Monthly Archives: April 2019

Listen Now to Tech Tuesday Recording Featuring Ethelo!

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, we held our first Tech Tuesday of 2019 and took a deep dive into the participatory decision-making platform, Ethelo! We were joined by 40 participants as founder and CEO of Ethelo, John Richardson, shared the ins and outs of this civic tech tool that empowers groups to collaborate on complex challenges. If you weren’t able to make the call, we encourage you to listen to the recording of it here.

We first learned about Ethelo back in 2014 when the platform was still in its beta form and NCDD members had the opportunity to test it out then. It is phenomenal to see how robust Ethelo has evolved over the last five years and we’re grateful to John for showing us its new capacities!

On the call, John shared how the collaborative decision-making platform inherently brings in participants’ values into the process, allows space for people to weigh priorities, engage with each other, and take action on complex issues. Ethelo is great for any size group or organization and can be applied in business settings like project management and strategic planning, and in community applications like policy-making and participatory budgeting. We learned about an exciting new development on the call –  Ethelo is merging with the budget simulator software tool, Citizen Budget (used by 1/3 of the Canadian municipalities) and will now offer the Citizen Budget tools as part of the Ethelo platform. John shares a special offer for NCDD members that we encourage our network to utilize, but you have to listen to the recording to find out the details!

Here are some of our favorite takeaways from the Tech Tuesday call:

  • Ethelo started as a non-profit organization in 2011 with a vision to improve democratic policy-making using Internet technology.
  • The platform gives participants a meaningful role in the decision-making process, enabling them to evaluate options, discuss and add ideas, weigh priorities and do trade-offs.
  • What makes Ethelo unique is the voting function and ability to prioritize the options in order of support (AND with multiple visual options on the results)
  • Ethelo brings together a decision-making framework where participants apply the same criteria to whatever is being evaluated and prioritize the criteria (this brings in peoples’ values to the process).

THANK YOU to John and everyone who joined this call! We recorded the whole presentation if you were unable to join us, which you can access here. We had several excellent questions offered in the chat, which you can find the transcript of here.

Tech_Tuesday_Badge

To learn more about NCDD’s Tech Tuesday series and hear recordings of past calls, please visit www.ncdd.org/tech-tuesdays. Archives access is a benefit of being an NCDD member, so ensure your membership is up-to-date (or click here to join). If you have an idea for a future Tech Tuesday event, please email keiva[at]ncdd[dot]org with your great ideas!

Finally, we love holding these events and we want to continue to elevate the work of our field with Confab Calls and Tech Tuesdays. It is through your generous contributions to NCDD that we can keep doing this work! That’s why we want to encourage you to support NCDD by making a donation or becoming an NCDD member today (you can also renew your membership by clicking here). Thank you!

Öffentliche Konsultation über Anschlussunterkünfte für Flüchtlinge in Konstanz

Posted on by
Reply

Case: Öffentliche Konsultation über Anschlussunterkünfte für Flüchtlinge in Konstanz

Apr 29 '19
Author: 
Jens Lindemann
Hinsichtlich zweier Anschlussunterkünfte für Flüchtlinge in Konstanz wurden öffentliche Konsultationsverfahren durchgeführt. Die Bestrebungen, Bürger partizipativ einzubinden waren gering, jedoch wurden artikulierte Meinungen im Entscheidungsprozess berücksichtigt.

More Temperate

Posted on by
Reply 
Most trees have leafed out for two or three days.
Each leaf unfolding in place to fill its space, green;
But the trees that flowered are wilting now,
Bold blooms shrinking to leave more space between,
Dwindling to stipples along each bough.
Superimposed: a lacy screen, damascened,
Patches on a slate background--the dripping sky--
Grey except at some hidden place where a break
Must let the sun flood up to certain high
Shingles, a wire, a spire that's a streak
Of brilliant white. All silent, a still sheen,
Sheer, stretched thin to fade or end in a blaze.

