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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I am reminded of one of the concepts of William James that we humans decided most important matters (he cites specifically love, patriotism, politics and faith in God) by our emotions, by what he calls our "dumb intuitions" and then we find logical argument, a logical reason to justify what we already decided with our passion. "Instinct leads, intelligence follows." (William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, pages 84-85). I both love and hate democracy. So many stupid opinions, yet, mystically, I believe that our collective ruminations are more to be trusted than experts. The only danger is really that our passions would fix on one person or group or one ideology that would than deny our need to continue to discuss and suffer with each other. Frank
Why are you putting the burden on the sustainableamherst folks? I think their priorities are pretty clear, both by what they say and how they vote in town meeting.
You seem to have a vision for what would make Amherst sustainable, so lets hear it! Go through the votes that were picked that you disagree with and explain why you disagree. Tell us your priorities. Convince me that your vision is better for Amherst.
(and could you let us know who you are???)
Hi Gavin-
Sorry...I didn't intend to remain anonymous. I'm Ian Camera. I lived in Amherst from the age of 10 years old until I graduated from ARHS in 1988 (my maiden name is McKenna-Thomas for those of you who were around then). Then I lived here again for a few years in the mid nineties, when I filled in for a teacher at ARHS (Social Studies) and worked for EarthAction, a network of NGOs that has a main office here in Amherst. Since living in San Francisco and then moving to Cleveland for graduate school, my wife and I have relocated here to be near family and live in this fabulous town. I now teach nursing at Holyoke Community College, and she (Samantha Camera) teaches in the Social Studies department at ARHS. My mother is Jenifer McKenna, who is on town meeting and is a therapist in town, and my stepdad is Gerry Weiss, who is on the Select Board.
I put the onus of offering details about particular votes on the authors of sa.org because they are the ones who have made such a public proclamation so many other things, and I feel strongly that it is unfair and hurtful to be publicly scoring people on criteria that are not clearly stated. As I have said in my original post, if the authors choose values that are shared by all, then they must make it clear why certain actions or votes better support those values than other actions do. In short, the website is missing the very analysis on which it is based, and I believe that until that analysis is shared, the website is doing more harm than good.
I would be posting my own opinions about all these votes and issues; as you can tell, I am simultaneously a taxpaying home owner, spouse of a school employee, parent of a student in the system (Jonas, age four, in the preschool at Crocker Farm), neighbor to the Potwine soccer fields, ...the list goes on. However, with two kids under five (those little anklebiters pictured in Gerry's campaign flyer, to be exact) and facing three sources of homework (my teaching, my wife's teaching, and the textbook writing I do to supplement our incomes enough to allow us to live in the town we love), we barely have enough time to shower, let alone track these complex and vital issues. Hence my extreme frustration with activities that heat up the debate, rather than clarify the issues for those of us who are trying to stay abreast of it all.
Thank you, Gavin, for nudging me on my anonymous posting. I did not mean for it to be so. I look forward to anything you or others have to offer about the issues at hand, it will be a great help to me and Sam as we plan our futures together in this town.
But I couldn't help notice your step dad posted a link to this site on the parent coalition listserve and never mentioned his relationship with/to you.
And why must all comments "be approved" by the Blog author? (What are you afraid of?) Having also recently started a Blog (with a slighly more original name), it would never occur to me to censor responses as this is, after all, the Internet.
Larry Kelley
OnlyInTheRepublicofAmherst
Hi Larry-
Having recently started a blog, you will probably soon learn that people who having nothing to do with the topic of your blog will choose to post advertisements for sexual enhacements, etc as comments to your thoughtful posts. Perhaps you will be lucky enough to escape this lovely experience, but moderating comments helps prevent the problem.
Also, I have learned through talking to Gerry that people can be rather rude in the course of engaging in Amherst politics (they'll "flame" you, I believe is the current internet term for the practice). Since my primary goal in joining the conversation is trying to focus on issues rather than "us vs them" polarization, I would rather have control over what lands on this blog. I have yet to reject a comment, but of course it's been less than 24 hours, so I don't think that saying much yet.
As to my relationship with Gerry, I try to be clear about it, particularly since we don't share a last name. However, I don't know that my position in that particular posting is very tightly tied to my relationship with him. I know other folks that have no familial relationship to Ger or any other candidate who are similarly frustrated with that particular website. When I am actively supporting him, I am very clear about it (see my letter in the most recent edition of the bulletin). As it stands now, anyone who follows the link that he sent out and follows my suggestion to read these comments will know exactly how we are related. If they don't follow the link, than it doesn't matter, does it?
Good luck in the blogosphere!
