Stop, Drop and Roll

12 June 2007 | Alameda Community, Alameda Community Development Forum, Measure A | John Knox White

Having had over half a week to think about it, I wanted to return for a less sarcastic look at last Thursday’s meeting-planning, subcommittee meeting. I have been asked by a lot of people “was it really that bad” and have checked my own personal take on the meeting with a number of others who were in attendance, some of whom are almost excruciatingly balanced. The answer from all corners seems to be “Yes” but without the humor. I wouldn’t recommend attendance to anyone hoping to chuckle.

What has really stuck with me was the hostility towards consensus and collaborative public input on important issues. The meeting began with indignation that the use of consensus would or even could be a useful way to plan a meeting. While Diane Coler-Dark pseudo-reserved judgment (“I’ll reserve judgment on so-called consensus”) and Pat Bail and Barbara Kerr immediately inquired what’s wrong with voting?

Sure, it could have been unfamiliarity with the issue of trying to bring together to an agreement, but as the meeting progressed, it became clear that there were more strategic ideas at work.

First, Kerr announced that each “side” should just pick 3 speakers and have a face-off. This position was the only position that was acceptable to Kerr through the entire meeting. She only voted for the final “try to come to consensus on speakers” motion when it was explained to her that consensus could include horse-trading in lieu of actually trying to find mutually acceptable speakers and if that doesn’t work, they’ll go to 3 vs. 3. Kerr is obviously against consensus because she wants her way or no way.

Second, and even more telling was the discussion about breaking into small-groups during the meeting in order to let people talk to each other and develop a set of comments based on the feedback of many speakers. After it was explained that this format can allow a voice to those who feel intimidated by speakers who yell and become angry, Kerr and Bail knocked the idea out of the park.

Kerr was at bat first, explaining that small groups don’t work if you have a limited number of people who will come. This is a strange concern for a group of people claiming to have the full backing of 98% of Alameda. But batting clean up was Bail, who tipped their strategy when she said that it was not necessary or possible to accommodate peoples “problems.” The only “problem” discussed was that yelling at civic meetings tends to lessen democratic participation. But a couple of minutes later, she announced that small groups are “very nice…and….very kind” but we have to get to solutions. Screw people who want to talk. What is needed, is the same 15 screamers that show up at every meeting about Measure A. That way, nobody will bother to stand up and give opposing views, and the solution (don’t talk about Measure A) is in the bag. Done.

If people yell fast enough, we can be in and out in 20 minutes.

It’s worked for years. People start to discuss talking about Measure A. People yell at those people. Nothing ends up happening. It is called intimidation. Or continuing the grade-school theme of the meeting: Bullying.
This, in a nutshell, is the their goal. Don’t stop the forum, just make sure it’s all about people yelling into a microphone, instead of people who are knowledgeable about issues (a lot of them could be Alamedans), talking to the residents of Alameda about the tradeoffs that the city is making.

If there was a disappointment that I had in the Planning Board members, it was that they didn’t speak up strongly for moderated, small-group discussions, I hope that they’ll put them back, front and center, on the table at the next meeting. This forum should be focused to gather as much public input and expert testimony as possible. Personally, I think that all residents should be encouraged to ask questions that can be answered in writing, as a part of the final report, by staff, experts and knowledgeable Alamedans.

UPDATED (8:29am): As Notadave points our, Barbara Kerr does indeed have a post on her site relating to this issue. It’s an rather incredible recollection of last Thursday’s events and seriously makes me wonder if she checked out during parts of the meeting. The post says that:

“The facilitator would not let the committee come to a consensus on that motion.” {the motion to just choose sides and be done with it}

“All members of the committee felt that public input was a very important part of the forum. The facilitator was not encouraging about this idea.”

At least two of the three planning board members said that they were specifically concerned about this proposal and they would rather see a more thoughtful and inclusive discussion. Hardly the “everyone” who she feels agreed with her.