On 12/29/03 9:05 PM, "Bob GUSTAFSON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually neither side has been strong on arguments. Apparently the key to > this discussion is to repeat your attacks and name calling, take the high > ground and blame your opponent for all sins committed. Let's face it, if > you're working towards "team work, concensus (sic) building, and acting > openly and fairly" as mentioned by one "Friendly" advocate I can't imagine a > more non-productive way to achieve that goal then labeling your opponent > the "Gang of Five". Your worthy cohorts are of course the "Friendly Four"
I think this is a misrepresentation of the "Friendly Four" group. They did not do any labeling. That was done by other list members. For example, the "Gang of Five" label was coined by me and I'm proud to say that I came up with it all by myself. >From the discussion on this forum, the Friendly Four members who have contributed comments have offered quite strong arguments for why this whole thing stinks and about some of the overall problems the board has. For example: John Erwin: http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2003-December/029434.html http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2003-December/029582.html Vivian Mason: http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2003-December/029454.html Annie Young: http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2003-December/029442.html I think Annie deserves particular appreciation for her posts to this forum during the whole superintendent search process to keep us informed of it's progress and give us an opportunity to get involved. > At a process level the opponents have more clearly defined their positions. > Basically from what I understand the "Gang of Five" has not acted > democratically because they didn't want to open up discussion with the > "Friendly Four" about the Gang's favorite to be the Park's new Czar. (I'm > not sure Mr. Gurban has been accused of being a Czar yet but let me be the > first to start this line of thought). The "Friendly Four" are of course > strong advocates for open democracy. Their intentions are pure and if only > they could figure out how their four votes could beat the Gang's five votes > they would, of course, "change everything for the better." Perhaps the > "Friendly Four" should follow the Bush example and see if the courts will > let them be in charge even though they have fewer votes. Again, another misrepresentation of the Friendly Four group. While I would say it is correct that the the Gang of Five has not acted democratically, it is not correct that the Friendly Four simply want to figure out a way for four to beat five. Rather, I think the initial hope in making this public was to find one member of the gang who might actually have something resembling a conscience who might realize what a horrible precedent is being set by the way Gurban was approved and how bad this looks to the public eye. Unfortunately, that doesn't look like it's going to happen. And even worse now, it looks like the guy who the Gang chose doesn't have the best track record as a manager either. So we've got a new superintendent who was brought in under shady circumstances who might not even be capable of doing the job. And people like Tony Scallon wonder why board members are being criticized? I'm wondering why there aren't more critics out there. If the city council president tried to pull a stunt like this, the uproar might very well melt the server with it's intensity. > Drawing closure on this topic is difficult. So far the best I can do is > this. > > Democracy works. Five votes beats four. Actually, the conclusion that I would draw so far is that collusion works. Find enough people who are sympathetic to your cause or whose arms can be twisted enough to go along and damn the rest. Is that what we want from our elected Park Board? > I would suggest that perhaps a more interesting line of discussion might be > why exactly this apparently dysfunctional board has split into two camps. > Might one group have different goals and expectations for the parks than the > other? Since the "Friendly Four" have taken the high road of asking for a > more open democracy, perhaps one of them would like to educate us as to why > this board split in the first place. I think it is overstatement to say that this board has split into two camps. Not all votes end 5-4 in the same manner as Gurban. Park Board commissioners who work proactively are often able to achieve consensus or at least larger majorities than the minimum of five. My question remains: why weren't the Gang of Five leaders willing to take this route regarding Gurban? Why did he have to be appointed NOW rather than go through at least an interview process? Yes, Mary Merrill Anderson is scheduled to retire on 12/31, but does she not have any assistants who could have held down the fort for a month or so while the hiring process continued, seeing as how there were other candidates to consider? What kind of sense does it make to bring in a total outsider to be an "interim" superintendent for a year? Given that the Minneapolis park system employs about 600 full-time and over 1,000 part-time staff and manages more than 170 park properties, he'll probably spend most of that time just figuring out how everything works. Then when the year is up, I suppose the Gang of Five will move for his reappointment simply on the basis that it would be a waste to bring in somebody new who would have to start again from scratch. Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
