Arnie

 

---

The latest round?

A few weeks ago, I wrote an editorial that ran in the Local arguing that the Chestnut Hill Community Association should be understood as a political, rather than service-based, organization. You’d never know it from reading the paper, but some people on the CHCA board of directors were infuriated by my position, which made the matter a major point of discussion at last week’s meeting of the publisher’s committee (which considers the editorial, financial and business management policies of the Local). Significantly, no letters in response to the editorial have been sent to the newspaper for publication.

There are perfectly valid arguments to be made against my editorial stance. It can be said, for instance, that understanding the CHCA as a service group attracts those who wish to volunteer for the group’s myriad “social division” activities, from running the Pastorius Park concerts to sponsoring the Holiday House Tour. The CHCA also manages the Community Fund, which distributes money to worthy local recipients.

There can be no doubt that the association contains many dedicated, hard working people who “give back” to the community in the spirit of service.

I feel, however, that, as the self-appointed representative of the community, the CHCA must primarily emphasize its political (which is not the same as partisan) function as an advocate before city and state leaders.

Whether I am right or wrong is less important than the principle that this is an issue of public concern, worthy of treatment in the Local forum. If a debate over the mission of the community association is not appropriate for these pages, I don’t know what is. Yet, some in the association do not see it this way. In fact, they would rather not consider the issue at all — only the fact that I raised it. I was told by publisher’s committee chair George Parry at last week’s meeting, in front of a roomful of other committeepeople, Local employees, CHCA board members and the public, that “you may be picking a fight you can’t win.”

No one who occupies this chair can escape feeling they are in the long shadow of Marie Jones, the Local’s editor from 1979 to 2000, whose occasional battles with the CHCA board over some very similar issues are the stuff of legend. If there is truly a “fight” to be had over whether this newspaper can take a critical stance, the only potential loser is the reading public.

James Sturdivant

Opinion: A divorce long overdue

by L. GEORGE PARRY

It is time for the Chestnut Hill Community Association to get out of the newspaper business.

Once again, in the grand tradition of the Marie Jones and John Lombardi years, hostilities are breaking out between the CHCA and the Local. Certain CHCA board members are accusing the Local of unfairly criticizing and inaccurately reporting on the affairs of the CHCA. These board members complain that it is particularly galling to volunteer their services to the CHCA only to be attacked by their organization’s own newspaper.

The Local’s editor responds that, under the Lentz policy, [see the “Policy Statement” below right], he is free to take the CHCA to task for its perceived shortcomings. But the editor exercises his authority under the Lentz policy at his own risk and at the sufferance of the board. If enough board members reach their limits of tolerance, they have the power to retaliate. That would not be a violation of freedom of the press but, rather, exercising the prerogatives of ownership. The publisher of the newspaper can always fire the editor.

Does any of this sound familiar? Have we been here before? Do we really need to keep re-playing this scene?

The Local-CHCA combination is a two-headed monster that requires radical surgery not unlike that involved in separating conjoined twins. Until these two entities are truly independent of one another, they will continue to work at cross purposes and be caught in a never-ending, hopeless cycle of hair pulling, finger pointing and reproach.

Consider the following:

First, for better or worse, the CHCA is an important part of Chestnut Hill. Because of that inescapable fact, the Local must report on the affairs of the CHCA. It would be unreasonable to expect the Local to omit the CHCA from its coverage of community affairs.

Second, despite its best efforts and good intentions, the CHCA will not always conduct itself in a manner that is beyond reproach or legitimate criticism. There will undoubtedly be times when the Local, out of its duty to faithfully inform its readers, will properly expose the CHCA to unflattering public scrutiny. This is inevitable and, frankly, something that the Local must do if it is to be considered a serious publication. No one should expect the Local to reduce itself to being the CHCA’s unfailing cheerleader, in-house newsletter or lap dog.

Third, it is unreasonable and contrary to fundamental human nature to expect the CHCA board to fecklessly subject itself to public criticism at the hands of its own newspaper. Indeed, the Lentz policy is at war with human nature. Who in their right mind wants to voluntarily participate in an organization that can and will publicly attack them? Moreover, why should we expect the CHCA board to meekly submit to what they perceive to be unfair criticism when they have the inherent power to rid themselves of the critic?

The extent to which the Local has been able to criticize the CHCA with varying degrees of impunity has been a function of board politics and not because of any high-minded commitment to the Lentz policy. From time to time, various board factions have gained and used the Local’s editorial support. As the Local has served their political agendas, these factions have defended the then-current editor under the guise of espousing free expression. Far from vindicating inviolate noble principle, however, these episodes have exposed the precarious, shifting, political underpinnings of the editor’s authority.

