General News · 11th October 2010
Doctor Issue – CCHA Board Decisions
Happy thanksgiving everyone,
I wanted to share a few of the most important emails that I have received regarding the Tuesday 7:30 meeting at Manson’s Hall and my responses. See you there!
Hi John, Your posting seemed to indicate the Tuesday meeting would cover any subject participants wished addressed, but you posted it with a sub-heading that makes it look like Doctor Issue – CCHA Board Decisions, which Mary Dudley has posted will be the ONLY discussion on Tuesday.
Since the CCHA has called an extraordinary meeting for Nov 15 and before I commit to attending the Oct 12 meeting, please confirm that the doctor issue will not be the only issue covered, and the meeting will be open to points attendees may wish to raise, or we may have another meeting where subjects of discussion may be shut down by those who think the meeting must only focus on one topic.
Thanks for the email. The only reason I used the same heading as Mary was to indicate that my letter was referring to the same meeting. This meeting is absolutely for whatever needs to be discussed. Some of the emails I am getting indicate that there are lots of options that have not been publicly addressed. For example, if Dr. Overhill really wants to practice medicine on Cortes, why can't we have two doctors. The Klahoose are just about to open a beautiful new medical facility and perhaps she could work something out with them. Some people want to decide who their doctor is. That seems reasonable to me. I do not doubt that you have some other important point to make and I really hope that it gets expressed. The most essential point of this meeting for me is that Cortesians get to experience a meeting style in which everybody gets to express anything they wish and have it recorded into a history of where we are today and ideas we have for how to move forward.
Best Wishes, John
Hi John, I am eager to experience new ways of dealing with local diversity of opinion, thanks for facilitating this.
“The butterfly might not even sit, flitting from conversation to conversation.”
I will be attending this meeting in the hopes of learning some factual information. If people are flitting from conversation to conversation, will each group need to repeat the same info over and over for each new butterfly? May we stay in one big circle for a while before we splinter off?
I wouldn't rehash anything for a new arrival to the conversation unless everyone somehow decides to do so. The people in the conversation are 100% in control of what happens. The conversation moves steadily forward until the members feel it is done. However, a new voice might bring a new perspective. I ask people only to prepare to be surprised by how much we can accomplish in a short time.
You make an excellent point. It would be wonderful to have a big circle and everyone hear what everyone else has to say. At the same time, we have an incredibly short time for this meeting. If we do the big circle, the same 15 brave souls that speak at all our meetings will do so again. What to do? This meeting style has a big circle at the end for a short time. The process surfaces a lot of issues, many more than could be expressed in a single circle in two hours. That information becomes the big document of all the notes from every conversation. We have a couple of weeks to read that and then choose the three ideas that we feel are most important. I am quite sure that the ideas people choose as the most important points from that big document will be powerful. I would not rule out a second meeting before November 15th that may be exactly the format that you are describing. We could have it on a Saturday and let it go on as long as people want to keep talking....
Best wishes, John
My question concerns the ability for people to express their concerns without being intimidated (especially by one of our ``power`` people), who may shut them down as they are speaking to an issue not to be covered that night.
Thanks for the opportunity to address the most important subject. I was going to talk about it at the beginning, but we have such a short time. Perhaps the people that read it here can share it with others before or during the meeting. It’s about how we discuss things and comes from cutting edge science in cognitive psychology. When someone says something that we don’t agree with, we normally begin our response with the word “no” or some kind of contradictory sound or a shaking of our head or rolling our eyes or any one of a number of extremely creative ways of introducing our view. Here’s the problem. When we begin our statement with these negative behaviors, the one that just spoke feels personally negated. And guess what they do when they have that experience. They are physically unable to truly hear what you have to say because they are physically busy feeling negated. So here’s a subtle adjustment. Someone says something. You want to jump right in so you don’t miss your chance. Try saying “I have something to say.” That lets the group know you probably have a different opinion. Then, take a breath and begin. No shaking head, no rolling eyes, no beginning with the word “no,” just make your point. See if you can say what you feel without making it personal.
This is a lot to ask, I know. It would move us, when we have seriously different opinions, from being a tragically dysfunctional community in paradise to something more constructive. I don’t know if that’s completely desirable. I enjoy hearing the stories of our crazy feuds as much as anyone.
But let’s remember. It is estimated by the UN that one of every three human beings is currently living without access to adequate supplies of clean drinking water. It is estimated that this number could double in the next thirty years. Two out of three humans without enough clean drinking water. If you think they are aggressively pursuing our trees, wait till you see how they behave when they get thirsty.
Comment by Richard Trueman on 12th October 2010
In my discussions with Dr. Overhill last month, VIHA will not fund any doctor that will not be practising from our clinic that the CCHA is managing.
The Klahoose, I was told, need a doctor only one day a week and although that money may come from federal coffers, It would not be enough to sustain a second doctor.