Page6 RAIN , ' Tolerance. Both the Institute 'and the residents agree to be tolerant of errors, not criticizing others for trying hard and.failing. It is O.K. to be wrong. We also give each other the permission to say, "I don't know" -but the person who says that has a special responsibility to find the answer. _ . , Lastly, we agree to be patient when things don't go as fast as we think they should. We agree to try to keep our desires under con- ' trol. . ' • For residents, there was the concern that the Institute should not come down hard on them for learning by trial and error. From'the Institute' s viewpoint, rising expectations could quickly grow out of hand. Tolerance was thus worded as a two-way s_treet. Viewpoints Included. Everyone in Corbett will be included in the project. Clear attention will be paid to all interest groups, includ- - ing: • Younger, middle-aged and older 'residents; Those who own and those who rent; Households headed by males and by females; Those with high, mid-range and low incomes; Those who have lived in Corbett a long time and a short time; Thos~ who have many relatives in Corbett and thcis,e who,have -none; Those who tend to speak out and those who are shy; •Those who are positive toward the project and those who are negative. It took time to build an awareness th~t there were, infact, different interest groups in Corbett. Once done, a Corbett resident suggested that these groups actually be specified in the Compact to make the broader community 'aware of their presence and the need to incl~de them. ' • Advocacy. The I~stitute agrees to be an advocate for the commu- • nity and.for its needs. It also agrees to be an advocate for Corbett's people, assisting when possible and in their limits of time with personal and household problems. The Institute is not expected to provide money to people. The residents also pledge to help each other in tim~ of need, ongoing as well as crisis. The seeking of help from others is to be seen as a sign of strength, not weakness: But residents are not expected to give money to each other. . This section, coming late in Compc,ct development, grew out of two widely held concerns: 1) that in such a small place household needs and community problems are inseparable; and 2) that a clear 'statement about not providing money was needed to avoid such expectations inherent in a vague pledge of "help." Political Provisions (Leadership, Participation, Decisions) Leadership. !he Institute and residents agree to support the idea of resident leadership whether we like a pa_rti~ular individual who is a leader at a given moment or not. We encourage leaders, ,not knock them down. • • At preliminary mee-tings, Corbett residents who took initiative were often assailed as being "uppity." The Institute believed that this reflected a very loose social system in which the emergence of any leadership might well be resented. This short passage took time • to understand and appreciate from different perspectives. Decision Making. We all agree to make decisions which are fairin that·the costs and benefits are shared as justly as possible. We agree that the major job of our le~ders is to ensure that we share the making of decisions, recognizing these levels: • Steering Committee decides .(day-to-day matters) • Town Assembly decides (on,general decisions where the feeling of interests of residents is important) ' _ • • Town, Vote or Referendum decides (on decisions in whjch everyone should have an opportunity to play an equal role) Everyone, we agree, 10 years of age or older has a vote We agree that, whenever possible, there should be direct democracy during the project. No one should speak for others unless absolutely necessary. Residents·agree to re-examine any decision made which the Insti- ,tute feels is contrary to its beliefs. The Institute agrees to do the same. , The issue here was to balance the desire for direct democracy with the recognition that riot all people, could or perhaps should be involved in all decisions. Grouping decisions into the three areas , with different kinds of participation was prescribed. It was agree4 _that everyone should actually sign the document . . , Young people were included in the hope that sufficient interest to remain in the village would be maintained. Participation. The Institute will p~ovide·as much time and skill as needed.:._with starting commitment of at least two full days per week by its on-sit~ coordinator. The residents promise to provide work ai:i average of three hours per. week per household-to keep costs down. They also pledge to welcome and encourage help from everyone. No one who offers to help should be turned down. • While this clause has proven t~e most difficult and mo.st contentious 9f all sections, it was draftl!d and a4mitted to the Compact with little discussio~ and no controversy. , Feelings of Those Who Work Most. We agree that those who do more of the work than oth~rs should receive a small recognition for their work. The Institute's concern was that those who did most of the work would resent those who enjoyed the benefits but did not work as hard. It was one instance of a clause put into the Comppct to "flag" a potential problem. • Roles. The Institute's major role is to help residents'to identify and understand all options which are available to them, and to suggest ideas and alternatives .that mi_ght not have been.thought of locally. It agrees not to lobby "under the table" for ideas it favors. The defi-. nition of what is "progress" in Corbett is up to the resid~nts. , Residents agree to make decisions, even difficult and unpopul;u ones~They will not " pass the buck" to the Institute. These role definitions, developed with virtually no _dissent, were in fact already being played. That is, the Institute practiced a role of generating options and residents increasingly assumed re_sponsibility for the final copy of the agreement. Discl~sure. The Institute agrees that it will fully disclose all information on the project, including complete financial details.-All documentation will be kept as a·public record in the project office. • • This section was important to m#ents who felt that the Institute's latent or pote_ntial p,ower to act independently or introduce a "hidden agenda" was grea.t~and that existence of a public r~cord would be reassuring. • • • ' • ' 1 • • • ' ' . : ( Research. Residents agree to partiripate 0 in research a~tzvtties to document the project and to identify changes and impacts which occur at community, household,-and individual levels·. We-recog- . niz~ that the research is a key to making this project usefulto other communities. -., , , . •. The Insti~\lte agrees to violate no confi~ences 'and to_.sec.ure writ-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz