----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Axler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <UnivCity@list.purple.com>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps
Karen's response indirectly brings up an important point. The various
territory-based community organizations (CPN, SHCA, FOCP, etc.) are at
best partially representative of their constituencies. Not everyone who is
eligible chooses to join these groups, for a variety of reasons. Not all
the members participate in the groups' elections, nor do they always
attend meetings, forums, and other deliberative and policy-related
activities.
By the time the board of a community organization selects one or more
possible candidates for a seat at the UCD table, you've gotten several
very large steps away from "We The People" making a choice as to who will
represent them at that table.
Of course, if it wasn't that way, we'd all be spending every waking and
sleeping hour attending meetings, and nothing would get done...
Mr. Axler,
I found myself in agreement with your analysis until your last sentence and
conclusion.
The relevant issue is transparency. We have methods of communicating that
help to reduce the barriers between the powerful final deciders and we the
people. There must be complete honesty and disclosure to make it work
throughout the process.
With the example of Karen's account, I believe it was vital for the Board to
fully report the process of sending 3 choices to the UCD Board. It is my
opinion that civic associations need to consider bringing more of these
types of extremely important choices to members through properly announced
general members meetings. Sending UCD Board representatives was not a
trivial matter.
The role of the civic association has dramatically changed in our
neighborhood. With the massive and recent interest in our geographic
location to corporate players, principals of representative democracy are
very necessary to preserve the people's rights and inclusion.
Sending a representative to the UCD Board is the type of decision that
should have been seen as so important that the full membership should be
included and the process should be published to the larger area of the
organization.
Our community could have discussed the "3 choice" model of UCD Board
representation, yet this process was not even generally known to the
community. I believe we would have rejected this as a community had we known
about this process. Had we been included, we could have participated in
creating an accountable UCD.
I hope folks see how weaknesses in the total process have been exploited by
the powerful to hinder disclosure?
The process of making secret deals with a tiny minority of the community
inevitably leads to divisiveness. When the problems of the secret dealings
come out, the community is so often shocked and they are told amending is
too late. Then, we have seen the divisiveness start as critics are then
attacked personally as a minority of troublemakers.
We need to discuss the process all the way between Penn Real Estate/
corporate partners; all the way to we the people! I have long asserted that
the powerful deciders launching these initiatives in our community, where
real citizens live, have exploited and designed the process to circumvent,
we the people.
This must stop and WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO STAND TOGETHER AND DEMAND A
TRANSPARENT AND FAIR PROCESS FROM START TO FINISH!
Sincerely,
Glenn Moyer
-----Original Message-----
From: KAREN ALLEN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 1:38 pm
Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps
From: "Glenn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "KAREN ALLEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<UnivCity@list.purple.com>
Subject: Re: [UC] The UCD Board and community reps
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:20:50 -0400
I'm sorry Karen. One other question.
You mentioned the discussion about "better to have a seat at the
table" I
find it odd but understandable. Was there any suggestion that UCD
would
deny you a seat at the table if you just gave them one CPN choice?
If you can recall, why did CPN board members have that suspicion?
Glenn
The general understanding, both in the UCCC debate of the issue, and with
CPN, was that we had to send three nominees. I don't know whether there
was
ever any explicit statement from UCD that sending one would result in
denial, but that was definitely inferred from UCD's insistence to have
three
nominees.
To answer your other question, it was the CPN Board, not the membership,
who
did then, and does now vote on issues concerning the organization. The
membership elects the Board, and the Board, in turn, acts on the
membership's behalf. So yes, the Board was making the decision to not
send
just one, to send three, and who the three would have been.
Karen Allen
----
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>.
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.
----
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>.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database:
269.8.11/838 - Release Date: 6/7/2007 2:21 PM
----
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>.
