posted by Tom Moertel at 4:57 PM /
The Post-Gazette has expanded its coverage of yesterday’s protest:
Read the full article:
Mt. Lebanon residents who gathered Saturday morning both inside and outside their municipal center on Washington Road could not agree on why they were there.Here’s what I’d like to know. What causes fifty people to show up and protest something on grounds that turn out to be almost entirely wrong? What made the protesters think the meeting was a ploy to derail the high-school project?
Inside the building, Commissioner Matthew Kluck sponsored a town hall meeting for about 80 invited guests. Outside, about 50 other people picketed.
While the town hall meeting's announced topic was "Perspectives on Living in and Governing a Highly Taxed Community," many of those gathered on the sidewalk said they feared its real agenda was an attempt by Mr. Kluck and his allies to delay or reduce the scope of a $113 million plan to renovate Mt. Lebanon Senior High School. The plan has been the topic of extensive debate in the community for months.
Read the full article:
- Protest peaceful at Mt. Lebanon meeting (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
Labels: matt kluck, protest, town hall meeting
42 Comments:
"What causes fifty people to show up and protest something on grounds that turn out to be almost entirely wrong? What made the protesters think the meeting was a ploy to derail the high-school project?"
1. These questions are highly disingenuous, as if you don't know what taxes could possibly have to do with the school project.
Credibility: -1
2. How would anyone know a priori what the event would "turn out to be"?
Bias: +1
Not your best work, Tom. Stuff like this makes a protest seem all the more necessary. A little more thoughtfulness and a little less intellectual aggression would serve your cause much better.
David (Brown), thanks for your comment.
I asked, What causes fifty people to show up and protest something on grounds that turn out to be almost entirely wrong? What made the protesters think the meeting was a ploy to derail the high-school project?
You responded, first, that my questions were "highly disingenuous." As evidence of this claim, you offered this: "as if you don't know what taxes could possibly have to do with the school project."
Of course, taxes "could possibly have to do with" the school project. Taxes could possibly have to do with anything funded by taxes. But protesters didn't show up over anything – just the school project. Why?
In other words, if your favored cause is funded by taxes and you learn that there's a meeting of people concerned about taxes, is that knowledge alone reasonable grounds to protest the meeting? If it were, why didn't every other group threatened by tax cuts show up to protest too? Why only this one group? What made them protest when everybody else stayed home?
You responded, second, with a question: "How would anyone know a priori what the event would 'turn out to be'?"
Yes! That's my point: How could the protesters know, ahead of time, that the meeting's real agenda was to derail the high-school project? They couldn't.
And yet something made the protesters so confident in their beliefs about the meeting that they were willing to show up, tell reporters and passers-by that the meeting was a fake town hall that's really about the high-school project, and even drag a man's name through the mud. (Seriously: I saw a protest sign saying "Kluck: dishonest politician.") People just don't show up and do these things as a hedge against the possibility that a meeting might turn out to "have to do with" their favored cause.
So what made them do these things?
Cheers,
Tom
The irony of the weekend's events is so thick you can cut it. When folks showed up at the Act 34 meetings and other school board meetings over the last 6 months to express their concerns over the scope and cost of the school project, they were labeled as "fear mongerers" by the pro-school advocates. However, when some folks gathered on Saturday to politely discuss a variety of issues, they were picketed and blindly accused of some pretty mean spirited stuff. Many of the protesters were the same folks throwing out the fear monger label.
If it wasn't all so embarrassing for Mt. Lebanon it would be laughable.
Tom,
Don't forget the sign that was pictured in the PG - "What the Kluck?!?" And how do they explain that one to their kids?
