Also on the agenda for tonight’s Decatur City Commission, a proposed action plan for creating a “Compassionate Decatur”. Asst. City Manager Linda Harris describes the effort in the meeting materials…
We propose a process that thoughtfully engages diverse community members in conversations which constructs new narrative and a shared action plan. The shaping of a new and shared narrative around diversity, inclusion, welcoming and compassion has always required a more in-depth approach than a typical community conversation process. We want to ensure inclusiveness and as much participation as possible from all segments of the community.
Therefore we propose engaging Mattice Haynes, Founding Principal and Chief Inclusion Officer at The Alt of Community, LLC, an organization that co-designs and facilitates inclusive community conversations. Mattice is a Decatur resident who also participated as a volunteer facilitator during the 2010 Strategic Planning Process.
…With Mattice and her team we propose a year long process with a total projected investment of close to $100,000 (cash and in-kind) to be phased over two fisca1 years. We propose to begin with ah initial $25,000budget to build the relationships and resources from September-December 2014. During that time we will establish a steering committee~ seek matching funds from foundation and community partners, and collaborate with the steering committee to create a dialogue process in order to officially launch the initiative in January 2015.
I’m just gonna go out on a limb and predict that I will agree with DawgFan in my response to this proposed expenditure.
Seriously, what will they DO for the $100K? I really don’t get it. Can we at least ask for competing bids if we’re committed to spending money on instituting a compassion campaign???
CoD government is starting to look more and more like DeKalb Co. government. The virtual mote can no longer keep the corruption and incompetence at bay. Sorry, but this looks like a payment for prior “volunteer” work and/or paying someone who will give the city its preconceived answer. Of course, this may be nothing more than a city official paying a “consultant”. My guess is number 2, with a little of number 1 mixed in. You are right about bidding this out – Mattice and her organization may be the best person for the job, but how would be know?
Prediction 1: This will pass. We will spend well over $100k on this. In the end we (collectively as a city) will be blamed for our lack of compassion and be told we have to change.
Prediction 2: Since it will be our fault, $100k will seem like a drop in the bucket after Mattice’s suggestions are implemented. We will be forced to compensate anyone who either (1) can’t afford admission to CoD or (2) can no longer afford to stay (or, more accurately, voluntarily chooses to move to a place with a lower cost of living).
“CoD government is starting to look more and more like DeKalb Co. government. The virtual mote can no longer keep the corruption and incompetence at bay. Sorry, but this looks like a payment…”
That is a most ridiculous statement. You can have your other opinions on this page, that’s fine, some I might even start to agree with somewhat. But you have zero facts to back up that statement. Zero. Ridiculous. And even more ridiculous is your leap from this particular proposal to that statement. Totally uncalled for and super inflammatory to accuse the city of something underhanded and devious on this. You don’t have to agree with it on its on own terms, but what on earth makes you think there is something underhanded about it? Just because you disagree with it doesn’t make it devious. Totally irresponsible. I think the city used to care about opinions on this page. But posts like that nullify any credibility to your dissent.
Chill. Just a little hyperbole. But, IMO the justification for this expenditure and the process in which she was designated are lacking. $25k to build relationships? And I do believe she was hired b/c the answer of her study/narrative will be the one the city leadership has already decided is correct.
“the justification for this expenditure and the process in which she was designated are lacking”
I won’t disagree.
There are no facts to call this cronyism, but it is not out of line to question, cynically assume even, that government officials tend to reward friends, themselves and their own political interests at the expense of the electorate. No government is immune from corruption and vigilance is required to make sure it doesn’t creep in.
I think it is fair to criticize those who make unsubstantiated statements, but I also think it is dangerous to characterize those who question this process as racist, uncompassionate and selfish (all names called in this thread by folks who don’t like those questioning this proposal).
“but I also think it is dangerous to characterize those who question this process as racist, uncompassionate and selfish (all names called in this thread by folks who don’t like those questioning this proposal).”
I don’t recall anyone actually calling anyone any of those things. As for myself, I said that some are clearly opposed to implementing policy that might address issues of inclusion (though we don’t know yet if such policy proposals are forthcoming). And how is one not to conclude that some are saying, effectively, that they’re all for diversity, compassion, etc. –as long as there is no cost to them?
