As a member of the Moscow Vision 2020 Steering Committee, I would
like to reiterate that the spirit of Bert's comments below are consistent
with
the history and spirit of the listserver.
This is a lively, spirited list. Not, surprisingly debate abounds and
periodically it escalates to some ill-defined boundary of "crossing
the line." Weekly new subscribers are added to the listserver, so
occasionally we need to remind one another of civic tone that
the listserver and Moscow Vision 2020 Mission Statement (worth
re-reading) encourage.
This is an ongoing virtual town meeting without any facilitator.
Thankfully,
when necessary, one of us steps in to keep us on track.
The pool discussion/debate need not be censored since it is the centerpiece
of democratic decision making. What Bert and the steering committee urge
is to stay on the points at issue and refrain from personal attacks.
Although
Bert's post was in response to a more clear attack on an individual, what
is
cloudy is whether the pool committee members, or group as a whole, have
experienced a similar attack.
Rather than belabor that issue, I recommend we move on and return to the
content of the issues before us. The voters will undoubtedly want as much
information from all perspectives as possible.
Susan Palmer
Moscow Vision 2020 Steering Committee Member
----------
> From: Bert Cross <bcross@uidaho.edu>
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: (Fwd) Re: Re[2]: Swimming Pool Committee
> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 7:50 AM
>
>
> I really don't see that this name calling is accomplishing much of
> anything except to make the situation more divisive. People can be
> misinformed and they can be mistaken but it doesn't mean that these
> are intentional "false accusations and attacks" against the pool
> committee. Criticism is a normal part of give and take in any open
> discussion and dialogue and we shouldn't be offended by it.
> Vision2020 has a reputation for calm and balanced discussion, so maybe
> we should cool it..
>
> Bert Cross
>
>
> From: Mital_Jim/r1_clearwater@fs.fed.us
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 12:46:26 -0800
> Subject: Re[2]: Swimming Pool Committee
> To: lmelina@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com
> Cc: psalant@moscow.com, romey@turbonet.com, hodge@moscow.com,
> mjmiller@moscow.com, thuhta@moscow.com, jleff@moscow.com,
> phelp913@uidaho.edu, karen@uidaho.edu, lloyds@uidaho.edu,
> stevenm@uidaho.edu, citypark@moscow.com, warren@wsu.edu
>
> Lois, I don't know how else to tell you that NO ONE on the committee was
> coerced, forced, or otherwise manipulated to vote for the in favor of the
> recommended facility. It was indeed a unanimous vote not a majority(I
was
> there, you weren't), and the committee backed the plan 100% as best
meeting
> the needs of the most people.
>
> Your false accusations and attacks on the committee reflect poorly on
> yourself. I can assure you this was one of the best functioning
committees I
> have ever served on whether you believe it or not. All the committee
members
> sincerely wanted to work for a new pool in Moscow--one that would meet
the
> needs of the most people. It was indeed a compromise, but as I indicated
in a
> previous message, the willingness to compromise for the common good is a
lost
> trait in society today with rare exceptions, such as the pool committee's
> efforts..
>
> Any of the committee members would be more than willing to talk further
with
> you about pool issues, but please stick to the facts rather than
conjuring up
> falsehoods. As I also stated previously, now is the time for us to come
> together and support the pool. If we don't, I don't foresee ANY pool or
> recreation center ever being built in the future. If this project
succeeds, I
> think the door will be wide open for further recreational developments
(such
> as an indoor pool, gymnasium, etc.) on the remaining 5 acres of the park.
>
> *Jim*
>
> > Again, I'll thank the swimming pool committee for its work because I
know
> > how many hours you spent working on this issue.
> >
> > I do think, however, that had the swimming pool committee itself worked
to
> > reach consensus, what would have emerged would have been a plan that
would
> > have been less divisive. My understanding (from a member of the pool
> > committee) is that while committee members agreed to back the final
plan
> > 100% rather than present a divided stand, the final plan was determined
by a
> > "majority vote" rather than by consensus.
> >
> > YOu can't fault the community for not agreeing 100% with the committee
when
> > not even all the committee members agreed with the final plan.
> >
> > I'm just coming off serving on a jury, but that hasn't been my only
> > experience with decision-making by consensus. It's a much longer
process,
> > but in the end, everyone feels they have been heard and their needs
taken
> > into consideration.
> > ************************
> > Lois Melina
> > Editor, "Adopted Child" newsletter
> > P.O. Box 9362
> > Moscow ID 83843
> >
> > phone: (208)882-1794
> > fax: (208)883-8035
> > Lmelina@moscow.com
> > www.raisingadoptedchildren.com
>
> ***************************************
> Jim Mital
> Forest Soil Scientist/Ecologist
> Clearwater National Forest
> phone: (208) 476-8348
> fax: (208) 476-8329
> email: jmital/r1_clearwater@fs.fed.us
> ***************************************
>
> Bert Cross
> 1448 Borah Ave.
> Moscow, ID 83843
> Phone: (208) 882-7660
> email: bcross@uidaho.edu
>
>
> Bert Cross
> 1448 Borah Ave.
> Moscow, ID 83843
> Phone: (208) 882-7660
> email: bcross@uidaho.edu