OPEN Inclusive vs. CLOSED Exclusive

It's nice to see the encouraging comment in the latest LRA email: 'There have been no reported criminal incidents in Lonehill for the past two weeks. The last incident was on the 30th December, where the premises had no alarm and was not an LRA subscriber.'

Hopefully this means that something DIFFERENT is being applied by our new leadership team to carry this trend forward.

It is also encouraging to see some OPEN reporting of actual crime trends for us to begin once again to analyse the local crime situation for ourselves as mature stakeholders. I'd certainly like to see a weekly feedback of such crime incidents or lack-of-crime-announcements attached to our weekly emails or posted to our community website.

Which gets me thinking as to how the core of our local leadership policy, since the beginning of the Lonehill Community Security Initiative in 2000, had clearly swung from being an 'OPEN & Inclusive' model in its initial 3-year launch phase... to a 180° polar opposite 'CLOSED & Exclusive' model, which in my opinion squandered opportunities that normally present themselves in the most important growth phase timing window open to most serious projects of this nature.

I view the former model as an ABUNDANCE model, and the latter as a SCARCITY model.

My postulate for discussion in this post is that the 'OPEN Inclusive' model of community leadership is by far the healthier alternative to the 'CLOSED Exclusive' model - which to me is a cancer to any community initiative.

See how Pitkin County build OPEN & Inclusive values into their Community Relations Guiding Principles and Policies.

Here's what I learnt very quickly when initiating the original Lonehill Security Action Group back in 2000... when you bring together an up-market community grouping of independent, self-made, high-ego, assertively opinionated individuals, you are guaranteed to be confronted by very different opinions on almost every subject of discussion.

What takes place is much like the initial few days of hierarchical positioning by the marooned challengers on the reality TV series - SURVIVOR. Some individuals make instant first impression decisions about people they like or dislike, and most set about quickly forming alliance groups to further their own individual aims - whatever their vested interests (and make no mistake, EVERYONE has a vested interest whether social or commercial) - for being part of the overall group.

I firmly believe that the initial 3-year launch phase 'OPEN Inclusive' model we followed allowed for personal likes and dislikes of others to be mostly suppressed in favour of allowing interested contributors to openly attend any meeting they wanted and to make meaningful contributions as they saw fit.

I am also of the opinion that the introduction of paid administrators in Year 4 coincided with and/or led to an unfolding 180° polar opposite shift to the 'CLOSED Exclusive' model of leadership which in my opinion led to the first 2006 AGM meeting debacle. The error here may well have been the apparent belief by some that the community really doesn't care for what the few do with their resources. 'Nuff said, if that was the belief, hopefully it was stopped dead in its tracks.

In seeking to understand the difference between the two models I offer this possibility of what people may say/think at the extremes of each model.

The 'OPEN Inclusive' extremist may say openly: 'Hey, I don't like you and/or your opinions, but I acknowledge what you're good at, so select your role and I'll wish you the best of success in greatly improving the lot of our community and give you all the information you need to be successful - now get on with it and deliver.'

The 'CLOSED Exclusive' extremist may or most likely, may well not say (but instead, act out on this mind-set): 'Hey, I don't like you and/or your opinions and I'm going to make it as difficult as possible for you to have any part to play in this community. I'll leave if you do. It's you or me! There is no room for the two of us.'

Such 'CLOSED Exclusive' individuals are easy to spot, they are generally 'control'-oriented and sprout about the importance of hierarchical 'order' and 'closed meetings' that they can control, like to have 'yes'-people telling them what they want to hear and generally do everything to cover up or justify the incompetence of their underlings to maintain their 'superior' status, and pointedly react in disgust and alarm at the mere mention of controversial individuals names who dare to question or cross them.

Clearly, in a community of independent, self-assertive people - of the qualities I have described a few paragraphs above - the 'CLOSED Executive' model is DOOMED to failure. The only people who don't see this are such thinkers themselves.

Why broach this subject? Simple. I have this little feeling that remnants of the 'CLOSED Exclusive' model protagonists are still seated within our current LRA leadership structure whose thinking it is to preclude members of this community from open access to any and all information or to preclude individuals from participating in taking the project on to new heights. I maintain that this thinking is cancerous to our community initiative ideals and I challenge such thinkers to find a way to INCLUDE every willing participant who wants to play a part in growing this initiative - or to at least hold up their hands and say why the 'CLOSED Exclusive' model is their preferred option and why they exclude clearly capable people from actively participating.

Of course, I am happy to have this inclination of mine proved wrong - it will be refreshing if it is.

I'm looking forward to this new leadership's first OPEN public feedback meeting on Tuesday 6th February at 19:00 - venue: The Lonehill Village Church.

To end, I notice that posters that are nailed into poles and trees at a height of two metres or higher remain for longer than 3 weeks (Franschoek & Boulevard) and that the grass in the parks and bridle paths are reaching embarrassing heights. Surely these instances just takes some instant ACTION (with a two metre ladder) within 24 hours & a little forward PLANNING (we have a rainy season every year where the grass grows at twice the normal cutting rate)..?

I don't get paid for these observations, but we do pay over a MILLION RAND per annum for service providers to make these observations and take instant action. After a good couple of years on the job you would think that they could do these little things with their eyes closed, wouldn't you? Until they do, like it or not, they will always open themselves to criticism for incompetence.

There is an old strategy maxim that maintains that experience is not gained by making the same mistakes year after year. Our service providers are in danger of showing just how inexperienced they may well be at delivering on a quality community project. It's clear, I am not an INCOMPETENT service provider's friend! On the other hand, show me what a great job YOU do and I'll praise you to the hilt.

I am a believer that to be accepted as a paid service provider in Lonehill should be a privilege responded to by the delivery of EXCELLENT service levels above the norm, diminishing the need for volunteers being required to monitor them (this is not to take away from those volunteers who WANT to and ENJOY providing community observations - such action is highly commendable and implies a positive desire for upliftment of standards in our community). Otherwise find service providers who will respond to the privilege accorded to them by our community.

For those who are doing their absolute best to make a difference in our Lonehill community I say a BIG THANK YOU... for those that know that they are an embarrassment to themselves and holding back our initiative, have the grace to move aside into your own channel (hey, I'm of the OPEN Inclusive model remember) and open up the information available to allow others to participate in making a difference where they believe they can.

Regards
Trevor Nel - 011 705-2790
Lonehill Resident