Elaine Gillen
I admit I was not at the meeting or the protest, but its portrayal in the P-G article was calm on both sides. Perhaps some of the signs were not amusing to all (my 75-year-old father agrees), but are you really so surprised at the protesters' thinking? The town hall meeting (and I won't get into the debate on that designation) was organized, according to Thursday's P-G article, in part by two people extremely active in protesting the high school construction project budget and process. I would never deny that Mrs. Stephenson has the right to spearhead a petition for the Concerned Citizens of Mt. Lebanon. Likewise, Mr. Lewis has the right to be vocal in any avenue on his criticism of the school board's actions. But when those two residents are listed as organizers of the event, why shouldn't folks think that there is some connection between this meeting and the ongoing, although sign-less, protests against the high-school construction project? I admit that I wondered if this was a way to try to influence the process through the municipal door - perhaps I am being paranoid, but perhaps that is how governments work. I am more disappointed that folks who consistently claim their right to be heard believe that others should not have that same right. And if all is peaceful, it could have been a great educational opportuanity for children as well. Call me naive, call me an idealist - I see this as one more opportunity for the discussion to continue.
Here is undoubtedly one contributing cause...a "blast" e-mail by a disgruntled SB member who knew the meeting was private, invitation & ticket holding only attendance, to people she thought were not on the ticket list suggesting that they contact the person handling arrangements to request (demand) tickets....in order to create trouble one has to conclude.
Ed Kubit had been invited to participate as a panel member, and an invitation was further extended to him to invite the remainder of the board to be among the attendee audience. The Commission had been invited as well. Ed did not respond to the e-mail invitation; but, 3 days later Jo Posti forwarded an e-mail from Super. Steinhauer stating that under no circumstances would any District representative attend the meeting.....one now is led to presume the SB reports to Steinhauer, not the normal reverse.
Because of that response, the SB was advised that the SB invitations were rescinded and the tickets were reassigned to other residents. Several SB members did subsequently request a ticket, but were denied under the obvious circumstances. One of those was Mary Birks...and she then issued the *blast* e-mail which we did receive and retain as evidence as a forwarding from one of her recipients. Her e-mail created a rush of demands for tickets from a large number of individuals who indicated they had been told they could have tickets, it was a public meeting and the primary topic was to be the HS project...all untrue. We did not learn of this e-mail until after the surge of e-mail and phone requests...the Birks e-mail included Charlotte Stephensons name and her e-mail address as links.
These people were courteously advised of the actual facts, but onviously some of them and/or other so-called adults must have decided to take it further and arrange a protest on a false pretense and include innocent children as pawns in the unfortunate but very telling farce.
So this is the way things really work in our alleged squeeky-clean, above board, fair and kindly community... and always remember well their specious call and justification for all they do : IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN !
Bill Lewis
Kim,
Thanks for your comment.
Absolutely, the involvement of Mr. Lewis and Mrs. Stephenson could reasonably make a project supporter more likely to believe that the event had something to do with the high-school project. But how much more likely? Likely enough to justify calling a man dishonest? (Please, click the link and tell me what you think about that protester's sign.)
And, yes, while the protest was peaceful, it wasn't without collateral damage. Some of the protesters did drag a man's name through the mud. Don't you think these people ought to bear some responsibility for their actions, especially now that their claims about the meeting's purpose have proved false?
I, too, hope that the protest offers a learning opportunity for children (and maybe some adults), but whether it does remains to be seen. If the protesters who went over the line are big enough to admit their mistakes and apologize to those they have harmed, if the community's groups can come together and stop calling each other names over imagined slights, that would indeed be a great lesson.
Will it happen? Let's see.
Cheers,
Tom
Kim Ressler, I think you are missing the point. With all the tax liabilities our community will face from various levels, the high school project cost is probably the ONLY variable we have control over. Many residents have indicated that they may have to move under the tax burden of a $113 Million dollar high school project COMPLETELY subsidized by debt. After hearing it stated by the school board president many times over that the community was “divided” on this issue, I started a petition to provide the board with evidence to the contrary. Remember, the petition supports high school renovation at significant cost ($75 Million). My position has nothing to do with school facilities and everything to do with affordability for our residents. For that reason, organizing a town hall event with the theme of taxes and our local economy dovetails with the planned high school project spending.
