The below makes sense to me. I want to underscore the "problem" with self-perpetuating boards. In my 25 years of Organizational Development work I have developed a growing antipathy with them as an organizational model. It does not belong within a civic sphere that calls itself democratic. I discount such an organization's claims about its mission, operations and (especially) values by 75%.
Responsively yours, Bruce Leier -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 20:49 To: Mary Baker Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [StPaul] Private shouldn't necessarily stay that way The e-democracy board is a well meaning group of public spirited individuals, but they are not elected by anyone, and they pick their own replacements. There is no requirement that any of their actions and deliberations need to be public. The 'private stays private' rule creates a situation where all of us participants are allowed to take our issues to the authorities, but we are not allowed to discuss them with each other, except in private emails, and we are not allowed to report back to the group what the 'authorities' have told us. We are not even allowed to share the contents of one private email in another private email. I was reprimanded a couple of years ago because I sent a private email to someone quoting what the list manager had said to me when he threatened me with banning. I had posted opinions about the requirement of saying the pledge of allegiance in public schools. I brought this topic up on the Minnesota list, because members of the Republican party were advocating it. I was told I could only discuss it on the National Issues list, because there was no bill in the state legislature to require the pledge. The bill was introduced and passed one year later. When the list managers take it upon themselves to be the single voice of authority, and require the rest of us to keep silent, they are asking for trouble. As I told Tim in a private email on this topic, if this approach to "e-democracy" is successful, then the effort on behalf of democracy will have failed. If we want to promote democracy, we need to promote openness and power based on consent of the governed. The e-democracy list managers have power only because it was conferred upon them by slef perpetuating board. Reasonable people can disagree about when and how someone should be banned. The essential thing is that the process needs to be OPEN and PUBLIC. As long as it is secret, it can never be fair. -- Bob Treumann, Saint Paul Please Note: Replies to this email address all go to the trash except where the subject line contains a recognized mailing list identifier, such as [TCMETRO],[StPaul], MP-N ... _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