Participate in A Public Voice 2019 Livestream on May 9th

Posted on by
Reply

Next week, A Public Voice 2019, is being hosted by NCDD member organizations – the Kettering Foundation and the National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) at the National Press Club in Washington DC on May 9th from 9:30-11:30 am Eastern, 6:30-8:30 am Pacific. This annual event will convene policymakers, Capitol Hill staffers, NIF forum moderators and analysts, and members from the dialogue and deliberation field for a panel discussion around this year’s theme of political division and the important role of public deliberation. Over the remainder of the year, National Issue Forums will convene around the issue guide, A House Divided: What Would We Have to Give Up to Get the Political System We Want?, after which the forum outcomes will be compiled and analyzed in a final report to be released in early 2020. APV2019 will also be a space to explore what issues should be focused on in the future. You can watch the event live stream on Facebook and viewers are encouraged to post their comments to the stream. Learn more about the announcement in the post below and find the original version of this information on the NIFI blog here.

Watch Livestream of A Public Voice 2019 on May 9 from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. Eastern Time

On May 9, 2019, the Kettering Foundation and the National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) will host A Public Voice 2019 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The 9:30-11:30 a.m. Eastern Time, panel discussion will be livestreamed on Facebook, where viewers will be welcome to post their comments.

At the event, National Issues Forums moderators, analysts of forum outcomes, and members of the policy community will talk about public deliberation; how that public thinking differs from the “public opinion” usually available to policymakers; and what public thinking has emerged to date from National Issues Forums (NIF) forums on political division, among other issues.

Additionally, panelists will exchange ideas about which issues warrant deep public deliberation and action in the next few years. They will share what some of those issues are, what concerns they have regarding these issues, how it affects them and their work, and why the issues require public deliberation.

Audience members at the event and watching on the livestream will have an opportunity to pose a question to the panel and/or comment on what they’ve heard during the program.

About the A Public Voice 2019 event:

For more than 30 years, the Kettering Foundation, in collaboration with the National Issues Forums Institute, has organized A Public Voice. This annual event brings together representatives from forum groups around the country and from national dialogue and deliberation organizations as well as elected officials and staff, to explore the contributions that a deliberative public makes to addressing some of the most challenging issues facing our communities and elected officeholders.

A Public Voice 2019 focuses on an issue important to all Americans: political division. After extensive research and testing with citizens around the country, the Kettering Foundation prepared an issue guide for the National Issues Forums (NIF): A House Divided: What Would We Have to Give Up to Get the Political System We Want? Citizen deliberations using the issue guide are taking place throughout 2019 in public forums around the country. In these public forums, citizens consider the options for dealing with a problem, share their views, and weigh the costs and benefits of possible actions. Forums are held both online and face-to-face, typically last 90 minutes, and attract participants of all ages from all walks of life.

This year, A Public Voice will use the issue of political division and a range of others to engage policymakers in conversation about public deliberation—what it is, how it differs from polls and focus groups, and why it has value for them. The session will also include an exchange among policymakers and deliberative democracy practitioners about issues the NIF network might tackle in the future. In early 2020, the Kettering Foundation and National Issues Forums Institute will publish a final report on the 2019 NIF forums on political division, followed by briefings for individual elected officials, Capitol Hill staffers, and other policymakers.

You can find the original version of this information on the National Issues Forums Institute blog at www.nifi.org/en/watch-livestream-public-voice-2019-may-9-930-1130-am-eastern-time.

considering censure

Posted on by
Reply

The question of the moment should not be what decision to reach in re Donald Trump. Justice is always best served by a process that generates evidence and permits a defense before any decision is reached. A process conducted by Congress cannot avoid being political, but it can be structured so that all sides get heard and the conclusions are open rather than foreordained. This is important for fairness and legitimacy.

Not to hold any kind of process at all would itself be a decision. It would be a clear statement that presidents enjoy impunity when their party controls at least one house of Congress. That would be another step in the degeneration of our system. I think this degeneration reflects fairly deep flaws built into the Constitution. But that is no excuse for non-action.

An impeachment process would require public hearings and debates, which would be valuable for the American people to see and to assess. It would count as a “judicial proceeding,” thus justifying the release of key documents, including those involved in grand jury proceedings. It would also justify sending the president written questions, and if he refused to answer, that refusal would be material to the decision. It would force all members of the House to take a position; all Senators, too, if the House voted to impeach.

On the other hand, impeachment is not much of a sanction if it doesn’t lead to conviction in the Senate. A split result might further cheapen the constitutional remedy of impeachment.

