October 9, 2008 Issue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classified Chestnut Hill Local Don't Miss an Issue, Tell us what you see or Winner of Two |
Opinion
Guest opinion: Democracy depends on healthy reflection On Sept. 26 I heard on NPR that Obama went to “debate camp” to prepare for that night’s debate with McCain. Obama had been accused of being too “professorial.” His campaign wanted to coach him in the rhetorical art of speaking in sound bites. The McCain/Palin camp apparently agrees with this down-to-earth strategy. In Thursday’s debate, Palin was noticeably colloquial, using expressions like “darnit” and “betcha.” This is not necessarily undesirable, but the pressure to speak in these ways reminded me of something I learned recently after serving as a juror in a criminal trial for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Like many juries, we were a diverse group in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, and education. We also varied in exposure to critical thinking and our comfort in following and making rational arguments. I was amazed that the initial vote went exactly how a sociologist or marketer would predict. Moreover, over half the jurors changed their minds about the guilt of the defendant. After careful debate, we finally arrived at a unanimous decision. At the beginning, the opinions of the jurors were not based on the evidence, but on some non-rational thing. Jurors made many unsound arguments, some ad hominem. Thankfully, reason won out. My experience as a juror reveals the importance of philosophy in a healthy democracy. An unhealthy democracy stifles philosophical reflection: Athens put Socrates to death. Plato was wary of letting unchecked sentiments affect the flourishing of the republic. Blind ignorance should not be allowed to be in control, he thought. He was right about this. The just society is the one in which wisdom rules and the leaders and decision-makers are “philosophers” in the true sense of the word: lovers of wisdom. Unchecked democracy can be disastrous. Unreflective expression of popular will can elect leaders who encourage acts of terrorism or genocide or threaten international peace. We see this throughout the world, from the Middle East to the post-Yugoslavia to South America. It is potentially a problem even in our own country. Moreover, it could put an innocent man behind bars or a guilty one back on the streets. To protect a flourishing democracy, citizens must have some degree of philosophical reflection. We need not all become professional philosophers. Not even Plato wished that. But to the extent that we citizens participate in governance, we should have basic philosophical skills. They are essential to being an excellent juror and citizen. Unfortunately, philosophy is not regularly offered in American public high schools. (By contrast, a corresponding European high school requires it.) Even in many universities and colleges it is endangered. Some administrators and parents put more and more pressure on improving student performance in “math and science.” Thirteenth district Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz once visited the college at which I teach, and I asked her about the aims of education. Like many politicians, Schwartz responded that it is to allow US citizens to be more competitive in a global economy. This is important, but it is not the entire story. We also need to educate for citizenship. Where is our democracy headed in an age of seductive sound bites whose use (if they are not accompanied by substantial reflection) diminishes our ability to sustain philosophical contemplation? To protect our democracy we need to call on philosophy. Through education in philosophy and the practice of philosophical deliberation we can offset the forces of intellectual apathy and blind acceptance of opinions. Robert R. Clewis, Ph.D is an assistant professor of Philosophy at Gwynedd-Mercy College. He lives in Chestnut Hill.
Opinion: Who is Joseph Pizzano? I have never met nor talked to him and would not recognize him if our paths crossed on Germantown Avenue. Despite the fact that I currently and have always maintained an open-door, open-phone policy to discuss how the Community Fund is managed and to answer any questions regarding it (with any members of the Community Association or Chestnut Hill residents who have an interest), Mr. Pizzano has never bothered to contact me regarding his recently stated concerns (and many misstatements). When I read his first letter to the Local about the Community Fund, I dismissed it as comments born of ignorance and factual misstatements that would be recognized as such by most who read it. When I read his second letter, though, I was incredulous to see him personally attacking me and who I am as a professional even though he knows nothing about me or my practice. He uses a demeaning analogy that mocks great human suffering in one of our country’s worst natural disasters. Unfortunately, if lies are repeated often enough some people will actually start to believe them as the truth. Because the Chestnut Hill Community Fund operates with a policy of full disclosure and openness, I feel an obligation to set the record straight for the sake of the community and all those who have an interest. My involvement and selection as investment advisor to the fund: Mr. Pizzano states that I “was a trustee but recently resigned and soon thereafter assumed management of the fund,” stating that he knows a supposed “conflict of interest when he sees one.” In fact, I have not been a trustee since 2001 and did not know any of the current trustees prior to their assumption of responsibilities more than a year-and-a-half ago. I also did not have any affiliation with the oft-maligned previous administration of trustees. I am, in fact, a long-time resident of and volunteer in Chestnut Hill who has been involved with the Community Association for 10 years. I have served in such capacities as an elected board member and as a member for many years on the Budget and Finance Committee and the Bylaws Committee. I have also served on many CHCA ad-hoc committees and volunteered for many of the CHCA’s fundraising events, including obtaining significant funding and support for previous Holiday House Tour and Pastorius Park concert series. I am very committed and concerned about our community. I was asked to serve as financial advisor to the Community Fund six years ago because of my work and experience advising non-profit endowments. Losses to the fund: Mr. Pizzano states a “loss of $181,000 in principal,” implying that these were investment losses obtained from poor performance. In fact, Trustees Chair Jean Hemphill has provided comprehensive reports to all board members and interested parties showing $154,000 in withdrawals for capital gains taxes and ongoing quarterly contributions from the fund to the Community Association (through Sept. 1, 2008). During this current time