Sold! WSCO, and District Council By-Laws

Dann wrote:
> But the more serious question is how could this happen?
 
Dann,
 
I think there are a lot of questions about what the previous board of WSCO
did that some people have questions about. I wonder why they thought the
people elected to the board should reflect the current thinking of the
board? I thought the purpose of the board was to reflect the thinking of
the people in the community.
 
I hope the new board examines the processes and procedures the old board
used to stifle the voices of opposition and figure out an election procedure
that can be used in the future that will not shut people out because they
don't fit in the majority.
 
One more thing I have been wondering about this whole messy thing. During
the elections in October and November, I noticed on the ads for the Bridges
project a lot of the supporters for the project were Latinos. Now I am just
going to be blunt and ask, because that's the way I am. This isn't one of
those cases where the white people are telling the people of color in a
community what is "best" for them, is it? Because I hate it when that
happens. If it is, then there is more to examine and correct than the
voting procedures of the WSCO.

On Nov 26, 2006, at 12:00 AM, Renee Jenson wrote:
> I think there are a lot of questions about what the previous board
> of WSCO did that some people have questions about. I wonder why
> they thought the people elected to the board should reflect the
> current thinking of the board? I thought the purpose of the board
> was to reflect the thinking of the people in the community.
>
> I hope the new board examines the processes and procedures the old
> board used to stifle the voices of opposition and figure out an
> election procedure that can be used in the future that will not
> shut people out because they don't fit in the majority.
 
I hope that Renee will help me out here. Because, I've been reading
this entire thread - AND, I've read as many of the offline articles
that I could - and I don't understand the basis for the accusations
that Renee has made here.
 
Clearly, there are a group of West Siders who are upset at what
happened and how it happened, but this sudden accusation that the
prior WSCO board stifled the voices of opposition is a little confusing.
 
In fact, what I've read - was that even with the knowledge of what
was transpiring the prior WSCO board took the position:
 
1) That they would NOT endorse a slate of candidates or get
involved in
the politics of the election.
2) That they upheld and agreed with the very broad based
definition of
"volunteer" voter that was used in the election, despite the fact
that they knew these "volunteers" were being recruited to vote
against
their established positions.
 
Hopefully, Renee will take the time to explain the basis for her
accusation that the previous WSCO board "Stifle(d) the voices of
opposition."
 
Best wishes,
 
Tim Erickson
Hamline Midway

> Is there anyone out there with some decency in their
> bones? Anyone with enough guts to say, "Gee, we
> might have made a mistake. We should have
> listened."
 
Being in power in a one-party town means never having
to learn to listen.
 
Mitch Berg
The Midway
 
Definition of "Diversity of Opinion" (Hamline-Midway
Coalition version): A roomful of people who may have
different gender or skin color, who all think exactly
alike.

Tim said:
> Clearly, there are a group of West Siders who are upset at what happened
> and how it happened, but this sudden accusation that the prior WSCO board
> stifled the voices of opposition is a little confusing.
> In fact, what I've read - was that even with the knowledge of what was
> transpiring the prior WSCO board took the position:
> 1) That they would NOT endorse a slate of candidates or get involved in
> the politics of the election.
> 2) That they upheld and agreed with the very broad based definition of
> "volunteer" voter that was used in the election, despite the fact
> that they knew these "volunteers" were being recruited to vote
> against their established positions.
 
Tim,
 
Those board candidates that supported the board position were printed on
green paper on those who did not support the board position were printed on
yellow paper. It was made very clear to the people who came in which side
the candidates supported-that there were two sides in this battle. The
board knew this would be a contentious meeting and had hired someone to run
the meeting and extra help. Why? Because they knew there were a group of
people who were upset.
 
Now why would they be upset? Maybe because in the past when people who did
not not support the board position ran for the board ( I believe the last
time that happened it was a young latino man - very articulate - who would
have made a great community representative) the board found a person that
supported their position and got him in instead. Those kinds of actions
really tick off a community.
 
If the board really was not "political" as you say, they would have been out
there handing out both the yellow and green slips saying "These are the
members of the community who want to have a seat on the board. Please look
them over and choose 13 from these lists."
 
