San Gabriel

I found the events of our last meeting fascinating, and would like to further discuss the issue of dealing with partisan issues at SGNA meetings. While I strongly feel that SGNA meetings are an excellent forum at which to discuss partisan issues such as the upcoming transportation ballot issues, I just as strongly feel that such issues should be raised democratically, so that both (all) sides of the issue could be presented. My questions are

1) Do other members feel the same way?
2) If so, how do deal democratically with such issues?

Nancy Patterson

I wanna be heard!

I think that the partisan discussion at the meeting was, well, awkward. But we need to be willing to hear out speakers, even when we vehemently disagree. The parliamentary procedure rules we follow are intended to allow each individual a chance to be heard, while allowing the majority to rule. Rules or not, courtesy must prevail for it all to succeed.

So the question is, do we want to hear it? I've heard that some Associations have made a blanket rule against taking partisan positions on issues. I can see where this may be wise, to preserve harmony, but it seems like the equivalent of throwing up our hands and admitting that we can't discuss things like civilized adults.

I'd like to hear from the membership on how to present these issues, if at all. Should we discuss them only if they are on the agenda? Is it okay to discuss them under ''new business?'' If there's not going to be a discussion, is it okay to bring it up under ''announcements?''

By Edgar

au contraire

Well, hate to say this, but, I think meetings are for business and programs.
The neighborhood association is a forum for improving the neighborhood and making friends. While our diversity will naturally inspire passionate discussions, the association should, IMHO, be a pivot point into a better community rather than a kind of sinkhole that might dishearten people. We certainly want everyone to have a voice and feel welcome no matter what side they take on a particular issue. Yet, it could take only one angry outburst to drive away valuable neighbors who may then tell others that we are a contentious group, a group to be avoided. None of us want that. Nor do we want to be surprised or blind-sided by behaviour that hijacks the meeting with controversy too large for our meeting to resolve in such a short time frame.
Perhaps as we treat each other with a community business-like respect, we will get to know each other well enough to disagree without scaring the more timid amongst us. I have heard people say that if the group is just going to argue at these meetings, then they will never participate or attend in the future.
Here's a compromise that might work. Encourage open discussions after the meeting adjourns. This way it is somewhat separated from the business of the day, and those uninterested in heated debates can leave without feeling trapped.


By Melinda

town meetings?

I would be happy with any of several options on this issue, as long as we deliberate as a body and choose one we consistently employ. Edgar, it seems to me like partisan issues spontaneously coming up in any meeting indicate New Business, and a need to set an additional gathering time to communicate further. As Melinda noted, the problem with such issues arising is not that they are not appropriate, but that they need their own generous amount of time and a certain focus.

By the way, given the time-consuming nature of New Business items, I think that agenda item should perhaps always be at the very end of each meeting.

I also agree with Edgar that we need to carefully attend to the difference between announcements and new business.

Thx, you two! What's next? Maybe we'll get more opinions after the newsletter goes out.

N.