Next Board Meeting

[Shawn Juris]

When is the next LO Board meeting. I would like to stop in and address the group.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Councilman Juris

I think we have one coming up pretty soon.

They are between 7-9 at one of our lawyers offices.

I will send them a message this afternoon.

Is there a time that is best for you?

I can assemble a majority most anytime, as most are in town if it is urgent.

.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Councilman Juris


Please send me your email, so I can include in you email.

Would you prefer me at the meeting or not?


.

[stephen davis]

When is the next LO Board meeting. I would like to stop in and address the group.

Shawn,

The Board is an extremely busy group of people who meet when legally obliged to do so, or for other critical business. The meeting schedules are tight, and there is an agenda. There has never been a time when we had someone just "stop in."

If you want to address the Board, and I am only speaking for myself, I suggest that you compose a brief synopsis of your intent, propose a format for your participation, and suggest a time frame. Send that as an e-mail to Jim O'Bryan. He can distribute it to Board members. If there is a consensus that your "stop in" would benefit AGS, the Lakewood Observer, or the community overall, then I'm in.

Steve

.

[Corey Rossen]

When is the next LO Board meeting. I would like to stop in and address the group.

Shawn,

The Board is an extremely busy group of people who meet when legally obliged to do so, or for other critical business. The meeting schedules are tight, and there is an agenda. There has never been a time when we had someone just "stop in."

If you want to address the Board, and I am only speaking for myself, I suggest that you compose a brief synopsis of your intent, propose a format for your participation, and suggest a time frame. Send that as an e-mail to Jim O'Bryan. He can distribute it to Board members. If there is a consensus that your "stop in" would benefit AGS, the Lakewood Observer, or the community overall, then I'm in.

Steve

.

Well at these this and Jim's post don't sound either like a bully tactic or running for cover. Sounds like Shawn has you both on the ropes.
Corey

[Gary Rice]

Hey, I'm only the banjo player here........but........

As sincere and well-intentioned as Councilman Juris's intended visit to the LO board may well be....

I'm just kinda thinkin' here,

I'm no lawyer or anything...

...and I try not to show off my cum laude Political Science degree....

...too much....but....

As far as I know, and as I have taught for 31 years....

...the press and the government should never be in the same room together in any form of official capacity whatsoever in our country.

If they do meet for just cause, it might be informational, sometimes adversarial, often toe-to-toe...

but that's about it.

Just the thoughts of a simple banjo player here, and I may be wrong.

But I respectfully suggest that Shawn (in his capacity as a government official) would probably do well to stay on his side of the fence and the LO Board, on theirs.

Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have ever been a member of the LO board.

I am just a banjo player with an itch to write stories once in awhile.

Back to the banjo...

[Shawn Juris]

Gee Gary, maybe you're right. Hmmmm, maybe we can answer it here then.
Is the role of the board to serve the mission and ensure that management/staff abide by and ensure policies are complied with? Say for instance if there was a breech of policies where someone was threatening, or slanderous or otherwise not being civil, would the board step in? Would they treat all equally or would it matter that it was the Publisher who's behavior would be considered utterly inappropriate had his target not been a public official? Would it be addressed if say a poster expressed that she felt insulted because this poster dismissed her position and argument by ignoring the message and attacking the person. I seem to recall these were some of the no no's from the old rules of engagement that were kicked around. Would a board member address a claim that is obviously a lie or would they allow their own name to be used to defend the misrepresentation. Has the board become comfortable with this not being a place to amplify civic intelligence and replaced "good neighbors talking over a digital fence" with something all together different? I suppose in general, I'm at a loss for what this forum has become and what it's stated purpose is. If it has people that are sincere then maybe it's worth a run, but if it's just another place for people to yell at each other and spread ignorance, then that's another story.
Just curious. Thanks. My email is shawn@thejurisagency.com if the board would like me to "stop by". I thought that the meetings were open but maybe I was thinking of the advisory committee or something else completely.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Shawn

Let's be honest you have been at war with this project since it was launched.
Simply go back to the archives and do a search for Shawn Juris. No matter.

I did not receive your email on the meeting or for that matter on any of the items you have
brought up. Which is typical, I have waited many times for you to actually follow through.