As a matter of fact, I know that organizers that did not support the board
postion were handing out both sheets of board candidates to all the people
coming in. Saying exactly that. So which side did a better job of being
inclusive?
 
Oh yeah, and why do you assume that the broad definition of volunteer only
benefitted those that did not support the board position? I would like to
know the statistics on that. In this case and in the past.

I apologize for the length of this post, but there is so much
misinformation being thrown out that I feel I have to address it. At first
I was angry about the misstatements, but now they have gone so far away
from reality that they have become ridiculous. Still, they should be
addressed.
 
I think the better response to one of Renee's earlier questions is, why do
people keep answering your questions when you don't bother to take note of
the answers?
 
I had originally thought that Renee was doing what she does best?posting
challenging questions that hold people accountable for their opinions.
After her latest post, however, I think it is becoming obvious that she is,
either knowingly or inadvertently, part of the Donna Swanson-Mike Zipko-JLT
spin machine.
 
Renee, as far as I know you have not been to any WSCO events in the recent
past, so you are getting your information second or third hand. Whoever is
giving you your information is giving you very twisted versions of events
or, in some cases, telling you flat out lies.
 
Let me try to sort out some of your questions as specifically as possible.
 
1) Why did the Board keep dissenting views out? Answer: They didn't.
 
The development of the West Side Flats Master Plan took several
years. It involved hundreds of volunteers, including representatives
from JLT. The development of the comprehensive plan, and the more
recent rezoning of a portion of the area proposed for Bridges, also
included significant public input, including representation from JLT.
 
Most recently, WSCO's review of the Bridges proposal has gone on for
about 2 years and involved many community meetings looking
specifically at this project. One community meeting, at which
Trooien himself presented, had over 100 people in attendance. A
straw poll was done and the overwhelming majority of West Side
residents were opposed to the project. Other meetings included
meetings at the JLT offices with WSCO Board members, other community
members (including Don Luna and Gilbert de la O), and JLT staff as
well as WSCO committee and Board meetings.
 
Most recently, the WSCO Board held another hearing to give supporters
of the Bridges plan yet another forum to be heard. They brought
nothing new to the table, so the Board chose to move forward.
 
Renee wrote that "In fact, anyone who ran for board that supported
the project, board members made sure did not get on the board.
Supporters of the project were closed out of the discussion."
 
This is absolutely FALSE. As I said earlier, this discussion has
been going on for two years and had involved many people, both
supporting and opposing the project. No Board member has ever been
forced off the Board because of support of Bridges. No Board
candidate has specifically been rejected because of their support of
Bridges.
 
Today, Renee wrote: "I believe the last time that happened it was a
young latino man - very articulate - who would have made a great
community representative." This is one of those spin points that
makes me think Renee has some less than forthright sources of
information. The young man in question is the son of Don Luna. He
has never been involved in any WSCO youth events. He lost to two
young women of color who had been very active in WSCO activities.
 
You could spin it that he lost because of his father's views of
Bridges, since there was no discussion of Bridges by the candidates
and I don't think any of us knew the young peoples' views on the
issue. It is more accurate to say that he lost (for a seat that was
up for election in one month) because 1) his father had gone out of
his way to tick off the rest of the board and 2) there were other
young people running who were more active in the community.
 
Unless you want to argue that young women of color who are actively
involved in their community should not be on their district council
board, then their election is a non-issue in this debate.
 
2. How were people "bought" by JLT money?
 
Answer: While I don't think you can assign a price tag, people's
participation in this process were definitely influenced by JLT's
pocketbook. A huge number of employees from JLT, Bolander and
Sons, and Collins Electric showed up to vote. If your boss gives
you a sample ballot and tells you to show up and vote (and in some
cases provides rides) that is a form of monetary influence.
 
When one side hires a PR firm, does push-polling to put out false
information about the project, pays for months worth of weekly full
page ads advocating for the project, and prints up stickers, signs,
and sample ballots, that is a monetary influence.
 
And while nobody has shown that any money actually went into
individual pockets, I find it interesting that the Boosters
suddenly showed a huge interest in this project shortly after JLT
made a large contribution to their organization. Even though WSCO
had done constant outreach to members of that group, they were
never interested in participating until recently.
 
Renee wrote that "No one can buy community participation like you
saw at the WSCO annual meeting" but I would argue that bussing
employees to the meeting and telling them who to vote for, hiring a
PR firm to spread misinformation, and contributing to the favorite
charities of opinion leaders is pretty close.
 
3. Why did the current Board screw up the process so badly?
 
Answer: We did the best we could with what we had.
 
Bylaws governing the election process are not set by the WSCO
Board. Rather, they are adopted by the full WSCO membership at
each annual meeting. Even though everybody recognized that there
were potential problems with the bylaws, there was nothing the
Board could do. They do not have the authority to change the
bylaws; that can only be done at the annual meeting by the
membership.
 
The rules regarding volunteers have been in place for decades.
Several of the newly elected Board members were previously on the
WSCO Board when these rules were in place. Was the interpretation
a problem? Yes, but after reviewing that interpretation with many
people within and outside of the organization, there was really no
other way to do it.
 
WSCO does stagger its terms for the Board. Board terms are for two
years. In a regular year, about half of the seats are up for
election. This year, there were more seats available because some
Board members left before their terms were up. Some had family
obligations that would keep them from serving. Others had work or
school obligations. Nobody planned to have 14 seats up for
election. It just happened this year.
 
The Board brought in outside help to run the meeting so that there
could be no accusations of unfair treatment to any party. It
worked. While there is debate about the interpretation of some of
the bylaws, nobody is saying that the meeting was run in anything
but an efficient, equitable fashion.
 
Finally, the WSCO Board had nothing to do with the West Siders All
list of recommended candidates. A small group of board members
(maybe 3 or 4 out of 21), along with a much larger group of
community members, put the list together and passed it out at the
meeting. The WSCO board had its hands full just organizing the
event. They didn't get involved in advocating for one group over
another. They did not pass out either of the candidate lists.
Paid JLT staff and volunteers supporting the West Siders All list
took care of that. Renee wrote "As a matter of fact, I know that
organizers that did not support the board postion were handing out
both sheets of board candidates to all the people coming in.
Saying exactly that. So which side did a better job of being
inclusive?" I am EXTREMELY skeptical of this. You should come up
with proof?otherwise it is just another piece of JLT falsehood.
 
4. Isn't this just a case of white privileged ex-Board members
complaining about losing their seats to people of color? Isn't this a case
of rich white people on the bluff opposing a project that poor people from
communities of color on the flats really want?
 
Answer: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
 
This is one of the most insulting arguments coming out of the JLT
spin machine and it has community members arguing about who is
"more Hispanic" and who is "selling out to the white power
structure." The JLT spin is seeking victory by ripping a
neighborhood apart rather than working with the community to build
"bridges."
 
Let's make something very clear. There are many people opposing
Bridges who live on the Flats. There are many people opposing
Bridges who come from communities of color. Approximately one
third of the candidates that were on the West Siders All
recommendation list come from communities of color. Of those on
that list that are not from communities of color, there were
representatives from block clubs, REDA, Neighborhood House, and
other community groups that regularly and actively serve the entire
West Side Community. In addition, the majority of people on this
list come from parts of the West Side other than the Bluffs.
 
Many people on the Flats are concerned about the impact Bridges may
have in their community in areas such as traffic, air pollution,
tax increases, and limiting access to the river. This is not a
debate between the Bluff and the Flats. It is not a debate between
racial groups or socioeconomic groups. This is a debate about the
pros and cons of a development project and the lengths a developer
will go to eliminate legitimate public input.
 
 
5. Finally Renee says she is waiting for WSCO to say "Gee, we might have
made a mistake. We should have listened."

I can't weigh in on the specifics of what happened the other evening, but I
do want to make a few comments from the perspective of an elected official
as well as a public participation consultant...(please forgive in advance
these lengthy musings...I just have a lot of questions!)
 
First, thanks heaps to all the SPIFers who have contributed such incredibly
thoughtful insights to this and related threads. I intend to try and pull
some of this together for various public participation classes I teach at
the Humphrey Institute, and it's already been good fuel for conversations
with clients and colleagues about what public participation (P2) is all
about.
 
One of the struggles I have with these situations is unpacking the role of
various organizations relative to P2, which is tied to the concept of
"representation" -- and is something we struggle with relative to School
Board- and district-related advisory groups of various kinds, as well as in
my consulting work.
 
If a group is appointed -- such as the Planning Commission appointed by the
Council, or the Capital Improvement Budget committee appointed by the
mayor's office with Council approval, or the school district's budget
committee -- do they have a "representative" role? Do they have
constituents? Or do they, in effect, represent those who appointed them? Is
their job to specifically and proactively reach out to find out what others
think? If so, which others? Or are they expected to just say, hey, we're
having a mtg...wanna come? And then just presume it's OK because the world
is run by those who show up? Or are they appointed as experts in particular
topics or disciplines? Or are they really just representing themselves? For
any group, is it clear who they're advising? And does their advice make any
difference?
 
Community-based groups such as District Councils are quite different because
they are elected directly by those they represent, and part of their formal
charge is to actively reach out and hear community perspective. But we know
that most community members don't vote in these elections and far more have
no idea DCs even exist. Are DC's "better" if more people vote? Are they
better if more or a wider variety of people show up at P2 sessions or at
other meeting? Are they better if people with more diverse perspectives show
up? And the same questions about impact apply. In addition, say, for
example, a DC is "perfect" and engages a truly representative sample of the
community; will they make better decisions? Will those they advise respond
any differently? More broadly and perhaps most importantly, who are the real
stakeholders for any given situation/decision -- and do any groups routinely
do stakeholder identification and analyses?
 
I'm doing a city-wide visioning project for a first-ring suburb. An elected
asked me at one point if in the end they would know whether the "community"
supported the city funding a particular new public facility. The person was
disappointed when I said that, no, the process would not yield the answer to
that question because it was not designed to that level of detail nor could
I assure that the many hundreds of participants were "representative" --
even tho in this case we had good participation from the "usual suspects"
plus we successfully reached out and got solid input from all the young
families, new immigrants, non-English speakers, people of color, youth,
small business owners, and other traditionally underrepresented groups. But
that's not sufficiently representative when you're talking about whether
city (i.e., community members) should incur a major tax liability -- you'd
need to properly design and conduct, for example, a stratified random sample
survey that provided respondents with sufficient information and then
thoughtfully sought opinions and perspectives.
 
Yet electeds make decisions all the time with what truly is insufficient
information -- because it's almost never possible to hear from everyone we
want to or should hear from, and at the same time "it's our job" to make
these decisions, we're told, not run a city or county or school district
essentially on "initiative and referendum." But how much and what P2 is
enough and "right"? And what can we do to ensure it's authentic? Meaningful?
Inclusive? Representative? Valuable to the decision-making process?
 
As always, I'd be really interested in hearing others' thoughts on these
issues, either to the whole group or in private emails.
 
Thanks.

Tim said:
> I've been a little hard on Renee in private, because comments like this
> really irritate me. I've not heard anyone from the West Side say that the
> WSCO board "cut off" community input. Rather, they have simply said (from >
what I've read) that they disagree with the decision of the WSCO board -
> and in response, an effort (legitimate or not, each may decide
> themselves) was made to elect a largely new board.
 
Tim, how many other people have challenged the story the anti-Trooien people
are trying to sell us in this forum? I'm not buying it. I said from the
beginning no amount of money can buy that kind of citizen participation.
Their story does not add up. So I keep asking them questions and trying to
get at the truth. But they are so focused on Trooien and blaming him for
their misery- they are unable to talk about the real dynamics of what
happened in their community.
 
I've asked who payed for the green sheets and the green buttons. No one has
answered.
 
If the Board did not put out a sheet with all 34 names of board candidates
and was all inclusive-they erred.
 
The Board in this case evidently did not reflect all members of the community.
Otherwise the one segment of the community that didn't feel they were
adequately represented would not have had to "takeover" the Board.
 
As for your giving me grief offline. I figure it is a personality thing that
will never be resolved. Oh well.