Stop, Drop and Roll

24 July 2007 | Alameda Community | John Knox White

Who gets to speak in a community and who gets to speak for a community?

As innocuous as this question seems, there appears to be a large group of people in this town who actually believe that they are the only people who can determine who should provide input and information in the public debates and discussions that take place around town. Clearly this sounds partisan or defensive, but let’s look at a few examples before jumping to that conclusion:

• The ad hoc subcommittee on Measure A. The appellants on the subcommittee wanted only Alamedans, regardless of whether they had knowledge that they could share in the process, more important was the opinion or perspective they brought. So important was this “no outsiders” mantra, that when they were talking about building consensus on who could speak. Barbara Kerr, with the concurrence of her teammates, suggested that she would never vote to support a speaker who was not Alamedan.
• This recent rant on Lauren Do’s website (almost three days later, it has appeared on Don Roberts’ site today, I’m not clear if Don just cut and paste it off of Lauren site or not, but it looks like the Don is running out of his own material). It’s a less than interesting discussion (between me and a semi-regular commentator who refuses to ever stay on one topic, instead slinging unfounded/unproven accusations in response to questions and clarifications). The writer says: <em>”This again points to reasons why I personally do not have trust in the way the TC operates. They are not elected…”</em>
• Lastly, I present the Action Alameda/California Healthy Communities Network (CHCN) meeting tonight at the Home of Truth. While outside experts are decried at every turn by the key members of Action Alameda and their supporters, Action Alameda is helping to sponsor one of CHCN’s talks given by someone who isn’t even from the state of California, let alone the Bay Area or (sigh) Alameda. I applaud them bringing interesting speakers, I just chuckle at the shear hypocrisy of the move.

In all three of these examples, which are recent, but could be replaced with any other number of examples and are therefore meaningful, the same “crowd” determines who is worthy of giving input. In the case of Daivd Kirwin, his letter decries the non-electedness of the Transportation Commission (but he’s made similar comments about other boards and commissions), and yet he turns around and makes similar complaints about the elected city council. The trouble isn’t whether he elected someone or not? The trouble is that he feels he disagrees with them, and therefore can’t trust them.

Barbara Kerr writes about censorship before any decisions about speakers at the forum have been made. What’s at stake is not Who is being asked to speak, the council and the planning board have both said they want balance and have identified people like Woody Minor, whom Ms. Kerr has said she wanted as well. What’s at stake is who gets to DO the asking.

Which brings me to what brought this all to mind this morning:

An article in the Alameda Journal. Essentially, a citizen appointed committee, and a local, non-elected citizen in particular, James Leach, have identified concerns in the Navy’s clean up plan at one section of Alameda Point. In a letter to the Navy, Mr. Leach writes about the added cost of necessary clean up at the point:

“True, this may be the most costly of the remediation alternatives,” Leach’s letter said, “but we consider it to be a long overdue payment for the cheap and easy method the Navy used to dispose of its unwanted materials during the 13 years of its expediency.”

And guess what?! The Navy is taking care of business, responding in the affirmative to his letter.

Mr. Leach wasn’t elected (The city has over 20 boards and commissions, does anyone think that electing the people to these would be meaningful in the long run? This country has a hard enough time getting people to vote for Mayor and President). He’s an Alamedan who decided to get involved and in doing so is bringing a positive return to the city. He should be commended.

However, it occurs to me, that if we buy into the view of the extremely negative camp in town, the crowd where everything is a conspiracy and corrupt, that Mr. Leach’s contribution is also under attack. If nobody’s voice counts unless the nattering nabobs of negativism (with respect to Mr. Saffire) get to choose them, then we’re all sunk, because the dirty little secret is that nobody will ever pass muster in that crowd. That is unless, like our Vice President himself, they get to select themselves as the perfect arbiters of all that is right.