No matter I went ahead and contacted members of the Board with a suggestion that
we would allow you to speak first, and for as long as you wish, and ask any follow up
question you would like. Which is far more than you and council are willing to do for
the tax payers and residents of Lakewood that show up at council meetings.

Let me know if you would like to continue wanting address the board, or handle it here.

.

[Scott Meeson]

Such is life!

[marklingm]

Jim,

This is all so silly.

Just go ahead and schedule a meeting, make the meeting open to the public, and let Shawn address everyone on whatever he wants to discuss.

Matt

[stephen davis]

Gee Gary, maybe you're right. Hmmmm, maybe we can answer it here then.
Is the role of the board to serve the mission and ensure that management/staff abide by and ensure policies are complied with? Say for instance if there was a breech of policies where someone was threatening, or slanderous or otherwise not being civil, would the board step in? Would they treat all equally or would it matter that it was the Publisher who's behavior would be considered utterly inappropriate had his target not been a public official? Would it be addressed if say a poster expressed that she felt insulted because this poster dismissed her position and argument by ignoring the message and attacking the person. I seem to recall these were some of the no no's from the old rules of engagement that were kicked around. Would a board member address a claim that is obviously a lie or would they allow their own name to be used to defend the misrepresentation. Has the board become comfortable with this not being a place to amplify civic intelligence and replaced "good neighbors talking over a digital fence" with something all together different? I suppose in general, I'm at a loss for what this forum has become and what it's stated purpose is. If it has people that are sincere then maybe it's worth a run, but if it's just another place for people to yell at each other and spread ignorance, then that's another story.
Just curious. Thanks. My email is shawn@thejurisagency.com if the board would like me to "stop by". I thought that the meetings were open but maybe I was thinking of the advisory committee or something else completely.

Shawn,

Are you speaking of a specific incident?

The Lakewood Observer project provides many ways for people to express themselves. It also provides opportunities to learn of thought trends or memes within the community. Some of it is fact. Some is opinion.

We may not agree with everything expressed in this digital forum, or in the printed words of the paper, but the project provides a window into collective and selective minds.

An expression of “ignorance” can be informative. It may say something about the person expressing it. Though there may be no cure for some people’s “ignorance”, that expression may also indicate that those proposing action/policy, or attempting to communicate, have not done a very good job of informing the ignorant person. Maybe those communicators have not been clear or entirely forthcoming.

In the LO paper and Observation Deck forum, people express themselves using their real names. This is in contrast to all of the other local forum environments. People will undoubtably be judged by the quality of their presentations.

If you, or anyone, need to inform, or feel there has been a misrepresentation of fact, or that a point needs added clarity, I invite/welcome/embrace a statement of information, rebuttal, or clarification.

I have read many such statements, here and in the paper, by individuals and by many public officials. Some have difficulty navigating these, sometimes rough, waters. Others are remarkably good at joining discussions respectfully, honestly, succinctly, with great information, and sometimes humor.

Kevin Butler is always a welcome participant. He brings information, adds clarity, and gets out without a fight. Ed Fitzgerald was a master at using this forum with confidence and candor. I use these two examples, although there have been many public officials who have served the community well through their participation in the LO project.

Maybe you should look at how others use this forum. I have perused your body of work here on the Observation Deck. If you do the same, you may be motivated to examine other ways to enhance your experience and effectiveness here.

As an aside, I still don’t understand why anyone would not use the Lakewood Observer to get their message out. Jim O’Bryan, love him or hate him, has provided a place for individuals, organizations, and government, to get their message out in their own words, in print or online, and to measure a response by real people. This project is a home-grown community asset that often finds resistance from “ignorant” non-participants.

If you can’t figure out how to use the Lakewood Observer tools to serve yourself, your organization, or the community, shame on you.

Steve

.

[Gary Rice]

I have long been bothered by the personal nature of some of the remarks on this 'Deck.

I honestly try not to get too involved with personalities, though I have debated with different personalities here over different city issues ranging from the schools to the garbage can issue.

At times, some of the replies to me have not been, shall I say, something that a person might say to my face.

Honestly, when people get behind that computer screen, sometimes it just seems to me as if they've had one too many beers.

