Submitted by Kris Wenzel
I would like to voice my chagrin as it relates to the March 2 General Meeting.
Strong opinions and passion are the lifeblood of any community, but I venture to suggest that no matter how strongly one may feel on any topic concerning the welfare of the Co-op, it does not justify dominating the agenda and monopolizing speaking time to the extent we witnessed on March 2.
There are dozens of members with equal stake and interest in the Co-op who were not heard while louder and more insistent voices prevailed, repetitive in content and adversarial in tone. Newer members like myself who are interested in becoming more engaged at Sunnyhill left that meeting feeling browbeaten and alienated.
I do not dismiss the concerns of any speaker. All feelings have merit and must be addressed, but in the context of an online, ‘general’ meeting involving dozens of potential participants, there should be a limit on the sheer amount of time any one member can speak. Or in lieu of that being mandated, perhaps we can remind ourselves that allowing for more and varied opinions to be heard is simple courtesy.
Clearly there are disagreements on meetings procedure and broader issues of trust to address, but the meeting March 2 had the qualities of a U.S. Senate filibuster, in that the majority of Co-op members were continually being diverted from actually confronting the issues at hand by a strident minority, and were left feeling confused and disrespected.
The pandemic is wearing us down and the world of Zoom meetings is hardly satisfying, which is all the more reason why our discourse needs to be as polite and as inclusive as possible.
Thank you,
Kris Wenzel