RE: [UC] UCD Related

[Turner,Kathleen]

I'm thinking we've found a new variation of Godwin's Law?



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Mike V.
Sent: Tue 6/26/2007 4:59 PM
To: 'Kirk Wattles'; 'UC List'
Subject: RE: [UC] UCD Related



Are you... are you serious?  Is this for real?

- Mike V.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kirk Wattles
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:50 PM
To: UC List
Subject: Re: [UC] UCD Related


The principle that UCD is, ultimately, accountable (only) to its
funders is fine until you think about it for a moment.

That's the same rationale as for a private militia, like in Lebanon.

So where do we draw the line between UCD and Hezbollah?

Obviously (!) there are differences, but these differences tend to fade
when people insist that an organization that operates in a specific
geographical space is responsible only to its supporters, and not to
others living in the same space.

That's why we have government, and processes for putting people in
government and holding them accountable.  I don't think it so strange
that people on this list want to apply some of those principles
(representation, transparency, accountability, etc.) to how UCD is run.

On Jun 26, 2007, at 12:25 PM, Kyle Cassidy wrote:

> that ultimately UCD is accountable to it's funders. At the moment,
> that's not "us". I agree that if "we" want to control the direction of

> UCD, then
> "we" need to be the ones paying for it.  [...]  UCD's a democracy of
> it's funders, it's just a question if we want to pony up what it takes

> to be part of the shareholders club.


> When you're paying the guy, you get to tell the guy what to do.

I think it was Anthony West who was stressing that principle in some of
his exchanges with Ray a few weeks ago.

--
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>.


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] UCD Related - Earthlink

[Craigsolve]

 
In a message dated 6/26/2007 5:53:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

You  crack me up! That's it. your nickname from now on is Earthlink. Whenever 
I  mention you on the list, it will by this new  monicker.




Disconnect his Link; let's see where he  goes.




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

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[Mario Giorno]

Tony (or should I say, "Earthlink"),

You crack me up! That's it. your nickname from now on is Earthlink.
Whenever I mention you on the list, it will by this new monicker.

On 6/26/07, Earthlink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 How the crap did I turn into "Earthlink" on my own incoming email, simply
because I switched my email account to Earthlink today? It's really
unpleasant to get an email from yourself in which you call yourself
"Earthlink," even though you aren't. You know what I mean: the name in the
"From" box.

My god ... does this mean I too have been coopted?

-- Tony West

- Original Message -

*From:* Earthlink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* UnivCity@list.purple.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:59 PM
*Subject:* Re: [UC] UCD Related

I must correct this proposition, which cannot be entirely true as it
stands.

Anyone who shows up at a First Thursday meeting will meet representatives
from three dozen agencies and associations that provide all sorts of
services to all sorts of West Philadelphians. That's not "a few local
groups." Penn tries to funnel a broad spectrum of resources to all these
groups, whose issues range from public safety, health, education and social
services to culture and neighborhood planning ... they are far too diverse
to pigeonhole.

These groups are eager to partner with Penn; that is, they are always
hopeful the largest economic and professional engine in their part of town
can contribute something constructive to their communities. But it is
ludicrous to describe them as "coopted." If they were, indeed, coopted,
why did they, by and large, offer Penn so little support at the last First
Thursday meeting over the Fenton issue?

It is normal for business partners to display some courtesy to each other
when they are engaged in a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship, even
if there are divergences of opinion at times. For reasons like these, senior
KRF Apt. managers refrain from spray-painting comments like "Yuppie JAP
Snob!" on their Penn-affiliated tenants' windows, even after acrimonious
disputes over rental service. That doesn't mean KRF has been "coopted" by
Penn; it is simply trying to be courteous and productive. Permit, then,
other community institutions to relate to Penn with equal professionalism.

It would be far more helpful, in my opinion, if critics of a particular
community group's relationship with Penn would focus on that particular
group and its particular inadequacies. If it is doing something wrong with
Penn, spell out for all of us exactly what is wrong with what that group is
doing. In other words: name names and cite facts. Ther may be a couple of
"local groups" that have been unhealthily "coopted" by Penn. I don't work
closely with any group that has been so coopted, but I'm willing to believe
they exist. Which are they, and what shows they were coopted, i.e.,
persuaded to do something most people around here don't like, simply because
Penn liked it?

-- Tony West

And the reason why transparency and participation should be the modus
operandi is that Penn keeps touting its "partnership with the community" as
if we're all in it together. The unpleasant reality is that Penn does what
it pleases -- and co-opts a few local groups so it can make believe it has a
partnership going.

Always at your service & ready for a dialog,
Al Krigman

Re: [UC] UCD Related - Hezbollah, private militias? OMG!

[Craigsolve]

 
In a message dated 6/26/2007 5:26:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Yes, I'm  serious.  I'm not saying that UCD *is* Hezbollah, but that if 
you  follow the logic of what some people are saying about who gets to  
determine what UCD is and does, it could go that way -- and who could  
say any different?  Only by bringing in some of the other principles  
can we have something to brake that tendency.

But maybe Hezbollah  isn't the best example.  I'm remembering twenty 
years ago when the  private militia were just getting more active in 
Lebanon.  Hezbollah  is an outgrowth of that period, and now of course 
they are now in  government, and there are some checks and balances -- 
but barely.   Last summer we saw an example of that one organization 
carrying on its own  war, basically, without bearing responsibility to 
the wider  community.



I find your analogy, for its ability to polarize, stunningly  inappropriate.
 
If traditional modeling for insurgentcy  organizing tactics are to be 
applied, the insurgents would more  appropriately be The Anti-BID Party, who 
have yet 
to be awarded any seats from  which to affect policy at the UCD's table of 
power.
 
Power to the People!
 
Craig
Anti-BIDer's




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

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[Kirk Wattles]

The principle that UCD is, ultimately, accountable (only) to its 
funders is fine until you think about it for a moment.


That's the same rationale as for a private militia, like in Lebanon.

So where do we draw the line between UCD and Hezbollah?

Obviously (!) there are differences, but these differences tend to fade 
when people insist that an organization that operates in a specific 
geographical space is responsible only to its supporters, and not to 
others living in the same space.


That's why we have government, and processes for putting people in 
government and holding them accountable.  I don't think it so strange 
that people on this list want to apply some of those principles 
(representation, transparency, accountability, etc.) to how UCD is run.


On Jun 26, 2007, at 12:25 PM, Kyle Cassidy wrote:

that ultimately UCD is accountable to it's funders. At the moment, 
that's not "us". I agree that if "we" want to control the direction of 
UCD, then
"we" need to be the ones paying for it.  [...]  UCD's a democracy of 
it's funders, it's just a question if we want to pony up what it takes 
to be part of the shareholders club.




When you're paying the guy, you get to tell the guy what to do.


I think it was Anthony West who was stressing that principle in some of 
his exchanges with Ray a few weeks ago.


--
Kirk Wattles
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



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

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[Earthlink]

How the crap did I turn into "Earthlink" on my own incoming email, simply 
because I switched my email account to Earthlink today? It's really unpleasant 
to get an email from yourself in which you call yourself "Earthlink," even 
though you aren't. You know what I mean: the name in the "From" box.

My god ... does this mean I too have been coopted?

