Re: [Mpls] The Need to Know re: Federal Mediation

[Jhpalmerjp]

Michelle, I think you misunderstand the process and spirit of mediation, and the guidelines that you keeping quoting (which, incidently, you have stated exist but have not provided any specific citation such as the document name, paragraph and subsection so that people can verify what you're saying, and therefore support your position).  Mediation is set up in situations where two parties have differences and different positions and need a neutral third party to help them find the common ground and reconcile.  The overall spirit though is that there is some level of trust and faith that both parties want essentially the same thing and that each will agree to something reasonable somewhere in the middle.  The difference between this and a lawsuit generally being that a lawsuit is done when there isn't a level of trust in the other party to be fair and you therefore need a neutral arbiter to make the decision.  As such, in mediation there is the hope of reconciliation and cooperation, and if a party is being honest and fair, they will make certain that everyone who needs to be on their side is there and that everyone who needs to be on the other side is there as well.  After all, how much sense would it make for you to have mediation and on the City side was just the Planning Department?  You would and should demand that the participants necessary (in this case the Police) be there, because that's who the reconciliation needs to be with.  And in return the City needs to make sure that all perspectives are represented with how they're hoping to reconcile with.  That is what Kinshasha did and what any person in mediation should do.

Next, as to your delineation of sides, the "community" didn't democratically elect its representatives.  The group of people that was gathered together by your group perspective elected these representatives.  It is a subset of the community at best and cannot be said to definitively represent or call itself the community.  But more to the point, this whole process is based on policy and ideas not individuals.  The problem is such that there is a philosophical and legal convenant between the institution of the Police Department and the citizens of the City.  This convenant is that they are here to protect and serve and return we grant them certain powers to enforce the laws to accomplish this.  The problem is that members of the PD are not abiding by this, and are in fact breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold.  As such, the mediation is to achieve the restoration of the balance, the PD doing what it is supposed to do and measures for ensuring this happen, be it CRA, increased consequences, what have you.  The part I think you're missing is that the policy stands on opposite sides, not the individuals.  There is a City position and a "Community" position, individuals, however, do not break down into a set side.  There are many City employees and representatives who wholeheartedly support and understand the "Community" position.  Are they not allowed to do this because they are employed by the City?  Are they not allowed, then, to stand for Justice?

Mediation is about cooperation and working together.  Certainly, you need to make certain that the other side is acting fairly, but before you do, you need to make certain that your own side has done so as well.  If you've paid attention to the community at all, you recognized the different perspectives that exist and as such, whether they show up at a meeting or not, it is your responsibiity as an agent of change to make certain that everyone has a voice, even if it's the one that you don't want to hear.  Especially, if you're going to ask the questions of:

>>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?<<

because if you haven't brought all of the perspective to the "Community" side, then you are guilty of not allowing the people to make their own choices and it makes it appear as if your group has a vested interest in narrowing the scope of the community team.

Finally, "dirt" can be interpreted as asking who you are or how can you be reached.  If you're not going to state facts such as who told you this, and what specifically they allege that Kinshasha asked, then it is hearsay and borders on slander.  It can't be a "contemporaneous record of a conversation, the kind of evidence that is accepted in courts everyday" if you haven't related the conversation.  Instead it becomes another manner of impugning the character of a fine community leader and one of the few in the City who, whether you believe it or not, is working towards your goal.  And since you're dropping this matter, I would still encourage you to have the conversation directly with Kinshasha and deal directly with her on issues of her.  I still think that you might be surprised at the results.

Jonathan Palmer
Victory