Although Jeffrey Isaac is right that members of the House and presidential candidates can address other issues while an impeachment process unfolds, their attention and the public’s focus are finite resources. Impeachment would dominate politics. If that helped Trump by keeping him in the spotlight or by obscuring a truly substantive debate about policy and philosophy within the Democratic primary, it would not serve the public interest.

Senators should be forced to take positions on Trump’s alleged obstruction, but an impeachment vote could be more politically costly for Democratic incumbents than for Republicans. The Post is reporting that the public is currently against impeachment, 56%-37%. Opinions certainly could shift as a result of the process, but you have to assume that attitudes toward Donald Trump are now pretty durable. It doesn’t make sense to punish a president by subjecting his opposition to a tough political battle.

The considerations against impeachment make me wonder about censure. Like impeachment, censure would not be a foreordained decision but a choice for each house of Congress to consider after due investigation and public debate. The practical consequences of censure are the same as those of impeachment if we assume that the Senate would fail to convict. The civic advantages of the debate and public vote are the same. I suppose nobody knows whether censure counts as a “judicial process,” but the House would certainly argue so when demanding sealed grand jury documents. The public might be more receptive to censure than impeachment, and it could be done quicker.

The main disadvantage is that a process to determine whether to censure the president forecloses the possibility of removing him from office. It says that Trump will finish his term unless something else arises that necessitates impeachment. That implication is hard to swallow but might make the best sense overall.

Essential Partners Celebrates New Co-Executive Directors

Posted on by
Reply

In case you didn’t read the announcement earlier this week, Essential Partners – an NCDD sponsoring organization, has some big changes happening! After four years in leadership, Parisa Parsa will be stepping down as Executive Director of Essential Partners, though she will continue to bring her wisdom and intellect to the field. In her place, long-time EP staffers, Katie Hyten and John Sarrouf, will become Co-Executive Directors of the organization. Join us in wishing a huge congratulations to Katie and John as they move into their new roles, and all the best to Parisa in her future endeavors – we can’t wait to hear the great things she’ll do next! And if you are looking to try some of EP’s trainings, we want to remind folks that NCDD members receive a discount! We encourage you to read the announcement in the post below and find the original on the EP blog here.

Announcing Changes at Essential Partners

After four years of visionary leadership, Parisa Parsa has made the decision to step down from her role as Executive Director. She will continue to serve as an experienced and trusted practitioner in the field.

With creativity, intellect, integrity, and heart, Parisa ushered in a new era for this organization. Her time at Essential Partners has been marked by deepening impact, innovative partnerships, and institutional successes.

In her departure, Parisa embodies the rock star’s mantra, Always leave them wanting more.

Essential Partners remains in strong and familiar hands. John Sarrouf, formerly Director of Program Development, and Katie Hyten, formerly Director of Program Operations, have been invited to serve as joint Executive Directors by our board of directors.

Many of you have worked with Katie and John in the past. You may have met them in the field collaborating with partners, while designing custom projects to meet a community’s needs, or in our office leading workshops. Katie and John have been crucial to the growth, development, and impact of our work across the globe.

This moment of transition has also provided the staff and board with an opportunity to reflect on the organization itself. Fortunately, we have a set of tools to help us do that.

Our trademark approach, Reflective Structured Dialogue, has provided a space to share our hopes and concerns and to explore shifting responsibilities. It has allowed us to be heard and to hear one another, to be understood more fully and to better understand one another. It provided the necessary foundation for effective collective action.

The results of this process will be largely indiscernible outside our offices. We will continue to build upon Parisa’s brilliant contributions, the living legacy of our founders, and Laura R. Chasin’s vision especially. The organization’s structure, leadership, and staff roles will be adjusted in response to the ongoing evolution and emerging needs of our work.

Essential Partners’ mission has never felt more urgent, and we remain as committed as ever to repairing the fabric of communities that have been frayed by conflict.

If you have questions about any of this, feel free to contact us.

You can find the original version of this article on the Essential Partners’ blog at www.whatisessential.org/blog/announcing-changes-essential-partners.

Volodymyr Zelensky, servant of the people?

Posted on by
Reply

I’m very curious what my politically diverse but well-informed Ukrainian friends think about their presidential election. It’s mostly framed in the West as: “comedian with no political experience is elected president.” That is a little misleading: it suggests a stand-up comic winning on the basis of one-liners. Volodymyr Zelensky is actually the founder and creative leader of a company that produces successful movies and TV series in which he stars.

