Is Civility Cowardice or Evasion? Other Choices

[Sharma]

Please 
 
On Nov. 25, 1998, Sharma Oliver wrote: 
 
"Regardless of Rich's enjoyment of "shooting from the lip", I fail  to see 
how it improves the functioning of SCNA. Verbal bullying in the  name
of  challenging "spineless cowering as a way of evading the  discussion
of  issues" is annoying to me, to say the least. I have no interest in 
working  with anyone who feels that intentional rudeness and verbal 
attacks are the  equivalent of a "good discussion". "  

------------  

Rich replies: 

	Sharma, you really should specify my crimes.  The message you
responded to did not have any of the things you are complaining about. 
Next time, do include the instances that demonstrate what you are talking
about. 

	However, it is good to see some fire from you.  And you even make
some good points.  We need to hear from you on the public lists more
often.

	It looks like you figured something had gone too far, and you sent
a well-aimed blast in response.  I go along with that approach.  I've done
it myself.  And, when the calm communications don't get the job done, you
are right to blast away.  I am certainly not in any position to complain
about your unleashing a little righteous anger.  I might not agree with
all your points, but I applaud your stepping up an laying it on the line.

Sharma continued: 
	I think that there is a need for serious discussion of the need for change
in SCNA. I don't think Rich's "style" is "serious", I feel it is bullying
and implies that anyone who does not want to join him in the mud is afraid
to face issues, or afraid to fight with him, or hiding something. It
assumes that those on the board, for example, have unlimited time to jump
when he snaps his fingers, and if we don't, we deserve personal abuse. 

Rich replies: 
	You touch on several items here.  Let's look at each. 

A Need for Serious Discussion   
	Righto!  However, I haven't heard much from you on issues.  I
assume you do serious discussion in board meetings, but since most of us
are not board members, we don't witness much of it.  Wednesday night, at
the monthly meeting, which ended early, I invited you to sit down at
coffee, but you declined.  After the annual meeting, a whole herd of us
went for coffee.  You declined.  You talk with your inner circle, but when
do you talk with members to get member input?

       At least join in on the list discussions more. 

       As for the seriousness of my "style."  Hmmmmmm.  If you think
I am not serious about the message, you are burying you've been in a
closet.  That is the important element to me -- the message.  As to style,
I've seen board members brush off gentle communications too readily,
and use phoney reasons (lack of respect, for example) to brush off
others.  I suspect that part of the wish for sweetened and gentle tones
is because it makes it easier for board members to evade.  

       For example, back at the beginning of the year, the issue was
raised:  put out an advance agenda before the board meetings so
members can see what the board will be working.  There was no
haranguing followup by me.  So, the idea just sat, and sat, and sat, and
sat, and disappeared.  You did nothing with it.  No board member did
anything with it. 

       Now, we're not talking complexities here.  Brian High puts out an
advance agenda with his committee.  He sends out a notice of the
agenda in advance.  Why can't the board?  I personally think the reason
is that the board values silence from the members far more than it values
democratic input or open communication.  I could be wrong, but the
record suggests that I'm not.  

Bullying ... mud ...
      Well I never ....!  Land o' Goshen!  Bullying, eh?  I don't think
that is a well defined term of art.  That's a new twist from a board
member, however, Joel and Gianni accused me of not being respectful. 
Actually, bullying is to use force/power unfairly.  I don't see where I
have enough force/power to live up to that definition. Especially if
you're referring to my "abuse" of board members.  Accusing an SCN member
of "bullying" board members is sort of like accusing a woman of being
"pushy" because she is insistent;  that word choice might say more about
the accuser than about the accused.  The inappropriateness of the term is
even more noticible when one reads the message that triggered your letter. 

       The same response could be applied to your "mud" word. 

       However, semantics aside, your basic point is:  You don't like
argumentative language on the list communications.  I think you are
right.  Sweet and gentle is usually preferred by 9 out 10 SCN users.  But
so is not-going-to-the-dentist.  So is not-washing-the-dishes.  The
question is: does the context call for it? 

       The answer is:  It does.   

       Just as you concluded the context called for your well aimed blast
at me,  Context is key. 

Assumes board has unlimited time ...
	You've opened a BIG can of worms here, Sharma.  I have to get to
some other things right now.  I'll get into the question of the board
members' time availability in part 2 of this reply to you, later.  (I, for
one, can hardly wait to hear what I have to say.) 

Later, 

Rich

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *