This is way too long, but I don't have time to respond to
these negatives very often.
This is a reply to Russell Wayne Peterson:
Your analysis of the way NRP works is so distorted from my
experience that it is hard to believe we live in the same
city.
Months ago I said that the
I'm not interested in getting heavily involved in this thread, but have a few
thoughts to contribute based on my 7 years (1993-1999) as a policy board
member, one year (1997?) of which was served as policy board chair (for this
I should be assumed into heaven without dying). Incidentally, my
I think Jay Clark summed up the arguments for and against the NRP:
NRP was designed to get more people involved in their community, and
reforming government to more effectively meet community resident's needs.
The only justification for me is that the neighborhoods are doing such a
good job at
Thanks for the suggestions, John. While I appreciate
parts of your ideas, I can see three ways that the NRP
baby could be thrown out with the bathwater:
- While further staffing checks and balances may be
needed, I'd prefer that neighborhoods retain the right
to make reasonable staffing
I'd like to reply to some of Grow's accusations in David's succinct relaying of
the facts:
David Brauer wrote:
I thought Doug Grow had a very interesting and provocative Minneapolis
column on Wednesday, and was surprised to see no discussion...perhaps
Thanksgiving planning got in the way.
Months ago I said that the under-supported NRP system in this city was going
to explode in some additional neighborhoods. We have over worked
volunteers, under trained staff, lack of city hall support, way too much
movement in staff within the system, poor financial controls, and a clear
lack of
