On this Tuesday, State of the Re:Union contributor Rich Harwood of the Harwood Institute for Public Innovation shares about one young man serving as an inspiration, offering an uplifting story to counter that of the scandalous tragedy currently inundating the airwaves.

Source: Zimbio.com

A horrid child-abuse scandal is unfolding at Penn State University, where people’s integrity, care of vulnerable children, and betrayal of privilege all are at issue. Today I offer a counter-point: a short, 5-minute speech by Michigan State University’s quarterback, where he speaks about privilege and responsibility. In these times, his words are uplifting and worth listening to.

I have been a fan of Kirk Cousins, MSU’s quarterback, long before I heard about and then listed to his speech, where he had been given the huge honor to kick-off the Big Ten annual conference. There, he spoke before his follow Big Ten football players and coaches, among others. His speech drew widespread media attention and plaudits. He received an extended standing ovation. Here’s why – and why I urge you to watch this short video.

In his speech, Kirk Cousins did not obsess about himself, his football exploits or serve as mere cheerleader for the Big Ten. Instead, he stood tall before all his peers and coaches from throughout the Big Ten and laid down a marker. Remember, Kirk Cousins is all of 23 years old.

He said that playing big-time college football is a ‘privilege’ because of the platform big-time football provides. He and his fellow players are treated to playing on television – a life-long dream many have held since their childhood; that kids seek them out for autographs; that they are granted opportunities to speak to young kids; and that they have the unique opportunity to come together as players to achieve something that none of them could achieve on their own. In short, each player holds a special place that is afforded to them.

But Kirk Cousins then makes this point: “But it is here in this place of privilege that danger lies.”

Source: holtlutheran.org

He asserts that this danger can lead to a sense of entitlement: “The notion that I deserve to be treated special because I am privileged.” For Kirk Cousins, it’s just the opposite. He believes deeply that such privilege leads to a ‘responsibility’ – in fact, it leads to holding a greater responsibility because of the nature of the privilege and an athlete’s standing in society.

For instance, he believes college football players hold a special responsibility to children. He talks simply, and thus with a beautiful eloquence, about how players can set a standard for how to treat others – that they can embody what it means to be a person of integrity – that they can show young people that excellence in the classroom is a worthy pursuit. He says that players can demonstrate that it is more important to do what is right, than what feels right.

At the end of his talk, with wisdom beyond his years, he remarks: “While I believe that we as players do not deserve the platform we’ve been given, we have it nonetheless. It comes with the territory of being a college football player in the Big Ten.” He then offers this, “May we as players have the wisdom to handle this privilege, and the courage to fulfill the responsibility we’ve been given.”

Perhaps folks at Penn State will watch the Kirk Cousins speech once more and remind themselves of their own privilege and responsibility to others; and they will hear the call to step forward and do what is right. Meantime, may the rest of us, in our own daily lives, listen to Kirk Cousins words, and let them be a reminder of the innate goodness in people, and that we must be vigilant in our response to the forces that weigh upon us each day.

A dynamic public speaker, Rich Harwood is a frequent keynote for foundations and national organizations. He is an expert contributor on national and syndicated media outlets including MSNBC, NPR, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN’s Inside Politics, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Special Report with Brit Hume, C-SPAN, and many others. He is also the author of Hope Unraveled: The people\’92s retreat and our way back (2005), Make Hope Real: How we can accelerate change for the public good (2008) and numerous studies, articles and essays chronicling vital issues of our time. His most recent written work, Why We\’92re Here: The Powerful Impact of Public Broadcasters When They Turn Outward, is being published and distributed in Spring 2011. You can follow him on twitter @RichHarwood and facebook.com/richharwood.

You can read Rich’s posts every Tuesday on State of the Re:Union’s website.

I recently went to Phoenix for a meeting and I was trying to figure out how to use the light rail to get from the airport to the downtown hotel where I was staying. I found it frustrating that the transit authority website didn’t have a feature for figuring out your itinerary, or at least, I couldn’t seem to find it. Then I remembered, of course, Google Maps does that now, the transit agency doesn’t have to.

Jay Nath

Information sharing of that sort has become routine, part of an ongoing joint project between the public, private and nonprofit sectors to use information and communications technology (ICT) in new ways to inform and empower the public. Jay Nath, director of innovation for the city and county of San Francisco writes about it in the fall issue of the National Civic Review, a special issue we published with the help of ZeroDivide, “Beyond the Digital Divide: How New Technologies Can Amplify Civic Engagement and Community Participation.”

