Your story reinforces an idea I've been having. I suggest a rule that we could all use to keep things civil:
I believe we all need to think of people we would really like to have involved in town governance, people we would like to "recruit" -- smart, practical, with useful skills and important viewpoints. I believe we can all think of people like that, who won't join the process because it is currently so "hot". I believe that any time we speak out publicly, we need to think of ourselves as speaking to that person, even if we are not. That way, we would set a tone that would create an environment that would truly be inviting to a broader range of candidates (with all kudos going out to the people who are currently participating in spite of the heat).
I have several friends in my current stage of life -- launching careers, raising little kids, who can't really dive in yet. But I know that they would be great, if we can create a setting that they see as workable without wearing armor to meetings!
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
A rule to live by
Rich Morse was kind enough to write in with a rather encouraging story. His story stimulated my thinking about what would be a rule to guide our behavior in creating a better environment...this is what I said (read comments below on "Late Breaking Sad News for whole conversation):
Changes in settings
Hi-
Gavin, and Larry, and others; I have changed the settings on the comments. You have inspired me to be more trusting of the web community, in spite of past experience with other blogs.
Thanks to all who are offering thoughtful comments -- click on those "comments" links to see the best parts of this blog!
Ian
Gavin, and Larry, and others; I have changed the settings on the comments. You have inspired me to be more trusting of the web community, in spite of past experience with other blogs.
Thanks to all who are offering thoughtful comments -- click on those "comments" links to see the best parts of this blog!
Ian
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Late Breaking Sad News
Given my interest in improving the atmosphere in town politics, I note with sadness that someone has decided that it would be a good idea to cross out "Hubley" with black paint on some of his campaign signs. No matter what your political ideas or affiliations, I hope you will join me in noting what a pathetic maneuver that was. I guess there's plenty of work to do in terms of setting a respectful tone.
Remember to vote!
Issues at hand
In an effort to "walk the talk" of being issues-focused, I'm hoping to gain some insight into particular decisions facing our town. The issues that I hear buzz about, from Gerry and Jennie, as well as friends who have kids in the schools and/or live in town include the override, and the cooperative agreement between the Amherst Police and the UMASS police.
I'm interested in any explanations people want to offer about what position they believe will be best for Amherst on the override. I think we can all agree that we want strong schools, and we want people to be able to afford to live in Amherst. That said, what is the best route to those two objectives?
On the police agreement, I'm a little curious about why it is a topic of controversy. I have talked to Gerry about it a little bit, and it seems like a necessary step given the impact of the Unversity population on our town. I guess my only question so far is "what took us all so long?" However, I'm sure there is more to the issue than that simple statement. Anybody want to enlighten me on this subject?
"Why don't you read the listservs?" one might ask. I have found listservs to be a clumsy way to track conversations. I am hoping to elicit fairly succinct explanations of issues that can serve those of us who are trying to achieve a moderate level of knowledge on these issues, and can't yet muster the time necessary to keep up with the fire-hose of email generated by such listservs. I hope that is a reasonable goal.
I'm interested in any explanations people want to offer about what position they believe will be best for Amherst on the override. I think we can all agree that we want strong schools, and we want people to be able to afford to live in Amherst. That said, what is the best route to those two objectives?
On the police agreement, I'm a little curious about why it is a topic of controversy. I have talked to Gerry about it a little bit, and it seems like a necessary step given the impact of the Unversity population on our town. I guess my only question so far is "what took us all so long?" However, I'm sure there is more to the issue than that simple statement. Anybody want to enlighten me on this subject?
"Why don't you read the listservs?" one might ask. I have found listservs to be a clumsy way to track conversations. I am hoping to elicit fairly succinct explanations of issues that can serve those of us who are trying to achieve a moderate level of knowledge on these issues, and can't yet muster the time necessary to keep up with the fire-hose of email generated by such listservs. I hope that is a reasonable goal.
Marcy's question, and Gerry and Rob's Replies
Again, this is from the comments on the first post at the bottom of the blog.
Marcy said...
I agree that embedding the rationale behind the opinions of more or less sustainability (related to individual votes) directly on the scorecard would be of added value and benefit; particularly to those less familiar with the broader context of the discussion. I wouldn't be surprised if we see this function included in the next iteration of the site. These folks are all about being upfront about their beliefs, which I respect. On a simiIar note, I would love to see a process enacted on the select board of explaining abstention votes. From the discussion that takes place on a motion it is pretty clear what has motivated a Yay or Nay vote, but it is often perplexing to me, unless a conflict of interest has been identified, to determine the motivation behind abstention. It was especially troubling to me to see so many abstention votes on the various motions related to the override question (or questions). It is hard to formulate an opinion on the kind of stand our elected officials are taking on the issues crucial to our town in the instances when they aren't overtly taking one. It makes me question their willingness to lead.