-- Tony West

- Original Message - 
  From: Earthlink 
  To: UnivCity@list.purple.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [UC] UCD Related


  I must correct this proposition, which cannot be entirely true as it stands.

  Anyone who shows up at a First Thursday meeting will meet representatives 
from three dozen agencies and associations that provide all sorts of services 
to all sorts of West Philadelphians. That's not "a few local groups." Penn 
tries to funnel a broad spectrum of resources to all these groups, whose issues 
range from public safety, health, education and social services to culture and 
neighborhood planning ... they are far too diverse to pigeonhole.

  These groups are eager to partner with Penn; that is, they are always hopeful 
the largest economic and professional engine in their part of town can 
contribute something constructive to their communities. But it is ludicrous to 
describe them as "coopted." If they were, indeed, coopted, why did they, by and 
large, offer Penn so little support at the last First Thursday meeting over the 
Fenton issue?

  It is normal for business partners to display some courtesy to each other 
when they are engaged in a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship, even if 
there are divergences of opinion at times. For reasons like these, senior KRF 
Apt. managers refrain from spray-painting comments like "Yuppie JAP Snob!" on 
their Penn-affiliated tenants' windows, even after acrimonious disputes over 
rental service. That doesn't mean KRF has been "coopted" by Penn; it is simply 
trying to be courteous and productive. Permit, then, other community 
institutions to relate to Penn with equal professionalism.

  It would be far more helpful, in my opinion, if critics of a particular 
community group's relationship with Penn would focus on that particular group 
and its particular inadequacies. If it is doing something wrong with Penn, 
spell out for all of us exactly what is wrong with what that group is doing. In 
other words: name names and cite facts. Ther may be a couple of "local groups" 
that have been unhealthily "coopted" by Penn. I don't work closely with any 
group that has been so coopted, but I'm willing to believe they exist. Which 
are they, and what shows they were coopted, i.e., persuaded to do something 
most people around here don't like, simply because Penn liked it?

  -- Tony West
And the reason why transparency and participation should be the modus 
operandi is that Penn keeps touting its "partnership with the community" as if 
we're all in it together. The unpleasant reality is that Penn does what it 
pleases -- and co-opts a few local groups so it can make believe it has a 
partnership going.

Always at your service & ready for a dialog,
Al Krigman

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[Kirk Wattles]

Yes, I'm serious.  I'm not saying that UCD *is* Hezbollah, but that if 
you follow the logic of what some people are saying about who gets to 
determine what UCD is and does, it could go that way -- and who could 
say any different?  Only by bringing in some of the other principles 
can we have something to brake that tendency.


But maybe Hezbollah isn't the best example.  I'm remembering twenty 
years ago when the private militia were just getting more active in 
Lebanon.  Hezbollah is an outgrowth of that period, and now of course 
they are now in government, and there are some checks and balances -- 
but barely.  Last summer we saw an example of that one organization 
carrying on its own war, basically, without bearing responsibility to 
the wider community.


- Kirk

On Jun 26, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Mike V. wrote:


Are you... are you serious?  Is this for real?

- Mike V.

-Original Message-
On Behalf Of Kirk Wattles

So where do we draw the line between UCD and Hezbollah?


It's not just a rhetorical question.  Maybe that's how you 
misunderstand me.


Where, in principle and in practice, do we draw the line?  At what 
point do other principles become valid?


UCD does benefit our community, I think most would agree, but if 
they're really only responsible to private interests then whether or 
not we approve is only incidental.  So I conclude that really they 
*are* and *must be* responsible to the wider community, and then it 
becomes a question of how does the community participate effectively in 
that broader process.


--
Kirk Wattles
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



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

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[Earthlink]

I must correct this proposition, which cannot be entirely true as it stands.

Anyone who shows up at a First Thursday meeting will meet representatives from 
three dozen agencies and associations that provide all sorts of services to all 
sorts of West Philadelphians. That's not "a few local groups." Penn tries to 
funnel a broad spectrum of resources to all these groups, whose issues range 
from public safety, health, education and social services to culture and 
neighborhood planning ... they are far too diverse to pigeonhole.

These groups are eager to partner with Penn; that is, they are always hopeful 
the largest economic and professional engine in their part of town can 
contribute something constructive to their communities. But it is ludicrous to 
describe them as "coopted." If they were, indeed, coopted, why did they, by and 
large, offer Penn so little support at the last First Thursday meeting over the 
Fenton issue?

It is normal for business partners to display some courtesy to each other when 
they are engaged in a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship, even if 
there are divergences of opinion at times. For reasons like these, senior KRF 
Apt. managers refrain from spray-painting comments like "Yuppie JAP Snob!" on 
their Penn-affiliated tenants' windows, even after acrimonious disputes over 
rental service. That doesn't mean KRF has been "coopted" by Penn; it is simply 
trying to be courteous and productive. Permit, then, other community 
institutions to relate to Penn with equal professionalism.

It would be far more helpful, in my opinion, if critics of a particular 
community group's relationship with Penn would focus on that particular group 
and its particular inadequacies. If it is doing something wrong with Penn, 
spell out for all of us exactly what is wrong with what that group is doing. In 
other words: name names and cite facts. Ther may be a couple of "local groups" 
that have been unhealthily "coopted" by Penn. I don't work closely with any 
group that has been so coopted, but I'm willing to believe they exist. Which 
are they, and what shows they were coopted, i.e., persuaded to do something 
most people around here don't like, simply because Penn liked it?

-- Tony West
  And the reason why transparency and participation should be the modus 
operandi is that Penn keeps touting its "partnership with the community" as if 
we're all in it together. The unpleasant reality is that Penn does what it 
pleases -- and co-opts a few local groups so it can make believe it has a 
partnership going.

  Always at your service & ready for a dialog,
  Al Krigman

RE: [UC] UCD Related

[Mike V.]

Are you... are you serious?  Is this for real?

- Mike V.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kirk Wattles
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:50 PM
To: UC List
Subject: Re: [UC] UCD Related


The principle that UCD is, ultimately, accountable (only) to its 
funders is fine until you think about it for a moment.

That's the same rationale as for a private militia, like in Lebanon.

So where do we draw the line between UCD and Hezbollah?

Obviously (!) there are differences, but these differences tend to fade 
when people insist that an organization that operates in a specific 
geographical space is responsible only to its supporters, and not to 
others living in the same space.

That's why we have government, and processes for putting people in 
government and holding them accountable.  I don't think it so strange 
that people on this list want to apply some of those principles 
(representation, transparency, accountability, etc.) to how UCD is run.

On Jun 26, 2007, at 12:25 PM, Kyle Cassidy wrote:

> that ultimately UCD is accountable to it's funders. At the moment,
> that's not "us". I agree that if "we" want to control the direction of

> UCD, then
> "we" need to be the ones paying for it.  [...]  UCD's a democracy of 
> it's funders, it's just a question if we want to pony up what it takes

> to be part of the shareholders club.


> When you're paying the guy, you get to tell the guy what to do.

I think it was Anthony West who was stressing that principle in some of 
his exchanges with Ray a few weeks ago.

--
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>.


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] UCD Related

[Jeremy Leipzig]

speaking of D.L. Wormley, does anyone have her work email address? if  
so, please email it to me - I have a couple of housing questions  
relevant to her time at Penn.