The issue has a range of articles on the subject, everything from the use of video games to re-imagine urban neighborhoods, to the ways mobile technology is being used to mobilize voters from under-served communities.

Nath focuses on the advances in access to government information and the transition from a focus on transparency and accountability to one of citizen participation and contribution in what he calls a “new architecture of openness and collaboration.”

“The traditional focus of open government advocates has been on accountability,” he writes. “Very few would argue with this principal, but the new open government is likely to focus more on information sharing that empowers citizens to be more actively involved and creative.”

Nath traces this evolution, interestingly enough, to a tragedy that took place at the end of the Cold War, when a Korean jetliner was shot down by the Soviets after it mistakenly flew into their air space. Originally, global positioning system (GPS) data was reserved for the military, but after the KAL catastrophe, President Reagan ordered GPS data to be released to the American public.

The Obama administration has put a big emphasis on open government and information sharing, releasing a repository of information called Data.gov. San Francisco has a similar effort called DataSF.org using open source software. More than 60 local apps have been created using the data.

©2010 Eric W. Miller May

“One iPhone app, Routsey, helps citizens navigate Bay Area transportation providers by using real-time prediction information,” he writes. “By using a phone’s GPS location, they can identify the nearest transit stops and determine when the next bus or train is coming.”

The potential of ICTs to help the public access information is an established fact, but what may prove to be equally significant is the ability of citizens to be part of a two-way feedback mechanism with government. Nath cites the example of the Urban Forest Map, which gives citizens a view of trees in the city. The data for this site comes from the city and a non-profit group called Friends of the Urban Forest, but ordinary people can add to or update information that is fed back to the city.

San Francisco is exploiting the potential of “crowdsourcing” with its Improve SF project. Citizens are given the opportunity to generate ideas and the best will be given seed funding through micro-grants.

Where it will all end up we don’t know, but local governments are already being transformed by these new ICTs. Read more about it in the National Civic Review. Electronic files of this special issue are being made available to the public for free on the Wiley Online Library.

Also, ZeroDivide will be hosting a free webinar featuring Jay Nath Thursday, November 17 at 10 a.m. PST, and you can find out more about it here. The topic of the webinar will be using technology for civic engagement.

Mike McGrath is senior editor and chief information officer for the National Civic League. A former newspaper reporter and magazine writer, he is editor of the quarterly National Civic Review, which will be beginning its centennial year of publishing this spring.

Mike’s posts will appear every Thursday on the State of the Re:Union website.

After last week’s blog, “Let’s bring together the Tea Party & Occupy Wall Street,” Michel Martin, from NPR’s Tell Me More, asked me and representatives from the two groups to have an on-air conversation. All the potential peril in trying to do something productive could be heard during this conversation. But I remain undaunted, and I hope you are, too. Here’s why.

Source: D.B. King from Wikimedia Commons

First, it took a nice dose of courage for Michel to invite the three of us on. Not surprising coming from Michel, but noteworthy nonetheless. Joining me were Shelby Blake, from the Tea Party Patriots, and Kyle Christopher, from Occupy Wall Street.

From the get-go the conversation took a turn for business as usual. The two individuals saw themselves as representatives for their respective groups, and so what came forward were the well-worn talking points, name calling, bomb throwing, and insistence that “We’re Right, You’re Wrong!” No matter what Michel asked, the responses towed the party line. This is the reality of where we at the national level – we cannot deny it. Right now, these groups are talking past each other.

The key to moving the conversation forward will be to get folks around the table who do not see themselves as either “leaders” or “spokespeople.” When I talk to everyday individuals who subscribe to one of these movements, I have found among them – as I have found among most Americans – that they want to find ways to move the country forward. Like many of us, they too are anxious about where the country is headed, scared about their own jobs and keeping their homes, and lack trust in various leaders, institutions, organizations, and groups to hear their concerns.

Source: David Shankbone from Wikimedia Commons

That is why on Tell Me More I said the best place to get things moving is on the local level. On the national scene, too many groups (not just these two) are happy to indulge in gridlock, because that’s their ticket to “success.” They want to rally more members, more financial support, and more clout. Making progress on the national level will require the shifting of broader conditions in the country.

Still, there is a ripe opportunity before us: to tap into a growing groundswell in the country. This represents what I believe is the big missing story in America today. People want to come back into the public square. People want to make a difference. And people want to be a part of something larger than themselves. They feel they can no longer go it alone – it simply doesn’t work. Nor do they think that outage alone will change current conditions – they say we must note it, understand it, and then get beyond all the outrage.

