Columbia Citizens

Thank you jhoole for writing that well written history on community activism in the Southeast - it really helped me go meta on the two experiences I have had with the CCCC and equipped me with a better understanding of the story of the Southeast side of Seattle.

re: .x Yes, sticking to parliamentary procedure would help the CCCC go somewhere beyond a forum for airing grievances.

Tolerance is one thing, but I don't want to simply tolerate divergent opinions, I want to see consensus constructed from diverse opinions. I'm not sure that many people are open to any form of synthesis at the CCCC; not willing to bend their opinions.

There can be no meaningful discussion if people are not a) going to esteem the opinion of all - new or old citizens of columbia city or b) willing to change opinions in order to facilitate some consensus. At the last community meeting I went to I was told by a long time resident that their goal was to get me to not merely agree with them, but to see things as they see it. No synthesis (I haven't been here long enough), simply assimilation.

What does it take to have a stake in this community? Must I wait to be old enough? Cynical enough? Angry enough? When do we become enfranchised members of the community?

I want to be a part of this community, but I don't want to attend meetings where cynicism, negativity, fear and despair dominate the spirit in the room. My mental health will not tolerate it even if I espouse an ethic of tolerance.

I would like to get in contact with individuals who want to discuss the matter of community engagement and explore avenues of developing a community organization upon constructive, hopeful grounds.

Hey I think you hit the nail on the head. Last time I looked, the Rainier Valley was considered the most culturally diverse area in the entire country, according to the last Census. In diverse communities, diverse opinions exist. Meetings should be structured to take this into account at all times.

I think we need a group that serves the purpose of making sure community meetings follow parliamentary procedure with an iron fist. Without organization, respect or discipline, any given project is doomed to failure in the real world. Community projects are no different, in my opinion.

More senior members of Toastmasters International will be educated in parliamentary procedure. Here is how to get in touch with Toastmasters in your area —
http://www.toastmasters.org/websiteApps/

Invite a couple of them to your next community meeting and let them teach the group how to control the meeting, during the meeting. This would likely be a big learning experience for everyone involved.

Hmmm… I'm curious where all this love of Robert's Rules comes from. My own experience of parliamentary procedure has been mixed at best. For one thing, it's all about majority rule, which can often leave the "losing" minority resentful, unwilling to work to support the "winning" idea, or worse, laying it wait for its chance to win over a few more votes and reverse whatever decisions it doesn't like.

It definitely can be exploited by those who are familiar with it, leaving novices wondering how & when they are supposed to speak up.

It also has the frustrating feature that you consider one idea at a time (with amendments allowed in a highly structured way), voting up or down on that one idea without being able to fully explore what other, better ideas might be coming down the pike… or better yet, to come up with collaborative or compromise ideas that might really make everyone much happier.

The book Breaking Robert's Rules by Lawrence Susskind elaborates on these problems and outlines a consensus-based decision-making process that seems like a huge improvement to me. And no, "consensus-based" doesn't mean everyone has to agree. (I have been part of *that* kind of organization too — any other Quakers out there? — and while it can be an amazing and powerful experience, it is definitely not an effective or efficient way to run a diverse organization.) Susskind's process is more about building a decision that everyone involved can support, or at least live with — and in the end everyone has a stake in making it succeed.

Anyway, I guess I'd agree that having an agreed-upon, publicized structure for running meetings is helpful, but I'm not sure that sticking to Robert's Rules with an iron fist is the answer to the problems John Hoole brings up in his article.

Sincerely,

Mikala

Toastmasters has served over four million people, and today the organization serves over 230,000 members in 92 countries, through its over 11,500 member clubs.

This is not one or two people's love of parliamentary procedure. It's a love epidemic. And after 84 years of teaching parliamentary procedure, I would think the Toastmaster training has improved enough to make it worthwhile. Enough to at least try it once or twice. Using something less time-tested doesn't seem like a good strategy.

