- UID
- 238156
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2007-5-7
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Prompt:
Thefollowing is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.
"Theprimary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the citygovernment on how to make the best use of the city's limited budget. However,at some of our recent meetings we failed to make important decisions because ofthe foolish objections raised by committee members who are not even residentsof Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot fullyunderstand the business and politics of the city. After all, only Oak Cityresidents pay city taxes, and therefore only residents understand how thatmoney could best be used to improve the city. We recommend, then, that theCommittee for a Better Oak City vote to restrict its membership to cityresidents only. We predict that, without the interference of non-residents, thecommittee will be able to make Oak City a better place in which to live andwork."
Write aresponse in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in orderto decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Besure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate therecommendation.
My Response:
Having the proposals to an urgent matterobjected once and once again can get admittedly frustrating in the group discussionand decision process, especially when all the naysayers are"outsiders" who contribute nothing useful but annoyingly poking theirnose into your "family matter." It is natural to reflect on thethought of excluding the seemingly irrelevant noise from the picture in orderto find a speedy and suitable solution with the people who really are in thesituation and who really care about the matter discussed. However, a fewquestions need to be asked before the expel to ensure that the committee is notexcluding the representatives that are actually contributing for the sake ofthe city and who do affiliate to the community, but only in a distinct way.
Taking a second look at the committee memberswho "work in Oak City but live elsewhere." Should they really stayout of the discussion about the budget limit of their workplace? And what isthe supporting evidence to accuse them of “not fully understanding the businessand politics of the city" and of making only "foolishobjections"? This working body of Oak City, though don't reside here,contribute 40 hours per week to the city’s economic development and form a goodportion of the city's workday population. Chances are, they either thoroughlystudied the business and politics of the city before they made the decision towork here or they landed a job in the city then had gradually grasped a solidsense of how to make the city a better place. Therefore, to eliminate theseelite workforces out of the budget spending discussions only to arrive at a expedientdecision can be a dangerous move since the delegation is not fullyrepresentative of the entire community any more. Thus, the prediction to makingOak City a better place without the inference of these folks may become limitedand unwarranted.
Speaking of the "foolish objection"that impeded the decision-making process, questions may arise to under what circumstanceswere the objections made and what original suggestions were they objecting to?The assertion to call these objections foolish would appear slipshod if theoriginal proposals weren't proved to be optimal and if the objections turnedout to be well thought out. If this were the case, it would be unjust for thecommittee to exclude the non-residents only because they do not reside here.And the public may easily call out a prediction made by an unjust committee toquestion.
On the other hand, even if the residents of OakCity really understood the business and politics of their city better based ontheir own living experiences and on their close ties to the area, wouldn't itbe too myopic for the committees to shut off the fresh eye from some"outsiders" that not only have a knowledge of the city but alsoequipped with theories and conceptions from a different perspective? Beingfocused on the best interest of its residents is a great perspective of theCity. Being overly focused and exclusive, however, may counteract theirprediction.
To sum up, it is understandable that the citysuggested excluding the seemingly less relevant personnel from the discussionof their own financial issues in order to come up with a more beneficialdecision in a timely fashion. However, without weighing the consequence oftheir action carefully and considering the pros and cons of eliminating thecontributing members in a larger picture, the prediction to make the city abetter working and living place could appear rickety.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-10-26 08:50:00
收藏
收藏
楼主
