Re: minutes up

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Paul:

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 04:18:52 -0600, you wrote:

>In order to have subpoena power we would have had to be empanelled by the
>judiciary. The commissioners cannot bestow upon the ERC powers that they
>themselves do not have.

But they could have easily asked the judiciary to do so.  Did they?

The sanctity of elections is what is at stake here.  It is the lack of
"let's do things differently" exhibited by the former commissioners that is
very distressing to me.

I have no idea if the new commissioners would have acted the same.
Nonetheless, they had the opportunity to do what I consider was necessary
for the ERC to make an impact but did not do so.

>I would have liked it. There's two people that will
>never speak to us unless we had it. Two people that I would like to hear
>speak. I think that the committee would like that too, not just me.

Who are those two?

>I think that you are wrong about what will be done with our report. Time
>will tell. What you've missed by being so self centered and convinced of
>your own rightness is what the committee has been up to. Those that first
>came, came with your same baggage. Then they started participating. It was
>good. We heard things we'd not known. So did the clerk and her staff.

Both in public and in private I have seen the clerk be more accommodating
and more willing to listen.

>
>Even if the three kings decided to ignore the report, the C&R staff have
>been far more educated by the redux of the process than when they were
>standing inside of it. That will make a difference.

Again, we shall see.

>
>I've changed parties. Now I am a member of the Libertarian National
>Socialist Greens. 

That's a bad, bad joke, Paul.  Really bad because your remark might be taken
seriously.

>When I am elected as Ruler of Boulder I will have you publicly flogged for your sarcastic ranting.

If my remarks were interpreted as sarcastic then they were interpreted
incorrectly.

>
>Some Guy who's really burnt out

And that, sir, is the entire point of the process.

Ralph Shnelvar
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 12:48 AM
>To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: minutes up
>
>On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 03:27:58 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>Oops - just found that this never went out.
>>---
>>The minutes of the ERC meeting from last week are up on the CVV site.
>>
>>Things seemed to have died down quite a bit. Lynn and Peter were there, but
>>I didn't see anyone else. This is a sad state of affairs. This committee
>>could very well tell the commissioners to dump the two million bucks they
>>dropped on it. Where are all the people that protested its purchase in the
>>first place?
>
>Paul, please don't take this the wrong way.  I'm expressing a personal
>opinion based on years of watching government.
>
>
>
>The reason that you don't see the activists is simple: burnout.
>
>The branch of economics and sociology known as Public Choice Theory easily
>predicts burnout.  The reason is that public participants to the ERC process
>(any commission process) are two levels removed from any ability to affect
>policy.
>
>It simply makes no sense (for even a zealot) to participate in this process
>because time can be better spent elsewhere.
>
>That's not a reflection on you or the ERC.  It is simply a matter of fact.
>
>
>
>Governments love to use commissions to burn out volunteers; that is, both
>the commissioners and the public.  When commission reports are ignored (as I
>suspect the ERC's will be), it further disillusions the activists and
>further strengthens the ability of those in power to remain in power.
>
>The commission exists for a while to take the heat off of those responsible
>for why the commission was created in the first place.  "Something was done
>about the problem" (whatever the particular problem was) and then the
>commission, the problem, and the solutions quickly fade from the public's
>consciousness.
>
>
>That's why I am so pleased to see Joe P., etc., NOT be on the ERC.  He is
>far more effective as an outside agitator (Bless you, Joe!) than having him
>burn out on the ERC's minutiae.
>
>Joe P., Bob M., Al K., etc. are all far more useful keeping the public's
>attention on the problem rather than spending huge quantities of time
>sitting in a room listening to the commissioners.  Yes, I know that they
>only need to be there for the public comments; but let's face it, how much
>weight will commissioners give to those who "don't even bother to sit
>through a single session"?  The commissioners are human ... and bitterness
>and despair are human emotions.  Witness your plaintive tone in "Where are
>all the people that protested its purchase in the first place?"
>
>
>
>I truly appreciate the huge efforts of the ERC.  If your recommendations are
>adopted and your report is actually listened to and implemented then I will
>be truly amazed - and I'll buy you a drink - and will likely apply to the
>next commission that meets my fancy.
>
>But I have seen report after report and commission after commission at all
>levels of government just spin their wheels and nothing comes of the report
>and/or the commission.  Perhaps the best example is the Warren Commission
>after JFK's death.  And, hell, they had subpoena powers.
>
>My suspicions about the ability of the ERC to actually do anything are
>enhanced by your lack of subpoena power.  Yes, Paul, I know that you know
>that you need that power ... but the power was not granted; which tells me
>that the ERC was eviscerated from the outset.
>
>
>Ralph Shnelvar