Dear Editor:

I very much have appreciated Michael Copley’s coverage of the tension between the School Board and the Country Board of Supervisors.  I believe that his reporting has been fair, basically accurate, and even-handed. It is important that issues such as this, especially in budget-constrained times, be spotlighted so taxpayers are kept informed and can weigh in based on facts and on reportage that strives to capture the essence of disagreements.

In Michael’s article “No Picnic” (PT, May 19, 2010), he reports on my proposal for a meeting between the two Boards and writes that I proposed “a kind of backyard barbecue, on his own property, to minimize at least the feeling of public scrutiny.” Somewhat surprised by Michael’s assumption of my motivation, I have re-read my proposal, and don’t see in any of my words any indication that I suggested a meeting – which would have been illegal – out of the public’s eye. 

I clearly knew that the public could attend any such meeting and even said in my proposal that any such meeting would be advertised.  I also personally handed a copy of the proposal to Michael and asked him to be sure to attend.

But that’s water over the dam.  Let me say unequivocally that there was no intent – it never entered my mind – to exclude the public from any such meeting. 
A legitimate question then is why I suggested such a meeting “off-site,” that is, at a venue other than County property.  I answered that question in my proposal, but let me answer it here. My professional experience has been that collegiality and civility are enhanced by breaking bread together in a setting that is less official than the offices we inhabit, offices which sometimes cause us to take on a persona, which persona sometimes causes us to act more stiffly than good people intend.

To some this sounds like Pollyanna thought. But as part of my profession, I have mediated in Pakistan meetings between management and a labor union where the officers of the union carried pistols in their waistbands; in India between Muslims and Hindus who hated each other; in federal police agencies where one agency loathed another and refused to share intelligence on gun and drug running; in corporate America where no love was lost between Marketing/Sales and Manufacturing/Engineering; in a Tidewater Virginia School District/City Council series of meetings trying to hammer out a common mission; and in the City of Richmond where 40 representatives of the African-American leadership sat down with 40 members of the white business community to seek a future “partnership across the racial lines.”

Breaking bread was part of each of these good-faith efforts. And doing it in a location which threatened no one and did not project the trappings of power or personas needing protection was part of each such effort.

My proposal, furthermore, has been attacked as arrogant grand-standing or a power-grab on my part.  Au contraire. Somebody had to step up and offer a proposal for specific and concrete actions. Rather than being an attempt to dictate an agenda or a process, it was really as simple a thing as a trial balloon, designed to solicit input to modify the proposal to satisfy the needs of all participants.
Mr. Gideons and Mr. Cosby have both done so and their ideas have been woven into the proposed agenda.  The trial balloon accomplished what it set out to do: elicit changes that have been incorporated into the tentative agenda for the joint meeting now scheduled for the end of June.

Which brings me to my last point: we seem determined to demonize each other, to assume (as Mr. Copley also apparently did) the worst, without investigating, jumping to the worst possible interpretation. We seem to insist that the people disagreeing with each other are motivated by evil intent, and “by Heaven, no other interpretation is allowed into evidence.” This is not necessary.

There is a hefty body of leadership literature that boils down to four guidelines:

1. Do your darndest to hear and understand each other.

2. Even if we disagree, let us agree not to make each other wrong, because that questions a person’s very worth.

3. Acknowledge the goodness within each other, and

4. Remember to look for each other’s loving intentions.

So, Mr. Copley, and all of my colleagues trying to do right by our County, our taxpayers, our teachers and our other professionals, why is it necessary to make fun of our, yes, loving intentions? 

I don’t think it is, and I choose to believe that you don’t think it necessary either.

Respectfully,
Carson Tucker
Board of Supervisors

My Point of View welcomes submissions that pertain to life and issues in Powhatan County. The views expressed in the column are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the editorial views of the staff of Powhatan Today.