Re: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa

[KAREN ALLEN]

I'm not going to respond to this point by point, but I will say a few 
things:



Al Krigman and folks who share his viewpoint have been working to
discredit the UCD in our eyes and the Councilwoman's eyes for several years 
now,

because they don't want to pay $7 per apartment per month or less for a
Business Improvement District.   It's that simple, actually.


Nothing is ever that simple.  First of all, I don't particularly like UCD.  
I don't like their top-down, arrogant, my-way-or-the-highway, 
we-know-what's-best-for-you-people administration. I have to thank Glenn for 
introducing me to  the term "astroturfing", or fake grass-roots, because 
that is basically UCD's operating strategy:  present a plan to the community 
fully formed, get us to buy into it, then palm it off as a community 
collaboration.


That was what was done with the NID:  UCD selected a steering committee full 
of people with major business connections to the University of Pennsylvania 
or UCD, who drafted the original NID plan with no input from anyone who 
represented the bulk of the people who would have to pay the tax.  All of 
this was done behind closed doors, and then UCD had those three meetings 
where they basically told everyone "this is what we're going to do, this is 
what you'll have to pay, and this is what we're going to do with the money". 
 Then they were genuinely shocked when no one bought it, and were openly 
hostile to it.


I have a problem with giving  UCD/Penn the power of taxation, and the right 
to dictate everything that goes on in the neighborhood.  But saying that, I 
don't wish UCD  any ill, and as long as they pick up trash or provide safety 
patrols, they're fine.  But I just don't happen to think that picking up 
trash automatically gives them the right to become an unelected, 
unaccountable quasi-government answerable only to the University of 
Pennsylvania, and some private deep pockets.  I don't care how they organize 
the NIDMA: I believe that the final result will be one that Penn and the big 
landlords will find a way of dominating.


I am not in favor of the NID because I am opposed to singling out a small 
portion of the neighborhood to pay for a service the entire neighborhood 
benefits from. I believe this was done because UCD knew that if everyone, 
including homeowners, had to pay, their objections would kill the proposal.  
And because numerically, homeowners, not big landlords and developers, would 
control the decisionmaking process.  By limiting the tax base to landlords, 
the corporate landlords could weed out the majority of those likely to 
object,  could  control the debate, and could control what projects the 
money could be spent on.


I also believe that once a NID or BID was the law, it would eventually be 
expanded to residents.  While this would require a change in the enabling 
legislation (would have to be presented to City Council again), the same 
pejoratives and labels ("frugal", "cheap" "the antis", etc) would then be 
applied to residents who objected.


This isn't about a few dollars' tax: it's about power:  the power to take 
and spend someone else's money, and the power of domination that that money 
can buy.


Karen Allen




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:06:43 EDT


In a message dated 6/26/07 11:34:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> as always, we need to be careful in public discourse to
> avoid resorting to ad hominem. the issue here is not about
> personalities or personal likes/dislikes but about public
> organizations and the public roles involved, about the
> public actions that were and were not taken while assuming
> those roles within those organizations, about public
> accountability. and in this case a man was suspended,
> publicly, and a seriouis rift of mistrust between ucd and
> blackwell's office, between ucd and the community, was
> deepened, publicly, under wendell's leadership. none of this
> happened as a result of ucd's director acting in a private
> or personal capacity.
>
Oh, Ray, I think it IS about personalities; it's almost TOTALLY about
personalities.   Al Krigman and folks who share his viewpoint have been 
working to
discredit the UCD in our eyes and the Councilwoman's eyes for several years 
now,

because they don't want to pay $7 per apartment per month or less for a
Business Improvement District.   It's that simple, actually.   Whenever the 
UCD
held a meeting to get feedback and information to help refine and finalize 
the
BID proposal, the antis shouted Lewis down and shouted BID supporters down, 
then
complained afterwards that supporters were allowed to speak at all! - 
thou

Re: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa, now simplicity

[MLamond]

In a message dated 6/26/07 2:26:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Simply... do not confuse my support of Lewis with support for a NID.
> 
> 
> No, I will not make that mistake; I agree that they are not at all the same.  
 

What worries me is that folks call for Lewis' and the current UCD's overthrow 
- changing "the mission, board and director of the UCD" - and point to 
opposition to the NID/BID to justify Lewis' removal.

The current flap was not about a NID or BID; it was a complex personnel issue 
within the UCD.   

I don't want to see the UCD destroyed to be sure that there will be no BID.   
PA BID law requires notification and the opportunity to oppose, by all who 
would be assessed, once a BID is introduced in City Council.   A BID cannot 
come 
into being without that democratic process.   There's no need to kill the 
UCD, to be sure of avoiding the BID.   And there's no need to force Lewis 
Wendell 
out for doing his job.

Melani




**
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

RE: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa

[Kyle Cassidy]

 
I'm down with that.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mario Giorno
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:16 PM


I second that emotion!


On 6/26/07, Mike V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Putting more feet on the street and reducing neighborhood crime
levels would be my #1.

 
- Mike V.



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa, now simplicity

[Elizabeth F Campion]

 
I long to own talent of the magnitudes exhibited by Ross, Ray, Frank,
Kyle and others.
I have to settle for sharing meals and reading (and sometimes buying)
examples of their art.
 
As someone who attended Catholic School for 12 years, I generally fault
my posts for being too simple.
I favor declarative statements and documentable facts.

Don't mistake length for complication.
I blame PENN for the length.
While pursuing a degree, too often length was weighted too heavily in
grading.
I get lots of off-list posts reminding me to edit.
I hope I improve in the area of brevity.
 
Simply... do not confuse my support of Lewis with support for a NID.
 
Personally, I stand to benefit from any program that cleans up after
other people.
But, my principles are against erecting a slippery slope that:
Taxes one segment of the population and not others
Discriminates by source of income and choice of 'work"
Decreases individual responsibility
Removes incentives and disincentives for neighborhood cooperation

Creates another layer of self funding bureaucracy
(like PPA that exists to ticket not resolve bad parking)
Might be a tool to promote the HD (truly evil, in MHO)
 
And so, I am not likely to make much noise for or against a BID, but
would be probably correct or protest any false, manipulative or even
simply naive representations.
 
Sorry, but I can't back BIDs.
I am willing to continue to do more than "My Share", and keep my
properties (and adjacent sidewalks and storm drains) clean and decorated
and also work to promote:
better use of the services that should be delivered based upon
our existing taxes
neighborhood cooperation, especially assistance to the elderly,
fragile and overwhelmed
tree planting and tending
self reliance
common sense solutions (like storm drain clearing) to snow and
water removal
expressions of gratitude to our many neighborhood volunteers 
(including Melani) when they make worthwhile
contributions.

 
Liz
 
 
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:58:32 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

In a message dated 6/26/07 1:55:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Simplicity is most notable by its absence.



Liz, when are your posts ever simple?  I think the notable thing here is
that, as often as you and I disagree, neither of us feels that calling
for Lewis Wendell's resignation is appropriate here.

That's simplicity!

Melani

Re: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa

[Mario Giorno]

I second that emotion!

On 6/26/07, Mike V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 Putting more feet on the street and reducing neighborhood crime levels
would be my #1.

- Mike V.

 -Original Message-
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Mario Giorno
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:07 PM
*To:* univcity@list.purple.com
*Subject:* Re: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa

Mike,

 Let me know what one requirement, if you were a landowner, you would
want UCD or a NID/BID to follow above all others. What major requirement
would you make of your local NID/BID?

Mario

On 6/26/07, Mike V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  So what can we ("we" being people opposed to the cranks and greedy
> landlords and other anti-BID forces) do?
>
> - Mike V.
>

RE: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa

[Mike V.]

Putting more feet on the street and reducing neighborhood crime levels
would be my #1.
 
- Mike V.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mario Giorno
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:07 PM
To: univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa


Mike,

 Let me know what one requirement, if you were a landowner, you
would want UCD or a NID/BID to follow above all others. What major
requirement would you make of your local NID/BID?

Mario


On 6/26/07, Mike V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

So what can we ("we" being people opposed to the cranks and greedy
landlords and other anti-BID forces) do?
 
- Mike V.

Re: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa

[Mario Giorno]

Mike,

Let me know what one requirement, if you were a landowner, you would
want UCD or a NID/BID to follow above all others. What major requirement
would you make of your local NID/BID?

Mario

On 6/26/07, Mike V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 So what can we ("we" being people opposed to the cranks and greedy
landlords and other anti-BID forces) do?

- Mike V.

Re: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa

[MLamond]

In a message dated 6/26/07 1:55:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Simplicity is most notable by its absence.
> 
> 
> Liz, when are your posts ever simple?   I think the notable thing here is 
that, as often as you and I disagree, neither of us feels that calling for 
Lewis 
Wendell's resignation is appropriate here.

That's simplicity!