His most recent show is Servant of the People, which is available on Netflix with English subtitles, and which my wife and I have been watching. Zelensky plays a high school teacher who goes on a profane rant against corrupt politicians that his students film and post on YouTube. They also crowd-source his campaign funds and get him on the ballot, and he’s elected president.

Ukrainians have now voted to make the writer/actor of this role their actual president. It is roughly as if Americans chose Amy Poehler for president because of her role as Leslie Knope on Parks & Rec–either selecting Leslie to lead our real country (a naive reaction) or choosing the creator of Parks and Rec because of the show’s values and its portrayal of America. Or it might be a little like electing Ronald Reagan as governor of California because of his fictional personas plus his political speeches (which made a seamless whole in the 1960s).

Servant of the People is well-made, well-acted, funny. I can totally understand why people would be interested in voting for its creator, who is utterly appealing on screen.

Of course, the show is also a powerful device for persuasion. In the controlled environment of a fictional world, Zelensky can construct events to make his character the good guy and to sideline difficult questions. Plato’s warnings about the power of theater come to mind. Instead of describing Zelensky as a “comedian,” I would call this entrepreneur/actor with a law degree a highly skillful rhetorician. On screen, he is without guile. But to create that persona took artistry.

Questions:

What is the political thesis of the show? The targets are corruption, hypocrisy, arrogant elites, and social unfairness. Those are very real problems in Ukraine and many other countries. It can, however, be misguided to treat integrity as the only goal while neglecting contested policy questions. Zelensky’s fictional character dodges policy questions from the press because they are ridiculously wonky and because he’s a a draftee into politics who doesn’t know the answers. The real Zelensky has avoided interviews and press conferences even though he seriously ran for president. This strikes me as problematic.

What does Zelensky stand for? Reading scattered quotes available in English, I would guess he’s basically a Europhile liberal, in the Ukrainian context: in favor of civil liberties, some market reforms, and tilting West. But not a hardcore nationalist–for example, Servant of the People is performed in Russian rather than Ukrainian. He’s ethnically Jewish, which should give no one a free pass but which rarely accompanies xenophobia in that part of the world. On the other hand, it’s not great to have to guess the president’s positions from scattered quotes.

Is he qualified? I don’t believe that political leaders must be, or even should be, policy wonks. They should learn from experts (and from others) while setting the tone and direction. Zelensky is a very capable person–again, not just a stand-up comic but the author of complex (if problematic) political fiction and the founder and leader of an enterprise. He did study law. I would think his resume is fine if he demonstrates an ability to share power, delegate, and learn.

Ukrainians have rolled the dice. Given the alternative, I fully understand why they took this risk. It’s not the textbook version of how a democracy should work, but the status quo has been intolerable, and at least the explicit values of Servant of the People are benign. Nor does the textbook account ever fully apply. My fingers are crossed.

Online D&D Events from MetroQuest, Nat’l Civic League, Living Room Conversations, and more!

Posted on by
Reply

This week’s roundup features webinars from NCDD member orgs MetroQuest, National Civic League, and Living Room Conversations, as well as, from Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC).

NCDD’s online D&D event roundup is a weekly compilation of the upcoming events happening in the digital world related to dialogue, deliberation, civic tech, engagement work, and more! Do you have a webinar or other digital event coming up that you’d like to share with the NCDD network? Please let us know in the comments section below or by emailing me at keiva[at]ncdd[dot]org, because we’d love to add it to the list!

Upcoming Online D&D Events:

MetroQuest webinar – Public Engagement Jackpot | How Your Agency Can Win Big

Wednesday, April 24th
11 am Pacific | 12 pm Mountain | 1 pm Central | 2 pm Eastern (1 hour)
Educational Credit Available (APA AICP CM)
Complimentary (FREE)

The stakes are high in planning for regional growth in Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County. On April 24, Truckee Meadows RPA will reveal the winning strategy for online public engagement! You’ll see resident survey data in action, providing a clear path to the best regional plans. Jeremy Smith will share how TMRPA used public engagement to build broad public support for infill development in core areas to stop the sprawl. You’ll also hear how Lauren Knox used 53,290+ survey data points to inform their 20-year Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

REGISTER: http://go.metroquest.com/Public-Engagement-Jackpot-How-Your-Agency-Can-Win-Big.html

Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) webinar – Lessons Learned from 3 Decades of Peace Education Work

Wednesday, April 24th
12 am Pacific, 3 am Eastern

During this webinar, peace education expert Loreta Castro will present lessons she has learned over the course of her peace education work, including insights and suggestions that might be helpful to educators who are in similar contexts.

