I hae been feverishly working on a proposal for a sub committee of the commission on volunteers to reorganize and establish a working committee. After several meetings this morning was one to basically polish things off and start on verbiage, boy was I wrong. The person I went in to see was the head of a very large organization for national service in Utah and had at our previous subcommittee meeting gone into a tyrate with an opposing view point with which I happened to agree. So now two weeks later I realized that the common ground they came to was more of a farce than anything. I had planed a version of the process that comprised a working chart of initiatives and programs from which committe members could select and by then being involoved with their chosen groups or initiciatives would fulfill their legislative mandate. The other person in the room had seniority, superior experience, and was knowlegeable beyond that of my own capability when it came to the commission. In my opinion I was treated initially with a sense of unmittigating contempt that my ideas were more valid than hers. I was put in a tough spot and realized I needed to ask her questions about her solutions instead of taking question after question from her in a deffensive posture. After a heated debate for over two hours we concluded with a better understanding of each others view points. A flow chart was a joint venture that will serve the commission well. I just hope people start remembering the day to day compromises they make for a better union of ideas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment