Taking mother nature for granted

http://iaenvironment.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/rosenberg-comments-on-updates-to-iowa-nutrient-reduction-strategy/

Penn State—-some lessons learned for others (not just Penn State)

While people want to ask questions of Penn State (how could it ever happened, why it happened),  I do not look to Penn State’ response for any evaluation of long-term societal change, whether to issues surrounding abuse,  collegiate dependence on revenue generating supports, failure of leaders to be ethical, etc.  I look to other institutional responses. Other institutions should be taking the lead in responding. Agencies and institutions should not have  waited for any verdicts from any Penn State related cases, or for additional victims to come forward.  

First,  today presents the opportunity for any organization to do something to prevent abuse amidst its employees, or students, or vendors, or volunteers. I have seen crises rise and fall–but the response routinely is too narrow or myopic. I am not stating abuse is widespread. I am only stating it is healthy to review what is in place. In my career, I have worked to combat childhood sexual abuse or sexual harassment from many perspectives: as a leader of a state agency in charge of investigating harassment and discrimination claims, as a lawyer representing youth who were victims of abuse, as a prosecutor of childhood sexual abuse, as a leader of public and non-profit agencies which served victims and their families, and for many years, as a state legislator working on related policies. Internal reviews and questions are healthy and can prevent abuse. Certain questions should be asked at the institutions or organizations you are part of.  I believe instituions might even be relieved that Penn State is receiving all the attention. Institutions should take this as opportunity for a healthy review, not for “well, it wasn’t us’ type of reaction

I aske if  (your) institutions reviewed their current culture, policies and dynamics on abuse or harassment regarding existing avenues of redress, as a victim and protocols to be followed, as a witness? Have institutions, including outside of academia, re-examined their own policies and protocol for protecting witnesses or whistleblowers? Will institutions avoid any review for fear of drawing attention by media or other stakeholders? Will media and stakeholders support and re-enforce efforts at accountability?

I ask what institutions are doing to help support people who do speak out. If we were able to turn the clock back,  would whistleblowers be honored or ‘marched out of town’. Look at the treatment of the assistant coach at Penn State who tried to report the problems. For a while, he was treated by media and others as the problem. He at least tried to do something.

 How many leaders at how many institutions, upon hearing of Penn State, immediately asked for a review of their policies,  reviewed training expectations of employees or students or teachers, and  reviewed levels of transparency, let alone something as basic as how easy is it for a person to file a complaint?

Leaders and society should be asking and answering these questions. And society and the media must be giving them permission. Citizens and the media must also support leaders and institutions to are willing to learn from Penn State.

Social media and blogging ethics– Wild West standards

   Social media ethics remain in the Wild West.   Social media  and many blogs reflect other contemporary concerns over:  decline in communication: absence of a sense of civility; and decline in ability, or even interest,  to find common ground.  On the other hand, many of us believe social media is an accelerant,  if not,  cause. I think it is both.  Given the vision of social media and resistance to formal structures and standards,  we need  more sites that contribute to creation of standards, than sites and blogs that pride themselves solely on being unrestrained.

  Lacking universal standard on social media ethics or enforceable standards–  people jump to conclusions, cease listening to others, and rapidly assume positions of rigidity.  These contribute to a decline in communication, decline in  civility, and  weakened ability to find some  examples of common ground. They do re-enforce extreme and toxic  ‘virtues’ of righteous indignation. I applaud the sites and blogs that mode to mediate or moderate this. I look forward to a new common ground of sites and blogs achieving a balance of civility and community.

Finding Common Ground in Politics

I just posted a comment to a story in today’s Des Moines Register on finding common ground. Several years ago, Iowans created an institute to do that just, not because it was going to be the cure-all, to end-all, but because a small group of Iowans from both parties agreed we had to start somewhere.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/comments/article/20120527/OPINION/305270019/Another-View-Can-t-we-Americans-find-any-common-ground-

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=17056274&trk=tab_pro

A quick response to NPQ article –Wal-Mart, Democratic National Committee Get Creative with Contributions

http://tinyurl.com/83wxr6e

 

Debate over credit vs. cash distracts from the greater point that Rick has previously and eloquently pointed out–the distorting influence of large contributions of money into our electoral process.

To excise money from poltics will require a high level of ‘bi-partisan’ surgical skills, a campaign finance system creative and successful to pass constitutional muster and achievement of a constitutional amendment to address Citizens United, a public that accepts public finance and its imperfections, a partnership to achieve these goals from groups as diverse as the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement, and the political will to do all and the support of constituents to support candidates who attempt to achieve the above.

But, it is worth the try.