REGISTER: www.gppac.net/peace-education-webinar-series

National Civic League AAC Promising Practices Webinar – Community Approaches to Inclusive Healthy Housing

Thursday, April 25th
9 am Pacific, 12 pm Eastern

Join the National Civic League to learn more about two organizations that are bringing healthy housing to their communities. Suzanne Mineck, President of the Mid Iowa Health Foundation and Emily Yu, Executive Director of BUILD Health Challenge will speak about Healthy Homes Des Moines and the BUILD Health Challenge. Leroy Moore, Sr. Vice President and Chief Operating Officer at the Tampa Housing Authority will join us to talk about project ENCORE!

REGISTER: www.nationalcivicleague.org/resource-center/promising-practices/

Living Room Conversations webinar – Tribalism 101: Next Door Strangers

Sunday, April 28
1 pm Pacific, 4 pm Eastern

Tribalism: the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one’s own tribe or social group. People on the left and right may disagree on many things, but they generally agree that “tribalism” is bad for our politics and our country. Although most people want communities where all people have dignity and respect, respectful interactions are often not what we see modeled in the media and in politics. How do we build strong and unified communities in a divisive time? Inspired by the podcast Next Door Strangers, this Living Room Conversation begins with a  15-minute podcast: http://www.kuer.org/post/1-tribalism-101-pick-side. Please see the conversation guide for this topic.

REGISTER: www.livingroomconversations.org/event/online-living-room-conversation-tribalism-101-next-door-strangers-6/

PBP Releases New Data Map on Participatory Budgeting

Posted on by
Reply

The Participatory Budgeting Project, an NCDD member org, has developed a new map of the participatory budgeting (PB) processes happening across the US and Canada, both current and past efforts. PB is a process in which community members democratically vote on a portion of the public budget, and as the map shows, the process has been growing rapidly across the country. We encourage you to learn more in the article below, view the live map here, and find the original version of this piece on PBP’s site here.

Speaking of cool tech tools, make sure you register for our FREE April Tech Tuesday happening in just a few hours (from 2-3pm Eastern, 11am-12pm Pacific), where we will explore the new participatory decision-making platform, Ethelo. You won’t want to miss it – register ASAP!

New Data-Driven Map Shows Spread of Participation in Democracy

As we celebrate the first 30 years of participatory budgeting (PB) in the world and the first 10 years of the Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP), we reflect on how far and wide PB has spread–and how it continues to grow! We’re thrilled to introduce a new tool to help us look back as we plan for the next 30+ years of PB. And so we’re introducing a map of PB across the U.S. and Canada. Each dot on the map represents a place where democracy has been deepened by bringing people together to decide together how to invest public resources in their community. (Below is a screenshot of the map, but make sure you view the real interactive map here!)

How can you get the most data out of this map?

Try playing with the “widgets” located to the right of the map that visualize different classes of data.

  • By default all of the processes show up first but you can select any particular year you are interested in.
  • You can also view a count of how many PB processes of a particular sort took place within the portion of the map you are viewing. For example, you can find out that in 2018 there were 56 PB city-wide, county-wide, and district-level processes in the US and Canada–our biggest year for PB yet!
  • Or, try selecting one year and zooming in to your own neighborhood to find active or pending PB processes in your community. If you click on a dot you can get more info about the process, such as how large the budget was, how many voters turned out, and where to find its website.

The map is linked to the database that PBP maintains to try to track every PB process in the U.S. and Canada. Inevitably some PB processes aren’t on our radar.

If you know that PB exists somewhere not seen on our map, or you have additional data about a PB process, please fill out this form to let us know!

If we listen closely, we hear messages from this data.

