However, before I start, I'd like to find out if there are any other "untouchables" I should know about from this list. Much of the on-list and off-list butt kicking involved a "how dare you" sentiment, citing Ms. Kambui's familial relations. Being that I'm not originally from here (I've been here 10 years), I was only vaguely aware of her familial ties. I think people's individual actions are more important than the family they come from. But before I step on anyone else's toes, please provide a list of folks whose actions are not to be criticized no matter what they do. That way, I (and others) can avoid the unmarked landmines.
DP: Okay, so let me get this straight. Because an entity is "beholden to the City" (a yet as undefined term), their voice has no credibility in the process of mediation? Who determined this? Those that wanted to take part and had never received financial (or other) assistance?
MG: The Spokesman-Recorder has clearly outlined the split within the Black community over the issue of "poverty pimps" (term used by community members) who take money from the city and who play the role of keeping community members "in their place." All the time that we were having community meetings to prepare for mediation, literally hundreds of people urged us not to make a place for these poverty pimps on the community team. The overwhelming sentiment expressed: "They don't represent us." Despite this, going into the nominating meeting for the community team, we had a slot on the team for a black minister and a slot for traditional black leadership, at the recommendation of the federal mediator. However, the Black community members voted these slots off the slate, stating they were sick of sell-outs and wanted to decide for themselves how to represent their community. It didn't help one bit that those groups could not be bothered to show up at the community meeting or that they told the paper they thought they should just automatically be on the team (i.e. not answerable to the community). Ultimately, the community members present chose emerging leaders from their community to fill those slots.
JP: Since, you've put these out there, I have some specific questions for you to address. Otherwise your comments read simply as slander and unwarranted complaints. How specifically did she: undermine the "potential avenue for change by coopting it with people financial beholden to the City"? Anyone who lives in the City is technically financially beholden to it, if for no other reason than paying taxes. What specifically did she do? How specifically did it impair the process? What evidence do you have that she did anything for the purpose of "making certain that no change will result"? What evidence do you have to support any of this, and how many conversations did you have with her regarding this to try and resolve this? ANd what are the specific DOJ regulations that you're referencing, because I can't find them.
MG: The DOJ Community Relations Service (CRS) publishes protocols (not regulations) on how they conduct mediation. These were given to us both when we sent the letter to ask for mediation and again during the pre-mediation meeting on December 10th. I do not know if they are up on their website but I have them on paper.
One of the most important principles on the list is that the community must select its own representation. This was also said to us repeatedly by the federal mediator, Pat Glenn. In fact, she suggested to us the format for the public meeting that was held to elect community representatives and we followed that format to the letter.
The city passed the resolution for mediation without knowing who was on the community team, only that every ethnic group in the city was represented on the team. However, as soon as the city found out that their usual cast of characters (see poverty pimp reference above) was not on the team, Olson (with the council's blessing) started in with his stall tactics. The city just could not stomach mediating with a team of "uncontrollable" community members. After seeing all the games the city was playing and how they would never allow the process to be real, we finally gave up on the notion of mediation and are taking the issues to federal court.
To save face, the CITY slapped together a "community team" of folks who get their money from the city [that's what I mean by beholden to the city--don't know how to make it plainer than that] and who are, therefore, unable to really go after the city in mediation [or they risk losing their funding]. Those folks held a meeting with us prior to mediation and admitted they did not know what the issues are (we spent four months doing door-to-door canvassing in the neighborhoods, holding community meetings and reviewing our cases to put together our issues list).
As to Kinshasha's role in all of this, let me spell it out. I have no doubt that her actions were taken at the behest of the city administration but they are, nonetheless, her actions:
1) She attempted to undermine federal mediation by trying to hire private mediators that would be under the city's control, and by trying to promote the notion of private mediation in the community. (This, in light of the fact that private mediators would have cost the city an estimated $50,000-$80,000 and the CRS is free.)
2) She personally called some of my political contacts looking for any "dirt" the city could use on me. I know this because those people turned around and called me contemporaneously to tell me about it. She also made a follow-up call to get at least one of those people to pressure me into dropping federal mediation. I don't want to sound paranoid or like this is all about me. However, I don't not know if she tried similar tactics with other folks who were working to bring in federal mediation or if I was the only one to get this unwanted "special attention."
3) She met with some of the above referenced "poverty pimps" to determine who would be allowed to sit on the so-called community team, both as the folks sitting at the table and the ones on the "advisory team." She then made the phone calls to invite people to be on the two teams. (We have a message from her saved on one of our group's cell phones.) Again, this flies in the face of the DOJ CRS protocols that say that the city should not be picking who represents the community side. Say what you will about her role as a community liaison--she still WORKS FOR the city and had NO BUSINESS picking who sits for the community, especially when the community ALREADY VOTED for who they wanted to represent them.
Based on her actions, I feel that Ms. Kambui, in concert with other city employees and officials, turned what could have been an avenue for real change into a shell, a sham process. You can't have real mediation when one side picks who sits for the other side, especially when the folks the city picked are, for the most part, financially beholden to the them. When the city pays you they own you and you aren't likely to bite the hand that feeds you.
How can anyone possibly have faith in a process like that? Because I can sure tell you that people we talk to don't. They are mad as hell that the process has been hijacked and, if this is any indication, they are running to be part of our lawsuit in droves.
That being said, no one would be happier than me if even one good thing comes out of that process. However, knowing the magnitude of changes needed, it is clear that other avenues will need to be pursued, which we and others are doing.
Michelle Gross Bryn Mawr
TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.)
________________________________
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
