\input tex
\twelvepointconcreteroman

dear new-men-us;

I've been following the sanctuary-residency issue for a while, via the
Minutes and by talking to residents and ex-residents over the past
year. Here's my take on things, and potential paths for solutions.

It seems to me that there's a big problem involving ``qualifications''
(or not) of would-be residents, skills physical and otherwise. One I
part I see as a process problem, the other an aspect of that.

Briefly, my assumptions: Except during pre-organized gatherings,
living on or even visiting the land requires responsibility and
certain skills that must be (but can be) learned, on the part of the
visitor. Basic sanitation; willingness to do drudge chores; an honest
assessment of personal skills. The latter is really it -- when people
believe they have the necessary whatever's to pull it off, but don't.
For whatever reasons, mainly not knowing. (And f\ae rie paradigm
sometimes puts stars in many eyes\dots) I think dealing with this
realistically is a central problem.

First --

I think the residents should be able to {\it choose} (ie.~veto) who
lives on the land, for tangible reasons. I think the current method
{\it avoids the real issue} -- which is power, or really the fear that
the residents will somehow do some terrible and wrong thing. {\it
Accountability} is the solution, not the customary taking away of
power when a conflict arises.

In short -- give the residents the {\it power} to choose who lives on
the land with them. Their {\it responsibility} to a resident-to-be is
to honestly convey the how's and why's and the need to dig new
shitters. New (and current!) residents make themselves {\it
accountable} for tasks they agreed to take on. Residents are {\it
accountable} ultimately to Nomenus, and f\ae ries at large. Nomenus
and non-resident f\ae ries {\it trust} the residents to make good
decisions, and avoid meddling or overriding the residents.

Just as if a f\ae rie can't work within group process, they should
leave (to learn/re\"evaluate or not), if a resident repeatedly can't
maintain accountability to the local group (residents), they should
live elsewhere. Harsh? Less so than inflicting harm on the land and
added burden to the other residents.

Second --

It's not enough to be well-meaning and spiritually suited. The
necessary physical skills are required. It is a hard thing to tell
someone, you don't have enough experience or skills right now to live
on the land, but ultimately more fair than adding to the burden of
those already there, and the land itself, just to avoid this
admittedly hard thing. Great heart is required to disappoint someone
trying to reach their dreams without hurting. Life is a balance, and
knowledge in one area doesn't fill in for lack in others. During even
the most uplifting circles, you occasionally have to get up and take a
shit.

There may be insufficiently-skilled people that the residents feel
would be an asset anyways; this should be up to the residents, since
they would have to carry the extra weight.

I want to see the land develop carefully into a solid, long-term
radical sanctuary based upon hand, heart and mind. I hope this is
taken in the spirit it is given. Bye, and see you all soon!

\vfill

\centerline{Tom Jennings / 666 Illinois / San Francisco / CA 94107 USA}
\vskip\parskip

PS: Thanks Rosemary, for turning the minutes into a coherent and {\it
enjoyable} thing!

\supereject\end