An independently owned and operated Local will be fully able to report on the CHCA as its editor and publisher see fit. An editor answerable to a publisher other than the CHCA will be truly free to criticize the board without fear of retaliation.

By the same token, once it has divested itself of the Local, the CHCA will not have to indulge in the perverse, masochistic indignity of publicly flagellating itself in the pages of its own official publication. Moreover, the CHCA would no longer be accountable to others who feel themselves aggrieved by the Local’s editorial content. Last but by no means least, selling the Local will provide the CHCA with much-needed funds and release the CHCA from the increasingly daunting legal and financial challenges of running a major weekly newspaper.

To compare the Local and the CHCA to two scorpions in a bottle would be far too harsh a characterization. But the analogy is not entirely inappropriate. Whatever they are, these two organizations should be let out of the bottle. For their own sakes and the sakes of their constituencies, the Local and the CHCA need a divorce.

The CHCA should immediately sell the Local. The dysfunctional and ultimately unworkable relationship between these two organizations must end now, before they start yet another round of useless recriminations.

Divorce is always painful. But this one is long overdue.

L. George Parry is a CHCA board member and chairman of the community association’s publisher’s committee.

Commentary: The time is right to make Mt. Airy a BID

by Mt. Airy USA Avenue Ambassadors Advisory Board

We want to talk about an experiment — an experiment that succeeded in showing what a community can do when it sets its collective resources to solve a problem.

The problem: trash. Trash on the streets in Mt. Airy is an issue, and trying to keep up with it is always a challenge. A street as large as Germantown Avenue will generate more than its share of ordinary trash — bags, bottles, wrappers, envelopes.

On our stretch of the Avenue (from Washington Lane to Cresheim Valley Drive), we’re witnessing a neighborhood renaissance. In just the past three years, Germantown Avenue has become home to several noteworthy restaurants, new community-based businesses and craft shops providing everything from custom furniture to mosaic art to violins. When we hear from young families that they decided to make Mt. Airy their home after seeing the variety that the Avenue has to offer, it makes us particularly proud.

But there’s no place for errant bags or wrappers in a renaissance — and we were forced to address the question: How can we control trash on our streets?

Mt. Airy USA (our community development corporation) worked within the community and with the city to find a solution to the problem.

Early in 2003, Mt. Airy USA announced its plan: Three full-time employees armed with brooms and shovels would go up and down the Avenue each weekday and clean up trash on the sidewalks. For bigger jobs there would be a street vacuum. But the team members would do more than pick up trash. They would also serve as a reassuring presence to merchants, residents and newcomers. Visitors could stop and ask them where to find a parking space or where a particular store is located. Appropriately, they would be called the Avenue Ambassadors.

It was an ambitious plan, and the biggest hurdle to overcome was money. How could the community fund the Ambassadors? Mt. Airy has no business improvement district in place, and Mt. Airy USA was the only CDC in the city to embark on a project like this.

Fortunately, Mt. Airy USA and the volunteers on the Avenue Ambassadors Committee were able to generate enough funding to start the program. In particular, the group got commitments from Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), and nearly 100 private merchants along the Avenue.

In October 2003, a crew of three uniformed Avenue Ambassadors made their first trip down Germantown Avenue. They were a visible symbol of how much Mt. Airy and its businesses care about the community.

With the initial funding we received, we were able to sustain the Ambassadors until last month. Although we could no longer sustain the program financially, what we did was prove to the community that we could make a real difference by tackling a tough quality-of-life issue. We showed that we could succeed.

Now that we know we can do this, our next step is to generate sustained funding to ensure that we can make the Ambassadors a permanent part of Mt. Airy. If you are interested in seeing the rebirth of the Avenue Ambassadors, we ask you to get involved in the effort to establish a dedicated funding vehicle for the Ambassadors by throwing your support behind the movement to establish a Mt. Airy Business Improvement District (BID). We’re working with Councilwoman Miller and other government officials to make this a reality, and to find funding sources to sustain the program until we become a BID. With your help and support, and with everyone’s commitment, we’ll be able to build on what we’ve done and keep Mt. Airy’s renaissance strong and visible.

The Mt. Airy USA Avenue Ambassadors Advisory Board consists of Catalina Bautista, George Butler, Bob Elfant, Harriet Garrett, Gregory Gilbert, Victoria Grant, Ted Reed, Leslie Seitchik, Philip Seitz and Ken Weinstein.