[Community] signage

Tue Jun 16 01:10:38 CDT 2009

Hi Finance group-

I wanted to bring this to you directly, as a community conenctions type issue. 

Mike names that you may have concerns, and it seems specifically about having a sign with tenant options. 

I was involved in an earlier initiative to get signage, and so think I have an understanding of what's being addressed.

It's my understanding that there is interest in two signs- one is an on-the-building sign (a la Chris's proposal) that simply identifies the IMC. The other is a monument sign (freestanding) that would have room for tennant info. (not addressed by the proposal). 

Is there some reason that the desire for a monument sign would preclude an on-the-building sign?

What, if any, are your other concerns about Chris's proposal?

Thanks for all your work. 
Elizabeth

A strong people need no leader 
- Zapata 

--- On Sun, 6/14/09, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Imc] Steering Reminder!
To: "Chris Hampson" <hampson2 at gmail.com>, "Bookkeeperlist" <imc-bookkeeper at lists.chambana.net>, "imc" <imc at ucimc.org>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 9:52 PM

Chris,
I do appreciate the fact that Steering was in some form able to review the plan for the sign. Nonetheless, I feel that the decision was made without proper consideration being given to some significant issues. Steering agendas are important to making sure that all those with an interest in an issue know so they can be there. It's unfortunate that proper notice of this wasn't given. I would have raised everything here just the same in that meeting as I have subsequently. I feel that if others had been aware, including those at the meeting, of the fact that the discussion omitted these concerns, they would have come to a different consensus than occurred.

The agenda item that placed the decision in front of Steering failed to make it clear that a final decision would be made, simply that plans would be reviewed. Given that the decision affects a number of working groups and tenants in the building in a variety of ways, ensuring that everyone who had an interest in a final plan was aware that a decision would be finalized seems to me to be a wise procedure. It's this way with any decision in a consensus-based organization. We should do our best to speak not just for ourselves, but to be aware of the need for inclusion of a broad range of concerns that others may have.

I do know that Finance has a significant concern about the signage, as I stated below. If spokes from all those who might be affected by omission of sub-signage in the design had been aware of this deficiency, I'm certain that they would have requested a change to include that. To be blunt, signage within the building fails to meet those needs. The lack of coordination now on this issue suggests that these concerns are irrelevant, when they have in fact come up repeatedly.

I also feel that failing to take into account these significant concerns undermines consensus as a process. Public art, which this is in some ways at least internally to the IMC, has to address issues beyond simply providing an unrestricted venue for any single vision.

I also feel that the design failed to take into account the concerns that might arise in review by historical preservation interests. It is politically dangerous to submit a design that may simply antagonize them and frustrate you. I suspect based on my readings of their actions on other projects that they will likely have some concerns that will result in requiring a major revision or even outright refusal to approve the present plan. It's best to take such concerns into account first, rather than trying to pick up the pieces afterwards, but I suppose we're past that point given that it took a week to reply to my inquiry, during which the application was simply submitted as is.

Signage is such an essential part of any organization's image that it saddens me that such a decision was made with so little notice, discussion, and review by the wider membership, which Steering represents. It's a sign of how we sometimes find that the good of the IMC as a whole is sacrificed to expediency.

I will take responsibility for my part in not raising these issues when I was asked by you to sign off on sign application. However, it's generally been my experience that everyone takes seriously the need for full and frank discussions that not only represent their own interests, but which also are throughly vetted so as to represent the variety of interests that is present in our organization in coming to a final consensus. In this case, I know for certain that there are concerns that seem to have been excluded from the final product.

I am responsible for no more than signing off on such things under the assumption that they have been thoroughly vetted. The present case is the first time that I feel failed to achieve a consensus that was so poorly executed as to force me to raise questions about the failure of the process. I say this not to put a burden on you, but to remind all those involved that consensus is a process and not simply an endorsement for any individual's point of view, least of all mine.
Mike Lehman

Chris Hampson wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> I've been in touch with the City. The Historic Commission is currently
> reviewing the sign application and I will meet with them this week.
> 
> As far as Steering meeting attendance goes, there were at least 15
> people at the meeting when I gave my presentation and all approved.
> 
> I do agree that we need signs within the building directing people
> where to go, but I think it is just as important to let people on the
> outside know that we even exist.
> 
> Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns about my work
> at the IMC.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris
> 
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Mike Lehman<rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
>   
>> Hi Chris,
>> I guess this was discussed at last week's Steering meeting, but I wasn't
>> aware that approval of a final version of an outside sign would be part of
>> the discussion. There are probably others who weren't at Steering who might
>> have been there to give input if it was clear that outdoor signage was going
>> to be discussed.
>> 
>> There are several factors that seem not to have been considered., although
>> my concerns are two-fold.
>> 
>> We've talked in Finance about possibilities for outside signage for some
>> time. One of the big needs has been to direct people to tenants in the
>> building, as well as make the IMC's presence in the building more obvious.
>> We only get one large outdoor sign, so there needs to be some provision for
>> that. Since tenants do move in and out, these need to be incorporated as
>> removable slats or something similar.
>> 
>> My other concern is that the sign design may create conflicts with
>> historical preservation requirements. I'm uncertain about exactly how the
>> city might see these, but the font, the size of the sign, how it's attached
>> to the building, and potential to clash with other design elements of the
>> building are all issues that could be contentious.
>> 
>> I know you said you planned to submit the sign app to the city on Tuesday,
>> but I think it's always better to take into consideration all the concerns
>> that may arise in order to limit the number of concerns that could be raised
>> against a proposal. I'd greatly prefer that the signage have a wider review
>> for design so that others can give some feedback first. Getting some input
>> on how the city sees hist pres issues would also be be a good idea.
>> Mike Lehman
>> 
>> Chris Hampson wrote:
>>     
>>> Hey guys,
>>> 
>>> My name is Chris Hampson and I'm working for the IMC this summer
>>> painting murals and making things happen. I'd like to propose my plans
>>> at the steering meeting tomorrow night in a short power point, and if
>>> possible I'd like to go first in the line-up.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Nicole Pion <nicole.pion at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>       
>>>> Reminder - steering is tomorrow night, Thursday June 4 8pm at the IMC
>>>> library.
>>>> 
>>>> Please reply to the list with working group updates.  Also, we still need
>>>> a
>>>> working group to host tomorrow's meeting!
>>>> 
>>>> Please send additional steering items to the main list as well.
>>>>  Currently,
>>>> we have on the agenda:
>>>> Audit
>>>> Draw Down the Debt Campaign
>>>> Membership Goals/Waivers
>>>> Financial Picture
>>>> Working Group Balances/Genops/Bldg. Ops
>>>> IndyMedia & Arts Lab
>>>> 
>>>> At the meeting, we will be asking working groups to sign up to host just
>>>> one
>>>> meeting in the next 12 months!  Please plan ahead.  Steering is always
>>>> the
>>>> first Thursday of the month at 8pm and everything is open except January
>>>> of
>>>> 2010 (thank you, Books to Prisoners!)
>>>> 
>>>> 2009
>>>> June 4
>>>> July 2
>>>> Aug 6
>>>> Sept 3
>>>> Oct 1
>>>> Nov 5
>>>> Dec 3
>>>> 
>>>> 2010
>>>> Jan 7: Books to Prisoners
>>>> Feb 4
>>>> March 4
>>>> April 1
>>>> May 6
>>>> 
>>>> Nicole
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Nicole Pion
>>>> Outreach and Development Adviser
>>>> AmeriCorps CTC VISTA
>>>> Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IMC mailing list
>>>> IMC at lists.ucimc.org
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IMC mailing list
>>> IMC at lists.ucimc.org
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       
>>     
> 
>   

_______________________________________________
IMC mailing list
IMC at lists.ucimc.org
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/community/attachments/20090615/38c5827a/attachment.html