[Community] Re: [UCIMC-Finance] separating the issues (signage and
steering)
Mike Lehman
rebelmike at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 16 18:46:17 CDT 2009
Elizabeth,
Thanks for the clarification on process at the last Steering meeting.
Getting to a decision that reflects everyone's concerns is a matter of
paying attention as much what we know about the concerns of those not
there as it is making sure everyone there was OK with things. It was the
questions that didn't come up that are the issue for me. We shouldn't
presume that this has been done based solely on those present for many
issues.
I used to spend a lot of time doing that when I was more involved with
Steering. Others also did, but it's never been something that had a
formal process. Given the increasingly diverse and different orbits and
groups that people now circulate within and the fact that Steering is
only once a month, I think you're right that some attention needs to be
given to that.
We'll always have the need for emergency situations, so something that
does let that go ahead needs to be included. Certainly the signage
wasn't something that needed such attention, given we've taken 4 years
to get to this point on it.
On the other hand, a day or so's notice through a rather vaguely worded
email really isn't sufficient. This is not at all to say that Chris
didn't follow existing policy, it's just that we need to make some
changes and improvements. For instance, with clear notice about what was
to come up would've gotten me there for the last meeting and saved us
all a lot of typing and headaches.
My concerns remain that the subsignage be dealt with. Certainly no need
for emergency Steering meeting. Chris said in a separate mail that he'll
be at Finance on Thursday, so I think my remaining concerns will be
addressed then. I'll be OK to proceed at that point and I think that
those who also may have had concerns will have been given a chance to
have input. Maybe a notice to the IMC list that we'll be discussing the
issues could get anyone with concerns there.
Mike Lehman
Elizabeth Simpson wrote:
> Mike et al,
>
> To clarify: yes, consensus was reached. Whether it should have been,
> can be another issue, but it certainly was. I read Bob's assertion
> that it wasn't, and I don't know where he is coming from with that,
> since we made it a clear point at the time. This is reflected in the
> notes.
>
> My primary concern in this issue is that there *seems* to be an
> insinuation that Chris didn't follow good process, when in fact his
> actions are totally in line with how steering has been run. Items are
> often submitted to the agenda, even at the meeting, with no advance
> notice, and with no critique by those present at the meeting. We
> don't, either, present, within the meeting, any reminder of our
> decision-making process. All this and more can lead to great
> confusion. Chris submitted his agenda item by email in advance, which
> is all we ask of people at this time. He made a well-prepared
> presentation and addressed the questions that were brought up.
>
> This is a great concern- we don't want people who are putting in a lot
> of time and energy to be thwarted by our poorly articulated structure
> (I know some of this is on paper somewhere, but it's not part of our
> living process). It behooves us as an org to address the process so
> that people can follow it.
>
> So, in approaching this issue, I want to charge the IMC and steering
> with the glitches, not Chris. we are the ones who approved it.
>
> Given that framework, there seem to be three issues:
>
> -Addressing the agenda- crafting steering meetings so that there is
> sufficient process, including advance notice (i.e. how to get such
> notice to workgroups, considering that not everyone is on the imc
> list, and not everyone in a workgroup is even a member, and that for
> good measure, we should post it in the space for those who don't rely
> on email). This is part of the ongoing work that CC has been doing for
> months. I propose that this be an issue for Community Connections to
> address, since we're already doing it at large.
>
> -How to move forward on the signs and chimes proposal. This means:
> clarifying whether the center bar would be cut for the chimes
> getting clear on what 'maximum signage' means, interms of this signs'
> effects on future signage possibilities
>
> -How to make sure that these processes are embedded in and reflect the
> imc as a whole, and not a small subset (the 4 people who are currently
> in the conversation, me you Bob and Chris). If after we get the
> answers about signage (above) it seems there is a need re-visit this
> agenda item, we can figure how much it would compromise the project to
> wait until July 2, or whether is can be resolved via email. An
> emergency steering meeting is a lot to ask of working groups so I
> recommend avoiding it.
>
> Best to the IMC,
> elizaBeth
>
> A strong people need no leader
> - Zapata
>
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 6/16/09, Mike Lehman /<rebelmike at earthlink.net>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [UCIMC-Finance] signage
> To: "Elizabeth Simpson" <elizacorps at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Chris Hampson" <hampson2 at gmail.com>, finance at ucimc.org,
> community at lists.chambana.net
> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 12:31 PM
>
> Elizabeth,
> Yes, Finance's specific concern is about the need for tenant signage.
