The lack of an open, accessible planning process -- especially when it
is implemented by small and exclusive organizing groups that decide if
and how larger public activities will occur -- is a behavior that has
been repeatedly noted on this list as a substantial and negative
component of the operation of many of our larger neighborhood
institutions. Replicating that behavior in our own community-level
actions is, I maintain, not the way to bring about meaningful,
generally-accepted change. It amounts to talking the talk without
walking the walk.
Mr. Axler,
I think you've said this very well. If any process breaks down at any point
between the beginning and end, problems generally occur. It is not that
difficult as has been asserted on the listserv many times. I honestly
think, we've gotten lost with the ends justifying the means rather than any
real inefficiency with good processes. I've seen that so much in the
neighborhood.
A Penn researcher, Ira Harkavy, answered a question I posed publicly some
years ago. He was giving a description of what sounded like very good
strategies for developing a "town-gown" community engagement.
I asked something like: Sounds good, why do the Penn folks never follow
this? It seems like they try to skip the first several steps in the process
you describe. This expediency causes divisiveness and a bad plan.
I think he called what I described as a corporate model. He said something
like it is more efficient to do plans the right way, as he was describing,
because the plan that will come out will be the best plan and also the
stakeholders can get behind it.
I agreed with this. If the process is fair even those who get the least in
whatever plan can get behind it. When stakeholders don't believe the
process is fair whether intentional or not, they may not get behind the plan
whatever the potential or promised ends.
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Axler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <UnivCity@list.purple.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] "Committee meeting" on the 13th at Walnut West
Brian, Sharrieff, & Co.:
To quote again from the same mail sent by Sharrieff: "This is a committee
meeting for those who already joined and those who want to join. ... All
are welcomed to hear what is happening, but we will conduct a committee
meeting."
Yes, it's a planning meeting, as you point out -- it's not the grand
community-wide forum that may result from all the planning. Yes, it has
"...an agenda and direction..." which Sharrieff describes as "...creating
a process."
My email referred to what the committee will be doing, not to the end
result of their work. I'm sorry that you weren't able to make that
distinction when you said, "Maybe you people are missing something
important here....It _is_ not going to be a large public meeting at which
public policy is to be debated."
If the planning process itself is not conducted in an open and reasonably
inclusive manner, then the results of that planning will be suspect. That
may be an unfortunate side-effect of the planning process, but it is not
an issue that should be dismissed with snarky straw-man references to "the
agoraphobic community," "chi energies," and "bio-geographical
deficiencies."
The lack of an open, accessible planning process -- especially when it is
implemented by small and exclusive organizing groups that decide if and
how larger public activities will occur -- is a behavior that has been
repeatedly noted on this list as a substantial and negative component of
the operation of many of our larger neighborhood institutions. Replicating
that behavior in our own community-level actions is, I maintain, not the
way to bring about meaningful, generally-accepted change. It amounts to
talking the talk without walking the walk.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 8:01 am
Subject: Re: [UC] "Committee meeting" on the 13th at Walnut West
Dave Axler wrote:
Sharrieff says, "Those who are interested in participating in the
committee will be
heard and have an opportunity to participate in making decisions
about
where we go from here."
Unfortunately, that's only partly true. Only those who can juggle
their schedules so that they can be physically present will actually
be heard. Those who have non-standard job schedules, lengthy
commutes,
child-rearing obligations, family commitments, and the like will not
be there, and thus will be excluded from the process.
Most "community" meetings in this area are scheduled for early
weekday
mornings (e.g., the recent "First Thursday" meeting) or weeknights.
While that's convenient for some -- especially those who are
attending
as a part of their day jobs -- it tends to exclude many others (most
noticeably those who are single parents).
If you want your committee to be truly representative, you will take
steps to ensure that some of the meetings are on weekends (and NOT
first thing in the morning, either...), and that some provision will
be made for childcare.
No problem: all we need is to set up a meeting on short notice that a)
isn't on a weeknight when people are taking care of kids, b) isn't on a
weekend when people have other things to do and are unlikely to provide
good turnout, c) isn't during the weekday when people are at work, d) is
in a room sized to accommodate the agoraphobic community, and d) is at a
location with adequate child-care facilities, no insitutional connection
to Penn, and oriented towards true north to balance the chi energies of
those unempowered individuals with bio-geographical deficiencies.
Maybe you people are missing something important here. Sharrieff is
trying to organize a meeting of people who'd like to be on this
committee. So it's going to be a small, preliminary planning meeting.
This is mainly to _get things started_. It _is_ not going to be a large
public meeting at which public policy is to be debated.
THEN, you can niggle over whether anybody is unfairly excluded because
of scheduling, child-care, travel issues and the like.
----
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:
269.8.15/847 - Release Date: 6/12/2007 9:42 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>.