Let me be clear: What I’m suggesting is no silver bullet. Nor is it about all of us “getting along” or “liking each other.” The times demand that we be more practical than that. At issue is how best to change the trajectory and dynamics of a gridlocked and mistrustful public life and politics.

Source: Tom Morris from Wikimedia Commons

One good place to start (among others) is to bring people from The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements. As I’ve said, what I don’t mean is to bring representatives of the two groups together; instead, my hope is to engage everyday Americans who happen to subscribe to these two groups. If we can show even some progress, it will be an important sign to all Americans – and to the leaders and spokespeople of these movements – that people want to get to work.

At the Institute, we’re actively pursuing ways to push this effort ahead. Please, let me know your own ideas and ways for us to work together.

All this is possible. We can do this.

A dynamic public speaker, Rich Harwood is a frequent keynote for foundations and national organizations. He is an expert contributor on national and syndicated media outlets including MSNBC, NPR, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN’s Inside Politics, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Special Report with Brit Hume, C-SPAN, and many others. He is also the author of Hope Unraveled: The people\’92s retreat and our way back (2005), Make Hope Real: How we can accelerate change for the public good (2008) and numerous studies, articles and essays chronicling vital issues of our time. His most recent written work, Why We\’92re Here: The Powerful Impact of Public Broadcasters When They Turn Outward, is being published and distributed in Spring 2011. You can follow him on twitter @RichHarwood and facebook.com/richharwood.

You can read Rich’s posts every Tuesday on State of the Re:Union’s website.

Postscript on The Therapeutic Neighborhood

Today’s post from Abundant Community contributor John McKnight revisits the Clearness Committee and how it helped one woman’s challenge in deciding treatment for a life-threatening disease. She explains her experience and interaction throughout the process and how it saved her life. (To read original The Therapeutic Neighborhood excerpt, click here. For State of the Re:Union’s post synopsis, click here.)

“The Clearness Committee is not a cure-all,” says Parker Palmer in the excerpt from A Hidden Wholeness we posted recently in The Therapeutic Neighborhood. “But for the right person, with the right issue, it is a powerful way to rally the strength of community around a struggling soul, to draw deeply from the wisdom within all of us.”

My sister-in-law, Mary, was at Quaker study center Pendle Hill for months after an operation for a brain tumor. Here is her reflection on her experience with a Clearness Committee:

Source: Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends - Quakers

“Clearness Committees are made up of people called together to support individuals, couples, or groups in making decisions.

“I called a Clearness Committee to help me decide about my ‘next step’ when I was at Pendle Hill, the Quaker Center for Study and Contemplation.

“I asked seven people to come together with me and offer support, raise questions, give suggestions, and feedback.  These were people in the Pendle Hill community who I felt could give me helpful input from their varying perspectives.

“These people didn’t tell me what to do, but helped me to become clearer about my future direction.

“I did preparation for the meeting by answering some pre-clearness questions–such as about my personal history with relevance to the decision to be made, my commitments, sources of support, goals, and what was holding me back from various options.  I gave this background information to the committee members prior to our group meeting.

“They met with me for several hours one evening. After they brainstormed my strengths, they asked questions, raised concerns, and offered me feedback.

“By the end of the evening I received important insights as to how to proceed, and greater clarity about my future, which at that time was to return to Pendle Hill for another three-month session. Ultimately that decision led me to Ohio. . . .

Source: peace.maripo.com - View of Pendle Hill in Wallingford, PA

“There were many other practical decisions that had to be made in the outside world to support my decision, but it was in the Clearness Committee that the direction for my future was made clear to me and supported.

“My reaction to the Clearness Committee?  It was an invaluable experience of the thoughtful pushing and caring of friends in community.

“What is unique?  In response to my desire for clarity, I reached out to my community for suggestions and feedback.

“What do they do that professional counselors can’t do?  As side-by-side members of the Pendle Hill Community, they knew me from various personal perspectives, and offered on-going caring support rather than being outsider professionals.  The dimension of sitting as a group in silence for guidance and discernment was a valuable part of the process.”

Clearly, for Mary, the “clearness” process was the work of a therapeutic community with profound meaning.

