Let Bygones Be Gone ...

Non-ideological, ‘ad hoc’, local action groups form initially around common interests or, quite often, around shared areas of discontent and dissatisfaction. The animus or ‘call to arms’ is not a common belief system such as those that motivate Eric Hoffer’s “True Believers”. It is most frequently conditions which the group find to be unacceptable in their ‘habitat’ or with those organizations, such as the various levels and agencies of government, that control or influence that ‘habitat’. This is the beginning impetus to community advocacy, activism and social engagement and is, generally, a positive force for change and measured transformation.

It is right and proper to target things that need to change but to do so in the absence of remedial proposals is an abrogation of due diligence and responsibility. For each ‘flaw’ exposed, there should be an “environmental review”; a demonstrated understanding of the ‘issue universe’, the complexities involved and the costs/challenges – then a set of measures established that are designed to correct it. There must be context and there must be sensible moderation. What use is it to suggest that the solution to the crumbling bridge is to drain the roaring river? Actions should be as detailed and fulsome as possible – the objective being to encourage review, beneficial revision and acceptance. The goal must be to better the existing state and wellbeing of the communal whole, by all reasonable means. Activism needs to motivate people but it also needs to give people a place to go with their discontent and frustration. It needs to transform negative force into positive momentum. The core identity of the action group must be affirmative.

The Burlington Residents’ Action Group (BRAG) has done some very important work getting to where it is now but a core membership of ‘the Board’ believes that things are unlikely to go much further – and the reason is basically structural.  Paradoxically, in a larger, less flexible organization, differences of personal and political philosophy are not only muted, they tend to give depth and richness to the group. However, in a small collegial advocacy group such as we believe BRAG should be, these differences tend to create a dysfunctional lack of alignment. Variances of personal and political values as well as differences of life experience and expectation cannot be comfortably accommodated.

The inherent weakness of BRAG’s structure surfaced when consensus was attempted around the groups’ external alignments, internal protocols and the need for a well-defined policy platform. The latter should be the detailed, costed articulation of what the organization believes needs to be done and the “culture” that it wishes to establish. It should be as specific as possible but it is not a standalone artifact; it is the source from which carefully crafted short platform statements, action items and even slogans are created. It exists as proof that the organization has the capacity to think through its directions and not simply be the author of processed social media summaries, catchy soundbites and meaningless surveys. Organizations should have firm tenets of belief to establish their basic direction; not depend on continually polling membership to set bearings like a weathervane responding to the variable winds of opinion. Ironically, it must also be dynamic – adjusting, as needed, to fundamental changes in the environment that it addresses. We believe that BRAG has lost both its direction and that critical flexibility; and with it, the ability to nimbly respond to change.

We felt that it was time to rethink what BRAG had become, what it could reasonably accomplish going forward and recognize that the challenges are probably too great. Everything has its time.  For us, quite sadly, BRAG’s is done.

The bored Board