Kevyn Orr at Wayne State Law School

[belleislerunner]

The Q&A reminded me of a Dr. Laura taping - "Hi Dr. Laura - I'm a long time listener, first time caller." Hi Mr Orr... No one cares that the person asking the question lives in Detroit, worked for X union, is a landlord from Harper Woods, got a law degree from WSU. Those are all insecurity complexes trying to make themselves seem more important than they really are. State your name. Ask your question. If based on the merits of the quality of your question/dialogue - you're worth knowing - there are ways for people to look you up. Spare us all your inferiority complexes.

[samsonov]

The Q&A reminded me of a Dr. Laura taping - "Hi Dr. Laura - I'm a long time listener, first time caller." Hi Mr Orr... No one cares that the person asking the question lives in Detroit, worked for X union, is a landlord from Harper Woods, got a law degree from WSU. Those are all insecurity complexes trying to make themselves seem more important than they really are. State your name. Ask your question. If based on the merits of the quality of your question/dialogue - you're worth knowing - there are ways for people to look you up. Spare us all your inferiority complexes.

It's important for Mr. Orr to know that stuff to get context for the question. Why is this a big deal anyway? At most 3-4 minutes was spent on the introductions. Anyway, engaging the public will make his job a little easier. I definitely left the meeting with a better impression of him than before.

[Wesley Mouch]

Any civil discourse should reflect the real, unadulterated views of the stakeholders. But the need for individual expression should not trump the rights of other individuals to have their voices heard. Lastly, a speaker's need to be hostile should trump the sensitivities of its audience members, though politically and tactically speaking, it's generally not a productive use of our time.

Which brings me to the last point. Debate should be productive. Which means that dialogue should move in both directions. If people wish to protest with the volume of their voices, they deserve a venue to be able to do so. Perhaps that is the venue of the City Council meeting. But if that be so, then those of us are interested in listening, learning, contributing, thinking, and solving should have another venue for our preference toward productive dialogue.

Corkman, I do of course understand that we want diverse viewpoints to have a forum. These non-stop public meetings seem to me to be mostly a sideshow -- even when they are well-run at a national level.

Those with edge opinions find them great forums to publicize their views -- see NRA, Occupy, Tea Party, or BAMN.

Are public forums the best way to get public opinion? I don't see that we get more 'democratic' results. Isn't that why we have a ballot box, freedom of speech, and the press?

[Toka313]

I was locked outside. The venue was intentional. It was originally scheduled at Greater Grace Temple. Then put in one of the smallest lecture halls at WSU. General Lectures holds double that.

He had a lame excuse about not having a powerpoint ready equipment I think I heard. General Lectures has that, and had enough people to hold everybody.

Orr is a crook running away from the public in small venues. Just like Snyder with the Lame Duck legislature this year.

RANT OVER>

[corktownyuppie]

Are public forums the best way to get public opinion? I don't see that we get more 'democratic' results. Isn't that why we have a ballot box, freedom of speech, and the press?

No, I would say that public forums are probably one of the worst ways to get public opinion. Irving Reid [[WSU) and someone from Wayne Law School were talking this morning on the Craig Fahle show about a program called FOCIS [[http://focis.wayne.edu/citizendetroit/index.php) -- Focus on Contemporary Issues in Society.

They run what seems to be a fascinating program to which anyone can register and participate. It starts with a large group dinner so that people can get to know each other. Then, people are divided into small groups of 6-8. A short, 10-minute lecture is given to educate people about all the different sides of issues facing Detroiters so that people are actually making informed opinions [[like understanding the difference btwn deficits vs. debt, or understanding that any profit from the DWSD can't go into the city general fund, etc.)

Then the small groups are given complex issues of the day and are asked to discuss, and propose solutions that have the consensus of the participants.

What they found is that once people were more informed about the complexities and different parts of Detroit's problems, they were more apt to make suggestions that were well-reasoned, creative, and perhaps effective. They also found out that opinions about proposals which might have been political non-starters in the past were revisited with a fresh eye, even if they were eventually rejected.

I think this it the model of public dialogue which is far more effective than 60 seconds in front of a microphone at City Council. However, City Council meetings are the only place where anyone can have a voice...even if they use that voice to say what is sometimes completely stupid. And I think that as things get even more and more painful, people need and deserve to have a place where their voice is heard.