In no particular order:
1. People whose self interests are served by the proposal.
2. People who are community minded enough to see beyond their own self
interests to see the value of the proposal to the broader community
interest.
I would suggest that while it is not inclusive, the vision2020 list is made
up of a lot of people who belong to group #2. The fact that there is still
considerable controversy among this group indicates that regardless of what
the pool committee determined was in the best interest of the community,
they haven't sold that idea on the audience most likely to support them.
Therefore, I support the efforts by Jo Williams and Susan Palmer to pursue
a consensus building forum for a pool design. Maybe it would turn out to be
this one. Maybe, as Linda Pall suggested in her column, this design is an
excellent starting point that can serve as a point of departure, with the
final product being even better. I don't think anyone wants to replicate
the process the pool committee went through. I found it very helpful to
read the committee report. I still think this pool design has much to
recommend it. But I also still think there is room for improvement. As
Linda said in her column, that shouldn't be taken by the committee as
criticism.
As for the "time crunch," this community has know for at least 10 years
that we were going to have to build a new pool. We as a community, through
our inaction and through the inaction of our representative government,
made a conscious choice to wait until we had no pool. That was poor
planning on our part. To rush into a replacement that may not meet our
needs and may not have adequate support, doesn't serve this community,
either.
Lois Melina
****************************
Lois Melina
Editor, "Adopted Child" newsletter
P.O. Box 9362
Moscow ID 83843 USA
1-208-882-1794
orders: 1-888-882-1794
fax: 1-208-883-8035
Email: Lmelina@moscow.com
http://www.moscow.com/resources/adoption/adoption.html