The ironically-named “Civility Forums” were, collectively, a thinly- (because that’s usually all that is needed to avoid scrutiny) disguised attempt to re-define, as aggressive “incivility”, civic involvement, occasionally taking the form of mild pushback, by ordinary village residents and taxpayers not invested or interested in advancing a freakish, spawn-of-alinsky, progressive political agenda. Criticism from this blog eventually unmasked the intentions of Aronsohn, his adoring supplicants, and his friends in the media such as The Record’s Stephen Borg. The wind having been taken out of their sails, they mercifully ended that baleful series of foolish public/private meetings. Their jihad against normalcy is sure to arise again in some other form in the near future which is why we need to support small-entity actors like James who are willing to throw stumbling blocks in their path.
As of July 1 Aronsohn will be gone but he will never be forgotten for what he has done.
Let’s wait and see what the new council will do. Careful what you wish for.
When you hear the phrase “civility in public discourse” used, you know you’re being condescended to. Who knows how many years ago it was invented but here’s a use from 1997 by pointy-headed academes who were probably concerned that publicly-expressed revulsion with the misbehavior of the Clintons not interrupt the steady march of progressivism through our culture and political system:
.
The Meaning of Civility
by
Guy Burgess, Ph.D. and Heidi Burgess, Ph.D.
Co-Directors, Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado
Copyright ©1997 by Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess
.
The increasingly vocal campaign for civility in public discourse reflects an understandable and widespread frustration with the current tenor of political debate. There is a growing realization that our inability to deal with a broad range of problems is largely attributable to the destructive ways in which the issues are being addressed. This raises a crucial and increasingly controversial question–what exactly do we mean by “civility”?
.
Clearly, civility has to mean something more that mere politeness. The movement will have accomplished little if all it does is get people to say, “excuse me please”, while they (figuratively) stab you in the back. Civility also cannot mean “roll over and play dead.” People need to be able to raise tough questions and present their cases when they feel their vital interests are being threatened. A civil society cannot avoid tough but important issues, simply because they are unpleasant to address. There must also be more to civility than a scrupulous adherence to the laws governing public-policy decision making. Clearly, there are numerous instances in which the parties to public-policy conflicts act in ways which are destructive and inappropriate, even though they are (and should continue to be) legal.
In short, any reasonable definition of civility must recognize that the many differing interests which divide our increasingly diverse society will produce an endless series of confrontations over difficult moral and distributional issues. Often these issues will have an irreducible win-lose character and, hence, not be amenable to consensus resolution. While continuing confrontation is inevitable, the enormous destructiveness which commonly accompanies these confrontations is not.
In our work at the University of Colorado’s Conflict Research Consortium, we have been developing an approach which we call “constructive confrontation.” This approach combines an understanding of conflict processes, dispute resolution, and advocacy strategies to help disputants better advance their interests. In addition to explaining why the politeness embodied in conventional definitions of “civility” is important, we also identify a number of other areas in which adversaries, decision makers, and those caught in the middle can work individually and collectively to increase the constructiveness of public debate. Examples of these areas include:
.
Separating People from the Problem
.
First, and most obviously, is a commitment to civility in the traditional and relatively narrow sense of the word. People need to recognize that other thoughtful and caring people have very different views on how best to address their community’s many complex problems. Constructive debate needs to focus on solutions which are most likely to be successful, and not upon personal attacks leveled by adversaries against one another. This is summed up by Roger Fisher, Bill Ury and Bruce Patton, authors of the New York Times best-seller Getting to Yes, who advise disputants to “separate the people from the problem.” When this is not done, conflicts tend to escalate so much that key decisions are made on the basis of very personal, “us vs. them” animosities rather than the relative merits of competing problem-solving strategies.
.
Obtain Available Technical Facts
.
Many public policy disputes involve factual disagreements which are amenable to resolution through some type of fact-finding process. Failure to discern available facts substantially increases the probability that the situation will be so misunderstood that the solutions adopted will fail to achieve the desired results. Constructive civil debate, therefore, requires that the parties work together to resolve factual disagreements wherever possible. There are, of course, many cases in which factual issues can’t be resolved because of irreducible uncertainties associated with the limits of scientific inquiry. When, this is true, contending parties need to publically explain the reasoning behind their differing interpretations of the factual information which is available.
.
Limit Interpersonal Misunderstandings
.
Often the adversaries proceed on the basis of very inaccurate (and usually unjustifiably evil) images of the interests, positions, and actions of others. Civility requires that contending parties make an honest and continuing effort to understand the views and reasoning of their opponents. The community needs to condemn the deliberate distortion of information and the presentation of unbalanced views as unacceptable.
.
Use Fair Processes
.
Civility also requires that the public issues be addressed by a process that is fair in both appearance and fact. Public input needs to be honestly solicited and considered. Decisions also need to be made on the basis of substantive arguments. For example, advocates of the status quo should not be able to prevail by simply introducing endless procedural delays which prevent alternative proposals from being considered or acted upon.
.
Limit Escalation
.
The most destructive confrontation process, escalation, arises when accidental or intentional provocations beget greater counter-provocations in an intensifying cycle that transforms a substantive debate characterized by honest problem solving into one in which mutual hatred becomes the primary motive. De-escalation and escalation avoidance strategies are needed to limit this problem.
.
Honor Legitimate Uses of Legal, Political, and Other Types of Power.
.
Public policy disputes involve issues which people feel very strongly about. Given this, disputing parties can be expected to use all of the powers available to them in an attempt to prevail. In our political system this means that people are entitled to use the legal and political system to advance their interests. We should respect this right and not attempt to require that the parties renounce their power options as a precondition for discussion.
Separate Win/Win from Win/Lose Issues
.
Wherever possible, the parties should try to reframe the conflict in ways which transform win-lose confrontations into win-win opportunities. In cases where this is not possible, the parties need to recognize and accept the fact that political and legal institutions will repeatedly be called upon to make the tough choices.
.
Limit the Backlash Effect
.
While political, legal or other types of force may produce short term victory, they also tend to generate a powerful backlash. People hate to be forced to do things against their will and can be expected to launch a “counterattack” at the earliest opportunity. The best way to limit this backlash effect is for parties to take positions which can be justified on the basis of broadly acceptable principles of fairness which all members of society have an interest in supporting. While such justifications cannot be expected to convert all opponents, they can be expected to increase the parties’ base of support by attracting some opponents as well as a larger number of “middle of the roaders.” This emphasis upon the justification tends to produce more reasonable positions on both sides while making it more difficult for contending parties to pursue purely selfish objectives.
.
Keep Trying to Persuade and Allow Yourself to be Persuaded
.
One crucial element of civility is recognition by conflicting parties that it is possible that they are wrong and that the policies advocated by their opponents are actually better. This entails an obligation to seriously consider the persuasive arguments made by opponents and to carefully try to explain and justify one’s own position to one’s opponents and others.
.
More Persuasion, More Exchange, Less force
.
The best ways to produce stable, long-term policy change is through persuasion in which parties are converted to their opponent’s point of view, or through exchange through which the parties negotiate mutually beneficial win-win trade-offs. This implies that the use of force should be minimized wherever possible.
.
More information on these and many related approaches for improving the civility of public discourse is available from the Consortium. Contact Guy Burgess or Heidi Burgess: Campus Box 580, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309; phone: (303)492-1635; fax:(303 492-2154; e-mail: crc@colorado.edu; web: https://www.colorado.edu/conflict.
Thank you to those who had the courage to fight and question those in power.
The civility forums were an absolute sham. Aronsohn is known to yell mercilessly at colleagues and taxpayers alike. Pucciarelli is the king of nasty attacks and yes, we have some of them on tape. Gwenn, forget about it, the original queen of mean with her gutter language and ongoing snipes even though she stated publicly I NEVER DISRESPECTED ANYONE. Oh my god, these idiots were teaching us how to be civil???? Hypocrisy at its best. Then you have the likes of the most holy reverend Jan Philips, the docent of civility, who refers to those opposing the garage as rabble rousers…..how nice…..and she was a major player in those idiotic civility meetings.
Use the terms civility, public, and discourse to search in Google’s online newspaper archive. You’ll find a 1995 (Clinton era) opinion piece from Davis Broder begging for more civil public discourse. THIS ONLY BECOMES AN ISSUE FOR THE DRIVE-BY MEDIA WHEN A POORLY-BEHAVING NON-REPUBLICAN IS IN OFFICE! At other times, the same people are not in favor of self-editing for the sake of “civility” or any other kind of extraordinary prior constraint on free speech.
.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19941230&id=SCZJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XwYNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3128,4329372&hl=en
The three stooges and the Record and there owner ship are all full of it. They do not know the meaning of civility. Based on my statement i may not either, but then again i do not hold any office in the village.
1995 again. Clinton’s tenure in office apparently engendered a notable absence of “civility in public discourse”, as has Obama’s. Naturally, the public, and not the misbehaving occupiers of the Oval office, were/are to blame and required regular scoldings by newspaper columnists and ‘opinion leaders’:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19970124&id=wm4fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Gn0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6817,3502111&hl=en
The Amigos are done. The jury is out on how the new council will handle Roberta, however the voters have already made their opinion clear. But best of all The Record is done. Gannett will never allow the constant sniping that the Records Editorial Board and the Borg’s endorsed. But once again I say, the new Mayor and Council must be given the same scrutiny as the exiting members, the bar has been raised.
