So there I was on a small plane to Alabama. Basically I was AWOL from college and later learned I was to be expelled for leaving campus without permission. That changed once it was recognized that St. Anselm's was one of the first colleges represented in Selma.
Dr. King was facing his own political issues as he and the leadership of the Southern Christian Leadership Council along with the Student NonViolent Coordinating Committee were planning the second march across the Edmond Pettus Bridge. It was decided that they would walk across the bridge, kneel and pray and then turn around and return to Brown Chapel. This action wouldn't violate the injunction that had been placed on the march by a sympathetic judge, who in the end, King believed would support the march to Montgomery. But King didn't tell the 2500 marchers who had traveled to Selma about his plans and many became angry and frustrated at what became known as the turnaround march. People had come great distances to be there and to show their support. Dr. King asked people to stay. He explained that another march would take place once the injunction was lifted but many people left.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Selma, Alabama 1965 - Part l
- JW
"Selma, Alabama became a shining moment in the conscience of man. If the worst in American life lurked in its dark streets, the best of American instincts arose passionately from across the nation to overcome it. There never was a moment in American history more honorable and more inspiring than the pilgrimage of clergymen and laymen of every race and faith pouring into Selma to face danger at the side of its embattled Negroes." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., March 25, 1965 - Montgomery, Alabama
In March of 1965, I was a college student at St. Anselm's College in Manchester, NH, famous for Presidential Debates even in those years. But how I got there is worth some time and explanation. I had come to St. Anselm's from Maryknoll Seminary in Glen Ellyn, Ill. I had left the seminary the previous year, wasn't sure what I should be doing but chose St. Anselm's partly because my brother was in the Benedictine Monastery associated with the College. Maryknoll was and is a religious missionary order known for its association with social justice issues. Part of why I left the seminary was because it just didn't seem that I could get involved in those social issues quickly enough. It would be eight years before being ordained to the priesthood and before being sent on a mission to some developing nation. In Chicago, farmworkers and others were protesting and demonstrating against Campbell Soup Co.. Priests and seminarians from Maryknoll got involved but it wasn't enough for me. Of course my grades weren't that hot either. So I left in the middle of my Sophomore year, took the summer off and hit St Anselm's running the following fall.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Author Film Series - Geneva, NY
Every once in awhile you find a gem. Here's one for folks living in the Finger Lakes region of New York. The Smith Center for The Arts at 62 Seneca St in Geneva has teamed up with the Finger Lakes Times to present an Author Film Series of eight pre-recorded hour long presentations and interviews with various authors on Sunday afternoons with a $5 admission. You can see the Feb. 26th description and the remaining series here. This Sunday's presentation is with Kathryn Stockett, author of The Help. Previous events in the series were David Brooks, author of The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character and Achievement and Susan Orlean, author of Rin Tin Tin. All of the series were filmed at the Philadelphia Free Library.
An enjoyable way to spend a Sunday afternoon. Also a nice example of how a community arts center can provide a valuable option to an area.
An enjoyable way to spend a Sunday afternoon. Also a nice example of how a community arts center can provide a valuable option to an area.
Every Person Matters Equally
Now there's something to live by. A real challenge by the way. I think most people want to believe in something like this but then life gets complicated and soon it becomes "every person except that one" or worse, "that group". Again, I don't think any of us start out with the premise of excluding people in our circle of humanity. It happens along the way based on experiences, a look at our own reality and yes, due to prejudices.
But the ideal and the goal that many try to live by is that every person matters equally. It's not class warfare, socialism or marxism. It's a recognition of our own humanity and that we are in fact all in this together. But it is hard and it gets harder as we connect or try to connect with each other and as we try to understand it all. The questions begin to come - Does this really mean the malnourished child in Africa or the woman with dementia? Does it include the broken bodies and broken spirits in institutions and other settings - the people who can't clean or speak for themselves? What about the Iranians or the Israelis? Have your pick, international saints and devils are all over the place. Oh and by the way, it doesn't get any easier. Are we including sex offenders, predators, rapists and violent criminals?