of financial and economic distress that some equate to the worst financial crisis since the Depression, Community Fund investment losses are less than $30,000 or approximately 4.8 percent. Investment policy of the fund: Because my professional experience has me working with many local endowments, I study, research and follow closely the “best practices” of successful endowments and try to bring these same principles to the management of the Community Fund. I make decisions with the trustees in a collaborative process. I am pleased that many of the current trustees have extensive professional investment experience and bring strong ideas and input to this process. We follow and implement principles of Modern Portfolio Theory and make investment decisions following detailed guidelines developed from an “Investment Policy Statement,” which serves as the core money management principles for almost all endowments. This “Investment Policy Statement” is available to anyone in the community. It provides the process for a disciplined investment approach. Investment performance of the fund: Publication of trends and endowment investment performance is stated according to the fiscal year end of most non-profits (June 30). The average investment performance for all endowments, small, mid-size and large (from $10 million to $100 million to over $1 billion, respectively), was recently reported for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 as -4.9 percent. I am pleased to report that the Community Fund was able to outperform not only its index average but also this average endowment performance. This past year has been an extraordinarily difficult time period, but all endowments know and recognize that there will be periods/years with negative investment performance. It is very easy for the likes of Mr. Pizzano to make disparaging remarks and play Monday-morning quarterback and say we should have been invested in CDs for the past year, as if his crystal ball is much better than anyone else’s. However, I know of not a single endowment anywhere that employs such a strategy. What Mr. Pizzano fails to mention is that the Community Fund had solid positive investment performance for the previous five years, far exceeding any returns achieved in a CD portfolio. Prior to this, the Community Fund had tried to make market-timing decisions with disastrous results. The current Investment Policy Statement will prevent this from ever happening again; however, following such a policy will not insulate the Community Fund from down years in a tough economy and market environment. From a long-term perspective of three to five years or longer, the Community Fund will inevitably emerge much stronger. Economic and market history provide guidance to us with such an assumption. Full disclosure/conflict of interest and fees charged to the fund: Mr. Pizzano states that everyone should be aware that “Mr. Nottingham, as financial advisor to the fund, receives a commission for his efforts.” I’m not sure how Mr. Pizzano knows how I am compensated, but he is mistaken in this regard as well. Neither Merrill Lynch nor I manage the Community Fund assets. Merrill Lynch is merely a custodian of these assets. The majority of the Community Fund’s assets are in Vanguard index funds. A smaller percentage of fund assets are actively managed through selected outside institutional money managers. In structuring the current portfolio last year, the fund did incur some one-time, non-recurring commission charges for the purchase of some securities. I fully discounted these fees to the maximum extent possible, thereby eliminating any compensation that I might have received. For all intents and purposes, I am willing and do provide “pro bono advice,” even though no one has ever requested this of me. Total portfolio management fees for the fund this year will run approximately 70 basis points (or seven-tenths of 1 percent), about half the average national expense for a small endowment (qualified as under $10 million in assets). Over the past six years in my position as advisor to the fund, I have served under five different board presidents and three separate groups of trustees. Until the current group of trustees started, I routinely attended periodic board meetings providing detailed updates and answering all questions about the fund. I have always attended the annual community dinner, making myself available to answer questions and in some years to present and report on the status of the fund to the community. Two years ago I met and spoke with Jim Foster on numerous occasions and freely provided very extensive information about the fund for his oversight committee. Mr. Foster subsequently published a report about the fund and many other issues. From his letters, I must guess that Mr. Pizzano did not read this report, but nevertheless this information is freely available to all in the community. In my present role, I have come to know nearly two dozen appointed trustees, all of whom were appointed because of their successful professional credentials. I knew none of these trustees prior to their appointment and have no ties or affiliations that might potentially bias their use of me in my role as advisor to the fund. I humbly serve in the volunteer spirit of so many other Chestnut Hill public servants who care about our community. The Community Fund represents a very small part of my professional advisory practice, representing .0003 percent (three one-thousandths) of total assets under my management. In my practice I select other clients to serve on a pro bono basis (such as my church and individuals that I care deeply for). I serve because I care about this community I live in and hope that I can bring some value to the process. I have a vested interest in the Community Fund’s success and have not once ever thought of it as “other people’s money,” in the derogatory tone that Mr. Pizzano asserts. I take nothing for granted in my position and fully know that I serve at the behest of the trustees and the elected members of the board. If I can no longer provide value and a consensus opinion develops to replace me, I will gladly step aside. The fact that I have served for so long and with so many people is a testament, I hope, to the value I have brought to the fund. These are the undeniable and irrefutable facts about my role and the investment process of the Community Fund. I unequivocally stand behind them. It is a shame that a few people in the community feel compelled to belittle and malign the character of those they do not even know, using the Local as a forum. This trend of negativity was noted in last week’s Local and is something that turns many talented potential volunteers from ever considering becoming involved in the CHCA. For your information, Mr. Pizzano, the “investment guru” I follow is Warren Buffett, and he is not investing in CDs these days. Mark Nottingham is financial advisor to the Chestnut Hill Community Fund.