(D.L. Wormley used to run things like this. Great idea.)



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

[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

[Brian Siano]

Mario Giorno wrote:

Folks,

 I will reiterate my request at the end of my last post on this 
thread. If there were on concession or stipulation above all others 
that you would require from the UCD before we gave them NID status, 
what would it be. If we want to actually create a NID, we need to 
compromise with the UCD staff and steering committee on what specific 
work it will do, how it will carry out this work and what overriding 
guidelines, rules or best practices you want the institution to follow.

Here's a few, without much thought behind them;

1. Crime.
   Not that we're a crime-riddled shithole, but crime is almost always 
our first concern. So I'd want there to be adequate police presence in 
the neighborhood, along with open public reporting on crimes and trends 
of crime in the neighborhood. I don't think this is a particularly 
original demand, so I'll leave it at that.


2. Physical Plant and Maintenance.
   This is actually a big area. There's trash pickup, of course, which 
everyone wants. But in a sense, that's a status quo job; it doesn't 
require changing things in a big way. I'd want to see planning for 
things like street lighting, tree replantings, and many other aesthetic 
issues that contribute to a pleasant neighborhood. So I'd want our NID 
to coordinate with UC Green on things like greenery, with the FoCP and 
Philly Parks Alliance for the Park, etc., etc. This sort of thing 
requires planning for the future, and may involve facing people who 
insists that nothing _needs_ to be done to, say, replace a tree or 
upgrade lighting.


3. Coordination for Business and Local Economy Growth
Some may regard this as social engineering and control, but it helps to 
have a business climate that's _directed_ in some way or another. For 
example, there have been efforts to revitalize the Baltimore Avenue 
corridor. I suspect that many in our neighborhood don't want to see it 
turn into modern-day South Street, with heaps of chain stores like the 
Gap or and gaudy franchises like McDonald's or KFC, and I'm under the 
impression that UCD has been trying to avoid this as well. And there are 
some franchises that do appeal to our demographic, like Fresh Fields or 
Trader Joe's or Restoration Hardware. So a degree of community-involved 
design seems to be desirable here.
Also, one wants to see the area kept useful and alive. If there's a 
vacant storefront, there ought to be an agency that works to fill it 
with a business. It may require publicity and marketing of our wonderful 
area. It may require establishing business loans to entrepreneurs to 
establish locations in the area.


4. Marketing
Many here complain about the marketing of our area, and yeah, the stuff 
UCD comes up with sounds trite and hackneyed ("funky vibe," indeed!). 
But the area does require some marketing-- to bring in businesses, 
homeowners and investment.


5. Community and Homeowner Support
I want to cast back to the Historic District debacle for a moment. The 
fact is that placing our homes under the PHC was one of the worst ideas 
Spruce Hill's ever floated on our "behalf." The operating principle 
there was to force homeowners to spend, spend spend or they'd be 
prosecuted. I'd suggest initiatives and incentives  to _help_ homeowners 
improve their homes. Maybe we could help a local hardware store expand 
to provide more home-repair and gardening materials, with regular 
seminars-kaffeklatches to Learn How. (D.L. Wormley used to run things 
like this. Great idea.)


Or, here's an idea. My side of Larchwood is taken up with about a 
half-dozen connected row homes, sharing flat roofs. It'd be nice if we 
could get a group discount on rooftop solar panel systems, and get'em 
all done at once. So, maybe we could be examining alternative energy 
systems that would be too expensive for single homeowners... but 
feasible and beneficial if done in coordinated groups.


But generally: We live in an area that's getting expensive-- even for 
those of us who bought years ago, the property taxes are going to hit us 
hard one of these days. So a decent organization ought to be working for 
the benefit of homeowners.


6. Renters
Here's a tricky question. What role would renters have here? They get 
the benefit of the improvements of this hypothetical organization. And 
they'd be paying in, indirectly, through their landlords. Many are 
short-term renters, students mainly, who don't have the same stake in 
the neighborhood as do homeowners, and business owners. It's a large 
part of our daily life, what with the parties, the trash, the traffic, 
and the like. So this organization would have to deal with these 
things-- and perhaps provide some services for the local renter 
population, like a placement service perhaps, or advocacy for renters' 
rights.


But there are long-term renters whose love for and involvement with this 
community is as strong as that of any mortgage-bearer. Many prefer 
renting for whatever reason (rep

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

[Mario Giorno]

Folks,

I will reiterate my request at the end of my last post on this thread.
If there were on concession or stipulation above all others that you would
require from the UCD before we gave them NID status, what would it be. If we
want to actually create a NID, we need to compromise with the UCD staff and
steering committee on what specific work it will do, how it will carry out
this work and what overriding guidelines, rules or best practices you want
the institution to follow.

For those of you who don't know exactly what UCD is, just go to
http://www.ucityphila.org to view their website. Their website offers
information about the organization and its mission. Under the "University
City Information" subheading on their home page, click the tab that says:

BID
Business
Improvement
District
Information

This will bring you up to speed on the NID/BID discussion.



Mario Giorno
36 S. 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA19139

On 6/26/07, Kyle Cassidy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


A good point that Al makes is that there seems to be no knowledge,
scientifically, of what people who live here actually think about ucd.
Are we "all in this together"? I have no idea if 2% of the population is
in favor of UCD or 97%. As far as I can tell, there's never been a
survey, so we're all in the dark about who's in what with whom.
Community meetings only bring out a certain subset of the population, as
do community organizations. I'd be interested in someone going
door-to-door and polling 2,000 residents and finding out how they feel
about not just this, but a variety of community issues. I suspect that
most of them would actually say "UCD who?"

Kc


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:50 PM
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] UCD Related

In a message dated 6/26/2007 12:28:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I can't
remember who said it first (it might have been sharrieff) that
ultimately UCD is accountable to it's funders.

You're not getting the sense of the statement.

It was that UCD is accountable to its funders, which explains why
they're at such cross-purposes with the community in general.

And the reason why transparency and participation should be the modus
operandi is that Penn keeps touting its "partnership with the community"
as if we're all in it together. The unpleasant reality is that Penn does
what it pleases -- and co-opts a few local groups so it can make believe
it has a partnership going.

The whole thing is a lie. Has been from the start. Still is. The
anointed are so sure they've got the franchise on wisdom and morality
that they never listen or learn. That's why the NID is dead. That's why
Wendell is a has-been.

Always at your service & ready for a dialog, Al Krigman





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] 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

[Kyle Cassidy]

A good point that Al makes is that there seems to be no knowledge,
scientifically, of what people who live here actually think about ucd.
Are we "all in this together"? I have no idea if 2% of the population is
in favor of UCD or 97%. As far as I can tell, there's never been a
survey, so we're all in the dark about who's in what with whom.
Community meetings only bring out a certain subset of the population, as
do community organizations. I'd be interested in someone going
door-to-door and polling 2,000 residents and finding out how they feel
about not just this, but a variety of community issues. I suspect that
most of them would actually say "UCD who?"

Kc
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:50 PM
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] UCD Related

In a message dated 6/26/2007 12:28:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I can't
remember who said it first (it might have been sharrieff) that
ultimately UCD is accountable to it's funders.