Melani





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] UCD Related - Whoa

[MLamond]

In a message dated 6/26/07 1:51:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> So what can we ("we" being people opposed to the cranks and greedy 
> landlords and other anti-BID forces) do?
>   
>  - Mike V.
> 
> I don't know, Mike, but I'd certainly be interested in suggestions.

Melani



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] UCD Related - Whoa

[Elizabeth F Campion]

The triggering messages contain too much 'spin', and ongoing, unsupported
attack.
Simplicity is most notable by its absence.

It is outrageous to define Al's motives.

Neighbors should be able to agree to disagree, without being assigned to
some clique-du-jour (either in & out of favor).

For the record:
I have found Al to be both
thrifty and
extraordinarily generous 
(across a broad spectrum of causes and with all of
money, time, advice and housing.)

One of the things I've learned from Lewis Wendell is to notice how
"mean-spirited" some of the folks on this list (including at times me)
can be.
Hopefully he has helped me improve my self and posts.
Liz


On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:06:43 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... Al Krigman and folks who share his viewpoint have been working to
discredit the UCD in our eyes and the Councilwoman's eyes for several
years now, because they don't want to pay $7 per apartment per month or
less for a Business Improvement District.  It's that simple, actually. 
...

RE: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa

[Mike V.]

So what can we ("we" being people opposed to the cranks and greedy
landlords and other anti-BID forces) do?
 
- Mike V.

Re: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa

[MLamond]

In a message dated 6/26/07 11:34:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> as always, we need to be careful in public discourse to
> avoid resorting to ad hominem. the issue here is not about
> personalities or personal likes/dislikes but about public
> organizations and the public roles involved, about the
> public actions that were and were not taken while assuming
> those roles within those organizations, about public
> accountability. and in this case a man was suspended,
> publicly, and a seriouis rift of mistrust between ucd and
> blackwell's office, between ucd and the community, was
> deepened, publicly, under wendell's leadership. none of this
> happened as a result of ucd's director acting in a private
> or personal capacity.
> 
Oh, Ray, I think it IS about personalities; it's almost TOTALLY about 
personalities.   Al Krigman and folks who share his viewpoint have been working 
to 
discredit the UCD in our eyes and the Councilwoman's eyes for several years 
now, 
because they don't want to pay $7 per apartment per month or less for a 
Business Improvement District.   It's that simple, actually.   Whenever the UCD 
held a meeting to get feedback and information to help refine and finalize the 
BID proposal, the antis shouted Lewis down and shouted BID supporters down, 
then 
complained afterwards that supporters were allowed to speak at all! - though 
they took to the podium one after another chanting NO NID!, made grossly 
misleading statements, and offered no suggestions or circumstances in which 
they'd 
be willing to pay anything at all.   They booed supporters.   They didn't LET 
UCD collect helpful feedback at public meetings.   Consequently, UCD was not 
able to hold the kind of productive, "win-win" meetings that the Councilwoman 
and most of the rest of us would have liked to see.   How many times do you 
open the doors and provide a setting for the same few people to come in and 
shout 
at you, before you realize that that isn't going to help finalize the details 
of a project?   To their credit, other individuals who liked the concept but 
not all of the details quietly provided helpful suggestions to the UCD, and 
those have been worked into the BID proposal as much as possible.

But the antis have found very effective ways to inflame and divide:   for 
example, Al Krigman repeatedly blames UCD for business failures, though he 
knows 
none of the ACTUAL reasons - things no one knew in advance, which doomed a 
couple of small entrepreneurs to failure, such as unrealistic cash flow 
expectations, family disruptions, fluctuating business hours.   These are not 
the fault 
of the UCD!   But the reasons for failures don't matter to Al!   He and other 
antis have found a foolproof way to accuse:   always accuse UCD of something 
where it's impossible to respond without publicizing the private, personal 
details of individuals' relationships and lives.   And then, when they don't 
respond, accuse them of not responding, too!   UCD is the honorable party here, 
in 
that they did NOT rise to the bait and "tell all" in situations where they 
would hurt individuals and businesses.   So, the antis continue, relentless.   
And Lewis Wendell still has not risen to the bait and given private 
information, if he has any, about John Fenton.   That is to his credit.   It 
must be hard 
to remain silent when being unjustly accused.

