<HEAD>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>Dear Bruce and others,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There's so much here that troubles me . . . the statement that "numbers of people expressing ideas, not necessarily the soundness of those ideas could possibly determine the future direction of our town," for a start. If we are not able to make policy based on sound ideas, whether or not expensive consultants from out of town are involved, there's not much hope for Moscow to begin with. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Second, there are the "ground rules" for participation, which seem designed to prevent people from acknowledging that there are challenges or difficulties in Moscow, and to exclude anyone who isn't "forward-looking" and "positive." Taken in conjunction with the statement about numbers, I can only assume that a taut, cynical cadre of economists, urban planners, theologians, and scholars could flood the Hamilton Indoor Recreation Center tonight, but their input would not be permitted (too long, too negative, too historically-minded), while the future direction of our town is charted by cheerful, forgetful people without much to say. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Suppose I think that in order to become a thriving city, Moscow needs to root out every communist and socialist in public employment. Is that a positive, permitted vision, or is just a downer, unworthy of inclusion? If I restate my vision as the need to fill all city, county, and state positions with energetic, positive people who pursue the benefits of free-market capitalism for all, am I allowed to participate again?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Since we can't refer to any current dispute, I guess a vision involving water, sewage treatment plants, the 1912 Building, zoning, public school repair and upkeep, parking, playing fields, the Arboretum, elections, non-profits, comprehensive planning, public discourse, or any other matter of substance is off limits, too.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Or are all these ground rules really designed to prevent one particular set of ideas emerging, one particular kind of confrontation from happening? If we have to design our process around preventing some issue from emerging or being acknowledged, can we have much confidence in the future usefulness of the product that emerges?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As a frequent designer of ground rules and processes for group deliberation, I'm bemused.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Good luck, </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Melynda Huskey</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY>