David Brauer wrote:
> In your original post, you wrote "What I find most
> distressing about this process is that my neighbors care
> little what means they use as long as their ends are achieved."
> Now, to some, that might be character assassination.
In your original follow up to my post you first accused me
of "demonizing disagreement," it now seems that I am accused
of demonizing the process (which I wouldn't necessarily
deny).
> It is at least mind-reading...and very unkind mind-reading at that.
> Discussing process, in my view, doesn't absolve one of demonizing
> disagreement.
It is not mind-reading at all. Mr. Cross' post clearly states
that supporters of the bundled proposals knew that their
actions were a violation of NRP policy:
"NRP discharged its duty by telling the neighborhood
of the consequences and the neighborhood made and adult
choice to take certain action despite the sanctions the
NRP will impose." [I would point out that it was NOT
the "neighborhood" that make these choices, but the
residents who packed this meeting, not more than 4% of
the "neighborhood."]
How do you think this makes those of us who are following the
NRP rules feel? It's ok to commit the crime as long as you're
willing to pay the penalty? It's ok to violate the rules
in order to achieve your goals over those of your neighbors?
Perhaps Mr. Brauer can describe a legitimate means of criticizing
an unfair and biased process in a way so that one cannot be accused
of "demonizing disagreement." Just what conditions must be met
to de-demonize legitimate criticism?
> When I was neighborhood board president, I received a call from a
> councilmember about the proposed Ace Hardware house move. The
> councilmember was letting me know a new organization had approached
> him about moving the houses. At the time, they were offering to move
> the houses WITHOUT NRP money (potentially saving us money) but making
> them affordable.
I don't see how this example does anymore than distract from
the fundamental issues I have raised. It is not at all similar.
Your behavior did not violate existing rules and procedures, although
someone might argue that it did bias the process; which is a legitimate
concern and you as a board member should have been willing to address
these questions. I believe that public officials can be legitimately
asked to justify their actions and motivations. That is exactly what
is required when you need to show that you don't have a conflict of
interest; you must show that your personal motivations do will not
influence your policy decisions. The questioning of motivations
is only limited in procedural regulations such as Robert's Rules,
questioning the of motivations is clearly an acceptable and common
practice in politics. You are welcome to question my motivations
and I will respond accordingly, but that is not what is occurring
here.
I believe that I have presented legitimate arguments to show that
the NRP reallocation meeting did not fairly present all residents with
an equal opportunity to be represented. In my next post (if I can
resist defending myself against additional personal attacks) I will
show how this is related to basic problems inherent in the NRP and
its current management. I would hope that Mr. Brauer would directly
address these issues, which, by-the-way, he could still do by
responding to my second post in this thread (it might provide a good
role model for new list members).
Michael Atherton
Prospect Park
TEMPORARY REMINDER:
1. Send all posts in plain-text format.
2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible.
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