Gerry said.....
Mary, your point is well taken about abstentions. Any time you have a question about why I voted as I did, please feel free to contact me. I believe everyone on the SB feels the same. You can do so on this blog, on list serves, via email, via phone. I'm always willing to explain myself.
robert said...
Marcy and other friends,
I think my abstention on the "$1.5M question" last Monday was explained completely by earlier comments I made at the meeting before the vote was taken, and by my subsequent motion: I think we need a multi-year plan and multi-year funding of such a plan in place; but the exact amount, and whether it should be done with a single question or with two questions, was not yet settled in my mind at the time of the first vote. (Indeed, it proved later to still be unsettled in the minds of many of my Select Board colleagues!) Later in the meeting, I explicitly commented that this is in part the "fault{ of the rules of procedure with which we work, these rules requiring our discussion to be "punctuated with votes and motions", often before we've come to a position we are ready to agree upon.
That's not a lack of leadership - that's using one's ears and eyes and mind - and one's considered judgement - to make good decisions, not simply "speedy" ones. (Look where such "speedy" decisions have gotten us with foreign and environmental policies, for example!)
I believe that by the end of the discussion on the override, even if it may seem like we had returned to where we were the week before - which isn't the case at all, since the result was that Hwei-ling had joined the unanimous vote and there had been a very throrough discussiom of the various views on tnis issue - the Town had made progress.
This override is potentially very divisive issue, and trying to work through these divisions and diverse perspectives in a forum like the Select Board can only be helpful. Wouldn't it would be kind of "phony" (or worse) if we always marched to the same drummer, goose-stepping and straight-armed saluting "the right thing to do" simply in the name of "leadership"?!
Anyway, as Gerry also invited - and as I have also invited many as well (including you, I believe :-) in the past - please feel free to call or email anytime you want to discuss an issue. Perhaps your comments will prove so persuasive that I'll change my mind - or even be placed in such a dilemma that I will be forced to abstain (until a better crafted motion or more information is presented ;-)!
Warmest regards,
Rob
Marcy said...
I agree that embedding the rationale behind the opinions of more or less sustainability (related to individual votes) directly on the scorecard would be of added value and benefit; particularly to those less familiar with the broader context of the discussion. I wouldn't be surprised if we see this function included in the next iteration of the site. These folks are all about being upfront about their beliefs, which I respect. On a simiIar note, I would love to see a process enacted on the select board of explaining abstention votes. From the discussion that takes place on a motion it is pretty clear what has motivated a Yay or Nay vote, but it is often perplexing to me, unless a conflict of interest has been identified, to determine the motivation behind abstention. It was especially troubling to me to see so many abstention votes on the various motions related to the override question (or questions). It is hard to formulate an opinion on the kind of stand our elected officials are taking on the issues crucial to our town in the instances when they aren't overtly taking one. It makes me question their willingness to lead.
Gerry said.....
Mary, your point is well taken about abstentions. Any time you have a question about why I voted as I did, please feel free to contact me. I believe everyone on the SB feels the same. You can do so on this blog, on list serves, via email, via phone. I'm always willing to explain myself.
robert said...
Marcy and other friends,
I think my abstention on the "$1.5M question" last Monday was explained completely by earlier comments I made at the meeting before the vote was taken, and by my subsequent motion: I think we need a multi-year plan and multi-year funding of such a plan in place; but the exact amount, and whether it should be done with a single question or with two questions, was not yet settled in my mind at the time of the first vote. (Indeed, it proved later to still be unsettled in the minds of many of my Select Board colleagues!) Later in the meeting, I explicitly commented that this is in part the "fault{ of the rules of procedure with which we work, these rules requiring our discussion to be "punctuated with votes and motions", often before we've come to a position we are ready to agree upon.
That's not a lack of leadership - that's using one's ears and eyes and mind - and one's considered judgement - to make good decisions, not simply "speedy" ones. (Look where such "speedy" decisions have gotten us with foreign and environmental policies, for example!)
I believe that by the end of the discussion on the override, even if it may seem like we had returned to where we were the week before - which isn't the case at all, since the result was that Hwei-ling had joined the unanimous vote and there had been a very throrough discussiom of the various views on tnis issue - the Town had made progress.
This override is potentially very divisive issue, and trying to work through these divisions and diverse perspectives in a forum like the Select Board can only be helpful. Wouldn't it would be kind of "phony" (or worse) if we always marched to the same drummer, goose-stepping and straight-armed saluting "the right thing to do" simply in the name of "leadership"?!
