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):

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

What will really sustain Amherst?

Local politics are an unusual phenomenon. Based on our experience of state and federal political processes, we are used to being able to categorize all the candidates, officials, and positions into "left" and "right", "democratic" and "republican", and "progressive" versus "conservative". Occasionally, pundits will note that a given issue has created "strange bedfellows" by throwing together, say, the religious right and conservationists. However, most of the time we can label things pretty neatly.

The players and actions in town politics are not so easily categorized. It is easy, however, to agree on the goals; who would argue with strong schools, preserving open space, encouraging green businesses?

The authors of www.sustainableamherst.org certainly claim to be advocating just these things. However, it is obvious that many of the people and decisions that they black list as approaching the magic score of -21, (in their words "dooming this town") are just as intent on sustaining amherst as the authors of the website are.

Although their words appear friendly, their strategy is destructively adversarial. They are creating a false dichotomy between those who supposedly wish to sustain Amherst and ... who? Those cursed Sith Lords who have gone undercover as members of Town Meeting in order to execute their devilish plot to destroy Amherst? Lord Voldemort's Minions who have infiltrated the Select Board in order to recruit Death Eaters among the Finance Committee?

No one spends the time, energy, and money necessary to participate in town government with any goal other than sustaining the town. The authors of sustainableamherst.org seek to stake some moral high ground, they seem to be making distinctions among people based on allegiance to specific values (much as we would expect to do between Democrats and Republicans on the national stage). However, they have tried to stake a claim to the very values that we all share. In the process, they have over-simplified the issues and created unnecessary divisiveness.

When I search their website for rationales for the grades they assign to specific votes (and therefore, specific people), all I can find is the Amherst Center columns that they have collected. While much of the same language is repeated in these columns as appears on the site, I have to work hard to find the connections between positions in the columns and votes scored as good or bad for Amherst.

Please, webmasters, make your rationales clearer! Currently, your site appears to be a popularity contest or campaign propaganda, rather than a thoughtful discussion of the difficult issues facing out town.

For instance, I see a passionate plea for an improved permitting process for downtown business in one of your columns. Makes good sense to me -- as a huge fan of Fresh Side, I have worried as I watched that new space languish for innumerable months, and cheered as Claudia brought me my first meal there. I read a very positive piece in Business West about Larry Shaffer's efforts to improve the process, in collaboration with the Select Board (as the reporter noted). However, I notice that the members of that very select board, who hired Mr. Shaffer and who helped to gain such positive press in a local business publication, are languishing at the bottom of the sa.org scoreboard, with scores between -4 and -18. As I watch Fresh Side, TaBella, and The Amherst Cinema draw people to downtown, I question whether the issue of support for local businesses really earns your chosen select board candidate the 25 and 34 point leads you seek to grant her over her competition.

Please, webmasters, do us all a favor; recognize that we all share your values. Focus on the issues, rather than on naming your collective "BFF" (Best Friends Forever). I would love to see a "guide to the votes" tab on your website, where I could see each vote that you chose, and why you chose it over others, and why you came down on one side or the other. Then you actually would be sustaining our town.