"Dear Neighbors,
I have been reading everyone's comments, especially those reminding us of the many ways Larry has helped people in this community and asking that this not turn into shunning or demonizing one of our own.
I agree, and I think those points deserve to be acknowledged.
Larry has helped many people here over the years. He has helped neighbors personally, worked countless hours on our roads, and done a tremendous amount of research concerning our access situation.
I know this personally. Many times, when I passed Larry working on the road, I stopped and gave him money toward the work. Over the years that amounted to hundreds of dollars, and I gave it gladly because I appreciated what he was doing for all of us.
I was grateful to Larry then, and I remain grateful today. That is part of what makes all of this so difficult.
I also agree that Larry has raised points worth discussing, even when some of us disagree with him. We are a community of intelligent people with different opinions, and we should be able to explain our differences and have civil conversations about them.
In fact, I tried many times to keep Larry involved and working with the Coalition rather than acting independently. I wanted his research, knowledge, history, and energy working with us, not separately from us. (this is documented)
But there is an important distinction between disagreement and what has happened here.
The Coalition was elected by this community to work together on this access issue. We were entrusted to listen, deliberate, disagree when necessary, make decisions together, and represent the community.
When one person acts independently and contrary to decisions made collectively, while also making internal communications, personal information, and strategy available outside the community, that goes beyond a disagreement over ideas.
It becomes a matter of trust.
Many of us communicated with one another believing we were having conversations within our community. Some of those communications were copied and published publicly without the knowledge or consent of the people whose words were being reproduced.
We now know the Pueblo was reading them. At our meeting, Pueblo representatives specifically told us they read Larry's Facebook posts and public blog. That meant communications originating within our community were available to the very people with whom we were trying to navigate this extraordinarily sensitive access issue.
I think everyone should ask themselves a simple question:
Would you be comfortable having something you wrote to your neighbors, personal information you shared, or information concerning our strategy for protecting access to our homes made available to the Pueblo or the general public without your permission?
For me, that is the heart of this issue.
Larry may view what he has been doing as journalism. I respect everyone's right to have a voice and express an opinion. But whatever right someone may have to publish something is separate from the trust we owe one another as neighbors.
These were not interviews people knowingly gave for publication. They were conversations among neighbors trying to deal with a very serious threat to access to their homes.
And a blog is controlled by its author. The author decides what is published, what is omitted, and what context accompanies it. There are documented communications and events that provide additional context to what has happened, including things Larry himself has said and done.
That is why I am not asking anyone simply to accept my interpretation.
I also want to thank Larry for taking the blog down. I believe that was a positive step, and I genuinely appreciate that he made that decision.
Before it was removed, I preserved a copy as a PDF so there would be a record of what had been published. If anyone would like a copy for their own review or records, I will provide it upon request. Read it yourself and reach your own conclusions.
I also want to make something very clear:
We have never set out to instigate a conflict with Larry.
We have not sought him out to attack him, embarrass him, or create a confrontation. I personally tried repeatedly to keep him involved and working with the Coalition.
Our responses have come because of actions that directly affected the Coalition and the community. There is an important difference between creating a conflict and responding to conduct that affects all of us.
At the same time, I do not want Larry shunned or demonized.
Larry, since I know you will be reading this too, I would much rather see you come back into a civil and constructive conversation and work with us. You have knowledge, history, research, and abilities that can benefit this community. You don't have to agree with me. You don't have to agree with every Coalition decision. You should absolutely be able to challenge an idea you believe is wrong and explain why.
But respect has to work both ways.
We need to respect your right to disagree, and you need to respect your neighbors' right to decide whether their own words, personal information, and internal discussions are made public.
There is a path forward here if we all want one.
We have repeatedly said that we want to deal with the Pueblo respectfully and civilly even while being firm about something as consequential as access to our homes. We should extend that same civility to one another.
But civility does not require us to ignore what happened. Accountability and kindness are not opposites.
I also want to be very clear about my own position in all of this.
I have no personal benefit in being right.
The road closure, while deeply consequential for many of our neighbors, has relatively little effect on my own daily life. Taking the alternate route adds about eight minutes to my trip to Santa Fe. I am not fighting this because my own convenience depends upon winning this argument.
I am doing it because this community asked me to serve, and I take the responsibility you entrusted to me seriously. I have tried to approach that responsibility based on what I believe is best for the entire community, particularly those whose lives and access will be affected far more than mine.
I have plenty going on in my own life, and I do not need to hold this position. If the community believes someone else can represent you better, I am completely willing to step aside. There is no ego for me in holding this role.
But as long as you have asked me to serve, I believe I have a responsibility to speak up when something threatens the trust, strategy, or effectiveness of the Coalition, even when doing so is uncomfortable.
I don't need to be right. I do need to be responsible to the people who asked me to do this.
Going forward, the Coalition must continue keeping everyone informed. That is our responsibility as people elected by this community. General updates, meetings, developments, and decisions should continue to be shared openly.
At the same time, personal information, legal matters, preliminary strategy, and sensitive internal discussions need reasonable protection.
That isn't secrecy. It's responsible communication.
I want a unified community too. I don't want this reduced to people who are “for Larry” and people who are “against Larry.” That helps none of us.
We can appreciate what Larry has done for this community. We can listen to his ideas and disagreements. We can acknowledge that trust has been damaged. We can establish reasonable boundaries. And we can still treat one another as neighbors.
I appreciate Larry taking the blog down, and I hope we can treat that as a positive step toward rebuilding trust rather than another reason to continue fighting with one another.
Unity does not require agreement. It requires trust, respect, accountability, and a willingness to find our way back to one another after we disagree.
We have a much bigger problem in front of us.
I hope we can put our energy back where it belongs: working together to protect access to all of our homes.
Justin"
No comments:
Post a Comment