This data sheds light on larger questions, such as what is the relationship between the size of PB budgets and the number of people who participate? Looking at PBP data on processes in counties, cities, and urban districts, we find a positive correlation between the size of the PB budget per person and the number of people who take part in a PB vote (r=.22, n=245). In other words, where officials make a stronger commitment to funding PB, more people take part in the process–all the more reason to continue growing PB!

This year, as we reflect on the first 30 years of PB and the first ten years of PBP, we also look ahead to filling out more of this map. Will you join us as we celebrate and vision – by joining us at our Anniversary Benefit on May 23rd or becoming a PB Amplifier?

You can find the original version of this article on The Participatory Budgeting Project site at www.participatorybudgeting.org/pb-map/.

Using the CSA Model for Jazz Performance

Posted on by
Reply

I am always amazed at how commoning reaches into the most unlikely realms of life. The latest example that I’ve discovered is jazz performance! For the moment, leave aside the idea of jazz as an artform that is fundamentally about commoning – improvised collaboration, individual artistry that flowers within an ensemble, being attuned to the present moment.

Let’s just consider concert production as a commons. 

In western Massachuetts, where I live, Pioneer Valley Jazz Shares represents a creative mashup of the CSA farm model (community-supported agriculture) with concert production. Instead of paying upfront for a season’s supply of vegetables, people pay for a September-June season of ten jazz concerts. It’s like a subscription model but it’s more of a community investment in supporting a jazz ecosystem. Talented musicians get to perform, fans get to experience some cutting-edge jazz, the prices are entirely reasonable for everyone, and a community spirit flourishes.

As the group explains:

Our members purchase jazz shares to provide the capital needed to produce concerts with minimal institutional support. A grassroots, all-volunteer organization, we are a community of music lovers in Western Massachusetts dedicated to the continued vitality of jazz music. By pooling resources, energy and know-how, members create an infrastructure that is able to bring world-class improvisers to our region.

Cofounders Glenn Siegel and Priscilla Page decided to launch Jazz Shares after realizing that there were many more jazz musicians in the region than there were commercial venues to support them. As a longtime concert producer at the Fine Arts Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Siegel lamented, “Each season I would receive many more worthy gig requests than I could honor. With a limit on how many University concerts I could produce each year (six), and without the personal resources to just write checks, I got tired of saying ‘Sorry, no’ to some of my musical heroes. I knew there must be another way to bring these great musicians to town.”

As an economist might put it, there was a market failure (demand did not induce an adequate supply). So commoning came to the rescue! 

Approximately 95 fans pay $125 to underwrite ten local jazz concerts a year in a variety of regional venues – colleges, clubs, performance spaces. Business sponsors and single-ticket sales augment these revenues. But it’s not just about the money. It’s about building a community through mutual aid and money-lite commoning. As reported by New England Public Radio, Siegel and Page have been known to cook for visiting performers. Sometimes Jazz Share members pick up musicians at the train station and make food for the artist receptions following each performance. 

The share-model is arguably the secret to presenting sometimes-challenging music. The shares enable performers to be artistically authentic and venturesome. They can improvise in bolder ways than would be possible in conventional commercial venues, and fans can enjoy the results. For example, one quartet included a bassoonist, which is not usually heard in jazz performances. Other artists report that they feel free to explore their artistic frontiers.

The whole setup also changes the audience. As Siegel explains, “Although many of our shareholders do not know who Karl Berger is, most have an open mind and an adventurous attitude. Because our audience expects to be surprised, we can expose them to new experiences. Although we attempt to have balance in our programming, the dilemma facing most presenters of not wanting to offend or get too far ahead of audience tastes does not affect us.”

Now in its seventh season, Jazz Shares has built a sociable community of jazz fans who might otherwise remain isolated at home. Local saxophonist and composer Jason Robinson credits Jazz Shares for creating a very special musical culture in the region: “Jazz Shares does special things for our local community that [don’t] exist in Boston. It barely exists in New York. It’s something that’s quite unique across the country.”

Glenn Siegel explained how Jazz Shares has engendered a very special cultural ecosystem: “Just as plants are dependent on the sun, clean water and healthy soil to thrive, the music needs paying gigs and an appreciative audience to reach full flower. Pioneer Valley Jazz Shares is helping to build that rich inch of topsoil that stands between us and a barren cultural landscape.”

Sounds a lot like commoning to me!