> 
> as ucd's director, wendell has had years to strengthen and
> improve the relationship between ucd and blackwell, between
> ucd and the community. and he has had over a month to
> account, publicly, for the suspension of john fenton.
> 
Lewis arrived at the UCD barely two years ago, after the Councilwoman 
disagreed with both of his predecessors, and now she disagrees with Lewis as 
well.   
Is this his failure, or are there other forces at work?   For example, the 
Councilwoman does not appear to agree with Michael Nutter (this isn't an insult 
to anyone; you can check their voting records in City Council).is it 
personal, for which someone might assign one or both of them blame?   Or 
political, 
in which case it's a disagreement as old as the hills?   If it's political, 
how can any director remain true to the mission for which s/he's been hired, 
yet 
change the Councilwoman's perspective?
> 
> so long as wendell remains the head of ucd and bears
> responsibility for fenton's suspension, the rift with
> blackwell, the community's mistrust, the damage to ucd and
> to penn, ucd's ability to move forward will be compromised,
> and it will be impossible for ucd to work credibly with
> other organizations (blackwell's office, penn, neighborhood
> associations).
> 
I think it's pretty clear that when this incident was reported in the Daily 
News, whether John Fenton was suspended or not, there would have been folks 
with ulterior motives who would have attacked the UCD and any director in that 
job at this moment.   And there would surely have been attacks if "he said/ she 
s

RE: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa [clarification]

[Kyle Cassidy]

 
It's been pointed out to me off list that Al might not have actually
asked people to "consider joining a group complaint" rather he provided
information "for those interested in ... joining a group complaint" in
reaction to UCD using its resources on behalf of a political campaign,
and my statement may have been amiss -- so I'll just reprint what I was
thinking of and let people decide for themselves what he meant. Perhaps
I should have worded it "Al threatened to file a complaint with the IRS
_individually_ and provided information for others wishing to file their
own or join in a group complaint":



June 2, 2007

UCD continues to be less than forthcoming about the "internal
investigation" 
of its violation of the laws under which it operates as a  tax-exempt 
organization. Namely through the use of its resources on behalf of a
political 
candidate in the recent mayoral primary.
 
Those of us who question the NID proposal by UCD, which includes UCD's  
management of what amounts to a QUANGO in the event it does happen to be

formed, have been holding back on filing complaints with the IRS
questioning UCD's  
tax-exempt status.
 
...
 
In preparation for what might happen if UCD continues to stonewall,
those  
interested in filing complaints or joining in a group complaint might
want to  
read 
 
"IRS Treatment of third-party information relating to tax-exempt  
organizations" -- _Click  here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/fs-02-10.pdf_ 
(http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/fs-02-10.pdf)  
 

Al  Krigman
Left of Ivan Grozny




[whole post here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/univcity@list.purple.com/msg17302.html]


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa

[Brian Siano]

UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote:
as always, we need to be careful in public discourse to avoid 
resorting to ad hominem. the issue here is not about personalities or 
personal likes/dislikes but about public organizations and the public 
roles involved, about the public actions that were and were not taken 
while assuming those roles within those organizations, about public 
accountability. and in this case a man was suspended, publicly, and a 
seriouis rift of mistrust between ucd and blackwell's office, between 
ucd and the community, was deepened, publicly, under wendell's 
leadership. none of this happened as a result of ucd's director acting 
in a private or personal capacity. 
I was upset about UCD's handling of this, initially, but for one 
problem. What UCD did is _standard procedure_ for many such 
organizations. It's not _nice_, and it's not fair to Fenton. But it is, 
in many corporate organizations, SOP.


UCD was handed allegations that one of its employees had done something 
that-- if true-- would have endangered UCD's status as a 501(c)3 
organization. The allegations were, at the time, widely circulated, and 
given credence by many in the community. UCD _had_ to investigate this 
for any number of reasons-- and make their results known to a very 
contentious community.


They had to determine if the allegations were true or not, to begin 
with. (And if they found that they _weren't_ true, they'd have to show 
that they weren't just whitewashing themselves.) If the allegations 
_were_ true, they'd have to determine a lot of other things. Was this a 
one-time-only violation? Was this a failure of existing policies? Was 
the employee aware of the violation? Alla that. In other words, where 
did the fault lie, and what should be done about it?


So why is suspending the employee with pay SOP in such situations? 
Because such situations aren't always about John Fenton and this 
particular allegation. Employees may be investigated for such things as 
misrepresenting themselves or their company, or engaging in irregular 
bookkeeping procedures, or stealing or destroying sensitive documents. 
Internal investigations frequently require isolating people who are 
suspected of wrongdoing.


It's not nice. Yes, people begin to suspect the person even more when 
he's been suspended. It's never fun to be investigated, and you feel 
_violated_ if your company does this to you. And we all think the world 
of John Fenton, who is a genuinely good guy who's done a lot for us. But 
UCD did what hundreds of other organizations would do in this situation. 
It's crummy, but it's nowhere near as _wrong_ as people claim.


UCD was caught in a tough situation. If they didn't make an attempt at 
an internal investigation, they'd be accused of covering up or 
whitewashing the incident. If they did investigate, and exonerated 
Fenton, they'd be accused of covering up or whitewashing the incident. 
If they found that Fenton _did_ go out of bounds... well, if they let 
him off with a warning, they'd be accused of covering up or whitewashing 
the incident. And if they _did_ fire him over this, they'd get slammed 
for being mean and evil, and throwing away their best asset, and of 
being out of touch with the community, and there'd be calls for Lewis 
Wendell to resign, and...




(GodDAMNit. I wrote all of the above, refreshed my email... and saw that 
Kyle's written pretty much the same thing.)








You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa

[Kyle Cassidy]

I'm one of the biggest John Fenton supporters on this list -- but I
really don't see what option UCD had. There were:

1) Serious allegations about UCD and a political campaign that were
printed in the media
2) People _on this list_ so outraged by it that they were threatening to
call for a government investigation -- Al, in fact, asked people to
consider joining in a group complaint to the IRS on the "use of [UCD]'s
resrouces on behalf of a political candidate"

I think that if UCD had done nothing, there would have been several
people here screaming that Lewis was whitewashing illegal activities,
that crimes were being committed and nothing was being done.  

I think UCD's biggest deficiency here has been in not releasing any
updates about the investigation -- even if to say "the investigation is
proceeding" -- I've heard wild rumors on the street, but I've heard very
little from actual sources. Why, for example, has no one interviewed the
two students? This could have been cleared up in a day I think if
someone asked them specific questions about what they did that day, in
light of the councilwoman's explanation that there was a day-long
neighborhood rally which she and tom knox stopped at for fifteen
minutes. Did they put up campaign signs? Or did they cut grass? 

In the face of the allegations on the news I think suspension with pay
during the investigation was the best way for UCD to protect themselves
from accusations of whitewashing. What puzzles me is that the
investigation took so long and that so little information has come out. 

So I'll ask, since you're suggesting Lewis should no longer run UCD
because of his suspension of John, _how should_ have UCD met the
accusations and avoided charges of covering up, ignoring, or
whitewashing a misuse of funds?


Kc

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN

>and in this case a man was suspended, publicly, and a seriouis rift of
mistrust between 
>ucd and blackwell's office, between ucd and the community, was
deepened, publicly, under 
>wendell's leadership. none of this happened as a result of ucd's
director acting in a 
>private or personal capacity.

as ucd's director, wendell has had years to strengthen and improve the
relationship between ucd and blackwell, between ucd and the community.
and he has had over a month to account, publicly, for the suspension of
john fenton.

so long as wendell remains the head of ucd and bears responsibility for
fenton's suspension, the rift with blackwell, the community's mistrust,
the damage to ucd and to penn, ucd's ability to move forward will be
compromised, and it will be impossible for ucd to work credibly with
other organizations (blackwell's office, penn, neighborhood
associations).

no one is perfect, but it must be remembered that wendell the private
man can, as ever, continue to work personally with any of these
agencies, just like the rest of us.


..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
[aka laserbeam(r)]
[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












































__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named
"UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] UCD Related - Whoa

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

Elizabeth F Campion wrote:
 
I think Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell made a mistake when she backed Knox.
IMHO she gets things right more often than she gets things wrong, and 
she keeps my vote and admiration.
 
John Fenton may (or may not) have put work effort and UCD resources into 
a political rally.
IMHO there should have been clear, written policies and procedures; less 
jumping to conclusions and resounding support (and a second chance even 
if 'guilty') for a guy who gets more things right than wrong.

I am glad he landed on his feet, working on behalf of our neighborhood
 
Lewis Wendell may (or may not) have rushed to judgement on John.
IMHO he is another good neighbor and hard worker who should be given the 
chance to learn from the events of recent days.
I do not want another rush to judgement, especially in the absence of 
clear evidence and the presence of too much emotion.
IMHO Lewis is someone who has gotten a lot right and who deserves a fair 
hearing and another chance.
 
I think Craig is absolutely correct: “In business, as in sports, you 
always go for the very best talent available, even if it is not local”.
With the caveat that the current 'player' be considered as to whether or 
not he may be the best available.
 
Another good aphorism, is "fix only the broken".

