problem with UCD. The Councilwoman told everyone that her staff member, Marty, was removed from the UCD Board. Later, Glenn Bryan, with whom she has worked, was also either removed or not permitted on the Board. We don't know anything about how Penn real estate and its corporate partners choose this body and they can change it at will. Mr. Lewis Wendell, at one point yesterday, asserted that all the civic associations have Board members on the UCD Board. A civic association leader leaned over to me and gave me a little hearsay. She suggested that the UCD picked or suggested the civic association representatives and not some internal voting process after some discussion by the members. Has anyone anything else to add about the civic associations' representative choosing process? Are their people in the associations that
Re: [UC] What They're Really After [Was] which bad thing?
In a message dated 6/8/2007 12:54:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But I can say that they are smart enough to understand that THEIR version of the NID/BID is troubled and , with these new Fenton/UCD developments, that their chances of getting neighborhood support might be dead. My thoughts are to go to them and explain that they can hold out for FULL control of a NID that never happens or they can support a community CID/NID that does happen Great, in theory. But in reality I seriously doubt whether they understand any of this, yet -- the apparent 2x4 upside of the head delivered yesterday by our district City Council member notwithstanding. There's a question of who they are. The University of Pennsylvania, for instance, isn't Amy Gutmann with a grasp of the astronomical number of issues confronting a world-class research university. It's an elaborate tree -- one branch of which involves community relations, the outermost twigs of this branch comprising people who can't have much of an idea of the situation on the ground here, or have been too insecure in their jobs to counter the conventional wisdom prevailing up there on what they think is the moral high ground, or things wouldn't have gone as far as they have. I'm reminded of an earlier First Thursday meeting where the VP to whom Glenn Bryan reports kept bragging about all the terrific things Penn was doing for the community already and was planning to do in the future. When I asked her by whose definition are all these things terrific? she didn't have a clue what I meant. It was clear that if she thought they were terrific, they must be terrific. Among other things, she was talking about 40th Street north of Walnut. I wonder whether she thought the immigrant-owned businesses that were being kicked out to make way for whatever upscale shoppes Penn had in mind thought everything was so terrific. At that same meeting, a member of the Penn Board of Trustees kept bragging about Penn's Partnership with the community. I suggested that it wasn't much of a partnership because all it comprised was Penn giving money to organizations that would use it to further Penn's anointed (yes, I used the term -- and attributed it to Thomas Sowell) agenda. That a partnership implied people getting together as equals and making some mutual decisions. He arrogantly replied that he was an attorney and he could give me definitions of partnership that fit the model if I wanted. So, how do we get them to understand? I submit for dialog the idea that we should just go ahead with the community meeting that Mrs Blackwell apparently asked the University City Review to organize, which hopefully will have the deliverable of either detailed coverage in the paper, or a report, or both. Then, let them come to us. Who comes to whom determines who approaches the meeting with hat-in-hand and who gets to frame the debate. I submit that Penn should send some high-level people to do the former and we should do the latter. Always at your service ready for a dialog, Al Krigman ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps
I hear ya. I don't feel so alone. Thanks for confirming your accounts. These are important issues to air publicly if we are indeed to move forward. I know a lot about UCD but I did not catch this choice of 3 before Karen's account. Glenn - Original Message - From: S. Sharrieff Ali [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Glenn' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'KAREN ALLEN' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 1:30 PM Subject: RE: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps What Karen posted is correct as far as I know and was used as a mechanism for the UCD and specific interest to eliminate particular organizations or individuals from participating in the UCD Board activities. Essentially, if the UCD didn't want you there it wouldn't matter if your community association put your name forward. It was unlikely out of 3 names the Board wouldn't find someone of their philosophy. Q: Why did the community stakeholders allow UCD to propose something so undermining to our interest? The UCD operations and Board activities are anti-trust, violate the standards of ethical behavior, and are not worthy of community support. S -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 1:03 PM To: KAREN ALLEN; UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Thank you very much. That was a very interesting account. Let me make sure I get it right..Was it the Board choosing the three candidates and not the full membership? Then afterwards, UCD, chose which of the three choices would actually serve. Does anyone know, was the process Karen described for CPN the same as the other civic associations had? Send three Board choices for UCD to choose? Thanks Karen, this is important information. Glenn - Original Message - From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 12:47 PM Subject: RE: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:44:12 -0400 Has anyone anything else to add about the civic associations' representative choosing process? YES! As you all probably know, I'm Treasurer of Cedar Park Neighbors, and have been so since 1996. I