You should re-read and you will find them. Your statement about people being opposed to a policy of inclusion which you admit had not been proposed is just a judgmental assumption on your part, plain and simple. You make my point. If you question the fiscal propriety of the proposal or whether it is a proper function of the city, then you are probably against the concept of compassion and conclusion anyway, right?
” Your statement about people being opposed to a policy of inclusion which you admit had not been proposed is just a judgmental assumption on your part, plain and simple”
You should re-read. Some have said exactly that, while assuming what those policy proposals will be, including the one I quote below.
“We will be forced to compensate anyone who either (1) can’t afford admission to CoD or (2) can no longer afford to stay (or, more accurately, voluntarily chooses to move to a place with a lower cost of living).”
Where in the world are you getting this from?
How would one promote inclusion when very strong and powerful market forces are doing the opposite? To name one, I suspect that massive tax subsidies for the elderly (and, according to everyone here, poorer) will be on the table. The end result of this thing is not going to simply be a PR campaign. This study is nothing more than the means to justify the end.
I have read the memo twice, and nowhere does it actually state what is the “initiative”. They want a “process” to create a “Community Action Plan”, but what is the plan for? A “compassionate” Decatur? What exactly does that mean? Cities can’t be compassionate, people can. And Decatur is overflowing with compassionate people. Maybe I am being especially cynical today, but I think our leadership knows exactly what it wants to do, and it is stacking the deck to make sure that happens.
Again, all assumptions. Though I’ll concede they left themselves open to such assumptions by not providing more specifics.
To me, this part of the thread here illustrates why the CoD effort is doomed.
Anything to do with the historical roots of market forces will be off-limits, so we can forget about getting to root causes. “Liberals” don’t do root causes. Too scary. Even in the “Berkeley of the East.” Every day in the market starts fresh, as if nothing had gone before. It must, if we are to live with ourselves.
Local government’s capacity to do more than provide feel-good window-dressing is severely limited. Government doesn’t legislate attitudes. Attempting to force the matter will only general heat – as is happening right now on this thread.
Anything that held out the prospect of genuinely addressing the core underlying issues – and I don’t mean profiling – can only come from a self-aware, organised community. We don’t have that – we cede most of our power to government and elections. And we are satisfied with too little.
Some good points, but not sure if your’re right about “severely limited”. Let’s assume that some here are right and this is partially about helping the elderly stay in their homes. Aren’t there already policies in place that have some effect there? So maybe they could be enhanced. Why would that be so difficult?
Or maybe it is about police interaction with minorities (I’m thinking specifically young black males). Is it not possible that some policy change could be made to improve that interaction?
Maybe it’s simply a matter of getting parts of the community who normally don’t engage in civic matters to feel like they are welcome (which seems to be the goal, imo). I don’t believe that such a goal would be “doomed.”
Is this an Onion article?
What a complete crock! And our ridiculously high City of Decatur property taxes are going to support _this_ psycho-babble nonsense?!!! God help us all! I would defy _anyone_ to tell me what the deliverables are going to be for this $100K boondoggle; can anyone even understand what the point of the program _is_? What problem it is attempting to address?! And it sure as hell won’t lead to happier citizens once they realize that they are paying for this fatuous, PC drivel out of their own pockets….
What a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Our tax dollars at work! Great. Is this why we pay taxes?
It’s a good thing money is no object- I think NPR just sponsored something similar in Ferguson for free. Unless you make some type of tax break structure for long-time residents being hit with taxes they can’t maintain, then “diversity” (including elderly) won’t be able to stay. It really is as simple as that.
“Unless you make some type of tax break structure for long-time residents being hit with taxes they can’t maintain, then “diversity” (including elderly) won’t be able to stay.”
I don’t get it. Why are you and others assuming this is what this is all about?
I don’t assume that’s what this is all about. I’m just assuming that unless taxes are halted for people that bought in “cheap” a long time ago, but have maintained the same income as they had at that point, many can’t afford to stay. And in moves more people just like us.
I think it’s a waste of money whether I believe the cause is noble or not. Every issue doesn’t require throwing money at it. People can sometimes be the change without government spending and intervention.
Btw, no one really shows me compassion on a daily basis (aside from getting the occasional door), and I don’t really think it’s an issue worthy of donations. 🙂
We seem to have community conversations on a regular basis without any incremental cost. (FREE) Can someone cogently explain what we’re getting for that initial $25,000 investment? Seems kind of high for three months of work on the project. How many people are working on it for that duration? What’s the expected matching funds that are referred to?
Seems to me the $100k would be better spent hiring a couple “meter maid” types to go drive around Oakhurst and revise the DeKalb County property assessments for all the teardown/rebuilds that are still on DeKalb’s records at $350k.
I’ll bet they could track down 50-100 houses that are under assessed by $300k-$1M each. Surely that would generate enough additional tax dollars to fund the “See how compassionate we are, we’re spending $100k to prove it” campaign for more than 2 years.
Just . . . “Wow!” Says it’s on the agenda for tonight, so I’m off to email my city comm.
Is it being missed that the project budget isn’t limited to city tax dollars but includes in-kind contribution as well? Also, uhhhh, the scope of work for the first phase includes seeking grants to help cover costs.
I’m all for accountability but shouldn’t we actually know the true taxpayer cost before assuming this level of outrage? I fear the comment thread here is on the verge of becoming an unintentionally ironic demonstration of pretty much exactly why a broader discussion of compassion might actually be warranted.
Frankly, even 25k seems excessive. There are very simple reasons why the city is struggling with diversity. Why make it complicated, and really expensive?
Scott, did you miss the part where they want to spend $25,000 of somebody’s hard earned tax dollars over the course of 4 months to “build relationships and resources”!!
If there is a need for this sort of boondoggle it should be focused on the compassionate and respectful use of the citizens funds.
What a waste.
I predict a unanimous vote in favor of this poster child of a waste of resources by the commissioners but pray that I am wrong.
You are right about the votes. Any commissioner that votes against this will be labeled, at best, uncompassionate about the poor and elderly and, at worst, a racist.
“Any commissioner that votes against this will be labeled, at best, uncompassionate about the poor and elderly and, at worst, a racist.”
Why would any commissioner who votes against this plan be labeled a racist? Your argument presumes the commissioner would be of a different race than the people deemed in need of compassion? That sounds racist to me.
Wow, of all the silly reasons to be called a racist. Do you know what the word means? Do you realize that racism isn’t just a one-way street? I am not presuming anything about the race of the commissioner(s) as there are more than 2 races. The use of the race card has so warped the meaning of “racist”, that many people no longer understand what it means. Perhaps you are included in that group. How does thinking that a commissioner would wrongfully be accused of being a racist if he/she voted against this proposal make me a racist?
Let me explain this to you. Part of the study/narrative/whatever label they want to apply to this boondoggle is racial diversity. If a commissioner votes against this thing b/c they don’t see this as proper function of government and/or a waste of taxpayer dollars, some idiot will accuse him/her of not caring about racial diversity. Then some other idiot will take it a step further and say that the offending commissioner doesn’t care about racial diversity b/c he/she is a racist. I didn’t say that said commissioner was a racist; I said someone would accuse him/her of such.
But who is it that you think would label a commissioner a racist for voting against it? YOU are the one suggesting that someone (some bogeyman, I guess) is going to deem a vote against this proposal as racist. So, in your view, others will point the finger and call that commissioner a racist.
Why would you think that? Do you have such a dim view of your fellow Decatur residents?
Perhaps the City might need this after all!
P.S. You’re probably right. Your position isn’t racist. It’s (to use your word) silly. And race-baiting.
But who is it that you think would label a commissioner a racist for voting against it? YOU are the one suggesting that someone (some bogeyman, I guess) is going to deem a vote against this proposal as racist. So, in your view, others will point the finger and call that commissioner a racist.
Why would you think that? Do you have such a dim view of your fellow Decatur residents?
Perhaps the City might need this after all!
P.S. You’re probably right. Your position isn’t racist. It’s race-baiting. And (to use your word) silly.
Scott, I agree to an extent, but I think they would have done better to include at least a few possible, concrete outcomes of this initiative, rather than leaving the word “compassion” out there on it’s own to be swatted at like a pinata.