You're not getting the sense of the statement.
 
It was that UCD is accountable to its funders, which explains why
they're at such cross-purposes with the community in general.
 
And the reason why transparency and participation should be the modus
operandi is that Penn keeps touting its "partnership with the community"
as if we're all in it together. The unpleasant reality is that Penn does
what it pleases -- and co-opts a few local groups so it can make believe
it has a partnership going.
 
The whole thing is a lie. Has been from the start. Still is. The
anointed are so sure they've got the franchise on wisdom and morality
that they never listen or learn. That's why the NID is dead. That's why
Wendell is a has-been. 
 
Always at your service & ready for a dialog, Al Krigman





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] 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

[Krfapt]

 
In a message dated 6/26/2007 12:28:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I  can't
remember who said it first (it might have been sharrieff)  that
ultimately UCD is accountable to it's funders.


You're not getting the sense of the statement.
 
It was that UCD is accountable to its funders, which explains why they're  at 
such cross-purposes with the community in general.
 
And the reason why transparency and participation should be the modus  
operandi is that Penn keeps touting its "partnership with the community" as if  
we're all in it together. The unpleasant reality is that Penn does what it  
pleases -- and co-opts a few local groups so it can make believe it has a  
partnership going.
 
The whole thing is a lie. Has been from the start. Still is. The anointed  
are so sure they've got the franchise on wisdom and morality that they never  
listen or learn. That's why the NID is dead. That's why Wendell is a has-been.  

Always at  your service & ready for a dialog,
Al  Krigman




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

RE: [UC] UCD Related

[Kyle Cassidy]

I think, as is often the case, Mario's got a good point. I can't
remember who said it first (it might have been sharrieff) that
ultimately UCD is accountable to it's funders. At the moment, that's not
"us". I agree that if "we" want to control the direction of UCD, then
"we" need to be the ones paying for it. Otherwise it's like complaining
to the guy sweeping your street for free that you'd rather he painted
your house. UCD's a democracy of it's funders, it's just a question if
we want to pony up what it takes to be part of the shareholders club.
Had the NID passed, we would have gotten oversight of UCD through our
councilwoman, who would have been able to keep the NID from renewing if
she didn't like the way it was run. As it is, we have no oversight apart
from complaining to one another on this list, which is probably a lot
like barking into the wind.

When you're paying the guy, you get to tell the guy what to do.


 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mario Giorno
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:05 PM
To: univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] UCD Related

Folks,

 I think Brian is on to something here. The NID is a hard thing to
implement, because it supposed to be funded by a base annual income
taken from the citizens in is geography, ie the surcharge that the city
government would collect from us each year and give to the UCD. If the
UCD needed more money above and beyond the surcharge monies then they
could float a bond  and collect extra donations to make up the
difference of the operating costs. This is in fact what Lewis Wendell
and the UCD steering committee have proposed. Argumentatively, it isn't
just Lewis Wendell that's failng here, it's the very idea of a NID in
general amongst many of the citizens in UC. 

 We want more transparent accountability on the part of the UCD
staff and steering committee. We want UC residents partly in control of
the UCD to make sure that it's doing the people's bidding, not just the
high rollers' (UPenn, Drexel, the Cira Center, Campus Apartments, etc.)
bidding. Ideally this is actually what happens with NIDs and they are in
fact a good thing. But because UPenn and its partners came at the idea
backwards by creating the organization first without legally creating it
as a NID by getting  community approval, they have doomed themselves and
us to this constant bickering about how to use this useful organization
and how to fund it. This should have been clearly defined before the UCD
was created. 

 But here we are. We must take the UCD for what is is. We may never
truly come together under a generalissimo UCD director, but that's
hardly a problem. If UCD stayed as it is now getting funded by local
businesses and citizens by choice rather than by surcharge, it could
still survive on more meager means, it would simply provide less
service. The question we need to ask is, is this a better idea than
sucking it and giving some percentage of our real estate tax to UCD each
year so that it can do every and anything we want it to do? Do we still
want to take the recommendation of Wendell and the UCD steering
committee to only take 12% of the annual RE tax from those with 4 or
more bedroom units on the property? Do we want every landowner to maybe
pay 6% of their annual RE tax instead so that everyone has skin in the
game and can vote to restrain or enbolden specific UCD practices or
works. 

 Brian's right. This will only work if we will it to work. Lewis
Wendell will do all that he can to keep UCD afloat and hopefully
efficient and productive, but he and th rest of the UCD can't do it
without our support. Eventually we as a community will have to make a
deliberate attempt to uphold UCD or destroy it. Whatever democratic
dialogue has been exchanged on this list for the past 2 years about what
to do with UCD will become purely academic unless we the citizens of UC
either shit or get off the pot. We need to reconsider the UCD NID plan.
If changes need to be made, then we need to tell UCD what those specific
legal and/or financial changes are and come to a compromise. 

 If Lewis Wendell and his staff are out there and reading this post,
please believe that you will have to give the local community the
control it wants over everyday practices of UCD, if not day-to-day
decisions. A charter that contains language from community member input
will need to be discussed. While there are standard legal guidelines for
NIDs in most every state, there is also the ability for each individual
NID to create special stipulations and agreements that are specific to
the community or neighborhood it serves and represents. I'm sure there
is some compromise solution that can be worked out that will satisfy the
majority of the UC landowning population as well as the current majo

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

[Mario Giorno]

Folks,

I think Brian is on to something here. The NID is a hard thing to
implement, because it supposed to be funded by a base annual income taken
from the citizens in is geography, ie the surcharge that the city government
would collect from us each year and give to the UCD. If the UCD needed more
money above and beyond the surcharge monies then they could float a bond
and collect extra donations to make up the difference of the operating
costs. This is in fact what Lewis Wendell and the UCD steering committee
have proposed. Argumentatively, it isn't just Lewis Wendell that's failng
here, it's the very idea of a NID in general amongst many of the citizens in
UC.

We want more transparent accountability on the part of the UCD staff
and steering committee. We want UC residents partly in control of the UCD to
make sure that it's doing the people's bidding, not just the high rollers'
(UPenn, Drexel, the Cira Center, Campus Apartments, etc.) bidding. Ideally
this is actually what happens with NIDs and they are in fact a good thing.
But because UPenn and its partners came at the idea backwards by creating
the organization first without legally creating it as a NID by getting
community approval, they have doomed themselves and us to this constant
bickering about how to use this useful organization and how to fund it. This
should have been clearly defined before the UCD was created.

But here we are. We must take the UCD for what is is. We may never
truly come together under a generalissimo UCD director, but that's hardly a
problem. If UCD stayed as it is now getting funded by local businesses and
citizens by choice rather than by surcharge, it could still survive on more
meager means, it would simply provide less service. The question we need to
ask is, is this a better idea than sucking it and giving some percentage of
our real estate tax to UCD each year so that it can do every and anything we
want it to do? Do we still want to take the recommendation of Wendell and
the UCD steering committee to only take 12% of the annual RE tax from those
with 4 or more bedroom units on the property? Do we want every landowner to
maybe pay 6% of their annual RE tax instead so that everyone has skin in the
game and can vote to restrain or enbolden specific UCD practices or works.

