Ray wrote:
sorry, this is argument, and I'm not engaging in arguing, that was the deal. why not try again, but in a way that's not 'I'm right and you're wrong' and instead 'here's what I think', as others have already done. for example, how would you rephrase the 4 ideas?
I'm not interested in having an "I think" conversation that is not grounded in "what is" observations. I'll rephrase my responses for you as follows
FACT 1. Nobody on UC-list (aside from the likes of Melani) is willing to name a class they belong to, that can contribute to the costs of UCD, thereby making it "accountable" to them. That is the most powerful way forward, if you wish to pursue it.
FACT 2. Lawful oversight alone does not appear to meet your needs, since you already have it yet are not satisfied.
FACT 3. "Public, timely and proactive communications" require the judgement of a responsible arbiter. In every agency I can think of, this arbiter is purely an internal function. External judges of communications hold little sway anywhere and play a small role at best in managing day-to-day information releases.
FACT 4. All people to whom UCD is accountable, and almost all people to whom it isn't, are grateful for any help it has given to improve Malcolm X Park, so there is no problem in this quarter.
-- Tony West
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