In which going from third to first brings me “humiliatheon” Through the rest of April I read and reread my manuscript and took plenty of notes for making additions and corrections. In May and June, I couldn’t figure out how to apply my new ideas to the story I’d written. For those two months I did no writing. My train had gone off the tracks. Every day I’d go visit the wreck, walk around it, scatch my head and puff on my pipe. I’d take off my specs and rub my eyes. It just lay there, a big waste of time and material, blocking my way. I tried the longest lever I could find, but it wouldn’t budge. Too heavy. Then, I thought, maybe I could get a big wrench and take it apart, bolt by bolt, and move it somewhere else and reassemble it. Before I get too carried away with that mechanical metaphor, I’ll come back to earth and say plainly what I thought the problem was. I’d originally conceived of the book as something I should write in the first person. As in, As I awoke one morning from uneasy dreams I found myself transformed in my bed into a gigantic insect. Why not? Through writing this column I’m comfortable with using first person to convert ideas or events into stories. But … from writing the column I’ve also learned to indulge in a kind of playing-for-the-crowd grab for laughs. I wanted to write a serious book that had humorous moments. Instead, after 50 pages I discovered I was writing a funny book that had serious moments. Ha Ha, thud. That’s a no-no. Only in France does Jerry Lewis get to preach. So, I figured I couldn’t control first person narration in a long story. I’d never find the voice. I’d ruin serious, or touching, scenes with a wisecrack. I decided to use a third person narrator so I could develop a tougher, more ironic, somewhat sarcastic tone. Over to: As Hugh Gilmore awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect. And so, on to glory. 103,000 words later the first draft was done. But, as I said, the tone was wrong. The story felt contrived, disingenuous, filled with “so what?” moments. There seemed but one thing to do: switch back to first person and rewrite the entire book. And get a leash for my sense of humor. At first I hoped this effort, though tedious in its aspect, might require little more than changing some pronouns — He to I, him to me, his to my, and so on. But that was fantasizing. There’s much more involved. For one thing, writing in first person gave me more access to the thoughts and feelings and private actions of my main character, but less access to the thoughts and feelings of the other characters. The character “I” can’t say what “you” or “he” or “she” are thinking. “I” can only guess, or describe “your” face and body language, or find a letter he wrote, or talk to someone she told certain things to. For that reason I find plotting much more difficult when I write in first person. I hate plotting. I like to write my characters into a situation and watch them climb out. In first person I am always obliged to think of some reasonable means of explaining how information has come into a character’s possession. How could he etc. possibly know that? In making the changeover, I also ran into another problem. In changing from third to first person, should I go through a chapter and make the pronoun changes as I go along? Or should I change all the pronouns first and then see how the chapter reads? I’ve tried both. They’re both tedious. Neither yields better writing. I’m currently rewriting Chapter 16. It is 21 pages long. To save time and steps, I decided to try the software’s “Find/Replace” shortcut. I tried Find: “Brian” (my protagonist’s first name)/ Replace with: “I.” Lo and behold, it worked, to replace 54 “Brian’s” with “I’s.” Emboldened, I thought, Okay, let’s do it all. I asked the computer to Find “he” and replace it with “I.” Then: Find “him/me,” and “his/my.” Bad idea. Here are some of the results I got: I laugId hard SI took a puff on Ir Salem mentholated Tmy but I’s Iart had begun pounding wire became wHere And when I tried to undo these corrections, using the program, I got crossed up with words like unthel, and negotheatheons and such wonderful phrases as: nothefy them you’d be on vacatheon, and other than conthenue to suffer the humiliatheon and desperatheon. I got so frustrated trying to untangle this mess, I went back to the original and started making the pronoun corrections the old-fashioned way: one-by-one. And that, old friends, is where I now dwell —deep in the heart of Chapter 16, about halfway to the end of the novel, hoping to be done a very good, first person draft by Thanksgiving. I’ll keep you posted.
|