cannot speak as to the procedure by which our current UCD representative, Dorothy Berlind, was seated, or when her term is due to expire, because I honestly have no recollection or knowledge. I can, however, speak to historical events that occurred back in 2000 and 2001. I am not saying that the process is still being used because, again, I honestly do not know. In 2000-2001, the University City Community Council was very active. UCCC is a coalition of community associations and special interest groups. I along with Mike Hardy and Melani worked on writing the bylaws when the group formed around 1997. By 2000, the members were Powelton Village, Cedar Park, Garden Court, Walnut Hill, Squirrell Hill, and Spruce Hill, along with groups like UC Historical Society, UC Pride, and Friends of Clark Park. Spruce Hill resigned from the group because of the controversy over what was to become the Penn-Alexander School catchment area. During 2000-2001, there was a major controversey between UCCC and UCD because UCD insisted that each community association send the names of three people as nominees to the UCD Board, and UCD would then select which of the three would represent that association. The then-President of Squirrell Hill was one of the vocal members of the UCCC, and he was adamant, as was I and others, that UCD was not going to select who was going to represent the community associations. When it came time for CPN to decide, I and another CPN Board member who was active in UCCC insisted to the CPN Board that we should not send three, and have UCD select our representative, but instead send only the representative that we wanted. I was out-voted because the opinion was put forth that it was better to have a seat at the table and three nominees was then requested. I and my co-militant nominated each other as two of the nominees, but were out-voted. Again, this is what I know about the original UCD community rep selection process. Whether that is still the case today I don't know. But I will go on record as saying that that was what was done in 2000-2001. Karen Allen From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:44:12 -0400 Folks, something else came out yesterday that is very indicative of the underlying problem with UCD. The Councilwoman told everyone that her staff member, Marty, was removed from the UCD Board. Later, Glenn Bryan, with whom
Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps
I thought more after your account about that time period, 2000-2001, I remembered one of those, UCD will pull out. that I received. I knew that a few folks kept insisting that I stop asking for inclusion in Clark Park planning because of this fear. Then, I got it from the executive director. The City Paper article, Battle of the Bowl, had just come out about the usual FOCP/UCD shenanigans. The director was furious because UCD hates any criticism even when very justified. He pulled the UCD will pull out of Clark Park... (something about), you people I had had enough of UCD shit and said, good, when are you leaving That was my direct experience, but I recall others expressing that fear. I know I'm asking a lot. Was a report given to the membership so that the members knew about the need to give the 3 choices? I would think that could spark a lively debate. It is a terrible start to community partnerships. Glenn - Original Message - From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED],UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:20:50 -0400 I'm sorry Karen. One other question. You mentioned the discussion about better to have a seat at the table I find it odd but understandable. Was there any suggestion that UCD would deny you a seat at the table if you just gave them one CPN choice? If you can recall, why did CPN board members have that suspicion? Glenn The general understanding, both in the UCCC debate of the issue, and with CPN, was that we had to send three nominees. I don't know whether there was ever any explicit statement from UCD that sending one would result in denial, but that was definitely inferred from UCD's insistence to have three nominees. To answer your other question, it was the CPN Board, not the membership, who did then, and does now vote on issues concerning the organization. The membership elects the Board, and the Board, in turn, acts on the membership's behalf. So yes, the Board was making the decision to not send just one, to send three, and who the three would have been. Karen Allen -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/838 - Release Date: 6/7/2007 2:21 PM You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps
From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED],UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:20:03 -0400 I know I'm asking a lot. Was a report given to the membership so that the members knew about the need to give the 3 choices? I would think that could spark a lively debate... Glenn I can't remember, but I doubt it. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
RE: [UC] Funding special services
So this would be an organization that has the power to impose taxes? I believe that's what it's called when all property owners are required to pay towards something . . . Kathleen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kyle Cassidy Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:13 PM To: Anthony West; UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] Funding special services I think the only practical way to do it is divide the group's budget up among all the property owners in the area and have them (us) pay for it. It eliminates two of the problems that some people had with ucd which are: 1) uneven funding -- everybody would pay the same thing 2) representation -- the organization would be (as is UCD now) beholden to it's funders which in this case would be the people in the district. Everybody would get to vote on what services should be provided (you pay the tax, you get a vote). You'd just have to convince people that playing football without Penn's money is better because they have more control. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony West Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:51 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] Funding special services (Was: which bad thing?) Hi, Guy. I find all this negativism annoying too, especially when it is accompanied by a complete lack of practical thinking. I think your idea is great, and thinking about it with some good business heads could be very beneficial for University City Remember, though, about the proposed NID: it was intended to extend UCD's current services (let's call them John Fenton as a kind of discussion shorthand). The original John Fenton was to continue being funded by UCD's current major backers -- Penn, Drexel, large real estate firms. If we are talking about a service entity that does roughly what UCD does, it's going to cost something like what UCD now costs. That cost is currently derived from millions of dollars from major donors. So let us be terribly clear: Do you envision a CID that would seek to retain these millions of dollars? Or do you seek one that will deliberately avoid them? If the latter, who else will we hit up around here to replace those lost funds, and how? A special services district is a kind of business. It needs a business plan. We need to begin with a business plan, rather than with all this community-input chat. Because if you begin with the community-input chat, what we're likely to wind up with is a whole lot of community input into nothing. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [UC] which bad thing? Thanks for getting back. My name is Guy Laren. I have been disappointed by all of the negative energy on the Listserv lately by both groups of people who have one seemingly unifying goal and passion-- a love of UC. I thought that my proposal to create this NID (or my proposed CID) by funding it the same way that Penn had proposed (the model already exists in someone's archives). If I remember exactly the amount that would be raised was less than $1,5 million per year. I believe that we could get commitments for that amount by going to the very people who would have been taxed by the NID and then get people who are currently contributing to the UCD and get close to that figure in a very short time (might have to borrow some of it on peoples' promise to pay). Then we would have our CID/NID/BID, but it would be run by the community. I see this type of entity as a community based one from the start. I like to use the anaylogy of colonial times, because it is where many of our models for this community/village stuff started. If there were a threat in a colonial village the leaders would find a way to get the Villagers to commit to enhanced patrols. I'm sure they would do the same for health issues. In UC's case we have the City providing for heath and security, but it is inadequate. Shouldn't the community run their own supplemental services? It sounds daunting, but one of the special aspects of our community is the surplus of intelligent and committed residents. Guy Laren See what's free at AOL.com http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF0002000503 . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
[UC] Funding special services (Was: which bad thing?)
Hi, Guy. I find all this negativism annoying too, especially when it is accompanied by a complete lack of practical thinking. I think your idea is great, and thinking about it with some good business heads could be very beneficial for University City Remember, though, about the proposed NID: it was intended to extend UCD's current services (let's call them John Fenton as a kind of discussion shorthand). The original John Fenton was to continue being funded by UCD's current major backers -- Penn, Drexel, large real estate firms. If we are talking about a service entity that does roughly what UCD does, it's going to cost something like what UCD now costs. That cost is currently derived from millions of dollars from major donors. So let us be terribly clear: Do you envision a CID that would seek to retain these millions of dollars? Or do you seek one that will deliberately avoid them? If the latter, who else will we hit up around here to replace those lost funds, and how? A special services district is a kind of business. It needs a business plan. We need to begin with a business plan, rather than with all this community-input chat. Because if you begin with the community-input chat, what we're likely to wind up with is a whole lot of community input into nothing. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [UC] which bad thing? Thanks for getting back. My name is Guy Laren. I have been disappointed by all of the negative energy on the Listserv lately by both groups of people who have one seemingly unifying goal and passion-- a love of UC. I thought that my proposal to create this NID (or my proposed CID) by funding it the same way that Penn had proposed (the model already exists in someone's archives). If I remember exactly the amount that would be raised was less than $1,5 million per year. I believe that we could get commitments for that amount by going to the very people who would have been taxed by the NID and then get people who are currently contributing to the UCD and get close to that figure in a very short time (might have to borrow some of it on peoples' promise to pay). Then we would have our CID/NID/BID, but it would be run by the community. I see this type of entity as a community based one from the start. I like to use the anaylogy of colonial times, because it is where many of our models for this community/village stuff started. If there were a threat in a colonial village the leaders would find a way to get the Villagers to commit to enhanced patrols. I'm sure they would do the same for health issues. In UC's case we have the City providing for heath and security, but it is inadequate. Shouldn't the community run their own supplemental services? It sounds daunting, but one of the special aspects of our community is the surplus of intelligent and committed residents. Guy Laren -- See what's free at AOL.com.