IMHO it is UCD, not the director, that needs to be fixed.
Like Al, I'd like to see an SSD emerge that gets back to the basics of 
"clean and safe" and drops the marketing, development, and social 
engineering roles that make it unpopular with me and many other neighbors.
I want it to serve the neighbors of the neighborhood, not trample our 
culture and replace it with something artificially bright.
Also, like Al, I want our SSD to operate in a transparent manner -- both 
functionally and fiscally.
 
 
No one is perfect.

I have few happy thoughts of JOHN FRYE, and feel a sense of good riddance.
I am only moderately sorry he fell up (are F&M and the suburbs "up"?).
 
I have many good memories of hard and effective work by

DL WORMLEY
PAUL STEINKE and
LEWIS WENDELL.
It is easy to forgive and feel grateful to each for the maintenance and 
progress driven by their efforts.
I am not prepared to see Lewis sacrificed to the current passion for 
vengeance or perceived opportunity.
I hope that among the scenarios being considered are all the possible 
consequences of the costs &/or benefits of a change at the helm of UCD.

My preference, at least for now, is healing with LW in place.



as always, we need to be careful in public discourse to 
avoid resorting to ad hominem. the issue here is not about 
personalities or personal likes/dislikes but about public 
organizations and the public roles involved, about the 
public actions that were and were not taken while assuming 
those roles within those organizations, about public 
accountability. and in this case a man was suspended, 
publicly, and a seriouis rift of mistrust between ucd and 
blackwell's office, between ucd and the community, was 
deepened, publicly, under wendell's leadership. none of this 
happened as a result of ucd's director acting in a private 
or personal capacity.


as ucd's director, wendell has had years to strengthen and 
improve the relationship between ucd and blackwell, between 
ucd and the community. and he has had over a month to 
account, publicly, for the suspension of john fenton.


so long as wendell remains the head of ucd and bears 
responsibility for fenton's suspension, the rift with 
blackwell, the community's mistrust, the damage to ucd and 
to penn, ucd's ability to move forward will be compromised, 
and it will be impossible for ucd to work credibly with 
other organizations (blackwell's office, penn, neighborhood 
associations).


no one is perfect, but it must be remembered that wendell 
the private man can, as ever, continue to work personally 
with any of these agencies, just like the rest of us.



..
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












































__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

[UC] UCD Related - Whoa

[Elizabeth F Campion]

I think Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell made a mistake when she backed
Knox.
IMHO she gets things right more often than she gets things wrong, and she
keeps my vote and admiration.

John Fenton may (or may not) have put work effort and UCD resources into
a political rally.
IMHO there should have been clear, written policies and procedures; less
jumping to conclusions and resounding support (and a second chance even
if 'guilty') for a guy who gets more things right than wrong.
I am glad he landed on his feet, working on behalf of our neighborhood

Lewis Wendell may (or may not) have rushed to judgement on John.
IMHO he is another good neighbor and hard worker who should be given the
chance to learn from the events of recent days.
I do not want another rush to judgement, especially in the absence of
clear evidence and the presence of too much emotion.
IMHO Lewis is someone who has gotten a lot right and who deserves a fair
hearing and another chance.

I think Craig is absolutely correct: “In business, as in sports, you
always go for the very best talent available, even if it is not local”.
With the caveat that the current 'player' be considered as to whether or
not he may be the best available.

Another good aphorism, is "fix only the broken".
IMHO it is UCD, not the director, that needs to be fixed.
Like Al, I'd like to see an SSD emerge that gets back to the basics of
"clean and safe" and drops the marketing, development, and social
engineering roles that make it unpopular with me and many other
neighbors.
I want it to serve the neighbors of the neighborhood, not trample our
culture and replace it with something artificially bright.
Also, like Al, I want our SSD to operate in a transparent manner -- both
functionally and fiscally.


No one is perfect.
I have few happy thoughts of JOHN FRYE, and feel a sense of good
riddance.
I am only moderately sorry he fell up (are F&M and the suburbs "up"?).

I have many good memories of hard and effective work by
DL WORMLEY
PAUL STEINKE and
LEWIS WENDELL.
It is easy to forgive and feel grateful to each for the maintenance and
progress driven by their efforts.
I am not prepared to see Lewis sacrificed to the current passion for
vengeance or perceived opportunity.
I hope that among the scenarios being considered are all the possible
consequences of the costs &/or benefits of a change at the helm of UCD.
My preference, at least for now, is healing with LW in place.


Best!
Liz