Brian's right. This will only work if we will it to work. Lewis Wendell
will do all that he can to keep UCD afloat and hopefully efficient and
productive, but he and th rest of the UCD can't do it without our support.
Eventually we as a community will have to make a deliberate attempt to
uphold UCD or destroy it. Whatever democratic dialogue has been exchanged on
this list for the past 2 years about what to do with UCD will become purely
academic unless we the citizens of UC either shit or get off the pot. We
need to reconsider the UCD NID plan. If changes need to be made, then we
need to tell UCD what those specific legal and/or financial changes are and
come to a compromise.

If Lewis Wendell and his staff are out there and reading this post,
please believe that you will have to give the local community the control it
wants over everyday practices of UCD, if not day-to-day decisions. A charter
that contains language from community member input will need to be
discussed. While there are standard legal guidelines for NIDs in most every
state, there is also the ability for each individual NID to create special
stipulations and agreements that are specific to the community or
neighborhood it serves and represents. I'm sure there is some compromise
solution that can be worked out that will satisfy the majority of the UC
landowning population as well as the current major UCD benefactors on the
steering committee. I suggest that UC residents on this list post the one
major concession or stipulation that you want UCD to honor, if we allow it
to become a NID representing our neighborhood. One item of compromise above
all others that you personally would require of the UCD. Send it to the
listserv and after enough of the items are posted, then we can how rational
and doable they really are from both our perspective and UCD's perspective.


Mario Giorno
36 S. 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19139



On 6/26/07, Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 6/25/2007 3:57:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (to Sali):
>
> Currently, the folks on the Board are footing the majority of the
> bill for clean and safe efforts in wide areas of University City.
> Do you think they'll keep doing that
>
> Wouldn't it depend on the extent to which the various parties are
> being honest about their intentions and agendas, and the corresponding
> goals for what a Special Services District (SSD) might be constituted
> to achieve, whether there's a real "partnership" between Penn (and the
> other institutions) and the community, the degree to which a NID might
> get back on the tab

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
.

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[Brian Siano]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 6/25/2007 3:57:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (to Sali):


Currently, the folks on the Board are footing the majority of the
bill for clean and safe efforts in wide areas of University City. 
Do you think they'll keep doing that


Wouldn't it depend on the extent to which the various parties are 
being honest about their intentions and agendas, and the corresponding 
goals for what a Special Services District (SSD) might be constituted 
to achieve, whether there's a real "partnership" between Penn (and the 
other institutions) and the community, the degree to which a NID might 
get back on the table after an appropriate SSD proved itself competent 
to be the NIDMA, and factors like that.
 
Personally, I'd like to see an SSD emerge that got back to the basics 
of "clean and safe" and dropped the marketing, development, and social 
engineering roles that made the UCD so popular with the few anointed 
and unpopular with the many benighted, and also operated in a 
transparent manner -- both functionally and fiscally -- so that people 
either had confidence that the organization knew what people really 
wanted and understood the value of a dollar that most people have to 
work to earn, or their deficiencies in this area were obvious enough 
that they be shown the door.
 
The above at the policy level, perhaps subject to open deliberations 
and stakeholder input (and not at the dog-and-pony forums with agendas 
framed by Harris-squared), long before the selection of a new 
Executive Director. This way, a person could be recruited -- perhaps 
locally, perhaps globally -- with a track record in implementing the 
newly redefined policies and in adapting to rather than trying to 
reshape the situation on the ground.
I generally agree with Al here, because he does understand what an SSD 
and an NID would have to accomplish-- even _before_ it got started. The 
big issue is simply getting money. A community can organize an SSD or 
NID with the best of intentions and community support. But if it can't 
_show_ that it can deliver on the services, it's not going to get any 
money from any big donors, which are needed to "prime the pump," so to 
speak. Which means it's not going to attract a lot of community-derived 
financial support, either.


Al and I would probably disagree on what constitutes 'the basics' and 
"social engineering.' Many of the basics _are_ social engineering: 
picking up trash on a regular basis has social effects. We keep Clark 
Park as clean and well-maintained as we can because, when the park turns 
shitty, it affects the quality of life of the rest of the neighborhood. 
NIDs aren't created merely to compensate for declining city services; 
part of their reason for being is to strategize the way communities will 
grow and change in the foreseeable future. It may be something simple 
and prosaic (more streetside trees because the ones we have are dying), 
or it may be something more business-like (we want to attract certain 
kinds of businesses, like artists' shops or software companies or 
child-oriented stores). And marketing is an essential part of this. At 
the very least, it can offer local businesses a sort of advertising 
co-op, where economies of scale operate (advertise many businesses at 
once).


The Executive Director described above is kind of a paradox. On the one 
hand, we want community-based direction. But we're asking for a great 
Executive Director to  implement it. It's sort of like saying that we 
want a democracy, so we must find a Great Man to rule it. It's 
_possible_-- I've got a soft spot for FDR as an example-- but even _he_ 
had to put up with a lot of yelping cranks who saw no good in what he 
accomplished.


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

RE: [UC] UCD Related - UCD Self-inflicted Failures

[S. Sharrieff Ali]

Craig writes:
"In business as in sports you always go for the very best talent
available, even if it is not local"
 
 
Ali:
I would not say it has been proven the best talent was selected.
 
I stand firm it is a mistake in this particular case of UCD, the next
Director should be local talent.
We have tried the last two from out of town with poor results.
 
S
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 5:34 PM
To: univcity@list.purple.com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [UC] UCD Related - UCD Self-inflicted Failures
 
In a message dated 6/25/2007 3:30:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
The comments from the community regarding UCD's lack of responsible
partnering with our community are long standing ...I called for change
within the mission, board, and directorship of UCD. 
The problem is UCD failed to continuously create and maintain a shared
vision with the broader UC community.
 
This is perhaps one reason Steinke left when he did. Nor was Fry a
consensus builder. If my recollection serves me, upon Paul's departures,
Fry stepped down as Chairman and assumed the role of acting executive
director. I believe it was at that time certain community groups' reps
were temporarily unseated/unrecognized or treated as at-large members,
thus, creating new forms of conflict/distrust between the Penn Vision
for the UCD and the constituent community's expectations.
The John Fenton issue was an insult to us all and is just the latest of
many arrogant power plays germinated at the UCD.
More seriously, it demonstrates that a ten year old community and
economic development organization (UCD) has developed very little
maturity, has failed to understand the local culture of Philadelphia's
contentious politics, has failed to implement SOP's for lawfully
addressing ethical challenges, and has failed to establish industry
standard HR policies that would allow UCD to swiftly, authoritatively,
and fairly deal with what appears to be a MXPark non-issue or at worst
most minor issue not worthy of the Office of Special Counsel nor the
intellectual capital this community has spent on it; again, if it even
occurred. Personally every time, I will take Councilwoman Blackwell's
word over two disreputable scofflaws sentenced to perform community
service because of their affirmed moral laxities.  
 
Ten years ago Rodin's Corporate Counsel should have developed, written,
and implementing an appropriate HR policy. During the last ten years the
UCD Board should have demanded the policy be regularly subject to
Quality Assurance/Improvement standards along with the necessary changes
required by applicable case laws. It is expressly UCD's failure of
leadership which allowed such a minor event, still in question as to its
occurrence, to have festered into a major public dispute embarrassing to
the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania and besmirching the good
reputation of their great champion and ally the Honorable Jannie L.
Blackwell.
 
