[Mpls] Why some people are excluded

[Dyna]

	Megan, when I first read this latest bit of character 
assassination from Stonewall DFL I was full of righteous indignation 
and eager to set the record straight.

	Then I remembered how a few years back when I was hanging out 
with a well regarded journalist you told me he was a rapist. You 
never provided any evidence to back up your claim and this person is 
still a well regarded journalist who has not been charged with any 
crime.

	Than a few weeks ago you claimed RT said something he hadn't, 
and you later had to retract your accusations.

	Again in your post you are making allegations that you cannot 
prove. I'd get mad, but then I consider the source... I'm honored to 
be in the company of our mayor and a well regarded journalist who 
shall remain anonymous.

	uncommitted in Hawthorne,

		Dyna Sluyter

>OK, breaking a cardinal rule of my own I will respond to Dyna's
>continued assertations about her exclusion from the Stonewall DFL Board.
>  (and in my opinion)
>
>Of course there is a major problem here ... namely, how do I explain
>this and stay within the bounds of the rules of this list? How is that a
>problem ..... my guess is that many of the people who read this list
>have already figured it out. It means that I in order to respond to this
>I need to make some personal comments. So, with apologies to the list
>manager ....
>
>Dyna was not reelected to the board because she is an unpleasant
>person. She is almost exclusively negative in her tone and comments, at
>times hostile and seems to take pleasure in that hostility.
>
>It has nothing to do with her politics, identity or so on. In the
>simplest terms, people are, at the very least, uncomfortable around her
>and often people feel threatened around her.
>
>As someone who has often been the leader of meetings with Dyna in them
>she is extremely disruptive, makes deliberately hostile and
>confrontative remarks and plays an excessive role in creating an
>unproductive and hostile environment. It often becomes a struggle to
>separate her behavior from the candidate or issue she may be advocating
>for (or against).
>
>Difference of opinion does not nessecitate hostility. I have often been
>supporting different candidates than my other political friends. I am
>not even suggesting that you have to agree to disagree, However, when
>someone is consistenly hostile and disruptive the issue is no longer
>opinion but rather the right of other members of the organization to
>work in a safe and respectful environment.
>
>There is a broader question here of how do you deal with disruptive
>people? The challange is in trying to balance everyone's right to
>participate. Sometimes there are people who simply do not "play well
>with others" and cannot be a member of a group.
>REMINDERS:
>1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at 
>http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in 
>violation, contact the list manager at mplslist at tcq.net before 
>continuing it on the list.
>
>2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
>For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
>________________________________
>
>Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - 
>Mn E-Democracy
>Post messages to: mailto:mpls at mnforum.org
>Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls