I think Jo Williams is right - what we have here are a lot of good ideas
that are not neccesarily mutually exclusive. Its just going to take some
creativity to pull them together. If the current proposal raises so many
questions and concerns among a group of people who are all basically
pro-pool or at least pro-recreation, I can't believe that it will garner
the needed two thirds majority from the larger population. This doesn't
mean that the pool committee has failed or that they are wrong - it is
clear that the community needed the impetus provided by a single clear
proposal to truly become involved in the process. When the proposal
generated this much controversy, however, it indicates a need for further
editing or refinement. It is natural to feel some frustration when a
project you felt was completed is turned back for further work (any of us
who have worked on a master's or doctoral thesis can definitely relate!).
However, if people with a certain degree of expertise identify potential
flaws or pitfalls, the work can only be strengthened if those concerns are
addressed. If the questions continue to be asked, even after they've been
addressed, then the process for answering questions may need to be changed,
so that communication can be more effective.
Now we have the opportunity to refine the proposal. This can be done
expediently, by holding a meeting such as Jo suggested. I would encourage
the city council to be full, but equal participants in this meeting - be a
part of the circle of discussion. I would also suggest a skilled moderator
who could help us keep emotions in check and the attention focused on the
task at hand. Questions should be viewed as challenges rather than
attacks, and I truly believe this community is capable of creatively
accepting and meeting challenges.
Laurie
----------
> From: Jo Williams <tajs@potlatch.com>
> To: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com>
> Subject: Consensus Building Exercise
> Date: Friday, March 27, 1998 6:33 PM
>
> Visionaries,
> Bear with me here, as this may not be short. Just finished watching a
> segment on the PBS Newshour (w/Jim Lehrer). The discussion focused on
the
> increasing polarization in all aspects of life due to our cultural bent
> towards an adversarial approach. The guest suggested that instead of
> always having a pro/con side on every issue, there might be many sides to
> an argument or situation. Better to sometimes have many speakers on a
> topic, or just one, she said.
> Though I do love a good argument, there are usually always a few points
I
> can agree with from the other side. While listening to this speaker, it
> occurred to me that this is exactly what's happening in the discussion of
> the new swimming pool issue being discussed here. Even the sides I
> disagree with have some good points, and visa versa. And I do believe
> that the differences, questions and doubts expressed here will be
> reflected in the city at large when the bond election comes around.
> Before the indoor/outdoor sides become so polarized/angry with comments
> from the other side, maybe it's time for a Vision 2020 face-to-face
> meeting with all those who have been interested in this issue. But
> instead of debating, take all the suggestions and try and find the
'common
> ground' that will really sell and also achieve the goals of speed,
> funding, school swimming classes, swim team and leisure- and try and
> address some of the new questions about valuation, the donor, the flood
> plain site, etc.
> This may have been the goal of the pool committee, but obviously it
> didn't get the job completely done; invite them to help bring all these
> pieces together. The new endowment suggestion may well solve the real
> issue of 'what will voters tolerate in the way of new taxes' which must
> have been a big part of the committee's reality-based decision. Likewise
> the suggestion to build one piece now and add on could solve the need for
> speed- a goal every parent with a child on a hot summer day can
> appreciate. It seemed that speed and low cost were the major reasons for
> the committee's result- new ideas and suggestions may change many minds.
> I don't think stopping the discussion or toning it down is the solution;
> it is the approach that needs to change; I really feel that so many of
> these suggestions may be do-able with all sides coming together, in
> person, to 'get it right'. And what a good example for the kids--working
> things out.
> At the meeting, each side/view could admit what they like about the
other
> side; maybe put each suggestion in the form of a quilt square......and
do
> what I do when I didn't cut them quite right; you fudge a little here, a
> little there, and MAKE them fit.
> There is a time for honest disagreement, and this PBS speaker didn't
> advocate 'caving in' to peer pressure (not a great example to anyone);
> but there are so many good ideas floating around this discussion I think
> they all WILL fit, if this group will go another mile and be true
> visionaries.
> Well, Sam, that's my soapbox speech for the evening. No catchy title,
no
> puns, hopefully, no sarcasm. Quite a challenge for me. Jo Williams
> tajs@potlatch.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>