RE: [UC] Funding special services
I think the only practical way to do it is divide the group's budget up among all the property owners in the area and have them (us) pay for it. It eliminates two of the problems that some people had with ucd which are: 1) uneven funding -- everybody would pay the same thing 2) representation -- the organization would be (as is UCD now) beholden to it's funders which in this case would be the people in the district. Everybody would get to vote on what services should be provided (you pay the tax, you get a vote). You'd just have to convince people that playing football without Penn's money is better because they have more control. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony West Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:51 PM To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] Funding special services (Was: which bad thing?) Hi, Guy. I find all this negativism annoying too, especially when it is accompanied by a complete lack of practical thinking. I think your idea is great, and thinking about it with some good business heads could be very beneficial for University City Remember, though, about the proposed NID: it was intended to extend UCD's current services (let's call them John Fenton as a kind of discussion shorthand). The original John Fenton was to continue being funded by UCD's current major backers -- Penn, Drexel, large real estate firms. If we are talking about a service entity that does roughly what UCD does, it's going to cost something like what UCD now costs. That cost is currently derived from millions of dollars from major donors. So let us be terribly clear: Do you envision a CID that would seek to retain these millions of dollars? Or do you seek one that will deliberately avoid them? If the latter, who else will we hit up around here to replace those lost funds, and how? A special services district is a kind of business. It needs a business plan. We need to begin with a business plan, rather than with all this community-input chat. Because if you begin with the community-input chat, what we're likely to wind up with is a whole lot of community input into nothing. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [UC] which bad thing? Thanks for getting back. My name is Guy Laren. I have been disappointed by all of the negative energy on the Listserv lately by both groups of people who have one seemingly unifying goal and passion-- a love of UC. I thought that my proposal to create this NID (or my proposed CID) by funding it the same way that Penn had proposed (the model already exists in someone's archives). If I remember exactly the amount that would be raised was less than $1,5 million per year. I believe that we could get commitments for that amount by going to the very people who would have been taxed by the NID and then get people who are currently contributing to the UCD and get close to that figure in a very short time (might have to borrow some of it on peoples' promise to pay). Then we would have our CID/NID/BID, but it would be run by the community. I see this type of entity as a community based one from the start. I like to use the anaylogy of colonial times, because it is where many of our models for this community/village stuff started. If there were a threat in a colonial village the leaders would find a way to get the Villagers to commit to enhanced patrols. I'm sure they would do the same for health issues. In UC's case we have the City providing for heath and security, but it is inadequate. Shouldn't the community run their own supplemental services? It sounds daunting, but one of the special aspects of our community is the surplus of intelligent and committed residents. Guy Laren See what's free at AOL.com http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF0002000503 . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
RE: [UC] Funding special services
You have to fund it somehow, and if one of the goals is to cut the big doners out (and thereby their influence), you need to make up for some of that lost revenue. And we already heard that going door to door with hat in hand doesn't seem to work. If you tax everybody, then a) you get the money you need and b) you don't have Penn and Drexel calling the shots and c) it's beholden to it's funders -- us. I don't see another way to do it, (apart from roving vigilanti groups that issue smackdowns on people who don't clean up their own properties, which I could go with as well). -Original Message- From: Turner,Kathleen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:16 PM To: Kyle Cassidy; Anthony West; UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] Funding special services So this would be an organization that has the power to impose taxes? I believe that's what it's called when all property owners are required to pay towards something . . . Kathleen -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kyle Cassidy Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:13 PM To: Anthony West; UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: RE: [UC] Funding special services I think the only practical way to do it is divide the group's budget up among all the property owners in the area and have them (us) pay for it. It eliminates two of the problems that some people had with ucd which are: 1) uneven funding -- everybody would pay the same thing 2) representation -- the organization would be (as is UCD now) beholden to it's funders which in this case would be the people in the district. Everybody would get to vote on what services should be provided (you pay the tax, you get a vote). You'd just have to convince people that playing football without Penn's money is better because they have more control. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Funding special services - PA BID law
In a message dated 6/8/07 3:28:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You have to fund it somehow, and if one of the goals is to cut the big doners out (and thereby their influence), you need to make up for some of that lost revenue. And we already heard that going door to door with hat in hand doesn't seem to work. If you tax everybody, then a) you get the money you need and b) you don't have Penn and Drexel calling the shots and c) it's beholden to it's funders -- us. I don't see another way to do it, (apart from roving vigilanti groups that issue smackdowns on people who don't clean up their own properties, which I could go with as well). That means we'd need to form a BID. The main reason that the UCD BID proposal has dragged on for so long is that Councilwoman Blackwell has heard that there isn't universal approval of it, so she refuses to introduce it in City Council. To be clear, her introduction wouldn't mean that she SUPPORTED it - it would merely trigger the notifications meeting required under PA law, at which point the assessed group would be able to vote against it if they didn't want it to become law. So an introduction on her part wouldn't make it law; it would let the landlords and business owners decide. But, she won't introduce it and let whatever happens, happen. So, if new group of folks came up with a BID and there wasn't universal support - well, if Jannie remains true to her request for consensus first, then she wouldn't introduce it. And we'd be stuck right where we are now. Can another Council member introduce it? In City Council, there is a CUSTOM - not a law, but a custom, a sign of respect - where no other Council member will introduce a bill which will affect a District Councilperson's area. It's called Councilmatic Privilege. So in addition to needing a business plan and willing donors, you need Jannie to agree to support the bill, if you want to have a reliable, fair, evenly divided income stream. That's the way the BID law works. Melani Lamond Melani Lamond, Associate Broker Urban Bye, Realtor 3529 Lancaster Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19104 cell phone 215-356-7266 office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113 office fax 215-222-1101 ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [UC] Funding special services
Kyle Cassidy wrote: You have to fund it somehow, and if one of the goals is to cut the big doners out (and thereby their influence), you need to make up for some of that lost revenue. And we already heard that going door to door with hat in hand doesn't seem to work. If you tax everybody, then a) you get the money you need and b) you don't have Penn and Drexel calling the shots and c) it's beholden to it's funders -- us. I don't see another way to do it, (apart from roving vigilanti groups that issue smackdowns on people who don't clean up their own properties, which I could go with as well). It does make for an interesting problem. Obviously, it's kind of silly to expect everyone, businesses and churches and homeowners alike, to pay the same amount: $300 a year is far more of a hardship on me than it would be to, say, Kinko's. And one _hopes_ that the goal of this project _isn't_ to price people out of the neighborhood. Should homeowners pay less than business owners? I certainly think so. After all, business owners are better equipped to pay higher rates (i.e., they can adjust their prices, write off expenses, etc.), and benefit more than homeowners (i.e., businessmen get more business, while homeowners' benefits are in the more abstract and less liquid realm of Property Values). But if business owners have to pay more, then they'll feel entitled to claim more control over the NID. However, homeowners can claim more control for equally good reasons. It's easier for a business to move in and out of the area. They don't have a financial structure that can be adjusted as a business's-- so the cost burden's higher on them. There are quality of life issues, too, and the NID can't promote business at the expense of, say, children. So make up for the deficit with power. In short: it won't be fair, so let's find the unfairness we could all live with. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Funding special services
They might feel that way, but paying more money shouldn't equate into being entitled to having more power. A person who pays more money in taxes still can cast only one vote in the political process. From: Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] Funding special services Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:11:22 -0400 But if business owners have to pay more, then they'll feel entitled to claim more control over the NID. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Funding special services - PA BID law
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] Funding special services - PA BID law Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:08:24 EDT ...The main reason that the UCD BID proposal has dragged on for so long is that Councilwoman Blackwell has heard that there isn't universal approval of it, so she refuses to introduce it in City Council. ...But, she won't introduce it and let whatever happens, happen. And somehow I think that she's even less likely to introduce it, given the two-by-four upside the head she delivered to UCD yesterday. Can another Council member introduce it? In City Council, there is a CUSTOM - not a law, but a custom, a sign of respect - where no other Council member will introduce a bill which will affect a District Councilperson's area. It's called Councilmatic Privilege. Any Councilperson who did that would be committing political suicide among his or her colleagues, because if s/he did it to Jannie, s/he could do it to anyone. The other members, whether District or At-Large, would never risk losing their own power to introduce or pass bills by allowing themselves or anyone else to break that precedent. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Funding special services
I don't understand all the rules regarding the establishment of these type entities, but I see it working as follows: 1) we take the structure of the NID and the Community usurps it. meaning that we have the same taxing authority that the NID would have had. Just the community runs it instead of it being run by the UCD. 2) we convince the large current donors of the UCD that it is in THEIR interest to assist this new community based organization to exist and flourish with UCD's financial and administrative assistance (if they say no then we are in the same position--Mexican stand-off with no NID or BID or CID the alternative for the larger donors is NOT that they can pass a NID that they control). We would rent their ambassadors and cleaning equipment. They could do our books for us. All we really need is to raise the cost of reimbuirsing for the ambassadors and a person to manage them (John Fenton). UCD could lend us office space and/or other equipment (faxes, phones etc) which they have already. I agree with Melani that a totally voluntary organization would probably die on the vine. Times are very different than in 1989 here in UC, but people are people and need to be required to do things even if they are in their own best self-interest. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [UC] Funding special services - PA BID law
On a small scale, I am happy that anyone is even considering the alternative of creating a true community based organization to supplement the City's services. It's probably a great way to unite the neighborhood (if it could really happen). It is a little disappointing to hear such can't do technical objections to the concept. If we were able to keep costs down I figure that $25 per residentail property per year and $100 for each business would cover all of the required costs (if the original UCD estimates for funding the NID are used). There would be money left over. Regarding Brian's fear that residences and businesses would fight over control and hardships would be created-- I figure at the levels I am speaking about there should be no issues of control or fairness. We could even allow exemptions for elderly to not pay even their $25 if they chose and the debt could become a lien on the house for when the estate disposed of the asset. I figure there would be enough INCREASE in value to the houses created by our own clean and safe that the house would pay the back-fees easily with plenty extra. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [UC] Reality check
Indeed? On 6/8/07 10:06 AM, Anthony West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Glenn's report is false. John Fenton has not been fired. His employer, Lewis Wendell stated that clearly at the meeting Glenn attended. Seventy people heard him say that. -- Tony West - Original Message - From: Glenn mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Anthony West mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check Look at what West suggests: But to bash it for steps it was virtually compelled to take ... that strikes me as unfair and stupid. He is asserting according to this wanker manual that he made up, that UCD was compelled to immediately fire John Fenton and lock him out. West, did the manual require UCD to lie about a 2 week suspension? Does the wanker manual demand that they immediately impose a gag order on Mr. Fenton and bar him from talking to his former employees or anyone else?
Re: [UC] Liz asks great questions: where do we go from here?
