but notice how these 4 buckets evaluate the game-playing
itself, and not the items in the budget.
The moderators focus the group on the game-playing and not any serious
discussion. If citizens engage in any discussion, they get a very low point
total and prove that budget decisions and priorities must be determined by
highly paid consultants and experts.
As WHYY reported from the first night, group 7 only got 26 points, and so those
citizens let the city go bankrupt.
To get a higher point total, citizens must focus on dumbed down emotional sound
bites. Individuals need to deliver a zinger and then the trained moderators
call a vote. To score points, 75% of the group must vote to put the points in
a bucket.
So the data for individual service cuts and regressive taxes gained from this
game, measures the effectivness of excited game players and popular sound
bites. (Praxis provided only frightening choices for common citizens, as the
only possible options. Corporate welfare, of course, is to be increased during
this financial crisis.)
It is a disgraceful condescending exercise to put serious citizens through when
they show up in good faith! WHYY broadcast part of my interview. I said that
we were being treated like third graders. We were supposed to make those
noices, oh-oh, when we wanted the moderator to call on us for a sound bite
zinger.
Penn/Nutter need to be shamed for engaging this game to silence the massive
public dissent of their grab for power using crisis capitalism! How low has
the graduate school of education sunk to allow this charade of civic engagement
to be done in their name?
Glenn, a citizen
-Original Message-
From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN laserb...@speedymail.org
Sent: Feb 21, 2009 10:48 AM
To: univcity Univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] The Praxis 100 point game
Glenn moyer wrote:
Four categories are set-up to assign the points for the predetermined and
outrageous list of cuts, “low hanging fruit� and “No way, no how�
are the first two.
gut-wrenching and shared pain are the other two buckets.
but notice how these 4 buckets evaluate the game-playing
itself, and not the items in the budget.
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/node/732
In small working groups, citizens reviewed list of budget
cuts and revenue options the PPCE [Penn Project for Civic Engagement]
constructed from the
city’s budget scenarios. Working first as individuals, then
as a group, citizens prioritized ways to close the budget
gap by placing them into four buckets — Low-Hanging Fruit,
No Ways No Hows, Shared Pain, and Gut Wrenchers.
“Low-Hanging Fruit” means those options that are immediate
winners, that generate a quick consensus. “No Ways No
Hows” represent the immediate losers, or those choices
citizens believe to be off the table. “The Shared Pain”
bucket contains those options that are unpleasant and
unpopular, but that they feel would be acceptable. “Gut
Wrenchers” are those choices that no one wants to make but
they recognize as what needs to be done to help the city as
a whole.
- - - -
there has been feedback about how this process
pre-determines outcomes [feedback that doesn't appear on
penn's site]:
http://whyy.org/blogs/itsourcity/2009/02/18/structure-of-budget-workshop-left-many-frustrated/
Take Northeast resident Jim Curran who started his work
session with a friendly grilling of City Councilman Bill
GreenBut it wasn’t long before Curran was up and out.
“This is all putting us down a cattle shoot - the questions
have already been prepared,” he said of the workshop design.
“It’s too pat, it’s all too pat. You should put this in the
paper or something so we can study ahead of time.”
And Curran wasn’t alone. I saw others leave their workshops
in similar frustration. One was Stan Strez, 65, of
Bridesburg His gripe? “This is ridiculous. Cutting jobs
on the police force? There’s gonna be so much crime its
ridiculous.” Later he explained a bit more, “They’re not
including everything [in the budget scenarios]. And not just
that, they’re not addressing what the real problem is coming
from.”...
Like Jack Morley, 46, of South Philadelphia. “They defined
the format and the structure on how the public was giving
input, and that hamstrung us,” he said of his group, which
only made it half way to its goal
[online post by Jeannine]: There may also be serious
consequences for cutting instead of taking deeper
consideration of alternatives. Putting a mostly same-old,
same-old, cut-til-it-bleeds scenario to a largely naive but
motivated public felt like a bloody disservice to us all.
etc.
..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
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