I don’t disagree. I’m just old and no longer have the energy to be outraged until I’m pretty well versed in what it is I’m getting outraged about. Others’ mileage clearly varies.
I prefer to be outraged, even if it’s premature and possibly misplaced, BEFORE they spend my money.
Scott, for what it’s worth, I alluded to the grants in my comment above. Would like to learn more about how that phase of this project will work.
I never heard of this effort before today but I like what I read about it on the website of the International Institute of Compassionate Cities. E.g.: “Acclaimed religious scholar and author Karen Armstrong received the TED Prize in 2008 to fulfill her wish for a Charter for Compassion — a universal declaration of support for the Golden Rule, a call to treat others as we would wish to be treated.” The values–compassion, action, connection, wisdom, integrity, responsiveness, responsibility–seem completely consonant with CSD’s IB program, the Boy Scouts, most religious values, and the values of just about any workplace I’ve been in. The six North American cities already on board are: Appleton, Wisconsin; Basalt, Colorado; Lake County, California; London, Ontario, Canada; Millbrae, California; and Seattle, Washington; 24 more U.S. and 11 more Canadian cities are in the process of designation.
My questions would be:
1. How does the cost of the Compassionate Decatur process compare to other similar COD projects like the strategic planning process or the sister city project (does that still exist?)?
2. What are the clear deliverables for the amount budgeted?
3. What are other cities participating spending on the project, proportionate to population size and budget? There’s no cost to the process of designation as a compassionate city.
I worked for many years with communities in Africa and Asia that faced much worse issues than ours. The typical government response was always exactly the same – farm it out to an “expert” consultant. Bureaucracies everywhere abhor any process they cannot design and control. They want deliverables and tidy milestones. They want to be able to check off the box that says they did something, regardless of whether it has any impact.
This is a colossal boondoggle. We don’t need consultants. We need to change the way our community is governed – more grassroots, less formal. But that won’t happen because the goal isn’t change, but rather the appearance of change.
Spaulding get your foot off the boat!
Never! It’s Plan B!
You’ll have nothing and like it!
It’s all so nebulous, except the dollars. At the end of the “narrative,” what can the city legally and practically do to be more welcoming and inclusive, besides creating more logos and “catch phrases” to publish around town (all for the low, low price of $100,000)?
Decatur cannot mandate racial, ethnic or sexual orientation diversity through zoning or other policies. That’s illegal. Mandating inclusion for some impermissibly excludes others.
It can only perhaps condition development on requiring “workforce” or other lower than market housing or perhaps going through the DHA to expand offerings, which it already is doing. But if the economic calculus doesn’t work for a developer, then it can’t happen. This must also be non-discriminatory. Unless we want to change the entire economic and legal structure of our society, then what will this accomplish?
It’s not the city’s job to manufacture the right mix of people it feels are appropriate, and city officials have the responsibility to explain this to those complaining about the current population before proposing an expensive process like this.
As far as being “welcoming” and “compassionate”, I really don’t feel the COD has any problem there. When outsiders compare your city to Berkeley, it is probably a pretty tolerant, compassionate place. Besides the police profiling issues (of which the COD investigation itself found no evidence of wrongdoing), what is the problem to be addressed with the $100,000 and how is the city going to spend the money?
I largely agree. I’m all for having a conversation about “diversity and inclusion” in Decatur. I just don’t see why we have to allocate $25,000 up front to pay a facilitator to help us. Our town is small enough that this should be easy to do on our own.
I also find the catchphrase “Compassionate Decatur” troubling. The City is not a charity organization. We shouldn’t want a portion of our residents to think of themselves as needing compassion from other residents about living here. If people are struggling to survive, there are charity and governmental programs in place already. If people are being treated unfairly, there’s the legal system.
Perhaps some of this money would be better spent training the police on how to avoid racial profiling, regardless of whether that’s been proven to be a problem here. Cities have routinely spent money on training to prepare for natural disasters and terrorism, even if they’ve never encountered either.
If the city wants to runs charity and/or accept voluntary donations to be “compassionate” then go for it…on second thought, no! Don’t do that either!
That is not the job of city government. Decatur is full of churches and faith and other charitable/social organizations of all stripes that already do a lot of good.Stay out of their way and let them do their thing.
This is a horrible idea, and it should cost the jobs of any elected official who supports it!
Is this being voted on tonight?
Fat and happy budgets gorging on a smorgasbord.
Why is this needed?
Cue the passive aggressiveness. The whole nature of the proposal is set up for its benefactors and supporters as “if YOU question it, then that proves WE need it.” Who can argue against compassion, inclusion, diversity and community? No one. If you question the process, utility and methodology, then that is treated as an attack on these ideals.
Did Frank Luntz write this proposal?
“Who can argue against compassion, inclusion, diversity and community? No one. If you question the process, utility and methodology, then that is treated as an attack on these ideals.”
Except quite a few here are arguing against those ideals, or at least the application of them via policy (which hasn’t even been proposed yet). I haven’t seen any questioning of the process (do we even have any idea what it might be?), but a rejection of the very idea that any kind of process should happen at all regarding something they really just don’t want to hear about.
Contrary to popular opinion, one can simultaneously care about certain ideals while also thinking that this isn’t a proper function of government. One can simultaneously care about certain ideals while also thinking this is a giant waste of money which will effect no change. One can care about certain ideals while also realizing that any mandated change for the benefit of one or more groups will may have a disproportionate impact on others, and one may choose not to discount said impact.
Except all of those but the first one (and of course we can agree to disagree whether government has a role at all) are assumptions, nothing more at this point. So essentially your opinion and others here comes down to a belief that government has no role to play here. Not everyone shares that belief, and it’s a pretty thin basis on which to claim there is little difference between COD and DeKalb.
What specifically do you think should the city do to make its people more diverse, compassionate and inclusive?
Where does it say that’s the goal? Based on the info given, it seems the goal is to get more people in the community to be involved and to feel welcome at the table, so to speak, when decisions are made that shape the community. Do we need to spend this kind of money to facilitate that? Maybe not. I’d have to hear the whole proposal.
Yes to that, brianc. Personally, I object to the process because it is bureaucratic and therefore unlikely to meet the need. But there is a need. It’s just not a need that government can address. On that I agree with DawgFan, but probably for different reasons.
We are hardly some sort of “Berkeley.” That’s just delusional self-flattery.
“We are hardly some sort of “Berkeley.” That’s just delusional self-flattery”
Maybe so. But some of the hyperbole here regarding government spending makes me wonder if some people have forgotten this is still a predominantly liberal city.’
Of course it depends on what one means by liberal … increasingly, it seems to mean a more refined approach to selfishness … 😉
Fair point.
Well stated!
As stated, Berkley of the South, is a name from outsiders. Therefore, I don’t think it could be considered “self-flattery”.
I think self-flattery would be more appropriately applied to government bureaucrats who believe it is within their power and responsibility to spend $100,000 to have a “dialogue” that one could have for free.
If you don’t see any questioning of the process, you may want to look at the posts again.
You kind of prove the initial point though. If you question the proposal, you don’t like the ideal or “don’t want to hear about it (i.e. you don’t care about compassion).”
With respect to the argument that this process should not be criticized until all the details and costs are known, isn’t that an indictment of this entire proposal? If this is so essential, enough that we need to spend $100,000 on its study, then why aren’t there more details about its specifics before it is proposed to the commission?
Maybe the reason is because the specifics are not compelling enough to justify the costs, because, in the end, the city is very limited in what it can do legally and financially to meet these non-quantifiable objectives. Maybe too it is more politically effective for its proponents to claim that those who question it are enemies of compassion and diversity.
“Maybe the reason is because the specifics are not compelling enough to justify the costs, because, in the end, the city is very limited in what it can do legally and financially to meet these non-quantifiable objectives.”
This is a fair criticism. I would like to know more about what specific problems are to be addressed, and if that doesn’t happen I would like to see this voted down.
“If you don’t see any questioning of the process, you may want to look at the posts again.”
I did, and what I see are assumptions about policies resulting from this and a rejection of them beforehand. Which kind of proves might point that some are simply against policy being used to promote the ideals you mentioned.