My dad taught me long ago that if I had an issue with a person, to discuss it directly with that person, and if at all possible, not to let the sun set on a dispute.

To come to an understanding with an adversary is perhaps the greatest goal for humanity. Otherwise someday, in this atomic age, we all may not be here to agree on anything.

Conducting a public argument in the school cafeteria or, for that matter, on this 'Deck, all of those seven deadly sins can come to the surface (pride, avarice etc...) because there's a crowd and the contestants start to feel like gladiators in an arena, or kids spoiling for a food fight in front of their friends.

I think of that old Quaker saying: There are 3 sides to an argument. Yours, mine, and the truth.

Are we interested in the "truth", or is something else altogether going on here?

I don't mind contributing something here when I feel that I've got something to say, and I certainly don't mind reading about the opinions of others.

When two people obviously have a dispute here or anywhere, they need to settle it between their selves.

When it comes to public personal stuff, accusations, claims that a few people somehow have an inside track on all things Lakewood, throwing stuff out there without showing those famous five "W" words...(who, what, where, etc...)

...and in particular, attacking someone for saying something here that they believe in....

....leave me out of it.

Oh yeah, one thing more.

Please feel free to respond to my opinions, but let's keep the personalities out of it.

Back to the banjo.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Gary

We worked on this project for two years before it was launched. We worked on it with a ton
of people from every walk of life, we brought in some really smart people that have dealt
with many personality issues and boards over the past. We designed it to incorporate all
of the trials and tribulations that come with online discussions, with people that get too
comfortable behind their screens.

This entire project is an assessment tool for the community. It is a very polite way to be,
and harkens back to an era I think we all miss. However if someone is a racist, I want to
know it. If someone has deeper issues, I want to know it. As you know, Grandma told us
all not to talk about religion and politics, I love talking about them both, with great zeal.
Some of that conversation has moved me one way or another and I am thankful for all of it.

Councilman Juris is upset with me, yet again, it is his right, and as an elected official, it
is fascinating to see how much his style of discourse differs from Ed FitzGerald, Kevin
Butler, or one of the true masters of this format, Matt Markling. When Matt was president
of the School Board, I cannot think of another official that used it as much to the
advantage of his group as he did. Let hard comments roll off his back, while he continued
to push for the goal and the conversation he wanted to have and get out to others.

Civic Discourse, even civil, can get heated, and messy, but I have seen some really
beautiful wonderful things come out of these discussions, and I personally would not
change them for the world. On other boards it gets more heated because of faux names
or even worse edited comments. While that might keep a few in their comfort zone,
it really serves no agenda on the whole.

On this deck we have had the discussions of religion and our disappearing churches, our
schools, and our disappearing schools, our government and our disappearing mayors,
and the war in Iraq, abortion, minorities, section 8, and a whole lot more. These are
heated topics that strike cords deep in the souls and psyche of people. Far better to get
it out, on the table, and addressed then let it fester or cause others to be hurt by a few.

With that said, I defend your right to post Kumbaya, Shawn's right to once again call
out the Mission Statement, though for the life of me I cannot figure out why he is hung
up on one sentence that he has read wrong for 5+ years no matter how many times I
explain it to him.

Finally, and I will post this here.

When I sign something from the company, in an official capacity, I put my title and the
company. 99.999% of the time I am posting as Jim O'Bryan, the resident and Lakewood
businessman. Another fact that always escapes Councilman Juris and others. After all
I get one seat at the table as well. I hope it will always be here for me, as I hope there
is always one for Shawn, you, Steve and whoever comes along.

FWIW


.

[J Hrlec]

Jim,

This is all so silly.

Just go ahead and schedule a meeting, make the meeting open to the public, and let Shawn address everyone on whatever he wants to discuss.

Matt

+1

[Jim O'Bryan]

Councilman Juris

I am working on getting some dates for the meeting. You have to understand that we rarely
meet face to face, some years only once, as everyone is busy with their real full time jobs.
One is in Austin Texas right now. We normally stay in contact through the phone.

However we are due for a meeting, so let me try.

The open meetings are more gatherings with writers, editors and members of the community.
This year we are featuring speakers and have some of your fellow councilmen lined up. I
do not think that is what you are looking for based on your note.

.