Re: Proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting 2-4 pm 2/25 at the Meetinghouse

[kirby urner]

Actually, Nominating was adding to the June 22 slate **, so Julie Snook is still on:

Peace & Social Concerns Committee
(3 yrs, 4+ mbrs)
Deborah Averill (’16), Clerk
Ron Marson (’16)
Marty Crouch (’16)
Carol Urner (’16)
David Chandler (’16)
Julie Snook (’16)

I have added Julie to the CC in light of Nominating's rendering of the slate (the above is a cut and paste from our website).

Kirby

** this was the slate where the AFSC org rep was snapped off of Peace and Social Concerns, and I was listed as pending in that role.  Given I no longer had a foothold on any standing committee, that's when I started working to changing the role's affiliation to where I was reporting to Philadelphia and the NPYM YMAs, but not to Multnomah, which no longer has an AFSC org rep.

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:21 AM, kirby urner <kirby...@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, I am very interested to learn if Nominating thinks its job is done now that we have an Official Five (Ron, David, Debbie, Carol, Marty) plus an Org Rep (FCNL) or is Nominating still actively recruiting and adding to the slate pending Business Meeting approval.  I am aware of at least one newcomer who expressed an interest and John Wish was expected to followup, but I have no idea if he did.  Maybe Nominating thinks we have a full deck now and no more need be added.  If that's the case, I'd like to see that in writing.  Otherwise I'm going to assume we could have another 10-20 join us as Official Members.  Nothing in the Job Description precludes it.

Kirby

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:17 AM, kirby urner <kirby...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'll be interested to discover PSCC's policies on:

* inviting guests to our meetings

* allowing guest to use laptops / other devices, what are our rules (e.g. no tape recording)

* meeting Wifi password on the whiteboard?

* what groups are we affiliated with (those who show up -- part of check in)

I was adamant I could not invite guests as long is MMM kept it secret who was on the slate, as that's too scary for many of my friends.  Having these secrets revealed only once the meeting has started is "crushingly impolite" as I put it in one memo.

I'm glad Communications was responsive and got us a slate on the website, otherwise I could not in good conscience have attended this event.

Kirby

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Debbie <debbi...@edaverill.com> wrote:

Here's a proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting.  Feel free to bring additional items with you.

See you then.

Debbie

[kirby urner]

The reason I ask about guests is I view P&SC as the most appropriate committee to which to steer newcomers who want to check us out and decide whether to spend more time with our meeting.  PSCC is where the rubber meets the road with Quakers i.e. its the "walk your talk" committee.  A newcomer would logically gravitate to PSCC prior to considering membership or any long term commitment to Friends.  Of course a Monthly Meeting with no P&SC is not worth the time of day and I have been actively discouraging anyone from checking out Multnomah for close to a year now, as I've been deeply embarrassed by its failure to be Quaker.

Kirby

[kirby urner]

Hi Mom --

We've changed the way PSCC does its work.  It used to be for activists within the meeting and whoever was working on some issue, that's what the committee focused on, because whoever cared strongly enough about some issue to work on it and show up at meetings, is who we worked with in the moment.  A meeting was a lot like an extended check in, where we'd learn about peoples concerns and what they were doing about them. Then it's all about followup and comparing notes between meetings, a few people helping each other (not during PSCC but at events around time e.g. counter-recruiting or whatever -- more like our AFSC PAC model).

According to the new model, PSCC waits to be approached by activists who are not actually on our committee but need help, kind of like people come to Oversight and ask for clearness and support committees.  The model for Oversight has been copied over to P&SC and made our model as well. 

I'm not sure how that's going to work out, but we were required to accept the new Job Description or Nominating was refusing to nominate (since June to January).  I said at the meeting I had real problems with the new description and I don't see why another committee was allowed to write one for us, but my concerns are marginal as I'm a regional player with NPYM and AFSC and have no official role with this group.  I don't plan on attending every meeting.

I'm hoping we can get something going at Bridge City as well.  I will encourage them to maybe not just adopt Multnomah's new job description as Bridge City may have a somewhat different vision of how best to empower Friends to participate in the life of our community.

I don't think the first way of doing business was incorrect or that it was the reason for P&SC becoming dysfunctional.  I think we became dysfunctional because the meeting has not done a good job of passing on Quakerism to newcomers (Jeff Lumb and I share this analysis to some degree). 

Another way I see PSCC is as a primary place to get one's feet wet if a newcomer i.e. what better way to get to know the movers and shakers in the community service sector than through attending some PSCC meetings?  What better way to get exposed to Quakers and their way of doing business through committees and Business Meeting?  Service on committees should be contemplated as a step towards membership, not membership first, service later.  When we do it that way, we just get a lot of members who don't understand committees or how they work.

