"but notice how these 4 buckets evaluate the game-playing itself, and not the items in the budget."
The moderators focus the group on the game-playing and not any serious discussion. If citizens engage in any discussion, they get a very low point total and prove that budget decisions and priorities must be determined by highly paid consultants and experts. As WHYY reported from the first night, group 7 only got 26 points, and so those citizens let the city go bankrupt. To get a higher point total, citizens must focus on dumbed down emotional sound bites. Individuals need to deliver a zinger and then the trained moderators call a vote. To score points, 75% of the group must vote to put the points in a bucket. So the data for individual service cuts and regressive taxes gained from this game, measures the effectivness of excited game players and popular sound bites. (Praxis provided only frightening choices for common citizens, as the only possible options. Corporate welfare, of course, is to be increased during this financial crisis.) It is a disgraceful condescending exercise to put serious citizens through when they show up in good faith! WHYY broadcast part of my interview. I said that we were being "treated like third graders." We were supposed to make those noices, oh-oh, when we wanted the moderator to call on us for a sound bite zinger. Penn/Nutter need to be shamed for engaging this game to silence the massive public dissent of their grab for power using crisis capitalism! How low has the graduate school of education sunk to allow this charade of civic engagement to be done in their name? Glenn, a citizen -----Original Message----- >From: UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN <laserb...@speedymail.org> >Sent: Feb 21, 2009 10:48 AM >To: univcity <Univcity@list.purple.com> >Subject: Re: [UC] The Praxis 100 point game > >Glenn moyer wrote: > >> Four categories are set-up to assign the points for the predetermined and >> outrageous list of cuts, “low hanging fruitâ€� and “No way, no howâ€� >> are the first two. > > >"gut-wrenching" and "shared pain" are the other two buckets. > >but notice how these 4 buckets evaluate the game-playing >itself, and not the items in the budget. > > http://www.gse.upenn.edu/node/732 > >> In small working groups, citizens reviewed list of budget >> cuts and revenue options the PPCE [Penn Project for Civic Engagement] >> constructed from the >> city’s budget scenarios. Working first as individuals, then >> as a group, citizens prioritized ways to close the budget >> gap by placing them into four "buckets" — Low-Hanging Fruit, >> No Ways No Hows, Shared Pain, and Gut Wrenchers. >> “Low-Hanging Fruit” means those options that are immediate >> "winners", that generate a quick consensus. “No Ways No >> Hows” represent the immediate "losers", or those choices >> citizens believe to be off the table. “The Shared Pain” >> bucket contains those options that are unpleasant and >> unpopular, but that they feel would be acceptable. “Gut >> Wrenchers” are those choices that no one wants to make but >> they recognize as what needs to be done to help the city as >> a whole. > > >- - - - > >there has been feedback about how this process >pre-determines outcomes [feedback that doesn't appear on >penn's site]: > >http://whyy.org/blogs/itsourcity/2009/02/18/structure-of-budget-workshop-left-many-frustrated/ > > >> Take Northeast resident Jim Curran who started his work >> session with a friendly grilling of City Councilman Bill >> Green....But it wasn’t long before Curran was up and out. >> “This is all putting us down a cattle shoot - the questions >> have already been prepared,” he said of the workshop design. >> “It’s too pat, it’s all too pat. You should put this in the >> paper or something so we can study ahead of time.” >> >> And Curran wasn’t alone. I saw others leave their workshops >> in similar frustration. One was Stan Strez, 65, of >> Bridesburg.... His gripe? “This is ridiculous. Cutting jobs >> on the police force? There’s gonna be so much crime its >> ridiculous.” Later he explained a bit more, “They’re not >> including everything [in the budget scenarios]. And not just >> that, they’re not addressing what the real problem is coming >> from.”... >> >> Like Jack Morley, 46, of South Philadelphia. “They defined >> the format and the structure on how the public was giving >> input, and that hamstrung us,” he said of his group, which >> only made it half way to its goal.... >> >> [online post by Jeannine]: There may also be serious >> consequences for cutting instead of taking deeper >> consideration of alternatives. Putting a mostly same-old, >> same-old, cut-til-it-bleeds scenario to a largely naive but >> motivated public felt like a bloody disservice to us all. > > > >etc. > > > >.................. >UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >---- >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>.
