Practically Speaking

    Thank you, Kyle, for the kind words on your blog posting. It was also nice to run into you briefly at the Elm Grove Sendik's last week.

    I've always appreciated the time you have taken to attend meetings and do 'real' research. It's so important and it's a significant commitment of time for those persons interested in a particular issue -- whether supportive, opposed or just there to learn more about it -- to leave their homes, go to the district offices and sit through other agenda items until their topic of interest comes up.

    Often, the most difficult issues take significant time to get through once they finally ARE taken up. Sometimes the nights get very late. I have great respect for people who attend meetings not to disrupt, but to listen to others, share their own views and help toward making good, constructive, positive public decisions. I believe that such qualities are particularly important in those who write about the meeting, comment on it or attempt to influence the thinking of others about it.

    You have been willing to at least consider all the points of view that go into what are sometimes very difficult, no easy answer decisions with which we entrust members of the Board of Education and other public bodies. In many ways, these are thankless, damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't positions that fewer and fewer are willing to run for and serve in. You've been able to present an opposing viewpoint, often accompanied by supporting information, and do so in a way that largely acknowledges and respects those who may think otherwise. I do not always like what you write; I do not always like the way that you put things; but increasingly, what I read is an effort to be fair, even when you choose to be provocative or challenging. That is good, responsible community dialogue that can add to the discussion, not debase it.

    Cheri Mastel is another who tends not to take pot shots and lambast the district, school board or individuals, but rather takes the time (many, many hours) to serve on citizen committees, attend meetings and make a sincere attempt to hold onto her own beliefs, but who also tries to consider those of others. Depending on personalities and many other factors, that can sometimes be a very difficult thing to do. We need to respect the efforts of those who sincerely try and who often succeed.

    I've made my share of mistakes, and when I've done so, I've felt badly about it. If I can, I try to make it right. I do hold, however, a set of beliefs and passions about what is well done community and corporate (the institutional, not the business meaning) communications; that is, not being passive when under attack, and being proactive in not letting your critics define your organization and your issues. I strongly believe in answering and correcting unfair or unjust attack, misleading or inaccurate information, or manipulative or purposefully unethical portrayal.

    Being passive, conciliatory or politely misleading only leads to substantial long-term loss of credibility and trust when people realize that you or your organization is not being straight with anyone, but rather simply appeasing everyone, depending on who is in the room at the time. That is public relations and communications suicide. I believe people prefer honesty and can deal with bad news if they're given it straight. They can also deal with disagreement if they know you fimrly believe in the position you're taking. That's lost entirely on a lot of "PR" people with an all-to-ready smile of agreement who want to avoid conflict at all costs. That's not real. People know it.

   One of the cardinal rules of communications and public information that I was taught and believe strongly, is to not allow others to wrongly or inaccurately define a person, institution or issue. I do not believe that serious public relations is about glad-handing, back-slapping, letting people roll you, or roll other people, or roll an issue, or roll an organization unfairly.

    I do not believe that serious public relations is backing away from or failing to proactively set the record straight, nor is it failing to clearly and firmly let people know that the credibility of those critics who have gone over the top, needs to at least be questioned. I've not had to do that with you -- though it's part of the job when it needs to be done -- as I've found you to be fairer and less agenda-driven.

    Occasionally, we've gone around a time or two on some matters, but we've been able to remain cordial, civil and pleasant. You tend not to leap to the outrageous. You tend not to write degrading, inaccurate or slam pieces. I think that for the most part yours is more thoughtful blogging that springs from truly caring, not from trying to damage others, or make/sustain a presence for yourself, or because you crave any particular attention.

   So again, thank you for your kind words. Best wishes for continued productivity in writing about the schools and those topics that are of importance to you. If I've made any errors in my professional approach or relationship with you, I hereby publicly apologize. You and I will continue to be able to agree, or disagree, but do so constructively ... at least that will be my intent.

    It's important because that kind of civil discourse is what democracies need to be successful-- there's nothing that guarantees the continuation of democracy as a form of government. Nothing, except our own commitment to it. We cannot allow ourselves to become an even coarser society than we've already become. I think you're one of the bloggers who cares about this, much bigger picture and set of issues that should help guide our behaviors and actions in the public arena. Thanks again.

- Andy Smith