It is quite easy to lose track of one’s personal sense of understanding with so much static coming in at a rapid-fire pace daily. Perhaps the Quakers have hit upon something that is often overlooked or dismissed as being too invasive or quirky. For people such as Mary, not only does it make sense, but instills an inner peace and strength truly knowing that she never has to go through this alone. I believe this knowledge in and of itself is therapeutic. Yes, there are professionals who can assist in discerning the best actions for an individual, but is a more austere clinical setting the best way to begin the healing process? For some it might be, but who is to say that works for all? What about you, if you had a potentially life changing decision, what scenario would you prefer, and why? We would love to hear what you have to say, so send your answers our way.

John McKnight

John McKnight is an expert on communities. An Ohio native who currently lives near Chicago, he has spent decades organizing communities and researching them, primarily in the Windy City itself. In the course of his career, he mobilized neighborhoods during the civil rights movement, wrote several books about community development, created a center for urban affairs at Northwestern University, and even taught the current President a thing or two about advocacy. (Yes, it’s true: way back when, a young and eager Barack Obama interned at McKnight’s training program for community organizers in southeast Chicago). If that’s not enough, he recently co-authored a book called “The Abundant Community: Awakening the Power of Families and Neighborhoods.”

State of the Re:Union will be featuring pieces from John McKnight and Peter Block of Abundant Community every other Monday.

A Haven for Community-based Problem Solving

Several years ago I was doing some research on civic innovation at the local government level. It wasn’t hard to find good examples, but many of them were old and out of date, or already familiar to the practitioners and researchers in the field of democratic governance and deliberative democracy. Part of my job was to find new examples, and one of the very best examples I found was River Haven.

For as long as anyone could remember, homeless people have camped out in the dry bed of the Ventura River, but with El Niño sitting off the coast of California, the weather was a lot wetter than usual, and the risk of flooding was high. Local officials decided they would have to more strictly enforce local ordinances against people camping in the Ventura River.

“The law, in its majestic equality,” quipped Anatole France, “forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” The law is the law, but in this case, city officials decided to do more than just enforce the local ordinances.

They also convened a public planning process to deal with the larger issue of homelessness. All the usual “stakeholders” (public safety, business owners, service providers and, of course, the homeless people themselves) were invited, but so were “non-stakeholders,” that is, ordinary citizens who were simply interested in helping address a critical community issue.

The problem was this: many homeless people in Ventura and elsewhere don’t want to stay in shelters. The rules are too strict. They can only be there for certain hours and they keep their things and pets. What’s more, some of the homeless people who camped in the riverbed thought of themselves as part of a community—and they didn’t want to lose that connection.

After a series of what Ventura City Manager Rick Cole described to me as a series of “non-productive meetings with deadlines growing ever-closer,” a local artist with a studio near the river, one of the non-stakeholders, made a suggestion. Why not set up a camp for the homeless somewhere other than in the riverbed?

A philanthropic organization called the Turning Point Foundation stepped forward to be the fiscal agent, and the city made available some land near the harbor. Patterned loosely on similar efforts in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, the camp was called “River Haven,” a self-governing tent village with more than two-dozen residents. The rules were clear—no drugs or alcohol, for instance, and there would be an elected council of residents to enforce them.

I was wondering recently, what had become of River Haven? But I was almost afraid to find out. Some inspiring stories are just too good to be true. Recently, however, I phoned Clyde Reynolds, executive director of the Turning Point Foundation, to find out.

He told me River Haven is still going strong, albeit with some significant changes. Tents have been replaced by geodesic domes, and the screening of residents has become more careful. People have to be serious about wanting to transition out of the camp and into a more permanent kind of housing. Also, and this isn’t surprising, really, the camp isn’t entirely self-governing. Today there is more direct regulation by foundation management.

Self-governing or not, River Haven was one of the most vivid and interesting stories of civic engagement and collaborative problem solving I found. Homelessness is a perfect example of what deliberative democracy types call a “wicked problem,” that is, a persistent, complex challenge for which there is no easy solution. Citizens met together, including the homeless themselves. They deliberated on a complex issue and came up with a list of proposals, River Haven being one of them, and that is community problem-solving at its best.

Mike McGrath is senior editor and chief information officer for the National Civic League. A former newspaper reporter and magazine writer, he is editor of the quarterly National Civic Review, which will be beginning its centennial year of publishing this spring.

Mike’s posts will appear every Thursday on the State of the Re:Union website.

State of the Re:Union contributor Rich Harwood of the Harwood Institute for Public Innovation proposes what would happen if community truly came first in the realm of political agendas. Stripped of political hyperbole and getting down to brass tax, what would two leading groups have to say about and do for we the people? After all, public and community is the bedrock of democracy, and in a perfect world, what is good for every community would come first.

Source: money.cnn.com

Like you, I have watched as the Tea Party has taken shape and now as the Occupy Wall Street movement is spreading – and my desire is to bring them both together around a single table for a real conversation. My experience tells me that they probably share some important things in common, and the nation would do well if those things could be uncovered and explored.

When I “Google” the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street what appears is the well-worn and typical frame of how to view these two groups. The stories go in for the kill: how the two groups are doing battle against one another, which one has raised more money, and how they each seek to out muscle the other.

Recently, in the Washington Post, a new survey only underscores and deepens this divide and sense of gridlock. Here is what the paper said about the poll results: “Although newly minted movements, Occupy Wall Street and the tea party have been thoroughly absorbed by the preexisting, all-too-familiar partisan divide.” In other words, the two groups are just reflections of what we already tend to believe: everything can be explained by the Red/Blue Divide. But rather than try to explain away the groups, I want to bring them together.

Now, before going on, I could understand if you said at this point, “What, Rich, are you crazy? There’s no way anything positive could come of this.” What’s more, I can hear people saying, “I just don’t trust the other side. They’re nuts!” But, please, read on, and you’ll see why I think we must take this step.

My goal is to bring people from both groups together for an extended, in-depth conversation. In this conversation, I would not focus on questions about their party affiliation, or who they plan to support in the 2012 presidential race, or ask them to raise their hands in quickie surveys to gauge which pre-existing policy positions they support on key issues. Each of these questions would be off limits, as would others like them.

Source: cchronicle.com

The point is to create a space in which we would sweep off the table all the icons and triggers and stereotypes that are often used to quickly categorize people, their beliefs, and their positions. My intention here is never dismiss or temper people’s passions – but to hold at arms’ length the all-too-familiar, knee-jerk shortcuts we use to describe people and ideas that we may revile or detest or wish to push away or, simply, fear.

I would start with a simple question about their aspirations for their community. I would then ask them what their chief concerns are. I would want to know how they experience their lives and what they hope to create in them – and for the country.

From there, the conversation would go to what kinds of actions can be taken – by citizens, political leaders, and others – to reflect these aspirations and start to address their concerns. These lines of inquiry enable people to see and hear one another – something that is in short supply these days. For when opposing groups are forced into political clusters and language that demonizes the other, the possibility to find a different path is squeezed out. It is shut down.

I hold faith in the possibility of bringing these two groups together because, over the past six months, my colleagues and I have been traveling across the country asking people from all walks of life, and across all political affiliations, these types of questions. What we’re discovering is that amid all the differences, noise and finger pointing, people actually do share enough aspirations and common concerns that there is a basis for moving forward; and they are able to articulate basic steps that could be taken to kick-start a different trajectory for the county. Taking such steps would begin a process of building greater trust, and helping to restore people’s faith in themselves and one another that it is still possible to get things done together.

Source: attackthesystem.com

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that there aren’t deep splits between these groups on some fundamental concerns. But, the truth is, there are also emerging differences within each of these movements. Each movement is not monolithic, nor do people within them walk in lock-step. And even if they were monolithic and in lock-step, the change each wants  can only come about through action taken with others beyond their groups. This is the fundamental challenge within a democracy.

The urgent step I want to take is to bring folks from both movements to the table to see and explore what areas of commonality do exist, and what those openings might suggest for how to get the country moving forward.

Now’s the time.

No matter your political agenda, preference or lack thereof, many issues concerning our communities surface during times such as these. Were Rich able to achieve a peaceful meeting of party members, what type of positive result do you think could be achieved? What question/s would you ask concerning any issue/s in your community?  We would love to know.

A dynamic public speaker, Rich Harwood is a frequent keynote for foundations and national organizations. He is an expert contributor on national and syndicated media outlets including MSNBC, NPR, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN’s Inside Politics, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Special Report with Brit Hume, C-SPAN, and many others. He is also the author of Hope Unraveled: The people\’92s retreat and our way back (2005), Make Hope Real: How we can accelerate change for the public good (2008) and numerous studies, articles and essays chronicling vital issues of our time. His most recent written work, Why We\’92re Here: The Powerful Impact of Public Broadcasters When They Turn Outward, is being published and distributed in Spring 2011. You can follow him on twitter @RichHarwood and facebook.com/richharwood

.

You can read Rich’s posts every Tuesday on State of the Re:Union’s website.