-Charlotte Stephenson
(Kim Ressler, cont’d) In other words, the planned high school spending will significantly impact our residents and local economy. It should come as no surprise that, given my strong opinion about the planned spending for our high school renovation, I would also have an interest in a forum about our taxation levels and local economy. I would like to know your thoughts about the necessary tax increases to support the current project and the impact on our property values, residents and tradeoffs that will be necessary. Rather than maintain a position that the fear mongers just want to rain on the parade of those who want an extravagant high school, let’s start talking. What sacrifices (educational and personal) do you think are acceptable as a result of a $113 Million project? What do you think this will do to our taxes over the next five years? How do you envision this playing into the daily lives of our families and elderly here? Those who support the high school project as is need to start talking about the 500 pound gorilla in the room, the impact of this on us all. I would support any project if folks could give a convincing argument for it and offer solutions as to how it can work economically for those who live here. All I hear from the “protesters” is that they want things. Why not demonstrate (no pun intended) the true cost/benefit which supports the $113M project? If you can I will be the first in line to cheer the project on at the next school board meeting.
-Charlotte Stephenson
I don't have all the answers - I wish I did! However, it also seems that there are plenty of complaints on both sides of this issue about lack of respect and lack of real discussion, and there has been plenty of heckling and ridicule of those advocating completion of the renovation/construction plan.
I admit that I did not sign your petition because I haven't seen proof that we can do a worthwhile project for that number. What if we need $1 million more, or 5? What are you willing to sacrifice to reach that number? I certainly don't want to see this issue resurrected in ten years due to faulty decisions now.
I hear many complaints about the million dollar bridge and such wonderful hot-button items, but it still comes down to this: we have a school that is way overdue for updating and even maintenance, the school board has taken over four years to get to this point, and, yes, we have a shaky economy. When will we be able to face each other and reach some kind of community consensus without ridicule? How can we harness this evident passion for the betterment of Mt. Lebanon as a community and a school district?
Anytime a political figure covers up the sunshine instead of gives something more light, he or she will be considered suspect. There is absolutely NO REASON to have a "closed" town hall meeting, except to get what happened -- publicity and lots of it. No one dragged Mr. Kluck's name through the mud, he did that himself when he conjured up this little event. He should be ashamed of himself for continuing to divide the community rather than trying to find ways to bring it together.
Ann McDougall
Kim, let’s forget the heckling and ridicule on both sides and try to move forward. Here is one solution. Hypothetically set a budget at $75 Million and, given the wants and needs for a high school renovation based on all the meetings in the past, let some experts sink their teeth into it and come up with a plan. Unfortunately, this has never been done. The project budget has been established using an approach of “How much can we possibly spend without voters getting in the way?” rather than setting a budget and challenging the paid experts to provide an optimal solution based on those available resources. All I have heard from the board is “it can’t be done for $75 Million.”, while other experts in the community say it can. A SB director presented a hand written list on an overhead projector stating “What $75 Million can’t buy”. That was not convincing. There needs to be an honest effort to see what can be done for the $75 Million amount and present it. If Celli can’t do that, give it to another firm. It will cost money, but in the end it could save a bundle, and besides, look at the money being wasted on zoning litigation! An investment in a firm which can come up with a more economical solution may be the best investment we make. What do you think? Would you be willing to give someone the opportunity to try to do better? Who knows, we have many smart and talented people in our community. Maybe some of them would be willing to do this on a voluntary basis.
-Charlotte Stephenson
I don't care which side of the battle you are on with regards to the high school renovation, taxes or anything that you feel strongly about. You should not include your children in your protests.
Are you trying to make this a "teachable moment" by showing them how divisive our community has become?
And as Elaine said, just how do you explain the "What The Kluck?" sign to your children?
Ann, you sound so bitter and accusatory. Lighten up, please! You weren’t there to know what the initial conversations were regarding the town hall event. As it turned out, feedback so far from the attendees has been very positive. What in the world makes you so angry? Did you want to come? Why can’t you be considerate of a new approach to engaging our community in local governance? Do you attend commission meetings and school board meetings? If so, have you noticed how few people go unless they have an axe to grind? Do you realize that there were attendees from all age groups, political affiliations, opinions on the high school project? How does that “divide the community”? I guess if you want to carry a grudge and pick on Matt you will find a way to keep doing it regardless of the facts.