The real issue lies in the organizations mission and administrative
structure, not the least of which is the lack of vision, acknowledgement
of responsibility, and oval leadership by the past two Executive
Directors.
Hiring Directors for UCD who are not familiar with local politics or the
multiple constituencies which require coordination in order for the UCD
to sustain support and carry their mission, has been the biggest mistake
...
I disagree. Great talented and wise leadership, when hired, is hungry to
build the proverbial Golden Bridge to even countervailing interests,
unless it is told not to by the Board. 
Out of town candidates have been routinely selected over many locally
qualified candidates to create a dependency while maintaining the
status-quo within the UCD Board.
In business as in sports you always go for the very best talent
available, even if it is not local.
Mission, Board and Director, will need to change in order for the UCD to
be effective in a way which will benefit the broader community. ... UCD
is a fiscal nightmare of frivolous spending and waste. They are on Mars
looking down at the rest of us on earth. 

The Community Stakeholder Committee established will make
recommendations for change at the UCD.
Perhaps the first and most critical failure of Rodin's UCD was to see
UCD as the savior of an already vibrant culturally diverse West/SW
Philadelphia, which clearly was foreign to her upper-middle class
values.
 
Second, perhaps UCD has tried to be too many things to too many people
over too large a geographic area.
 
Third, to suggest Rodin's UCD saved the community, UCD must first answer
how many units of new moderate and low income housing UCD developed
and/or maintains in its service area. Or answer the charge - how could
it use its economic power to change the demographi

Re: [UC] UCD Related - UCD Self-inflicted Failures

[Craigsolve]

In a message dated 6/25/2007 3:30:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The comments from the  community regarding UCD’s lack of responsible 
partnering with our community  are long standing  ...I called for change  
within the 
mission, board, and directorship of UCD. 

The problem is UCD failed to continuously create and  maintain a shared 
vision with the broader UC community.
 
This is perhaps one reason Steinke left when he did.  Nor was Fry a consensus 
builder. If my recollection serves me, upon Paul's  departures, Fry stepped 
down as Chairman and assumed the role of acting  executive director. I believe 
it was at that time certain community groups' reps  were temporarily 
unseated/unrecognized or treated as at-large members, thus,  creating new forms 
of 
conflict/distrust between the Penn Vision for the UCD and  the constituent 
community's expectations.

The John  Fenton issue was an insult to us all and is just the latest of many 
arrogant  power plays germinated at the  UCD.
More seriously, it demonstrates that a ten year old  community and economic 
development organization (UCD) has developed very  little maturity, has failed 
to understand the local culture of  Philadelphia's contentious politics, has 
failed to implement SOP's for  lawfully addressing ethical challenges, and has 
failed  to establish industry standard HR policies that would allow UCD to 
swiftly,  authoritatively, and fairly deal with what appears to be a  MXPark 
non-issue or at worst most minor issue not worthy of the Office of  Special 
Counsel nor the intellectual capital this community has spent on  it; again, if 
it 
even occurred. Personally every  time, I will take Councilwoman Blackwell's 
word over two  disreputable scofflaws sentenced to perform community  service 
because of their affirmed moral  laxities.  
 
Ten years ago Rodin's Corporate  Counsel should have developed, written, and 
implementing an appropriate HR  policy. During the last ten years the UCD 
Board should have demanded the policy  be regularly subject to Quality 
Assurance/Improvement standards along with the  necessary changes required by 
applicable 
case laws. It is expressly  UCD's failure of leadership which allowed such a 
minor event, still in  question as to its occurrence, to have festered into a 
major public  dispute embarrassing to the Trustees of the University of 
Pennsylvania and  besmirching the good reputation of their great champion and 
ally 
the  Honorable Jannie L. Blackwell.

The real  issue lies in the organizations mission and administrative 
structure, not the  least of which is the lack of  vision, acknowledgement of 
responsibility, and oval leadership by the past two  Executive Directors.  
Hiring  Directors for UCD who are not familiar with local politics or the 
multiple  constituencies which require coordination in order  for the UCD to 
sustain support and carry their mission, has been the biggest  mistake ...
I disagree. Great talented and wise leadership, when  hired, is hungry to 
build the proverbial Golden Bridge to even  countervailing interests, unless it 
is told not to by the Board. 


Out of town  candidates have been routinely selected over many locally 
qualified candidates  to create a dependency while maintaining the  status-quo 
within the UCD Board. 
In business as in sports you always go for the very  best talent available, 
even if it is not local.


Mission, Board and Director,  will need to change in order for the  UCD to be 
effective in a way which will benefit the broader community.  ... UCD is a 
fiscal  nightmare of frivolous spending and waste. They are on Mars looking 
down 
at  the rest of us on earth. 

The Community  Stakeholder Committee established will make recommendations 
for change at the  UCD. 

Perhaps the first and most critical failure of Rodin's UCD was to  see UCD as 
the savior of an already vibrant culturally  diverse West/SW Philadelphia, 
which clearly was foreign to her upper-middle  class values.
 
Second, perhaps UCD has tried to be too many things to too many people over  
too large a geographic area.
 
Third, to suggest Rodin's UCD saved the community, UCD must first answer  how 
many units of new moderate and low income housing UCD developed and/or  
maintains in its service area. Or answer the charge - how could it use  its 
economic power to change the demographics of the community without  
considering, 
announcing, and publicly discussing such an anticipated  profound restructuring 
of 
the affected neighborhoods?
 
While Wharton may teach the creation of capital, UCD has failed to master  
the creation of community while preserving its many diverse neighborhoods.
 
This is the time for the UCD to administer to its own  discrete real estate 
interests and leave the governing of the  community to those who have been 
democratically elected to govern.
 
Craig  Melidosian
RealSolutions Network
P O Box 33355
Phila  PA  19142-0555
215-724-

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[KAREN ALLEN]

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [UC] UCD Related
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:53:52 EDT

Sharrieff, ...How can you be sure that you represent the views of the 
stakeholders?   Are you >doing a survey, a vote, or a polling of some sort? 
 Who would be allowed to weigh in?  Who are >the stakeholders?


Melani Lamond


Melani,
I'm glad you brought this up.  Whatever happened to the offlist poll you 
conducted last year to gauge support for the NID? (copied below).  You 
mentioned keeping three folders with "for", "against", and "unsure".  What 
were the final results?


Karen



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: univcity@list.purple.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: More UCD NID feedback needed!  Please give me yours!
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:23:01 EST

I feel like I'm quoting from a WXPN fund drive here:

I've gotten a lot of feedback, but I haven't heard from YOU!   There are a
lot of "you's" on these two lists who probably care about UCD and the NID - 
one
way or another - but haven't taken a minute to send me an email, off list 
is
fine, to tell me how you feel.   I won't share your name with anyone unless 
you
tell me to - but I need your opinion to share with the folks working on 
this

project.   It isn't going to happen the way you want it, if you don't let
anyone know what you want!