You see I think one of the biggest problems we have is how quickly we can come up with answers to hard questions. People don't have choices about certain things. Where or when they're born, their status in life at that early stage, what language they speak, their ability or disability. Most of these things are imposed on us by chance or depending on your beliefs by some higher power. We and other societies create rules and laws to try to deal with the chaotic nature of life. Sometimes we're successful but most of the time not so much.
I do believe that every person matters equally but I also understand how difficult it is to live by that belief. All I can do is try harder every day and work to make sure there are others who try harder too.
But the ideal and the goal that many try to live by is that every person matters equally. It's not class warfare, socialism or marxism. It's a recognition of our own humanity and that we are in fact all in this together. But it is hard and it gets harder as we connect or try to connect with each other and as we try to understand it all. The questions begin to come - Does this really mean the malnourished child in Africa or the woman with dementia? Does it include the broken bodies and broken spirits in institutions and other settings - the people who can't clean or speak for themselves? What about the Iranians or the Israelis? Have your pick, international saints and devils are all over the place. Oh and by the way, it doesn't get any easier. Are we including sex offenders, predators, rapists and violent criminals?
You see I think one of the biggest problems we have is how quickly we can come up with answers to hard questions. People don't have choices about certain things. Where or when they're born, their status in life at that early stage, what language they speak, their ability or disability. Most of these things are imposed on us by chance or depending on your beliefs by some higher power. We and other societies create rules and laws to try to deal with the chaotic nature of life. Sometimes we're successful but most of the time not so much.
I do believe that every person matters equally but I also understand how difficult it is to live by that belief. All I can do is try harder every day and work to make sure there are others who try harder too.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Transparency - Will You Know It When You See It?
I've talked before about one of the blogs I follow. It's a blog by a fellow named David Grandeau and is available at David Grandeau and Associates for those of you who may be interested in government and ethics. I like David's approach - straight forward and to the point. In addition, he's had a lot of experience with systems not working well. He talks a lot about openness and transparency in government and has gotten me thinking about its importance generally.
New York State, like the federal government and many states, has had Open Meetings laws and Freedom of Information legislation for decades. Because of that, we sometimes forget the struggle and how hard it was to get people to recognize the importance of transparency and ultimately the involvement of stakeholders. I remember the Pentagon Papers, the Nixon 'watch' list, FBI files and the rest. All of these had a part in the changing relationship between government and the governed. But it was and has been a struggle and in the end, is always about power.
Now everyone talks about transparency as if they all believe in it and as if everyone knows what it is. What I find interesting is that in those all knowing conversations, it's usually about 'the other guy' or somebody else. For many years I've watched non-profit organizations struggle with or ignore this issue depending on the organization. My own view is that the people who struggle with the issue are in much better shape then the people who ignore it. Many organizations take the position that because they are a non-profit agency, they aren't covered by the Open Meetings and Freedom of Information legislation. Technically they may be right but they certainly miss the point about transparency and accountability. Great organizations know almost intuitively that openness and communication are a requirement of their operations and ultimately will help them get things done.
Some organizations also misuse executive sessions on a regular basis - not following a best practice of having very specific guidelines for calling them or convening them, again usually responding that "we aren't covered by guidelines imposed by the Open Meetings law." I do want to be clear. Many non-profits do the right thing and struggle to do the right thing through open and honest discussions about this issue. There are a few that really do abuse the issue and at the same time want everyone else to be transparent.
Now the reality is that transparency is really more like clear plastic wrap. You know, that stuff you fight with to wrap the kid's sandwiches or that you use to cover the left overs in a bowl. It's sticky and doesn't necessarily follow your directions well. And when it gets all bunched up you can't see through it anyway. Well that's why this transparency discussion is so tough. It really is hard. It's harder if the law hasn't gotten to you yet and you're just trying to do the right thing. In my view, the right thing has to do with two things - accountability and the involvement of stakeholders. Where do the Open Meetings laws come from? Where does Sarbanes-Oxley come from? Where does the anger of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St come from? Accountability and the involvement of stakeholders is a common theme and thread.