-Charlotte Stephenson
Ann, are you suggesting that our elected officials can't meet privately with residents to discuss issues facing our community? For heaven's sake, I do it all the time. Pro school project SB members have had dozens of meetings with residents in their homes and elsewhere to discuss that project. I don't recall pickets. Steve Feller hosts regular coffee sessions and no one complains.
The only thing that makes this different is that Matt cast a little wider net, and probably shouldn't have called it a "town hall" simply because that has taken on a different conotation lately. No votes were taken, no decisions were made, invited elected officials that support the school project were invited and told not to attend. No one covered up anything.
Dave: When Steve meets with folks for coffee, he doesn't exclude anyone. Therein lies the difference between what Matt Kluck did and what the municipal manager does. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. One builds bridges and works to bring people together, even when they disagree. The other works for publicity and strives to keep people apart.
Ann McDougall
Ann, the point of the invitations was to gather as many participants as possible to the meeting. It worked! Congratulations to Charlotte and Matt.
If you want to listen to the meeting to hear for yourself what happened go to www.lebocitizens.com and click on “podcasts.” The sound track is just under the picture of the Municipal Building.
After you hear the meeting you might feel better about the openness of the recording intended to let everyone hear what happened. I hope this helps.
Stay Well,
Ann McDougall,
You wrote, "There is absolutely NO REASON to have a 'closed' town hall meeting, except to get what happened -- publicity and lots of it."
Why do you claim the meeting was closed? Closed meetings are not recorded, not made available for public scrutiny and review. This meeting was both – and was reported as such in advance. Where's the lack of sunshine? (For comparison, a school-board executive session is a closed meeting: no members of the public may attend, no recordings are made for public broadcast.)
The meeting may have been invitation only, but it wasn't closed.
Next, you wrote, "No one dragged Mr. Kluck's name through the mud, he did that himself when he conjured up this little event."
No one? I defy you to justify this protester's sign. Tell me, what representations did Matt Kluck make about the meeting that turned out to be untrue?
I look forward to your response.
Cheers,
Tom
Reminder: If you wish to post a comment, you must include your name. We don't post anonymous or pseudonymous comments.
I mention this because I just now had to reject an anonymous comment that began, "As another commenter pointed out, as a private citizen, I ..."
If it was your comment, please resubmit it, including your full name in the text of your comment. (Or post it from a public Blogger profile that includes your full name. For more details, see our Comments Policy in the right sidebar of the home page.)
Cheers,
Tom
Tom: For whatever reason, the comment must have cut off my name, because I did post it. I will try to remember what I posted, but my point was that as a private citizen< although I can rent out the commission chambers and host my own private meeting, I cannot have the municipality host my video of that meeting for the municipality to publish for all to see. Just try to get something written in Mt. Lebanon Magazine - impossible! But as a Commissioner, Mr. Kluck has taken what he keeps calling a "private" town hall meeting and exposed it for what it really is -- a closed public meeting -- by having the full backing of the municipality in broadcasting that meeting on the municipal website. The meeting either truly needed to be by Mr. Kluck, private citizen (then no media, no publication on the municipal web site, invitation only) or by Mr. Kluck, paid and elected Commissioner (everyone invited, full sunshine, videotape and put on web). What is going on right now is an attempt to have it both ways, and that is what I find to be disingenuous (at best) and dishonest (at worst).
Ann McDougall
Ann,
Thanks for reposting your comment.
You wrote, "[A]lthough I can rent out the commission chambers and host my own private meeting, I cannot have the municipality host my video of that meeting for the municipality to publish for all to see."
Where did you get the impression that the video recording would be published in any way beyond what a normal citizen could do? Who told you that?
The rest of your comment, by the way, rests upon this single assumption about the video. You offer no other evidence.
Again, I must ask you, what justifies protest signs like "Kluck: dishonest politican"?
(Ann, is it possible that the protesters were mistaken? Are you at least willing to consider it?)
I look forward to your response.
Cheers,
Tom
Ann, of all the meeting rooms that can be rented in our municipality, the Commission Chamber was selected as the best venue due to parking, AV equipment, comfort and size (given this was a first event and not knowing what the response/attendance would be.) You can pay to have a tech record any meeting in the Commission Chamber, as long as one is available at the time you need them. That was one of the main reasons the space was chosen, because it was more convenient than having to do a whole set up somewhere else with microphones for a panel and wireless for a moderator to take questions from attendees. It was also cost effective since all the equipment was already there. The AV tech was paid out of personal funds to come in on Saturday and run the equipment. I am told the public access channel is just that – public access and not controlled by the municipality. I believe other citizens can make arrangements to air things on the public access channel as well. There has never been any discussion about using the municipal website to broadcast the meeting. Where are you getting all this? The podcast is already available on the internet due to the recording of an attendee, not Matt or his committee. As far as the media, the Post-Gazette wanted to attend but all tickets had been spoken for. (The P-G reporter did receive a few tips about the planned meeting and they were not from Matt or his committee. She ultimately filed a right to know request to find information out about the meeting.) Another P-G reporter spent his time outside with the protesters until the meeting was over. Who do you think called the P-G? Nonetheless, if you hold a meeting there, you can have any media you want. I hope that clears up the misconceptions you have heard and, in turn, are causing you to unfairly and harshly criticize Matt. – Charlotte Stephenson
Tom - I think it's unfair to assume that everyone who participated in the "protest" supported the owner/creator of the sign in your picture, or supported every bit of what was said and done by those gathered outside the Commission chamber.
Perhaps it's naive, and a little Pollyanna, but I'm going to give some of them the benefit of the doubt and assume they just felt it worthwhile to capitalize on the publicity of the moment and to exercise their 1st amendment rights.
Some of them.
Some of the others, I imagine, were just there to take a dig at "the other side," knowing that the event's organizers don't share their views on the high school project cost.
Why anyone's taking pot shots at Matt Kluck, who as far as I know can do essentially zip w/r/t the high school renovation, I can't say. But it leads me to believe some of those folks had another beef altogether, or are misinformed, or just enjoy being publically angry.
Anyhow, even though I don't condone the language they chose, I'm glad they came out to speak. It certainly raised a good bit of awareness on the event itself! :)
Matt (Wilson),
I agree that not all of the protesters behaved unreasonably. (And I tried to be consistent about using "this protester's sign" and "the protesters who went over the line" and so on in my earlier comments.)
I'm mainly concerned about the behavior of those who attacked Matt Kluck's character, and those who now defend those attacks, on what appears to be little more than assumptions and innuendo.
I do, however, think the organizers of the protest bear some responsibility for the actions of the group. If somebody in your group was behaving badly, wouldn't you say something?
Cheers,
Tom
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well that's the thing - I don't know that there was much "organized" about it other than the location in spacetime. And signs being involved.
I've heard:
* misuse of public resources
* misrepresentation of public interest
* and prejudicial exclusion of attendees based on political beliefs
in addition to the simple "Build our High School" sentiment, and the remarks against Matt Kluck.
I think it's fantastic that people came out to speak but I'm not sure what exactly the message was supposed to be. I'm struck by the anger that was on display, and I'm hoping that continuing the public discussion will remedy some of that. It would be nice for someone to come forward to explain or apologize.
I'm also still waiting for a credible argument in favor of the bullet points above, if that's really what the "protest" was about.
Maybe I can shed some light on some of this.
Matt and Charlotte approached me about a month ago about the idea of having a town hall. Back then, town hall just meant (loosely), "a gathering of people in the community to allow for questions, ideas, and conversation about our community". In an effort to focus the discussion a theme of "taxation" was chosen. With most people having recently received their tax bills it was thought that this topic would interest a good number of people and ensure good attendance.
An invitation was extended to be a part of the panel and it was suggested that the invitation be sent to the school board President. Having an interest in economics, schools, and our community, I told them I would be happy to be part of the panel but that my travel schedule would not allow me to commit (I was scheduled to be in China until the day before the event). Unfortunately, the email invitation to the Board President was not opened until after word of the event had made its way into the coffee shop discussion in our community.
As was mentioned in a previous comment, there were a number of emails back and forth between Matt and school board members and the school board was more or less disinvited based on the responses from the various members of the Board as to the appropriateness of holding a forum like this. It was explained to the Board by Matt, Charlotte, and myself that this was NOT about the high school and yet somehow that myth was still communicated widely to members of the community through various channels. This mis-information was, in my opinion, the reason for the protesters (at least those holding signs in favor of the high school project).
As it is, there was only one question about the appropriateness of spending this much money on the high school project and this came from someone who is very much in favor of the current plans. The only other questions regarding the school were whether the project was a "done deal" and what the remaining tax impact of the project might be. There was far more discussion on the PSERS Crisis then there was on the high school project.
As for the "invitation only" style of the event, I am not sure there was a more effective way to get attendance than to individually invite people and ask for their commitment to come and join the discussion. For the next town hall (and I hope there will be next one) I think there might be another way to get people to attend that doesn't include individual invitations. Honestly, I thought it was better to invite people and control the number of people who show up rather than turn 50 people away at the door. Which one would have been worse?
My hope is that in the end this event will be seen as an honest effort by Matt to reach out to the community and to get ideas, hear concerns, and communicate information to our residents.
Quite frankly, my opinion is that this was local government at its finest. Communicating directly to residents, taking the heat of some difficult questions, and being as honest as possible is what I think we were elected to do.
Certainly there were lessons to be learned but for a first go, I think it was a success. I hope other elected officials will follow suit.
James Fraasch
James,
What heresy!! Communicating directly to residents? I believe that there is a board policy against that, and there will probably be another call for censuring you.
Joe Wertheim
You all should understand that I actually agree with you regarding the high school project and the desire for a workable option at something less than the proposal being "forced" by the school district. As a bottom line, I don't think Matt's idea is a bad one, but having worked with numerous communities, I can tell you that once you become an elected official, the idea that you can have a private meeting with a large group of people, as opposed to a one on one or one on three meeting, use your public commission chambers, etc., well, let's just say it becomes a slippery slope to having private meetings where decisions are made and then the final decision is just announced in public. Mt. Lebanon has worked very hard, from what I have watched over the years, to give lots of sunshine to all of its decisions, and I think it is a regression, not progress, to start having large private meetings to talk about subjects that should be part of a larger public discourse.
Ann McDougall
Ann,
Actually, this would be open to anyone...what would be the best way to have a forum like that? You know you only have a limited number of seats. It would be bad to have to turn people away the day of the event.
What is the most fair way to have people be able to attend? I don't doubt there is a more equitable way than a private invitation, I just don't know how to do it with the limitation on seats.
James
James: My daughter's school has an auditorium that seats at least 1,000 adults comfortably. Are you suggesting that there is no location within the Municipality that can hold more than 80 people at a time?
Ann McDougall
Ms. McDougall,
It sounds to me like you should host the next town hall meeting.
I think you'd do a great job.
Placed this comment under the wrong topic it should've gone here.
Ann M:
Since the school board and the administration were invited and informed of the limited seating available, why didn't they graciously suggest the HS auditorium?
One of the arguments for the new HS renovation is to open it to more community use.
I'd say this past and any future proposed "town halls" meet the definition of community use.
Dean Spahr
Ann,
I don't think there was a way to know the demand for entrance to a conversation like this ahead of time. It had never been done before as far as I know. Booking a 1,000 seat auditorium for maybe 100 people (those who attended and those who protested) would seem overkill.
Your suggestion then is to throw open the doors and see who shows up. That is definitely a legitimate answer and worthy of consideration and may indeed be the best way to go in the future.
Better to allow all than to exclude any.
James
Quick question for anyone who cares to answer . . . would Matt Kluck et al be receiving the same backlash if they had held the meeting upsatirs at the Rec Center? I think the P-G and the commenters here have successfully demonstrated that the conversation (both intended and actual) was not pro or con on any one subject. So, I'm left to assume that because Matt chose the Commission meeting room as the location it attached to these events some sort of quasi-official undertaking. Seems like much ado about nothing to me.
We discussed the rec center option, but the parking is limited compared to the commissioner chamber with a public parking garage right next door. Also, I do not think that the rec center has the AV equipment in place (this would add cost and logistics) , so the thought of trying to arrange for that and finding someone to run it in addition to the parking constraint eliminated that option. As far as the high school location, renting a big place and hoping folks would show up was not at all what we were trying to achieve. We wanted commitment from attendees that this was a topic of interest to them. Also, how easy is it to facilitate discussion with a moderator in the auditorium? Suspending Anthony Moretti from the ceiling so he could provide a microphone to a participant would have been necessary since one can’t climb through the long rows. This forum was to promote “dialogue” in a setting where attendees would be able to ask questions, unlike other meetings where a person has to go to a podium and stand alone to ask a question in front of the officials behind the desk. Few people feel comfortable doing that, but the smaller intimate venue and moderation worked well to promote dialogue.
-Charlotte Stephenson
Dave: I think your question is a good one because it shows both what happened at the "town hall" meeting and what is happening here at the blog. Because of certain misnomers put on the meeting like "town hall" (which are impliedly public) and holding it in the commission chambers (also impliedly public), a meeting, before it ever happened, had certain connotations put with it. At that point, perhaps the venue and other things should have been changed, but they weren't. Lesson learned. I think James has admitted that perhaps it would be best to have a too large facility and allow everyone in than to exclude, and I agree with that as well, because when you are dealing with these "hot button" issues, perception unfortunately becomes reality far too quickly. But you here on the blog who are so quick to jump on the protesters for getting the wrong impression and having no idea what was really going on, are doing the same thing to anyone who raises another (i.e. different) voice than your own, like me. I am not sure where the hostility is coming from or the need to practically belittle anyone who disagrees with you comes from, but it is an interesting phenonmenon that is occurring (I'm not throwing everyone in here, but read through most of the comments. wow.)
And Dean, in answer to your question, I'm not sure why the school district didn't offer their facility; but at the same time, I'm also not sure why or whether anyone planning the meeting asked if they could use it.
Ann McDougall
One more question Ann, is it your position that elected officials are never allowed to meet in private with 1, 10, 50 or 100 residents? That seems unrealistic. I know that a bunch of private meetings were held (and perhaps continue to be held) with SB members and residents regarding the school project. Most were held in private homes. Should those be equally subject to criticism?
Ann:
I don't know either, why the school facities weren't offered or asked for.
I'm sure now, we'll see another 50 angry comments on what one side or the other was trying to promote or include/exclude regarding that issue here on Blog-Lebo.
I thought the "town hall" was an interesting idea and first effort.
Hope there are more such venues.
Far more open, candid dialogue than I've witnessed at either commissioner or school board meetings.
And if we can get past the attacks... begin examining facts and ideas, perhaps someone will suggest a more appropriate name instead of "town hall."
Dean Spahr
Ann:
You wrote: "And Dean, in answer to your question, I'm not sure why the school district didn't offer their facility; but at the same time, I'm also not sure why or whether anyone planning the meeting asked if they could use it."
Please, lets not forget-- it's not "THEIR" facility-- it's "OURS'"!
Dean Spahr
Ann,
First, thanks again for your comments.
I understand the argument you're presenting, but it's built upon an idea that seems crazy: that the meeting organizers were somehow at fault because, when they told the truth, the protest organizers didn't believe them.
The meeting organizers told the truth about their meeting. What more were they obligated to do but tell the truth? They even reached out specifically to the protest organizers and tried to tell them the truth again.
But the protest organizers still wouldn't believe. The protest organizers didn't just "get the wrong impression and have no idea what was going on." They were told exactly what was going on. And chose to believe something else.
If I repeatedly tell you the truth, and you choose not to believe me, am I responsible for the consequences of your disbelief?
Cheers,
Tom
The organizers have a message they feel is important to the future viability of our community, so they organize a big meeting. Good for them - I wholeheartedly support such a thing!
But I would have been more impressed if the organizers had attempted to convey their message to people they need to convince, rather than to those already inclined to agree. Since they didn't, the meeting comes across as more of an attempt to find like-minded folk than to enlighten their neighbors or reach a consensus. So in the end perhaps it wasn't as much about community as I would have hoped.
Would the organizers consent to have another such meeting but inviting the protesters instead? I would find that courageous, even when the new guests remain on their best behavior.
Post a Comment
<< Home