And pushback in 1995 against Bill C
Clinton’s hypocritical demands for increased civility in public discourse.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19950708&id=xbgfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vNcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1454,684003&hl=en
Nothing new under the sun. Consider this opinion piece dated December 29, 1996 and entitled: “Clinton Wants Civility But Doesn’t Practice It”:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19961229&id=JpZiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=73cNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5849,3486755&hl=en
Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, January 3, 1997, “Civility: It’s More Than Just Good Manners”:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19961229&id=JpZiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=73cNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5849,3486755&hl=en
An editorial by Paul Greenberg, Los Angeles Times Syndicate, entitled “The roots of restlessness, How to restore civility” was published on September 30, 1994. Greenberg’s distaste for burgeoning talk radio success is clear. But so is his impatience with those of his editorial colleages who ignore the root causes of public revulsion with bad actors in electoral politics. Here’s the money quote:
.
“Year after year, all of us editorial writers have written dutiful editorials, denouncing public apathy. So when the people take an interest in their affairs, and rise up roaring like a great beast, what do we do? We wring our hands over the decline of civility in public discourse.
.
“The best way to restore civility would be to address the causes of its decline. If the natives grow restless, they may just have something to be restless about.”
.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19940930&id=b9ROAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BEsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5560,6145661&hl=en
So, nearly 22 years ago, we already had a perfect answer for Borg and Aronsohn’s current disingenuous hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, and fainting couch swooning over citizens speaking their minds in unvarnished ways over matters of public interest.
In Lawrence, Kansas on in February, 2004, the Leadership Lawrence division of the Lawence, Kansas Chamber of Commerce held a civility forum followed by small group breakout sessions leading to calls for participants to utter a “civility pledge” at all public meetings. We should have just called the Lawrence CofC and asked for the minutes of their 2004 meeting rather than re-plow the same old ground eleven years later.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=20050407&id=-moyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8OgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2213,3568308&hl=en
And oh yeah, in case anyone didn’t already know this, civility forum-hosting Lawrence Kansas is a progressive liberal enclave, the elected leaders of which are apparently all peaches and cream when it comes to listening patiently to unedited public sentiment, as long as the latter aligns with their own views. Just read our liberal friend Nicole’s chipper description of the place right around the advent of the Obama Age:
.
Liberal Mecca in Conservative state – 5/8/2009
Nicole
While the weather in Kansas is atrocious, life in Lawrence, KS is quite pleasant. The town is filled with local music, art and shops. It is easy to get involve in community planning, and you can really make your opinions heard. It is a college town, so most of the jobs are University oriented. It is also becoming a bedroom community for Kansas City, but hopefully that trend is coming to a close.
Who runs civility forum? Whats the role of Community Advisory Board? They don’t even use a ridgewoodnj.net email address (they use a gmail address???) CRABNJ@gmail.com ?? Why is a gmail address allowed which cannot be searched for OPRA?
Ah yes, civility! What a noble aspiration. And what better place to find numerous splendid examples than the Ridgewood Blog, where:
– the current mayor is called a “total moron;”
– the current deputy mayor is called a “moron,” “asshole lawyer,” and “jackass”
– three of the current council members are called “creeps” and “bums;”
– the current village manager is called an “idiot,” “village idiot,” snake,” “complete fool,” and “bitch;”
– and the VM’s staff are called a “bunch of shitheads;”
– a resident, Jim Griffith, is called a “senile pot-bellied old man who [anonymous commenter] suspects wears a diaper;
– and another resident, Rurik Halaby, is called an “idiot;”
– And, in the mature, let’s-make-fun-of-someone’s-name category –
“Ron SLIME-oncini” (Simoncini);
“Rurik Halabooby” (Rurik Halaby); and
“Roberta Shut-up feld” (Roberta Sonenfeld)
So just keep that civility coming, anonymi. You’re setting a fine example for your children.
Nothing that has not already been said by the 4 Amigos to the residents.
Robert Carroll, pls take time to interact with Roberta, instead of reading the blog all the time – you will learn the definition of civility.
Well Robert, now that you put it that way, it is kind of funny!
Wake me up when Aronsohn has his political “comback”… been waiting for it for 12 years now…
LMK if the RW “springboard” worked.
Well, 8:41, I certainly won’t learn the definition of civility by reading the blog.
9:34 Robert Carroll – just stop it please. The more you post here the more you will hear from us. Roberta is one of the biggest reasons for resident revolt in this town. She was supposed to work for the residents, who are paying her salary and she chose to work for couple of politicians and few builders. Her demeaning behavior with the residents was the biggest reason for many residents to speak up against this council’s decisions. Also, go back to this blog and look at the posts made by you or Gwen’s husband – have you EVER posted any facts? You guys just come here to post ‘about people’. Grow up!!