RE: efficiency

["Mcgrath, Bob___PI_Mkt" <bob.mcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx>]

guys, give Joe a break.  Concensus building takes time.  I don't read that
he is inferring anyone is against open process as you state.  Everyone is
still at different levels of knowledge.  Why don't you just ask at the
beginning of the meeting if there are any first-timer's at this meeting who
would like a brief intro on the issues, and then give a 10 minute overview
and move on?

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Daniel Ravitz [mailto:evan@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:54 PM
To: joe pezzillo
Cc: bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: re: efficiency



Joe,

I won't be at the meeting or making up a handout. It's insulting to
infer that anyone in our group is against "public, open, educational
and consensus-driven group process" as you do below

During our 2nd meeting, because 20 of the 26 attending had been at the
1st meeting, and because we were playing catch-up with the County
which was about to award a contract to an unsatisfactory vendor, I was
trying to get us down to essential business quickly.

Evan

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, joe pezzillo wrote:

> [Sorry, forgot the rest of the list on my reply, and another though on
> the topic occurred to me:]
>
> Original:
> I think that's a great idea. Evan, can you please make up the handout
> from what's on the site? Thanks! -Joe
>
> Amended:
> On additional thought, however, we have agreed to do a public forum in
> conjunction with other groups' efforts, and, as usual, we expect a lot
> of first time attendees. Despite the repeated multiple oppositions I
> keep hearing, we're (or at least I am) committed to making this a
> public, open, educational and consensus-driven group process. That
> means meetings where anyone who wants to gets a chance to talk about
> the relevant issues, the group mutually works to define its mission
> (ie, "the statement"), and everyone is treated as "equals in concern"
> despite the varying level of knowledge that any given individual may
> have on the topic.
>
> So, another idea is to suggest that people who already consider
> themselves experts on the topic not show up until after the public
> meeting portion is done, say the first half hour to hour. If you
> already know that you're not going to learn anything during the public
> education portion, come later. This will also make ample room for what
> will hopefully be a much larger audience than last time (almost 50) of
> total newcomers who have bits and pieces of the story and want to learn
> as much as possible about the issue.
>
> Sorry if this democratic process is a drag to anyone! To me, this group
> -- lengthy meetings, ranting emails, the increasing time commitment and
> all -- is democracy in action. From my perspective, I can be less
> worried about who is in office if we have an truly active and engaged
> citizenry, and I think we're all lookin' at it blooming!
>