Well, life is funny. There have been so many arguments, discussions etc. over the years, and it took a Penn student with a big mouth who said the equivalent of. LOOK, The Emperor has NO clothes!! Not a huge event in and of itself, but the right thing at the right time has such momentum. I tend to think Jannie Blackwell's request was not untoward with regard to the UCD. I have no proof, but I believe things such as this event with the UCD has occurred before; perhaps even at community donor's affairs whose patronage was quite substantial. Jannie knew it and certainly Marty Cabry. It just makes sense politically. On 6/8/07 10:12 AM, Brian Siano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /In a message dated 6/7/2007 5:46:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:/ /My questions include:/ /How do we thank John Fenton?/ /Can his job and reputation be saved?/ /Should we / /save his job? / /lose UCD? / /settle for what we get (and thus deserve)?/ /How do we prevent the further co opting of UC by Politics, Penn and powerful lurkers?/ /Do we support any person or initiative at UCD?/ /?, ?, ?/ I totally agree with everything Liz asks here. We don't know the details - only John Fenton knows EVERYTHING - so we can't judge what happened. But, where do we go NEXT? Didn't this problem come about because the Councilwoman asked John Fenton to help out with SOMETHING, and he did? She doesn't dispute that that's what happened - the only question is what did she ask him to help out with. And then, didn't some student tell the Daily News that John did something which was inconsistent with the tax status of his employer and the law? Isn't that how the story came out? From that start, how did anyone jump to the conclusion that UCD is to blame? It seems to me that the parties who participated were Jannie Blackwell, John Fenton, the student, the Daily News, and perhaps Tom Knox. Well, we don't really _know_ what happened that day. As far as I can tell, all parties involved who've spoken on the matter have attested that Fenton and his crew were working a community event, not a Knox event: there has been no well-substantiated evidence that Fenton's people did anything for Knox directly. Faced with this accusation from the student, wouldn't any responsible employer have no choice but to launch a thorough investigation? And wouldn't they have to keep things private till they got to the bottom of it? Don't those of you calling for immediate answers understand that an employer has to protect his employees' rights? Would any of you want your employers updating the public about what you might or might not have done wrong, before your company had all of the facts? Do you think John Fenton wants that? The daily gossip sheet sent out by his coworkers? Are you considering the liability issues here, while you are demanding that the UCD give updates to the public? Not exactly, Melani. Yes, UCD had to investigate the allegations. But given Fenton's popularity, and the public nature of the allegations, the results of this investigation ought to be made known. What was determined? Did Fenton's crew actually _do_ anything for Knox's campaign directly? If so, then was this an honest mistake-- as I said, Fenton would've been caught between UCD's restrictions, his desire to help people out, and the prospect of pissing off Blackwell. Only then can we adequately evaluate what's been decided. Right now, without UCD's investigators making the facts known, it really looks as though they're being very cowardly, and letting a good man go because of an unsubstantiated allegation. I can't see how this helps anything. After all, if UCD would do this to a real asset like John Fenton, then why would anyone want to work for them? I'd like to know who _did_ the investigating, and who made the astoundingly, amazingly boneheaded decision to get rid of John Fenton. One positive outcome might be to remove such incompetents from whatever positions they have. I'll be the first to agree with you on your other points-- that several people are enjoying this spectacle, and Fenton's crash-and-burn has given them an issue they can flog. But this really doesn't reflect well on UCD at all. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Reality check
You know, Glenn MAYBE he did NOT because he works with and trusts the judgment of those who would make the area over in his view. Someone else suggested that those of us who wanted the area improved should get the backing of those with deep pockets. That is ³ex-AC-tly,² what we thought we were doing when our folks were dealing with Penn, and the leading ³Community Associations² as long-time residents The community associations engaged those persons of color because trusted and helped them go to where THEY felt uncomfortable going. Those residents had respect and long-term history and credibility. They finally saw their ship. come in On 6/8/07 8:32 AM, Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look at what West suggests: But to bash it for steps it was virtually compelled to take ... that strikes me as unfair and stupid. He is asserting according to this wanker manual that he made up, that UCD was compelled to immediately fire John Fenton and lock him out. West, did the manual require UCD to lie about a 2 week suspension? Does the wanker manual demand that they immediately impose a gag order on Mr. Fenton and bar him from talking to his former employees or anyone else? Here we go again with straw man: If you think it could have easily have done differently, cite a case in your experience where an employer, faced with a similarly explosive employee investigation, handled it better in your opinion. If you have no real-world knowledge how an agency has handled this differently, just say so. The