>
> When I asked, Chris said that the sign was designed to fit the
> maximum signage area that the city allows. So if we are to include
> tenant signage, it will likely require a reduction in size of the
> "IMC" part of the sign. I don't know all the details, but the city
> regs on signage may limit ALL signage to the max for the main
> sign, thus making it impossible to add tenant signage or a second
> sign of any type. I don't know, but this should be something
> determined and designed for prior to application being submitted,
> not as an afterthought.
>
> My particular personal concern was about determining what hist
> pres requirements or preferences impact the proposed signage. I
> got the impression that this wasn't taken into consideration at
> all, just that it was hoped the signage would be approved.
>
> There are a number of potential projects that are necessary to the
> IMC as a whole or to specific working groups and/or tenants that
> will come up in the future for review under by hist pres. Thus my
> concern to get input on hist pres before an app is submitted in
> order to avoid starting off on the wrong foot with hist pres. As
> an historian, I respect the concerns of hist pres. As an IMC
> member concerned about needing flexibility on some future projects
> to meet the needs of the IMC, we may need to ask them to make
> conceptual leaps of faith, but only after carefully taking into
> consideration hist pres concerns and filing a well-constructed
> proposal. Needlessly antagonizing them by poorly thought-out or
> hastily vetted proposals can make things more difficult in the
> future for others at the IMC.
>
> Of particular concern to me is the fact that there seems to have
> been little process with this proposal. Adding it to Steering
> agenda was done just before the meeting and made no reference to a
> final decision being made, just planning. As I stated in a
> previous email, a project of this significance and concern to
> others should not be decided without sufficient notice and
> opportunity for those who might have concerns to have input.
>
> Finally, Chris H and the Steering notes indicated that consensus
> was reached on the proposal. I've heard from someone else that
> there was discussion, but no formal consensus. I wasn't there, so
> I can't speak to this. Even if there was a consensus, it seems to
> have omitted the significant concerns I've noted previously.
>
> On a different, but related matter:
> I heard since the meeting that the windchime proposal for the east
> retaining wall would involve cutting the center pipe of the
> railing off to accommodate the chimes, although this isn't in the
> notes. If true, then I have a big objection to that. The center
> pipe is intended to keep kids from falling under the railing, so
> removing it would expose us to needless liability.
>
> This is an example of why its important to make a reasonable
> effort that those who may have concerns are part of a discussion
> before a consensus is reached on an issue. Specifically, in the
> case of significant modifications to the building and grounds,
> Finance should be a part of any such discussion prior to it coming
> up for final decision at Steering. That's where most of the
> knowledge about working with the city, our neighbors, and our
> tenants resides.
> Mike Lehman
>
> Elizabeth Simpson wrote:
> > 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
> </mc/compose?to=rebelmike at earthlink.net>>/* wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net
> </mc/compose?to=rebelmike at earthlink.net>>
> > Subject: Re: [Imc] Steering Reminder!
> > To: "Chris Hampson" <hampson2 at gmail.com
> </mc/compose?to=hampson2 at gmail.com>>, "Bookkeeperlist"
> > <imc-bookkeeper at lists.chambana.net
> </mc/compose?to=imc-bookkeeper at lists.chambana.net>>, "imc"
> <imc at ucimc.org </mc/compose?to=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
> </mc/compose?to=rebelmike at earthlink.net>
> > </mc/compose?to=rebelmike at earthlink.net
> </mc/compose?to=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
> </mc/compose?to=nicole.pion at gmail.com>
> </mc/compose?to=nicole.pion at gmail.com
> </mc/compose?to=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
> </mc/compose?to=IMC at lists.ucimc.org>
> </mc/compose?to=IMC at lists.ucimc.org
> </mc/compose?to=IMC at lists.ucimc.org>>
> > >>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> > >>> IMC mailing list
> > >>> IMC at lists.ucimc.org </mc/compose?to=IMC at lists.ucimc.org>
> </mc/compose?to=IMC at lists.ucimc.org
> </mc/compose?to=IMC at lists.ucimc.org>>
> > >>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> >> >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IMC mailing list
> > IMC at lists.ucimc.org </mc/compose?to=IMC at lists.ucimc.org>
> </mc/compose?to=IMC at lists.ucimc.org
> </mc/compose?to=IMC at lists.ucimc.org>>
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IMC-Fundraising mailing list
> > IMC-Fundraising at lists.ucimc.org
> </mc/compose?to=IMC-Fundraising at lists.ucimc.org>
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-fundraising
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC-Fundraising mailing list
> IMC-Fundraising at lists.ucimc.org
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-fundraising
>
More information about the Community
mailing list