There certainly is a need for privacy in some conversations and deliberations. There certainly is a need for caution in the sharing of certain information. But the discussions about these challenges have to be held in the open and stakeholders have to be able to weigh in. People respect other people trying to do the right thing. When shields go up, mistrust builds and secrecy takes over on both sides of the wall that's created.
Another interesting thing that happens is that projects by secretive or closed organizations usually fail. It's also usually painful to watch because negative energy takes over. All of this points out that transparency and openness, or at least the struggle to discuss it and perhaps fight about it, are additional requirements for great leaders and great organizations. It's hard work but it leads to results. I worked in an organization where it was a known value and it brought results every day. I'm glad we have people like Dave Grandeau continuing to pressure government entities on these issues. I hope I've added a little to the discussion that should take place in non-profit organizations. I'm also pleased that there are many non-profits who do get the importance of transparency.
New York State, like the federal government and many states, has had Open Meetings laws and Freedom of Information legislation for decades. Because of that, we sometimes forget the struggle and how hard it was to get people to recognize the importance of transparency and ultimately the involvement of stakeholders. I remember the Pentagon Papers, the Nixon 'watch' list, FBI files and the rest. All of these had a part in the changing relationship between government and the governed. But it was and has been a struggle and in the end, is always about power.
Now everyone talks about transparency as if they all believe in it and as if everyone knows what it is. What I find interesting is that in those all knowing conversations, it's usually about 'the other guy' or somebody else. For many years I've watched non-profit organizations struggle with or ignore this issue depending on the organization. My own view is that the people who struggle with the issue are in much better shape then the people who ignore it. Many organizations take the position that because they are a non-profit agency, they aren't covered by the Open Meetings and Freedom of Information legislation. Technically they may be right but they certainly miss the point about transparency and accountability. Great organizations know almost intuitively that openness and communication are a requirement of their operations and ultimately will help them get things done.
Some organizations also misuse executive sessions on a regular basis - not following a best practice of having very specific guidelines for calling them or convening them, again usually responding that "we aren't covered by guidelines imposed by the Open Meetings law." I do want to be clear. Many non-profits do the right thing and struggle to do the right thing through open and honest discussions about this issue. There are a few that really do abuse the issue and at the same time want everyone else to be transparent.
Now the reality is that transparency is really more like clear plastic wrap. You know, that stuff you fight with to wrap the kid's sandwiches or that you use to cover the left overs in a bowl. It's sticky and doesn't necessarily follow your directions well. And when it gets all bunched up you can't see through it anyway. Well that's why this transparency discussion is so tough. It really is hard. It's harder if the law hasn't gotten to you yet and you're just trying to do the right thing. In my view, the right thing has to do with two things - accountability and the involvement of stakeholders. Where do the Open Meetings laws come from? Where does Sarbanes-Oxley come from? Where does the anger of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St come from? Accountability and the involvement of stakeholders is a common theme and thread.
There certainly is a need for privacy in some conversations and deliberations. There certainly is a need for caution in the sharing of certain information. But the discussions about these challenges have to be held in the open and stakeholders have to be able to weigh in. People respect other people trying to do the right thing. When shields go up, mistrust builds and secrecy takes over on both sides of the wall that's created.
Another interesting thing that happens is that projects by secretive or closed organizations usually fail. It's also usually painful to watch because negative energy takes over. All of this points out that transparency and openness, or at least the struggle to discuss it and perhaps fight about it, are additional requirements for great leaders and great organizations. It's hard work but it leads to results. I worked in an organization where it was a known value and it brought results every day. I'm glad we have people like Dave Grandeau continuing to pressure government entities on these issues. I hope I've added a little to the discussion that should take place in non-profit organizations. I'm also pleased that there are many non-profits who do get the importance of transparency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)