time for bluster and baloney is over. Don't fake knowledge when a real man's livelihood is at stake. -- Tony West This fake knowledge, bluster and baloney, and when a real man's livelihood is at stake is just Wanker West's usual technique. Wanker now knows that Mr. Fenton was fired long ago and these accusations are both mean and absurd. Look at what he quotes from me to support this attack. Melani loves this kind of crap so I guess we will get one of those thank you Tony posts. Wank away dude! posts- Original Message - From: Anthony West mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [UC] Reality check That's right. That's normal. And that's standard. Which is not to say I like it. But that's standard operating procedure for management dismissals and suspension in corporate America these days. There's something close to a manual for it. The manager who doesn't follow the manual can be accused of malfeasance, as can his employer. This is not a manual I would ever have written; but there it is. It's one thing to bash UCD for things it might have done differently. But to bash it for steps it was virtually compelled to take ... that strikes me as unfair and stupid. If you think it could have easily have done differently, cite a case in your experience where an employer, faced with a similarly explosive employee investigation, handled it better in your opinion. If you have no real-world knowledge how an agency has handled this differently, just say so. The time for bluster and baloney is over. Don't fake knowledge when a real man's livelihood is at stake. -- Tony West Melani is trying to assert that those of us whom have been critical of UCD caused the harm to John Fenton while UCD is blameless. Folks, the reports we heard today suggest that John was barred almost immediately. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/837 - Release Date: 6/6/2007 2:03 PM
Re: [UC] What They're Really After [Was] which bad thing?
As have others heretofore. Melani explained it best. The original UC returnees tried to sustain The University City Special Services District with their patronage and donations, but they did not have enough. They ALSO tried to makeover the abandoned Firehouse at 50th Baltimore (using the surrounding community's indigence as a source of Local, State and Federal Funding) into a facsimile of the Manayunk Farmer's Market, Ardmore Market, etc.; even down to the point of having the City fund a Police Mini-Station next door to the Firehouse Market so shopping there would be feel safe. Without the backing and cooperation with the big guys, it would not have been possible for them to hold on with only their own money to create this institution that controls the economic and physical development of this community. They gave it a great effort, though. On 6/8/07 12:12 PM, KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] which bad thing? Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 06:32:41 EDT ... if Penn/UCD/Drexel/Campus Apts really want to push off some of the operating expense of the UCD on the residents/beneficiaries then they would, in the end, support our new community based and funded CID. (They would balk initially at the concept of losing control, but in the end it will accomplish what they're really after... I personally believe that what the institutions and the corporate landlords are really after is the power to control the direction of the neighborhood, and would indeed balk if a substitute that they did not control came into being. Your idea would put them to the test. Karen Allen You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps
Karen's response indirectly brings up an important point. The various territory-based community organizations (CPN, SHCA, FOCP, etc.) are at best partially representative of their constituencies. Not everyone who is eligible chooses to join these groups, for a variety of reasons. Not all the members participate in the groups' elections, nor do they always attend meetings, forums, and other deliberative and policy-related activities. By the time the board of a community organization selects one or more possible candidates for a seat at the UCD table, you've gotten several very large steps away from We The People making a choice as to who will represent them at that table. Of course, if it wasn't that way, we'd all be spending every waking and sleeping hour attending meetings, and nothing would get done... -Original Message- From: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 1:38 pm Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps From: Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: KAREN ALLEN [EMAIL PROTECTED],UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:20:50 -0400 I'm sorry Karen. One other question. You mentioned the discussion about better to have a seat at the table I find it odd but understandable. Was there any suggestion that UCD would deny you a seat at the table if you just gave them one CPN choice? If you can recall, why did CPN board members have that suspicion? Glenn The general understanding, both in the UCCC debate of the issue, and with CPN, was that we had to send three nominees. I don't know whether there was ever any explicit statement from UCD that sending one would result in denial, but that was definitely inferred from UCD's insistence to have three nominees. To answer your other question, it was the CPN Board, not the membership, who did then, and does now vote on issues concerning the organization. The membership elects the Board, and the Board, in turn, acts on the membership's behalf. So yes, the Board was making the decision to not send just one, to send three, and who the three would have been. Karen Allen You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