Maybe not with an iron fist (don't take me literally please; it's just a way of making a point), but in some fashion that represents the essence of it. Because what we use now in meetings… it doesn't work. Take the best of the method, and leave the rest. No need to get too rigid with it. Just enough so that it works. That's the recommendation from this corner.

Some well-known people from various fields have been Toastmasters. These include:

Carl Albert Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 1971-77
Tim Allen Actor, star of television series, "Home Improvement"
Everett Alvarez American POW during the Vietnam War; former Deputy Director of the Peace Corps and Veterans Administration
William Bennett Former Premier of British Columbia, Canada
James Brady Two-term press secretary for U.S. President Ronald Reagan; author of the Brady Bill, which authorizes a 5-day waiting period on handgun purchases
Nancy Brinker Founder of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation; former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary
Joe Conley Actor, former cast member of television show The Waltons
Peter Coors Chairman of Coors Brewing Company
Philip Crosby Quality expert and leader of the quality movement
Ben Couch Late former member of Parliament, New Zealand
Robert Emory Founder, Emory Worldwide Courier Service
Debbie Fields Rose Founder, Mrs. Fields Cookies
Anita Perez Ferguson Former President, U.S. National Women's Political Caucus; Princeton lecturer and National Public Radion contributor
Steve Fraser 1984 Olympic Gold medalist in Greco-Roman wrestling; National Director of Sports Marketing Systems for Domino's Pizza, Inc.
Napoleon Hill Best-selling author of "Think and Grow Rich;" presidential advisor
Tara Dawn Holland Christensen Miss America, 1997
K.C. Jones Former basketball coach for NBA team, Boston Celtics
Richard Lamm Former Governor of Colorado and 1996 Reform Party Presidential candidate
Donald D. Lennox Former President, Xerox Corporation's Information Systems Group
James Lovell Former U.S. astronaut; missions included Apollo 13
Chris Matthews Author and host on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews”
Harvey Mackay Best-selling author of "Swim With the Sharks Without Being Eaten Alive"
Hyde Murray Former Republican Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives
Robert Nesen Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy, 1970-71
Sam Nunn Former U.S. Senator, Democrat from Georgia; CEO of Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)
Paul Oreffice Former President and CEO of Dow Chemical, Midland, Michigan
Cavett Robert Late founder of the National Speakers Association; author
Pat Roberts U.S. Senator, Republican from Kansas
Walter Schirra Late former U.S. astronaut; only man to fly in United States' first three space programs, Mercury, Gemini and Apollo
Carol Stoker Missouri State congresswoman
John V. Tunney Former U.S. Senator and television commentator
King Vidor Late director of classic Hollywood motion pictures
Tracy Wilson CBS commentator, Canadian Medalist in Ice Dancing
John Young Former U.S. astronaut

Hey, if it works for you & your organization, great. I've seen it work well sometimes, myself. I've also seen some problems with it in the groups I've been part of (here and elsewhere). I pointed out some of them; Susskind's book has more to say about it if you're interested.

To relate this point more to JH's piece, I think people can use Robert's Rules to intimidate and silence those who aren't familiar or comfortable with this highly structured process. Maybe having everyone get trained in it is one solution. Maybe thinking about other ways to create an inclusive, productive conversation is another.

Cheers,

Mikala

Right, and after this small group of people drove everyone else away, they voted to drop out of SEDC! Some of the same people got Hillman City Bus. Assoc. to do the same, when it had shrunk down too. Makes me wonder about all the other SENDC groups — how many of their neighbors do they really represent?

The idea is to represent the best interests of all, but that's going to be difficult if only certain factions of a neighborhood show up at meetings. Historically, "minorities" (aka, the "majority" in SE Seattle) have generally been low in their meeting attendance numbers. Is it easier to simply participate in existing groups, or start a new one and build membership by criticizing existing groups? What's best for the community?

Pulling the "victim" card as a way to build community seems counterproductive. All it would seem to do is create a power transfer, and not a real unification of any kind. Or is it naive to think that 100% neighborhood unification is a worthwhile goal; that there will always be factions left in the cold? Especially in a place as diverse as the Rainier Valley?