FW: Regional hospital

["Jeff Goebel" <goebel@palouse.net>]

Mike asked me to forward this message to the whole group.  He hit the replay
button so it only came to me.  Some nice perspectives.  Jeff

Carl Jeffry Goebel
Goebel and Associates
Web page: www.aboutlistening.com

-----Original Message-----
From: 	Mike Curley [mailto:curley@turbonet.com]
Sent:	Saturday, November 25, 2000 7:01 PM
To:	Jeff Goebel
Subject:	RE: Regional hospital

Jeff:
I say "yes," we (members of the Moscow-Pullman/Palouse community) CAN look
to the greater good, and are willing to do so-BUT . . .  I believe there is
a preliminary premise that will probably be required from all
constituents-there must be a balance to the sacrifices made by various
constituencies;  a compensating element that leaves EVERYONE nearly equally
improved and equally disadvantaged by the changes and compromises necessary
to achieve the greater good.  The problem so far is that the proposals have
(or at least have been perceived to have) required a huge sacrifice from one
or more constituencies without any sacrifice from the others.  The greater
good would be achieved in a win-lose manner.  The benefits (greater good) to
the proposed "losers" would not outweigh their losses.  No "side" wants to
be in that position, and perhaps rightly so.
Add to that particular problem the probability that a very few may have more
venal motives, and it makes solution a bit difficult but not impossible.
The quality, character, and creativity of the representatives of each
constituency will probably be the ultimate determinant of the success of any
venture to solve the problem-assuming that all can come to the table with a
true commitment to not only protect their own , but everyone else's
interests as well.  But to be successful in any event, there must be a
dialogue.  Thanks for restarting one.
Mike


On 25 Nov 00, at 18:16, Jeff Goebel wrote:
Date forwarded: 	Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:22:12 -0800 (PST)
Send reply to:  	<goebel@palouse.net>
From:	"Jeff Goebel" <goebel@palouse.net>
To:	<vision2020@moscow.com>
Subject:	RE: Regional hospital
Date sent:      	Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:16:58 -0800
Forwarded by:   	vision2020@moscow.com

I've been asked why as a skilled mediator I biased my message with a line or
two that allows readers to infer that I have the interests of the two
communities uppermost while those who oppose a consolidation are either
afraid or less high minded.  Good question so I am sharing this with
everyone.
I asked this question as a citizen, not a facilitator.  I am really wanting
to understand.  I've been told there is no hope of seeing our communities
join together.  I am very disappointed because it means I have to pay a lot
for half, or less, of the service.
So, my question deepens, beyond hospitals.  Is it possible for communities
to look to the greater good, or function at the highest denominator, versus
the lowest denominator of the communities?
Of course, I have seen the "yes" answer to this in other groups and
communities I have worked with.  However, this is "my" community and I'd
like to see us take the high road.  That's why I wrote to the "visionary"
group.  I expect a lot from this group.
Thanks.  Jeff
Carl Jeffry Goebel
Goebel and Associates
Web page: www.aboutlistening.com