Ian
Yeah, about pornography I couldn’t agree more. My current Blog has a photo of my 5-year-old daughter (supporting Alisa). And there are at least two written words I would censor from my Blog as well: The C-word and the N-word. But other than that, the hotter the better!
When you say you would rather not deal with “us vs them polarization” and you would rather have “control over what lands on this blog,” it still sounds like the tight gripped CONTROL Mother Mary uses on the Town Meeting yahoo listserve (that she owns).
Because other than my narrow aforementioned exceptions, I agree with the ACLU: the best way to counteract bad speech is with good speech.
Gerry is a Big Boy; if he can’t handle the heat or Internet flames here and there then he should do as that great Democratic President once said, “Get out of the kitchen”.
Larry
Yes, Larry, I think that there are very few things that I would keep out of this blog, but when it comes right down to it, there are a few things that people will have to start their own blogs to say (good news is that they can, if they wish to, as our efforts both reveal).
Gerry is a "big boy", and he can take whatever gets dished out, as attested by his run for re-election. Clearly, the "flaming" that he receives once in a while is only one part of the experience, or else he wouldn't be running again. However, that doesn't improve my opinion of the people that do the flaming. They aren't helping anything, and there isn't any good reason for small town governance to be anything but civil. In fact, if we want more smart, practical, skilled people to run for office, than the more civil we can be, the more likely folks will be to run. I think this about national politics, as well, but I don't really have much hope at that level. At this level, I strongly believe that we should leave knee-jerk adversarial posturing in the courtroom, and the hazing on frat row. We can all act like "big boys" and "big girls" and treat each other respectfully.
Ian
Pertaining to your quote:
"I put the onus of offering details about particular votes on the authors of sa.org because they are the ones who have made such a public proclamation so many other things, and I feel strongly that it is unfair and hurtful to be publicly scoring people on criteria that are not clearly stated......In short, the website is missing the very analysis on which it is based, and I believe that until that analysis is shared, the website is doing more harm than good."
Perhaps you have not noticed the tab at the top of the web page labeled Amherst Center. Clicking on it will bring you links to twelve opinion pieces written by the authors of the sa.org blog in the Amherst Bulletin over the past year. A thirteenth piece appeared this past week, but is not yet linked. In those pieces you will find very detailed analysis of the criteria upon which they are basing their view of voting records that support sustainability; inculding references to many of the specific town meeting articles in question. What, exactly, their view of sustainability for Amherst is, and why, is also clearly laid out. Anyone is entitled to agree or disagree with Clare, Baer and Andy's perspective. But to accuse them of not adequately laying out the reasoning behind those views is, in my opinion, not acccurate or fair. They have just engaged in a very deliberate, year long process of attempting to do so.
Hey Ian,
When I wrote a paid monthly column for the 'Amherst Bulletin' for 14 years (resigning over being told not to write anymore about ‘Vagina Monologues’ at your alma mater) my goal per column was for a perfect 50/50 split: half the folks love it and half absolutely hate it.
And yeah, if somebody crosses the line with their flaming then that says more about them than it does about their target. And the RECORD (print, photo, videotape, QuickTime, or Blog) will show that.
Let freedom ring!
Larry
Marcy-
Thank you for your suggestion. I did read some of those columns (I do not claim to have read every one). I enjoyed the one that I mentioned about permiting in town, for instance. In fact, it may be that I would agree with many of the points taken by these authors. It is possible that my frustration with this site is the layout, rather than the content. It is really easy to see who is on the good list or the bad list, but I think it should be the analysis of the votes that is upfront, because that emphasizes the issues. The authors clearly have put a great deal of work into their columns for the bulletin, and for that they deserve credit. However, at least for this reader, they haven't organized their website to focus on the issues. And, particularly in electronic media, that says a lot. When I say that I would love to see a tab that explains their opinions vote by vote, I really mean it. That would be issues-focussed and really helpful to me and others like me. And I am very open to being convinced by such an offering.
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.
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.
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.
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
Rob,
Thanks for the explanation about that particular absention vote. My comment was related to wishing that there was a process (or protocol) that could be enacted for explaining the rationale for abstention votes in general; in the context of the broader discussion on this site of the relative lack of value in transparency of record if it is not accompanied by transparency of rationale. I agree with that general premise. I have no interest in seeing our elected officials "march to the same drummer" or "straight arm salute". I would only like to understand the thinking behind their perspectives and how that thinking influences the positions they take. In the recent override debate, both Mr. Weiss and Mr. Hubley were models of that process, in my view, despite the fact that they had quite disparate views. I have nothing against opposing beliefs. They help inform the debate. I have nothing against abstentions either. It is just harder to determine the direction one is intending to govern or lead when they are employed without an accompanying explanation. I hope this doesn't offend. It was not intended to.
Marcy
Post a Comment