Anyway, as Gerry also invited - and as I have also invited many as well (including you, I believe :-) in the past - please feel free to call or email anytime you want to discuss an issue. Perhaps your comments will prove so persuasive that I'll change my mind - or even be placed in such a dilemma that I will be forced to abstain (until a better crafted motion or more information is presented ;-)!
Warmest regards,
Rob
Monday, March 26, 2007
putting a comment on the main blog
There has been some good discussion in the comments to my posting, and I'm not sure that everyone will open the comments, so I'll post this example:
Chris Boyd said...
Where are your rankings? The sa folks clearly state how they created their ranking and why. How would your ranking be different? Which vote do you disagree with? And by the way, you are the one being divisive - you took their name.
March 26, 2007 2:55 AM
IMC said...
Dear Chris-
I don't have rankings. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. The point I'm trying to make is about how the discussion is being conducted, *not* about the actual positions being taken.
My frustration is that, from the viewpoint of someone trying to develop opinions and positions, the debates among people "already on the inside" are so heated that it's hard to see exactly why people are for or against a particular action. I have already noted that I may share many of the positions that the sa.org folks have. However, I find the current structure of their argument so problematic, that I'm tempted to take opposing positions just because I think their tactics are so objectionable. And as I watch myself experience that reaction, I gain some insight into how local politics become so overheated.
Perhaps a metaphor would help (I admit it is not perfect, but maybe it will add clarity); As a professor, I have students working for hours and hours on assignments, that I then grade. I believe that I have a duty to be crystal clear in my criteria for those grades, particularly when I am giving out grades like -8 (I think that was Gerry's grade on sa.org) on a scale of -18 to 18. If I buried my grading criteria in a long series of essays, and then handed out such grades, my students would go ballistic.
Of course, this metaphor is not a perfect match. However, the basic principle is the same. If one is going to publicly flunk people on something that they are spending huge amounts of time and energy on, I believe it is rude to do so with anything less than crystal clear criteria.
My choice of a name for my blog is intentional -- again, I have a structural objection to the sa.org website. To set themselves up as the arbiters of what a sustainable amherst needs appears to be hubris. I'm demonstrating that they do not own this vision, much as they may be developing positions about how best to achieve that vision. The name of my blog demonstrates that they share those values with me, and many others.
As a practical matter, I strongly doubt my blog will siphon traffic from their site. If somehow it does, than perhaps I could post a prominent link to their site. I don't think any of us need to worry.
Chris Boyd said...
Where are your rankings? The sa folks clearly state how they created their ranking and why. How would your ranking be different? Which vote do you disagree with? And by the way, you are the one being divisive - you took their name.
March 26, 2007 2:55 AM
IMC said...
Dear Chris-
I don't have rankings. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. The point I'm trying to make is about how the discussion is being conducted, *not* about the actual positions being taken.
My frustration is that, from the viewpoint of someone trying to develop opinions and positions, the debates among people "already on the inside" are so heated that it's hard to see exactly why people are for or against a particular action. I have already noted that I may share many of the positions that the sa.org folks have. However, I find the current structure of their argument so problematic, that I'm tempted to take opposing positions just because I think their tactics are so objectionable. And as I watch myself experience that reaction, I gain some insight into how local politics become so overheated.
Perhaps a metaphor would help (I admit it is not perfect, but maybe it will add clarity); As a professor, I have students working for hours and hours on assignments, that I then grade. I believe that I have a duty to be crystal clear in my criteria for those grades, particularly when I am giving out grades like -8 (I think that was Gerry's grade on sa.org) on a scale of -18 to 18. If I buried my grading criteria in a long series of essays, and then handed out such grades, my students would go ballistic.
Of course, this metaphor is not a perfect match. However, the basic principle is the same. If one is going to publicly flunk people on something that they are spending huge amounts of time and energy on, I believe it is rude to do so with anything less than crystal clear criteria.
My choice of a name for my blog is intentional -- again, I have a structural objection to the sa.org website. To set themselves up as the arbiters of what a sustainable amherst needs appears to be hubris. I'm demonstrating that they do not own this vision, much as they may be developing positions about how best to achieve that vision. The name of my blog demonstrates that they share those values with me, and many others.
As a practical matter, I strongly doubt my blog will siphon traffic from their site. If somehow it does, than perhaps I could post a prominent link to their site. I don't think any of us need to worry.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
A note about how this blog works
As I'm recieving comments, I thought it would be important to point out that there is a link at the bottom of each post that shows if people are commenting or not...click on that if you would like to read or join the discussion. For instance, if you would like to know who I am, read the comments at the bottom of the first post.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)