Al Krigman has done a pretty thorough job of collecting concerns, but I'll
take them too.   And no one has collected the opinions of those in favor - 
so if
you favor the NID, and favor the continuing existence of the UCD, PLEASE 
let
me know!   It can be a really short reply, or really long - whatever you 
want
to say.   I'm putting all comments together into 3 documents:   for, 
against,

and unsure.   Please, let your opinion be counted!   And ask others, not on
these lists, to give me their opinions also!

Thanks,

Melani Lamond

P.S. - If you've already written to me, thanks!




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] UCD Related

[S. Sharrieff Ali]

Yeah Melani.you are clueless!
 
Community Stakeholder groups are ad-hoc or not, both valid and never
include EVERYONE.
 
The most important part is making them open to the public, which we are.
 
The process of making a motion from the floor at the First Thursday
Meeting was 
announced and published multiple times on this listserv and in the
UC-Review.
 
Get involved if you would like to know more and stop being ridiculous,
you should try to be more
engaging or enlightening. Start by reading what is posted on the
subjects you are interested in.
 
S
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 3:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] UCD Related
 

In a message dated 6/25/07 3:26:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


.I called for change within the mission, board, and directorship of
UCD...
 
Mission, Board and Director, will need to change in order
for the UCD to be effective in a way which will benefit the broader
community...

The Community Stakeholder Committee established will make
recommendations for change at the UCD... 
 ...S

Sharrieff, when did the community (the huge majority which was not at
Glenn Bryan's meeting) elect the "Community Stakeholder" group?  How can
you be sure that you represent the views of the stakeholders?  Are you
doing a survey, a vote, or a polling of some sort?  Who would be allowed
to weigh in?  Who are the stakeholders?  

If the UCD's mission, board and director changed, what would be the work
of the UCD, and who would pay for it?  

Currently, the folks on the Board are footing the majority of the bill
for clean and safe efforts in wide areas of University City.  Do you
think they'll keep doing that, if your committee decides they have to
go?

Clueless,

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] UCD Related

[Krfapt]

 
In a message dated 6/25/2007 3:57:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (to Sali):

Currently, the folks on the Board are footing the majority of the bill  for 
clean and safe efforts in wide areas of University City.  Do you  think they'll 
keep doing that


Wouldn't it depend on the extent to which the various parties are  being 
honest about their intentions and agendas, and the corresponding goals for  
what a 
Special Services District (SSD) might be constituted to achieve, whether  
there's a real "partnership" between Penn (and the other institutions) and the  
community, the degree to which a NID might get back on the table after an  
appropriate SSD proved itself competent to be the NIDMA, and factors like  that.
 
Personally, I'd like to see an SSD emerge that got back to the basics of  
"clean and safe" and dropped the marketing, development, and social engineering 
 
roles that made the UCD so popular with the few anointed and  unpopular with 
the many benighted, and also operated in a transparent manner --  both 
functionally and fiscally -- so that people either had confidence that the  
organization knew what people really wanted and understood the value of a 
dollar  that 
most people have to work to earn, or their deficiencies in this area were  
obvious enough that they be shown the door.
 
The above at the policy level, perhaps subject to open deliberations and  
stakeholder input (and not at the dog-and-pony forums with agendas framed by  
Harris-squared), long before the selection of a new Executive Director. This  
way, a person could be recruited -- perhaps locally, perhaps globally --  with 
a 
track record in implementing the newly redefined policies and in adapting  to 
rather than trying to reshape the situation on the ground.
 
Al Krigman
 
PS: Lest there be any doubt, I wouldn't want the job under any  
circumstances, so I hope neither of you will come pounding on my door with  an 
offer.



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

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[MLamond]

In a message dated 6/25/07 3:26:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> .I called for change within the mission, board, and directorship of 
> UCD...
>   
> Mission, Board and Director, will need to change in order
>  for the UCD to be effective in a way which will benefit the broader 
> community...
> 
>  The Community Stakeholder Committee established will make 
> recommendations for change at the UCD... 
>   ...S
> 
Sharrieff, when did the community (the huge majority which was not at Glenn 
Bryan's meeting) elect the "Community Stakeholder" group?   How can you be sure 
that you represent the views of the stakeholders?   Are you doing a survey, a 
vote, or a polling of some sort?   Who would be allowed to weigh in?   Who 
are the stakeholders?   

If the UCD's mission, board and director changed, what would be the work of 
the UCD, and who would pay for it?   

Currently, the folks on the Board are footing the majority of the bill for 
clean and safe efforts in wide areas of University City.   Do you think they'll 
keep doing that, if your committee decides they have to go?

Clueless,

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] UCD Related

[Kyle Cassidy]

Luckily for us, UCD's spending their own money. Unlike whoever it was
who just ripped up all the pavement on my block, who are spending OUR
money with, as far as I can tell, absolutely no neighborhood oversight,
no explanations, no town meetings, at all. The only reason we know the
names of the people in UCD is because they DO come to meetings, even if
they're reading prepared statements. Who's in charge of tearing up the
streets? Did they ask any of the stakeholders if we wanted our streets
torn up? Did anybody fill out a pothole survey? Al keeps pointing out
how poorly UCD's PR person is paid, but does anybody know how much this
re-paving is costing? And who's getting the money?  


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of S. Sharrieff Ali

The UCD is a fiscal nightmare of frivolous spending and waste. They are
on Mars looking down at the rest of us on earth.
 


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

RE: [UC] UCD Related

[S. Sharrieff Ali]

 
Dan:
 
While it may have been mentioned in writing on this listserv (I don't
think it was published anywhere else),
I called for the resignation of Lewis Wendell, there is so much more to
the story (and there happens to be 
about 70 witnesses) although the University of Penn chose not to publish
a report or minutes of the meeting
as they usually do within the UC-Review.
 
The coverage by the UC-Review this past Wednesday dominated the entire
cover of the paper.
 
The comments from the community regarding UCD's lack of responsible
partnering with our community are 
long standing and were voiced in multiple at the June U-Penn First
Thursday meeting, my voice was not alone.
I called for change within the mission, board, and directorship of UCD.
 
The John Fenton issue was an insult to us all and is just the latest of
many arrogant power plays germinated 
at the UCD.
 
The real issue lies in the organizations mission and administrative
structure, not the least of which is the lack
of vision, acknowledgement of responsibility, and oval leadership by the
past two Executive Directors.
 
Hiring Directors for UCD who are not familiar with local politics or the
multiple constituencies which require 
coordination in order for the UCD to sustain support and carry their
mission, has been the biggest mistake and
least likely to overcome when faced with mission-critical decisions
effecting our community.
 
Out of town candidates have been routinely selected over many locally
qualified candidates to create a dependency
while maintaining the status-quo within the UCD Board. Mission, Board
and Director, will need to change in order 
for the UCD to be effective in a way which will benefit the broader
community.
 
The recent seeding of the bowl at Clark Park is just another example of
their inability to work effectively with 
community partners, in this case, the Friends of Clark Park.
 
The UCD is a fiscal nightmare of frivolous spending and waste. They are
on Mars looking down at the rest of us on earth.
 
The Community Stakeholder Committee established will make
recommendations for change at the UCD.
 
 
S
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Myers
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 2:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
univcity@list.purple.com
Subject: Re: [UC] UCD Related
 
Dear S,

I am an interested person wanting to know the facts. (and some opinion)
I am also wandering about the people who distrust UCD as a whole will
change their minds with a new director. I highly imagine that it won't
change their minds, unless the new director is able to change their
by-laws. I imagine the person they hire will someone who will follow
their rules, thus "no change".  Of course speculation and assumptions
are not part of my life, so let the real people who know please speak
up. :) 

Dan Myers
On 6/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

In a message dated 6/23/07 8:36:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




Melani...I would respond but I really don't believe you are as clueless 
as you pretend to be.

The real interested parties can ask their own questions in due time.

S

Yes, I am clueless...but even if I weren't, you must have an opinion, so
why not state it?  What did Lewis Wendell do which would necessitate his
resignation?  

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
2006 recipient of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors
awards: 
- Diamond award for over $8 million in sales, and
ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards:
- Top Lister
- Top Seller
- Top Overall Combined Volume
- Top Listing Units by Area
- Top Selling Units by Area
- Top Overall Combined Units by Area



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



-- 
to the power of breathing,
Dan Myers
Intuitive Masseur
215.901.0899 

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[Dan Myers]

Dear S,

I am an interested person wanting to know the facts. (and some opinion) I am
also wandering about the people who distrust UCD as a whole will change
their minds with a new director. I highly imagine that it won't change their
minds, unless the new director is able to change their by-laws. I imagine
the person they hire will someone who will follow their rules, thus "no
change".  Of course speculation and assumptions are not part of my life, so
let the real people who know please speak up. :)

Dan Myers

On 6/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



In a message dated 6/23/07 8:36:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Melani...I would respond but I really don't believe you are as clueless
as you pretend to be.

The real interested parties can ask their own questions in due time.

S

Yes, I am clueless...but even if I weren't, you must have an opinion, so
why not state it?  What did Lewis Wendell do which would necessitate his
resignation?

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
*2006* recipient of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors
awards:
*- Diamond award for over $8 million in sales, and*
*ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards:*
*- Top Lister*
*- Top Seller*
*- Top Overall Combined Volume*
*- Top Listing Units by Area*
*- Top Selling Units by Area*
*- Top Overall Combined Units by Area*



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





--
to the power of breathing,
Dan Myers
Intuitive Masseur
215.901.0899

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[MLamond]

In a message dated 6/23/07 8:36:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> Melani...I would respond but I really don't believe you are as clueless
> as you pretend to be.
> 
> The real interested parties can ask their own questions in due time.
> 
> S
> 
Yes, I am clueless...but even if I weren't, you must have an opinion, so why 
not state it?   What did Lewis Wendell do which would necessitate his 
resignation?   

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
2006 recipient of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors awards:
- Diamond award for over $8 million in sales, and
ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards:
- Top Lister
- Top Seller
- Top Overall Combined Volume
- Top Listing Units by Area
- Top Selling Units by Area
- Top Overall Combined Units by Area



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

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[sali]

Melani...I would respond but I really don't believe you are as clueless
as you pretend to be.

The real interested parties can ask their own questions in due time.

S



>
> In a message dated 6/23/07 11:55:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>> [gracefully, tactfully, announcing his new career plans at
>> dock street's grand opening later this summer, turning the
>> whole thing into a celebratory and face-saving leave-taking
>> which gives the long-silent daily news, dp, phillyrecord.com
>> and ucd's website and newsletter something, finally, to
>> report. the internal investigation is never concluded, made
>> public, or referred to again, and ucd is left in a better
>> position to reform, scale back, and re-build appropriate
>> working relationships with blackwell, fenton, penn, the
>> community, all once again on equal-footed speaking terms...]
>>
>> Ray, will you or someone else PLEASE explain to me EXACTLY what Lewis Wendell
> - his name is not Wendell Lewis - did, which would make it appropriate for
> him to resign?   Not what happened, but what part of it he, Lewis Wendell,
> caused to happen?   And what having a new director would change, for those who
> don't like the UCD?   There have been three directors; those who don't like 
> the
> UCD have disliked all three.   So please help me to see how a new director 
> would
> be an improvement.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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.
>





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

Re: [UC] UCD Related - A Failure of Corporate Leadership

[Craigsolve]

In a message dated 6/23/2007 12:22:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Ray, will you or someone  else PLEASE explain to me EXACTLY what Lewis 
Wendell - his name is not Wendell  Lewis - did, which would make it appropriate 
for 
him to resign? Not what  happened, but what part of it he, Lewis Wendell, 
caused to  happen?
This question is so bereft of understanding of organizational dynamics,  
organizational structure, and corporate responsibility that your question must  
be 
a red herring. The event involving John Fenton is another indicator of Omar  
Blaik's and U Penn corporate council's failure to establish and effectively  
promulgate consistent and lawful operational guidelines.
 
Additionally, what makes anyone think this type of incident has not  happened 
before? Only, this time the candidate was not the powers that be's  darling?

And what having a new  director would change, for those who don't like the 
UCD?  There have been  three directors; those who don't like the UCD have 
disliked all  three.
You can say categorically everyone disliked Paul Steinke? I don't think  so.

So please help me to  see how a new director would be an improvement.


The UCD needs new direction.
 
This is also an opportunity to note that many of the recent posts lamented  
the possible loss of services to area residents, not the possible professional  
and financial plight of the Fenton Family. Nice to see what kind of caring  
sharing community the UCD spawned along with just some of their independent  
marketing agents.
 
Ciao,
 
Craig



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

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[MLamond]

In a message dated 6/23/07 11:55:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> [gracefully, tactfully, announcing his new career plans at
> dock street's grand opening later this summer, turning the
> whole thing into a celebratory and face-saving leave-taking
> which gives the long-silent daily news, dp, phillyrecord.com
> and ucd's website and newsletter something, finally, to
> report. the internal investigation is never concluded, made
> public, or referred to again, and ucd is left in a better
> position to reform, scale back, and re-build appropriate
> working relationships with blackwell, fenton, penn, the
> community, all once again on equal-footed speaking terms...]
> 
> Ray, will you or someone else PLEASE explain to me EXACTLY what Lewis Wendell 
- his name is not Wendell Lewis - did, which would make it appropriate for 
him to resign?   Not what happened, but what part of it he, Lewis Wendell, 
caused to happen?   And what having a new director would change, for those who 
don't like the UCD?   There have been three directors; those who don't like the 
UCD have disliked all three.   So please help me to see how a new director 
would 
be an improvement.

Thanks,

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] UCD Related

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

Sharreiff Ali wrote:

so bare with me



Frank Carroll wrote:

OK, I'm naked. Now what?





wendell lewis resigns?

[gracefully, tactfully, announcing his new career plans at 
dock street's grand opening later this summer, turning the 
whole thing into a celebratory and face-saving leave-taking 
which gives the long-silent daily news, dp, phillyrecord.com 
and ucd's website and newsletter something, finally, to 
report. the internal investigation is never concluded, made 
public, or referred to again, and ucd is left in a better 
position to reform, scale back, and re-build appropriate 
working relationships with blackwell, fenton, penn, the 
community, all once again on equal-footed speaking terms...]



..
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
.

Re: [UC] UCD Related

[Frank]

OK, I'm naked. Now what?

Frank

On Jun 22, 2007, at 03:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


so bare with me



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