You make it sound as if Ms. Kambui is just some regular ol' community member who just happens to have an office a few doors down from the mayor. Following that logic, I suppose Rybak and even Olson could be considered regular ol' community members who should be allowed to pick who sits on the community side of the table. Well, everyone reading this knows why that's wrong. What's different about Ms. Kambui? She gets her paycheck from the same people who sign Rybak's and Olson's checks.
Yes, there are some fine city council members and city employees who care deeply about this issue, including Ms. Kambui. They can be on the CITY side of the table (some are, in fact). However, the community did not tell the city who to put on their team and the same should have applied to the community side of the team. How can you justify the involvement of the city in picking the community side AFTER the community had democratically elected their representation? Are you saying that the people can't be trusted to make their own choices and must be "led" to the "right" team by an employee of the city? What makes you think the city wouldn't have a vested interest in narrowing the scope of the community team to people they can control?
When my political colleagues call me and tell me that they just got off the phone with Ms. Kambui and that she was digging for "dirt" on me it is hardly hearsay. It is a contemporaneous record of a conversation, the kind of evidence that is accepted in courts everyday.
Since it is clear that you are not going to hear what I say no matter how many ways or how many times I say it (and since my energies can be better spent in other directions), I'm dropping this subject. I'm sure that will bring a collective sigh of relief from the list.
Michelle Gross
Bryn Mawr
At 01:59 PM 6/10/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, first off Michelle, you haven't been "figuratively getting my backside kicked on this list for daring to bring out the negative role Kinshasha Kambui" or daring to question the "untouchables", you've been being questioned about your statements because your rhetoric is inflammatory but has little in the way of support or substance offered with it. Something I like to call the Al Sharpton approach, it sounds really impressive, excites a lot of people, but ultimately is nothing more than speculation and rhetoric until you offer something credible to support it. No one, in my opinion, is above questioning, regardless of who their family is, but you need truth and substance for it to be meaningful not flair for the dramatic. And as with Kinshasha, if you're doing the right thing, it can stand any questioning. So if you're feeling like your butt is being kicked maybe it has more to do with the validity of your statements than who you're attacking.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
Secondly, there's the issue of perspective. The Spokesman-Recorder does not speak for, determine the will of, or act as the representative of the Black Community, and as such cannot be said to "clearly define" anything. They represent a perspective just as One Nation News and Insight News both do. How valid you think any of these are depends on where you stand on the issue, but it's not a coincidence that the people who use and coined the term "poverty pimps", and the people who write for and support or subscribe to the perspective of the MSR and the people who are from your original "community representatives" group in the mediation are all from the same perspective group. Another perspective would be those subscribing to and supporting Insight News as the definitive news source and that includes the so-called "Poverty Pimps" and what you called "traditional Black Leadership", and the additional members of the mediation. As with all Venn Diagrams and samples, there is crossover and mixing and these are generalizations not distinct factions, but it is about perspective and a lot of arguing and rhetoric, not "the community" standing up and calling for fairness and being bludgeoned by these "poverty pimps" and the City. It is the subset of the first perspective shouting their rhetoric and claiming it as truth. Not the same thing, and definitely not fair.
In fact, fairness is what Kinshasha has always been about, and part of that fairness, part of her job responsibility is seeing that all perspectives have a seat at the table, not just the ones that you or one side wants. Making sure that all people have a voice at the table is what you claim to be about, but that requires that you invite everyone, even those you don't agree with, to have a voice. That's not stalling mediation, that's opening it up so that it is inclusive.
You haven't really answered my questions, but rather given your opinion as to what the City has done and will do and ascribed motives to individuals without evidence. Your point about who she contacted looking for "dirt", for example, is secondhand and hearsay and claiming that she met with "poverty pimps" to hand pick them only reinforces the truth that she met with people that are not in your perspective to be sure that they were also allowed to be involved as they should be. Calling it anything else is utilizing propaganda to raise your position. That's not the City handpicking people, that's a community leader who works for the City to ensure the community has representation doing her job. A community representative team has to include all perspectives from the community, not just the ones you want. By you're your logic the community representative team couldn't have any ties to City employees, and we both know that's not the case with your original team either.
All of your purported advertising and recruitment was done from a singular perspective and to a specific group. Not the community as a whole. I know that there were no flyers distributed to my neighborhood, nor were any of the organization of which I am or was a part of invited, two of which were alternative schools, a target population the victims of police brutality. No the "community meetings" and selection process came from a rather singular perspective and one which didn't include people who didn't agree with you. Not the most open process.
Lastly, what you have to understand is that the mediation is between the Police and the Community and it's about policy. Because someone works for the City doesn't mean they're not community members or care about the issues. If that were true then in addition to Kinshasha, you have to exclude Council Members like Dean Zimmerman and Natalie Johnson Lee who have spoken out and been supportive of mediation. You have to exclude the Duy Ngo's words or perspective regardless of how right he is because he's a Police Officer and so on. The bottom line is that the individual still has the right to be involved. And regardless of what you may think of the others at the table, Kinshasha is doing what's good for ALL of the community and doesn't deserve your attack not because of who she's related to, but because of who she is and what she does. Works hard for the community everyday and in every way, not just the days and ways that it suits her like some other alleged leaders that I could mention. If you really have an issue, again, I recommend talking to her directly than going on hearsay and second hand information. That is the way to deal with anyone. Moreover, if you're about standing up for what's right, find the common ground with people who don't share the same perspective and work towards the common goal: eliminating police brutality.
Jonathan Palmer
Victory
