I’ve been reading about the Cleveland Rising summit for a week or so, and have had the same reactions as many of my friends: another summit? another bunch of money spent to talk about what ails us? Why not some actual action for a change? I’m sure those in town who consider me “feisty,” as I was recently described, often a synonym for “hater,” often a synonym for “bitchy",” were predicting I would have some shade to throw to whomever it is behind this latest conference-gathering thingy. Someone in one of the early articles said people should attend the summit instead of “standing in the back with arms crossed, tweeting,” and I felt seen. But, as I predictably tweeted, tweeting about civic matters is a sign of engagement, that sought-after analytic, is it not? And, as I predictably tweeted, the thing that bothered me the most about the people-in-a-conference-room-drinking-coffee-together event is that it is being held over three work days, and people are expected to attend the entire event. Three days during the week? Who can do that? Honestly, when I first read about it I thought, “Ok Anne maybe stop slinging shots from behind the screen and go to this,” but then when I saw the three work days things I was like, um, guess not.
But this morning’s editorial by Chris Quinn in cleveland dot com really incenses me.
He begins with some serious Jonathan Edwards-esque rhetorical call to moral action:
I care about Cleveland! But I already know I will not be on the roll (those three work days).
He continues:
Wait—I have groused and have some means. I have a…responsibility?
Okay, phew. They have heard, and are listening. (Though I would add that the summit excludes people who don’t live paycheck to paycheck but do have work obligations.) Wonder what they have decided…
Um…okay maybe that might work for…a few lawyers in town? Some non-profit employees? What other employers might offer three paid days of leave to attend this summit? Is McDonald’s gonna do it? How about those in the gig economy, who employ themselves? I could, of course, go on with rhetorical employer questions.
Now I’m really wondering who Quinn is thinking of here. Retirees? Stay-at-home parents? (Apparently they are looking into daycare.) But is this the most important thing people with leisure time and civic commitment could do? I mean…the whole point of the summit is this city has enormous economic woes, and an embarrassing percentage of its children are hungry. Maybe those folks could help feed some of those kids? But now I’m just getting snarky. Sure, if you have the time, why not.
But then he gets personal:
I am a woman entrepreneur who was turned down for a bank loan. (From Key Bank! One of the sponsors!) And it is precisely because this is who I am, someone running her own small business, that I cannot spend three working days providing people with my thoughts on the economic future of the city! (I really feel like I’m going a bit crazy now). I have a job and things that must get done so I can make payroll and pay my rent.
When I was an academic, the college would often have faculty development workshops. They would apply for big grants—from the Mellon Foundation or some such—to host these. Built into those grants were per diem stipends for faculty who attended. And this is for workshops to help us with our own work, not to help someone else—the city—with theirs. Why did the leaders of this summit not think to budget in such a sensible line item? They are providing food to attendees—I imagine the catering costs are high. I imagine they are spending quite a bit of money to put this listening session on. Why could they not offer a process whereby people could apply to attend, and if selected, pay them a $500 per diem? (Or $200, or $1000, or whatever amount of income people were forgoing to attend.) (Quinn says it might be good if “some people crowdfunded” to provide compensation to attend.) And why did they not decide to hold this on a Saturday and Sunday, for Christ’s sake?
Maybe I am a “bitch” or a “hater” or whatever you want to call me—but I also often write these Chronicles to help voice frustrations I hear from dozens of folks who are DMing and emailing and texting these same thoughts , but will never say them publicly for fear they will get fired at work. Think of me as a constituency, then, not an individual, maybe. At least with this summit. But more importantly— if you want to critique my tone, my rhetoric—please also consider critiquing, or at least examing, the rhetoric of this editorial, which is shaming, guilt-inducing, morally accusatory. It says over and over again: we know this creates an economic hardship on some of you but if you do not come to this you have failed your civic responsibility; if you do not forgo or risk your own economic livelihood and income to talk about the economic problems of this city you are as a sinner in the hand of an angry God.
I simply refuse to made guilty for not attending. I refuse the correlation between attendance and being civically minded, or invested in improving the economic woes of so many people who live and work and pay taxes to this city. Call me what you want.