I have identified two major problems with the NRP program:
1. The rights of individuals are not protected.
2. NRP contractors may sometimes lack the experience
necessary to properly manage their programs.
I would now like to introduce a third. Namely, that the NRP
program has brought city hall style politics into our neighborhoods.
When my wife and I first started attending our neighborhood meetings
we shocked at how the meetings were "controlled" by Robert's
Rules of Order. In some cases, if you were trying to make a
contrary point, someone would "call the question" and cut you
off. It took us three books and one year to become proficient
enough at Robert's Rules to be able to present our views. We
later found out that the Parlimentian and future PPERRIA president
was an attorney and the former Reviser of Statues for the State
of Minnesota. I can now understand the phrase, "A person who acts
as their own attorney has a fool for a client." It's very difficult
to function in an adversarial relationship if you don't know the rules.
In addition to parliamentary procedures, I was introduced to "spin," as
in: how to slant facts in order to discredit the personal reputation
of others. One major characteristic of spin, is an avoidance of
the issues and a focus on minor details. In the PPERRIA
President's response to my NRP post below, you may notice that he
never deals with the primary point that I raised: Does the NRP
program provide sufficient protection of individual rights? Instead,
Mr. Cross seeks to add "corrections." Below, you can review
the facts that I have added to his comments. I believe that you can judge
for yourself if his comments are indeed corrections or just spin.
Steve Cross wrote:
> Just to set the record straight, here are a few corrections
> to the claims made about PPERRIA.
> (1) "misquoted in the organization's newsletter"
>
> What is probably referred to is PPERRIA's meeting minutes
> that are published in the newsletter. I don't believe that the
> author was mentioned in the newsletter otherwise. On
> several occasions when approval of minutes is considered
> at the next meeting, the author has said that he was
> either misquoted or his position has been misrepresented.
> Sometimes the meeting has voted to change the minutes
> but at other times the meeting has voted to keep the
> minutes as written.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Cross never denies that I
was misquoted, in fact he acknowledges that it was necessary
to change the minutes multiple times. On one occasion
when the minutes misrepresented something that had
occurred, we replayed an audio tape to show that this
was true and the members voted to ignore reality and accepted
the minutes as they were. Note: And at the time a PPERRIA
vice president suggested that the tape had been altered. We have
since suggested that they should maintain a recording of their own.
> (2) "PPERRIA's president tried to have me physically ejected"
>
> What that leaves out is that there was a meeting rule adopted
> by the members that prohibited recording. I, as President, was
> trying to enforce that rule. At one point it was pointed out that
> the majority of the members at the meeting were saying that
> they did not like being recorded and he was asked to
> voluntarily not do it even if he felt that it was his right to do so.
> He declined.
True, I did not include all of the events that occurred in reference
to this meeting. Here are some additional facts.
1. Mr. Cross had arranged to have the police present in advance.
2. The members voted on a number temporary rules, one banning
audio and video recording, and another limiting members comments
to 30 seconds. Note: Members have since failed to support a
ban on recording at two meetings.
3. I declined to turn off the recorder because I believed that it
was important to have a permanent record of the meeting and that
I was within my rights to continue recording.
4. Mr. Cross then requested that the police officer remove me from
the meeting, even though he is expressly forbidden to do so by
Robert's Rules without a vote for removal by the membership.
5. The police officer refused to eject me and stated that he
believed that I was within my rights to record the meeting.
> Another reply said that audio recording wouldn't be bad, "unless
> you're running around getting in the face of everyone who talks.
> Video can be pretty intimidating." At least at one meeting it
> was video recording and the cameras LITERALLY were in
> people's faces.
It is unclear which meeting Mr. Cross is referring to. On one
occasion a WCCO cameraman was present. When they
interview people I would assume that cameras are LITERALLY
in people's faces. My wife and I have only video taped one
meeting in three years (although other PPERRIA members,
including one PPERRIA vice president, have recorded others).
We did find it to be intrusive, so we stopped. When we first
began audio taping we used a shotgun microphone, but we
soon discovered that we could set it on the floor or a chair
and it worked equally well.
> At least until the recording was done with
> surpeptious equipment, pointing of the microphone was done.
I'm not sure what "surpeptious" means. As I implied, we did
point the microphone at the beginning. For more than a year
we have been recording without pointing the microphone.
> I have heard people say that they believe that intimidation is
> exactly the intent of the recording. When the recording is
> combined with regular statements about "I can sue" the
> intent may be more evident.
This is guilt by innuendo. Our intent is not to intimidate
anyone, our intent is to insure that people tell the truth and
that we are not misquoted. I suppose that this may intimidate
people who may wish to misrepresent the truth, but intimidation
is not our motivation. I believe that you should stand by what
you say, or stand ready to apologize and make a correction.
I have stated that I believed it might be necessary to sue the organization
in order to insure my rights under the law. I do not believe
that we statements were "regular," rather they were in response
to specific actions by PPERRIA members.
> (3) "I have the right to do this because PPERRIA ... is thus
> subject to the open meeting law"
>
> All PPERRIA meetings are open to the public. The issue
> is not whether the meetings are open but whether someone
> may be disruptive (as in "intimidating") at a meeting. The
> meeting is open but that law gives no one the right to be
> disruptive at that open meeting.
I am sure that if I'd done anything disruptive or intimidating
I would have been kicked out of PPERRIA long before now.
The issue of what to do about me has come up at several PPERRIA
executive committee meetings. The truth is that I follow the rules
more closely and I am more courteous than many PPERRIA members.
> (4) "NRP Sucks"
>
> The rules of this forum include a rule prohibiting "inflamed
> speech for the sake of personal argument." In response, I
> would just observe that the author follows this forum's rules
> about as well as the rules of PPERRIA or the rules of simple
> courtesy.
Ok, so I grew up on the streets in L.A. and I have this habit
calling it the way I see it. Life's a bxxxx sometimes. I don't
think that this in anyway weakens the validity and moral
imperative of my message, it just makes its presentation more
honest.
Any myth of Minnesota Niceness in this dispute vanished more than
two years ago and it was not dispelled by my use of the vernacular.
Mike Atherton
Prospect Park
Ward 2
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
