Peter Stoyko wrote: Greetings ... Thanks again for your interest. Perhaps I should preface my further comments by underscoring that the opinions I express here are not those of the Project nor any government agency. They are solely my own. On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Tom Walker wrote: > Peter, Thomas: Well, I almost hate to interfere with the fine correspondence that is developing between you and Tom Walker. I understand your codicil above and respect it, but I would like to add how refreshing it his to have you intelligently respond to Tom's questions. I participated quite extensively on the Reflections board started by Minister Gagliano (excuse the spelling) and corresponded with a number of people who had a common interest and depth of background understanding. The frustration I felt when the list closed down was that, other than a thank you, there was no summary or follow up on the part of the government on what had been a fairly time consuming and dedicated effort to provide some citizen input into the decision making process. The report of the advisory committee was duly published in six sections. I had meant to do an analysis of these papers but gave up as they seemed to be writing from their own agenda rather than addressing the concerns of those who voluntarily participated. You, by your correspondence on the Future Work list represent a very small window into that faceless bureaucracy known as the Federal Government and I'm sure I, as well as others, do not want to close this window. At the same time, as you can tell by Tom's questions, there is a seething desire to get some response to solutions that we feel we have arrived at through study, observation and thinking. Even more than that is the desire to be constructively involved in a give and take manner on these questions that have become important in our lives, either through direct experience or intellectual interest. What those of us on the Internet are experiencing is a microphone to speak at the public meeting. What we find is that the committee who is supposed to listen and respond to our concerns is politely distant, non committal in response and difficult to engage on specifics. For example, on the Reflection List, it would have been helpful if the advisory committee that wrote the report had engaged themselves in the list by providing background references, comments and questions. Instead, they maintained the distance of star chamber judges peering at us from the gloom of their private positions. I think it behooves both those who make policy and those that are at the effect of policy to be able to engage in dialog knowing that at the end of the day, those in government are the ones empowered to act. If these thoughts could be conveyed in a non threatening manner to those within the system, I think they would be pleasantly suprised at the respectful response they would receive and that they would benefit from the exposure to the outer world which they may not be personally involved in. With these thoughts I close and hope you continue writing. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