Kirby

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Debbie <debbi...@edaverill.com> wrote:

Hi, Carol.  I was out of the house from about the time you sent this until I got home after the PSCC meeting this afternoon.  (We missed you!)  Anyway, I did not see your agenda item until I got home this evening.

I am cc'ing this e-mail to the group to see if anyone is interested in taking this on.  I will also have this put in the weekly bulletin to open up the opportunity to the rest of MMM.

Thanks for this suggestion--a good one, for sure.

Debbie

On 02/25/2015 10:44 AM, Carol Urner wrote:

I also have an agenda item if it is possible to insert it:  Would anyone like to serve as P&SCC  liaison with the Hiroshima Day planning committee?

MMM and AFSC have traditionally been co-sponsors and this will be a particularly  important year since this is the 70th year since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the decades long demand for abolition is resurging with urgency in the majority of other countries, if not in the USA.

.

The first meeting already occurred on February 11. The next one is on March 25. I regularly attend as one of the WILPF representatives when I am in Portland. Churches and  Buddhist groups are usually involved as well as the AFSC and most other "peace groups" in the Portland community. Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility staff do most of the leg work and host the monthly meetings which in recent years have been on Wednesdays at noon in the PSR office.    

Anyway I will be happy to share background information with anyone who might be interested, and put you in touch with Sean Tenney and Kelly Campbell of PSR.           

in peace, Carol Urner

503 320 9108

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Debbie <debbi...@edaverill.com> wrote:

Here's a proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting.  Feel free to bring additional items with you.

See you then.

Debbie

--

in peace, Carol Urner
cell: 503 320 9108

[List Owner]

In my view a myth or story is being spread, which is that the reason P&SC was struggling is because people expected it would "solve all the world's problems" and since that's an impossible task, those who made up the committee, and tried to do this, burned out.  They were "trying to do too much".

I don't find this myth substantiated by any real case studies and I'd like to know more about where this story is coming from.

My experience on Peace and Social Concerns, with Alberta Gerould clerking for example (we met in her house) was the activists who came to meetings had chosen specific things to work on.  Perhaps counter-recruitment in high schools.  Perhaps planning for the Hiroshima / Nagasaki Ceremony.  Whoever joined the committee was already an activist and there was no polling of the meeting asking "what do you want us to work on?"  Nor was there any trying to do too much.

What I think made service demoralizing, from what I gathered at the threshing session, was too much of a top down "cause of the month" flavor, and/or an emphasis on everyone coming together to get some minute approved by Business Meeting, as if the goal of PSCC was to get the meeting as a whole to sign off on this or that.  The members of PSCC chafed under this regime as it felt they no longer had enough autonomy.

I think the new job description builds in a lot of the errors we were trying to fix, in making approval from Business Meeting a top priority and goal of what we do.  I also think the new model of creating support or clearness committees for people ala Oversight is untested and significantly different from anything we've tried before. 

Will it work?  Maybe.  However the process whereby we got here was highly coerced, within the constant threat of "shelving" if we did not obey, Nominating complicit.  I'd rather this committee have a strong pedigree than a "torn down and rebuilt by an ad hoc committee based on cursory and specious analysis of what needed fixing" pedigree it has today. 

That's where my alternative narrative come in, should we wish to resume operations according to a previous (not broken) model.  I think Business Meeting might let us eventually, if we explain that we were not asking for anything ad hoc to be rammed down our throats like that.  Some people in the meeting though it was a good idea.  They had their way with us.

Kirby

[kirby urner]

I don't quite understand the purpose of your making these observations Rick.  Are you saying we don't need a Peace and Social Concerns Committee or that having said committee is a mistake?  Is this more Shelver Movement rhetoric?  Help me understand your point of view.  You obviously feel passionate enough to have rewritten our job description.  I call it the "Seifert Format" in my AFSC memos.

Kirby

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Rick Seifert <wfse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's just another example of Multnomah Friends being led to take action without having to say a word about it to the Peace and Social Concerns Committee. It happens ALL the time!

Friends, we are involved in our own, quiet ways, as I'm sure each of you can attest. The spirit is alive and well in our meeting. We and many others are blessed by it.

Rick

From the March Newsletter....

Six Multnomah Friends answered the call to become a circle of support for six months for a family transitioning from homelessness. Our role is to help them stabilize by assisting them in setting goals and supporting them as they strive to realize them.

Let me introduce the Village Support Network family to Multnomah Friends: Jennifer, Mom and Tony, Dad; Jada, 10 years old, and Thomas, age 12. Jennifer spent 20 years working as a CNA in residential centers for the elderly, and Tony is a line cook currently working at Alibi Restaurant in NE Portland. Jennifer is on disability now, and is at home with the children. Jada and Thomas attend the Community Transitional School where Elizabeth Fischer volunteers, a wonderful school. Thomas is an avid reader and Jada loves visiting her friends. The children are good students, and Thomas may be eligible for a scholarship to LaSalle High School when the time comes.