Comments on social media and stakeholder resistance in the nonprofit world

http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18291:the-voice-from-outside-stakeholder-resistance-in-nonprofit-organizations&catid=153:features&Itemid=336

The Voice from Outside: Stakeholder Resistance in Nonprofit Organizations
December 13, 2011
Sean Buchanan and Patricia Bradshaw
“The increasing power of social media provides an important tool as well as a potential weapon for stakeholders, and the trend in stakeholder resistance will likely continue to grow in importance as more stakeholders begin to make their voices heard—making it essential for nonprofits to put serious time and effort into their active engagement with their stakeholders.”
The authors define stakeholder resistance as individuals who are not “insiders” in organizations, but are “outsiders”, “at times engaging in acts that challenge, disrupt, and even change organizational policies, practices, and actions”. The authors connect the power of social media to rising levels of strength of these outsiders. I maintain that just as essential is it for nonprofits to engage stakeholders, stakeholders must understand their roles and responsibilities.
My comment is the need for a parallel effort to incorporate the five concepts of roles, responsibility, ethics, civility, and accountability to social media. I think the outside ‘resistance must assume some responsibility—it is not just on the back of the non-profit. And social media has allowed for the increase in power, but not a parallel increase in responsibility and understanding of roles. When stakeholders resist, by social media, or otherwise, they do need to take the ‘higher ground”, virtual as it might be.
Technology has advanced far greater and faster than the development of these five factors. Readers know if instances of incivility. Lack of accountability is built into social media, by virtue of its anonymity. Responsibility is closely limited by the same anonymity. Ethics and civility are enhanced by anonymity and by the rapid fire of blogs. The roles of resisters must be understood. Resistance might believe they are right in their eyes, especially since they can tell the world how right they are. However, just because a group can broadcast its case, does not automatically translate into their position being the correct position.

Penn State—questions to ask, but of other institutions

While people want to ask questions of Penn State (how could it ever happened, why it happened), I think other institutions should be taking the lead in responding. Agencies and institutions do not need to wait for any verdicts from any Penn State related cases, or for additional victims to come forward. Today presents the opportunity for any organization to do something to prevent abuse amidst its employees, or students, or vendors, or volunteers. I have seen crises rise and fall–but the response routinely is too narrow or myopic. I am not stating abuse is widespread. I am only stating it is healthy to review what is in place. In my career, I have worked to combat childhood sexual abuse or sexual harassment from many perspectives: as a leader of a state agency in charge of investigating harassment and discrimination claims, as a lawyer representing youth who were victims of abuse, as a prosecutor of childhood sexual abuse, as a leader of public and non-profit agencies which served victims and their families, and for many years, as a state legislator working on related policies. Internal reviews and questions are healthy and can prevent abuse. Certain questions should be asked at the institutions or organizations you are part of.

Have (your) institutions reviewed their current culture, policies and dynamics on abuse or harassment regarding existing avenues of redress, as a victim and protocols to be followed, as a witness? Have institutions, including outside of academia, re-examined their own policies and protocol for protecting witnesses or whistleblowers? Will institutions avoid any review for fear of drawing attention by media or other stakeholders? Will media and stakeholders support and re-enforce efforts at accountability?

So, How many institutions, upon hearing of Penn State, immediately asked for a review of their policies, training expectations of employees or students or teachers, and levels of transparency, let alone something as basic as how easy is it for a person to file a complaint?

Occupying the attention of Americans–giving voice to healthy dissent

The occupy effort has successfully occupied the attention of the public, media, and public officials. To the extent that some inchoate, if not inconsistent, concerns are being reflected, is more reflective of uncertainty and a latent sense of frustration.

I remain concerned that the public, from occupy wall street to the tea party, has to give permission to those public officials to take stands, but avoid reinforcing the polarized positions of elected officials who take positions that they support. Occupy efforts should not mimic the rigid views expressed by some within the Tea Party movement or leadership.Occupy’ can take controversial views, but that is not the same as requiring public officials to pass litmus tests.

Occupy is being heard. That is healthy. That is different than not listening to others, which is more Tea Party’s cup of tea.

Ralph Rosenberg’s Online Resume

Ralph Rosenberg’s Online Resume.

sharing success and learning from the TeaParty

Interesting article on change.   I believe the Tea Party has shown the benefit of applying these ideas.  I believe opponents to the Tea Party should take a look, as well.

http://webofchange.com/We-Must-Be-Scientists-for-Change

 1.A willingness to experiment with bold ideas and strategies in testable ways

2.Excellence in the creative application of technology in service of those experiments

3.Meticulous interpretation and sharing of results

4.Imaginative posing of the logical next question and returning to step 1 as quickly as possible