I wrote the very first comment. I questioned what exactly we are paying for and the process in choosing a particular bid (the only one solicited as far as I can tell). I have no problem with what I think the goals are. I have a huge problem in how the city is proposing to implement a process to accomplish it. That is all…
J-T, I was referring to the process this consultant proposes to initiate, which I agree is vaguely communicated thus far. My comment above is based on the large number of posts that assume that either nothing policy-wise will come of this or they won’t like what does.
This, IMO, is a ridiculous use of taxpayer money. Further, I agree with comments about engaging in a competitive process if it must be done, not just for the sake of cost, but also to get the right assistance. I am not sure a long time Decatur residence would be right for the job given the biases that might be brought to the table. Either way, I would not support this.
Holy hell people, are we having an organized rage-off today? All I can really add is that I disagree with almost everyone whose commented here today. I’m perfectly happy to have my tax dollars put to use on creating a more compassionate community. Even if that’s just engaging Decatur in a meaningful conversation, I’m happy to support it. I moved here because I perceived Decatur as a community with compassion, and I’ll stay until I feel that’s no longer the case.
Calling the city’s employees or elected officials corrupt and incompetent doesn’t actually make them so. Try interacting with them sometime. Then try interacting with city/county staff at almost any other metro Atlanta municipality/county. We are miles ahead in terms of accountability, transparency, and general ability to run an effective local government. The next time one of our elected officials is accused of fraud or abuse of power (as in Atlanta, Gwinnett, DeKalb, Cobb, Clayton…and the list goes on), then you might have a leg to stand on.
+1
BTW, people, if you don’t like this idea, take the time that you would spend commenting here and send an e-mail to your commissioners…………
http://www.decaturga.com/index.aspx?page=112
I think we learned from the tree ord that they do not listen. The constituents concerns appear irrelevant, which, by definition, makes us not constituents but pawns lead by a totalitarian local government.
I’m selling hugs for $10. I’ve got 1000 hugs for sale!
I bet I can sub contract for 1500 hugs at $5 each and I net $25,000 as coordinator.
This seems as fuzzy as dropping $40,000 for the ladies (who don’t live in Decatur) to farm a few acres that the city doesn’t own and is outside of Decatur. Let’s put the money into educating unadvantaged families or the schools which put a lot of effort into inclusiveness.
I have no problem with the CoD paying consultants, but I do take issue with spending $25 K ‘to build relationships and resources’. A good consultant has relationships and resources, that is what they bring to the table and why you pay them for their expert opinion…
In my experience, the easiest way to blow your budget on consulting is to not define the problem you are asking them to solve.
I did do a little research on ‘The Art of Community’; what I found was lots of testimonials about how good a large group facilitator Mattice is and some info on the type of work she has done. The key thing that is missing in my mind is specifically what problem she is being asked to solve. Is it old folks, poor folks, transportation, racial diversity?
“The key thing that is missing in my mind is specifically what problem she is being asked to solve. Is it old folks, poor folks, transportation, racial diversity?”
Now this is a fair criticism. As it stands, I’d vote no on this if this question was not answered.
Interesting that there are zero comments about creating a position called “Facilities Security Coordinator” to carry out the plan to accomdate the new gun law.
Based on the contents of the Memorandum alone (which is all we really have here) I would vote no also. This certainly has the appearance of a boondoggle.
And I agree with others that the Memorandum does not identify a problem that needs solving. There many unanswered questions to vote in favor of this.
what if it turns out this is something trader joe’s asked the city to do before they open a location here?
Best. Comment. Thus. Far.
Definitely the best comment so far. Thanks for a good laugh!!
*flatlined*
Thanks, ant1. We really needed that–things are gettin’ tense up in heah!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/us/03berkeley.html
We could do this, but with craft beer and oysters.
Could you please boil down the jargon and tell us taxpayers exactly what you are going to do with the money you force us to pay under threat of taking our homes? I really don’t know whether I support this or not because the city has utterly failed to explain what the douce it is. If this is a thinly veiled attempt to funnel hush money, you could label it “special interest” and make us all feel more comfortable.
So, there will be these conversations about inclusiveness and compassion. Who will attend these? Will the people who lack compassion decide to attend them, because those are the ones that need to be reached by a compassion campaign/initiative. My guess is that the only ones who will attend already have plenty of compassion. Those who need to up their compassion quotient will be busy tending to non-compassionate lives and will by their very nature, see no value in a compassion initiative.
So CoD will spend $100K to pay someone to get a group of compassionate people around a table to discuss how compassionate they are and how the people not at the table need to be more compassionate.
I have no problem with promoting compassion and understanding, but I think we can do this without paying a consultant…. as more of a grassroots effort. Compassion is really born from life experiences, upbringing, and a natural sense of grace and gratitude, not from, consultants, ad campaigns and large scale, nebulous round table conversations.
You are absolutely correct.
Here’s a clue as to the purpose. This quote is from Ms. Haynes’s proposal to Ms. Merriss. Ms. Harris replicated the proposal in large part in her Community Action Plan memo. “If some portion of the conversation relates to developing positive, respectful relationships between the police force and all groups within the City, these conversations might involve the types of deep and heartfelt sharing that takes some time.”
Just so folks know, the Decatur Police have always been willing to participate in an expanded community conversation.
my concern has less to do with the worthiness of the proposal, and more with the reality of actually being able to accomplish its goals
socially engineering attitudes and behaviors is an expensive proposition requiring a combination of very well crafted and distributed messages, AND a long term commitment to promoting them.
with $25,000 being spent on relationship/resources through Dec 14, that leaves $75,000 to create the communications assets and distribute them via media and live events. assume $25,000 for development of the assets (video, website, digital ads, posters, etc.) and you have $50,000 left to spend promoting them—or, roughly $2.50 per person in Decatur’s 20,000 population over the course of 2015.
setting aside the desirability of getting multiple bids for the project, the numbers themselves, based on my professional experience, simply won’t work in effectively disseminating the message and producing the desired outcome: more compassion.
it’ll give you a blip, but not a bump in attitudinal change.
(of course, all of the above is my WAG re: budget items and activities)
“Acclaimed religious scholar and author Karen Armstrong received the TED Prize in 2008 to fulfill her wish for a Charter for Compassion — a universal declaration of support for the Golden Rule, a call to treat others as we would wish to be treated.”
Can we just make the declaration and save ourselves $100K?
Perhaps the city should first initiate and attempt something analogous to a Compassion Resident Board or Commission before appropriating $100,000 to the endeavor.
If the $100,000 is spent, what would success entail?
What are the metrics to determine the success or failure of the project upon completion?
Portlandia come to life.
Instead of getting a narrative and some dialogue, can we get some synchronized traffic lights before 2017?
I see the proposal calls for a “shared action plan” and a “shared narrative,” which I also read takes a “more in-depth approach than a typical community conversation.” Given the comments here today I rather doubt we’ll reach consensus, but I’m very happy to see DM promoting plenty of free dialogue about this pending narrative.
Can somebody point me to some cost statistics about “typical community conversations” and their outcomes? Do we have typical community conversations in Decatur or are all of our conversations atypical? If they are all atypical doesn’t that really mean they are typical? Maybe Tucker, Chamblee, Avondale Estates or other nearby towns have typical conversations. How about pending towns like Druid Hills and Briarlake? We could eavesdrop on their community blogs and do some research.
Since this effort will require a more in-depth approach, I assume what’s proposed requires additional funding, although I’m still somewhat fuzzy on what’s been proposed beyond a dialogue process. Except the cost. That part is pretty concrete.
In my opinion, the comments here demonstrate strongly the need for some type of process to address how people treat one another in Decatur. People do not seem able to differentiate between expressing concern about an issue and insulting someone whose opinion is different than their own. It is sad that so many people immediately accuse the commissioners and city employees of some illegal or nefarious action or intention. And it is sad how people are attacking one another in this thread and cannot have a respectful, civil discussion. This type of behavior is certainly not limited to Decatur and is reflective of a much larger national trend in social interaction. However, I applaud Decatur’s attempt to try to address it. No, there are no prescribed actions to be taken. The study will be the first step in finding these actions. And no, the City cannot dictate how people act. However, this study will help to determine what can be done to create an environment in which people are more respectful and civil to one another. If we can find a way to improve the way people treat one another, then this will have been a strong investment.