Dear Duane,
I thought we'd come to an agreement, and resolved our differences last Sunday. I'm puzzled: if we came to an agreement, why did you revisit the problem? To hurt/attack me? I had already assured you we'd fairly divide territory at our SOCPITS meeting, that relying upon last year's lists was a mistake.
OK, now I know we need to hammer it out in stone each season. I apologize for the failed experiment. Now I worry that you'll continue to release your anger (or is it hatred?) towards me; that it will manifest itself like a recurring nightmare. (I am reminded of the time when you ranted at me because you were mad at John Oliver Simon. At least you called back to apologize, saying I was not the target.) He was wrong to be rude and cold at a meeting with Susan Kennedy and Mike Tuggle.
And, no, you still shouldn't go into any of the "open" schools without consulting me first—because that’s my job and other poets have an equal right to approach those schools, and may have already done so. This is not an issue of control, but of etiquette—check out the section of the handbook which spells out AC duties. I'm sorry if the way I manage the program isn't exactly the way you'd do it. But the pluralistic model is what CPITS is all about.
I found the method you chose to communicate your thoughts at our SOCPITS meeting distressing and unprofessional—especially since one of the reasons you were upset, was because of my communication skills (or lack of) with Roberto.
And, no, you still shouldn't go into any of the "open" schools without consulting me first—because that’s my job and other poets have an equal right to approach those schools, and may have already done so. This is not an issue of control, but of etiquette—check out the section of the handbook which spells out AC duties. I'm sorry if the way I manage the program isn't exactly the way you'd do it. But the pluralistic model is what CPITS is all about.
I found the method you chose to communicate your thoughts at our SOCPITS meeting distressing and unprofessional—especially since one of the reasons you were upset, was because of my communication skills (or lack of) with Roberto.
Yes, I blew it in my tone, when as AC, I told Roberto he had to finish his training—this, after conferring with you who suggested that he needed more training. My straightforward approach was a mistake for which I'm willing to rectify—including undergoing conflict resolution with him—I also hope he can learn to work with women who are direct, and not feel personally threatened or offended. Men speak bluntly all the time. I was not raised to speak submissively. It’s a double standard to expect women to be apologetic, and not plainly state opinions in order save men’s feelings.
However, I feel your tone was both vindictive and deliberate—and I resent your name-calling; especially in public. Incidentally, one school specifically requested that Roberto NOT return—they were dissatisfied with his technique. So my fear that he wasn't ready, was accurate.
Ironically, you chose a word (hysterical) that could also be used to describe your own actions. If my communication to Roberto was in the same vein as your communication was to me, he'd really take offense (or deck you, and have nothing to do with you, or the organization, ever again.) So, I ask you, why the double-standard? You want me to be more culturally sensitive, but you use male aggression on me? You have a right to your own feelings, or to dislike me; but not to dump on me like that. Ever.
Whatever happened to positive role models to facilitate change—and especially kindness and empathy? In the future, I suggest that we use alternative forms of communication that are less destructive, such as conflict resolution. I do not wish to communicate with you again and then have you take pot shots at me.
However, I feel your tone was both vindictive and deliberate—and I resent your name-calling; especially in public. Incidentally, one school specifically requested that Roberto NOT return—they were dissatisfied with his technique. So my fear that he wasn't ready, was accurate.
Ironically, you chose a word (hysterical) that could also be used to describe your own actions. If my communication to Roberto was in the same vein as your communication was to me, he'd really take offense (or deck you, and have nothing to do with you, or the organization, ever again.) So, I ask you, why the double-standard? You want me to be more culturally sensitive, but you use male aggression on me? You have a right to your own feelings, or to dislike me; but not to dump on me like that. Ever.
Whatever happened to positive role models to facilitate change—and especially kindness and empathy? In the future, I suggest that we use alternative forms of communication that are less destructive, such as conflict resolution. I do not wish to communicate with you again and then have you take pot shots at me.
It will take some time before I will feel comfortable working with you again, because I still feel hurt, angry, publicly embarrassed, and humiliated. I imagine you don't feel too good about this either. We do need a way to relate to each other on a caring, professional level; the question is, where do we go from here?