Though the family is temporarily housed, the fifth- wheeler is totally inadequate and may be causing Jennifer and the children to be ill. So, the major goal of the family is to find suitable housing. In Multnomah County, there is only a 2% vacancy rate for affordable housing. So far, no affordable place has been found, but we will keep searching. Meanwhile, various members of the team are assisting the family to locate as many resources as possible.

On a happier note, Jada had her tenth birthday party right in the Multnomah Friends social hall with several of her school friends and families attending. The children played with a profusion of balloons, and Joe Snyder and Euclid Batista got all the children (and some adults) playing games amid much laughter. Pizza and an ice cream cake were enjoyed by all.

Over a holiday weekend, Euclid Batista and Elizabeth Fischer took Thomas and Sharon Bautista to OMSI. Soon, Euclid and Carl Thatcher will take Thomas to Guardian Games. Joe Snyder and Ellen Simmons plan to take the kids hiking.

The last member of the team is Tommee Carlisle. She and Ellen share much of the driving stints necessary to get the family to medical and housing appointments, to the store for groceries, and to look for apartments. Willa Keegan-Rodewald, a former QVS volunteer, is our liaison to New City Initiatives which runs the Village Support Network program in collaboration with the City of Portland.

The VSN team hopes that our support of this loving family will strengthen and uplift them as they transition into stable housing.

–shared by Tommee Carlisle 

[kirby urner]

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Rick Seifert <wfse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Kirby:

We absolutely need the Peace and Social Concerns Committee to help those who seek and need help. Most Friends in our meeting (like those cited in the article) don't need committee support to follow their leadings.

But some do ... hence the importance and mission of the committee.

I made my comments because some person (who will remain unnamed) recently asserted that our meeting is spiritually dead when it comes to Peace and Social Concerns.

That thoughtless comment was wrong, even insulting, in so, so many ways.

I note, but have no comment on, the fantastical "Shelver Movement" and "Seifert Format."

I only fear that my saying "no comment" will invite more of the same.

I'd be happy to talk with you person-to-person about any of the above. Others might like to join us.

But I will not burden copied Friends (or myself) with a back-and-forth e-mail exchange.

In the Light, Friend Kirby,

Rick

[kirby urner]

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Rick Seifert <wfse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Kirby:

We absolutely need the Peace and Social Concerns Committee to help those who seek and need help. Most Friends in our meeting (like those cited in the article) don't need committee support to follow their leadings.

So if you're deeply involved in peace work, maybe with other organizations, you should not consider joining PSCC?

Just trying to be clear about your criteria.

What about simple coordination of efforts, like maybe featuring the two Dove Puppets in the May Day march?

Does PSCC bring that up on its own or wait for someone in need of help to bring it up?

 

But some do ... hence the importance and mission of the committee.

I made my comments because some person (who will remain unnamed) recently asserted that our meeting is spiritually dead when it comes to Peace and Social Concerns.

Not me.  I didn't say anything like that.

So someone off camera made a remark and this is your way of responding.  I get it.
 

That thoughtless comment was wrong, even insulting, in so, so many ways.

Wrong may be true.  Facts matter.  Untruths may be refuted with evidence.

Insulting I have no problem with, as it is part of Quakerism to use diplomacy and diplomacy involves lots of subtle messages, sometime insulting.

Some ethnic groups have this sense of entitlement, that they have a right to never feel offended.  Comes with a sense of over-privilege.

Life is insulting sometimes, no way around it.

 

I note, but have no comment on, the fantastical "Shelver Movement" and "Seifert Format."

I only fear that my saying "no comment" will invite more of the same.

I'd be happy to talk with you person-to-person about any of the above. Others might like to join us.

I set up a listserv to promote discussion, archived and in writing, by those who care enough to opt in.

That's the way so many other groups engage in civilized chit chat, since around the 1980s.  

As I was writing to Anita and Lucinda recently, I'm not sure why Quakerism and technology have been so incompatible.

It may not be Quakerism's fault.

But I will not burden copied Friends (or myself) with a back-and-forth e-mail exchange.

Right.  You were responding to someone unnamed and that's OK, but you say further back-and-forth e-mail would be burdensome.

I think person-to-person stuff often just vanishes into thin air, not making much of a difference. 

I prefer to have it in writing also.  People think more that way, when they know they might even be held accountable someday.

Kirby

In the Light, Friend Kirby,

Rick

On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:11 AM, kirby urner <kirby...@gmail.com> wrote: