So far, I am Ray's only conversant. Frank mistook this as a sign of hatred;
I experience it rather as a sign of rare respect for Ray, since I am one of
the few readers who care to look for nuggets of insight in his posts.
Thus, I offer one response to his introduction and four to his set of ideas.
INTRO: That "UCD is unquestionably all-good" is a classic straw-man
argument. Nobody on UC-list, not even folks like Melani who sit on its
board, have ever argued this stupid point that is Ray's invention. It's a
loud rhetorical flourish, that's all. In fact, there *is no* usual premise
on UC-list as to the merits of UCD, which is one of the main virtues of
UC-list. Ray is making like a heroic assailant of establishment thinking
when there is no establishment thinking. Decidedly low-budget radicalism
here.
IDEA 1. This has been said before, and dodged before. Define "we" and state
how "we" might pay into UCD if "we" wish it to be accountable in any sense.
Accountability cannnot be separated from cost and funding questions. The
American Revolution occurred because citizens objected to taxation without
representation. The flipside of this radical creed is: no representation
without taxation. So spit it out now, Ray or somebody, or forever hold your
peace -- at least on UC-list. How do you wanta do this?
IDEA 2. Lawful oversight of UCD already exists through City Council, as
defined by statute. (Am I speaking correctly, Al?) So if you, excuse me,
"we" aren't satisfied with this result, "we" already aren't satisfied with
what Idea 2 requires, at a minimum. What more might "we" want, and what
agency might deliver it? It would have to be a governmental agency of some
sort, surely.
IDEA 3. UC-list is the worst forum imaginable in which to define and impose
"public, timely and proactive" communications standards on UCD, or Philly
for Change, or the Pope, or anybody. No unmoderated listserve can ever
generate an editor, by definition.. Thus, it can never make a judgement call
as to whether any given communication was "PT&P" or the opposite. Obviously,
some of "us" think UCD did well enough in this particular instance, while
others disagree. Ray, sorry but you can't smuggle in your bias under the
guise of a "conversation". True conversations admit two-way learning.
IDEA 4. This was already addressed well enough, I think. For regular
community services, a clear boundary is essential. For intermittent
community services, a boundary can be more porous. Nobody denies that people
within UCD's regular service boundaries utilize Malcolm X Park on a regular
basis. Frank notwithstanding, I'm confident not one thousandth of UCD's
funding base is opposed to UCD's multi-year efforts to facilitate
improvements and activities in that park. So it's foolish to try to tag UCD
off base on this point. Honestly, Frank, Ray: use your other right. Your
other right.
-- Tony West
Ray wrote:
on the list I've been focusing on developing a set of responsibilities --
for ucd and us -- that we'd expect, publicly, of a service organization
and of ourselves, allegations or not. regardless of the outcome, I see
this incident as a terrific opportunity to get people to think about this,
because it's a situation unlike the usual premise, which is that ucd is
unquestionably all-good and ineluctably all-beneficial, a self-defined and
self-congratulatory entity acting for the good of all -- all of which
makes it difficult to define any rigorous system of public checks/balances
(ie, responsibilities).
and so far I've been trying to assemble, by way of conversation, a set of
ideas:
1. ucd is primarily accountable to us (us as sharreiff defined), not to
ucd
2. ucd's performance/actions should be evaluated/investigated/monitored on
an ongoing basis by an agency independent of ucd [ie, none of us would
have known about this if it weren't for the students, and none of us will
know the outcome except via ucd's investigation.]
3. we should develop the means whereby ucd communications are public,
timely and proactive (ie, not with just some of our neighborhood
organizations, or only via news editors/reporters, or as a delayed
reaction -- all of which can create a situation where people in the
neighborhood have different access to partial information, or a situation
where rumors and speculation develop, putting the entire neighborhood in a
bad light, publicly.)
4. ucd's boundaries should be clearly defined and maintained (ie, it
should be clear to everyone inside and outside the boundaries where ucd
performs services, where they do not. it should not be a 'moving'
boundary, determined by individuals on an ad hoc basis ['one block further
east today, 3 blocks further west next week, 18 blocks further on
alternate fridays, but only for barbeques, and only if no other blocks
within the boundaries need sweeping' etc.])
any other suggestions? feel free to revise, add, etc.
----
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>.
