Author: p.evans

The operations of many New York City parks are actively overseen by a deliberative body that includes its Park and Recreation Manager (the title that I hold) the Borough Commissioner and his or her Chief of staff, members from the “friends” group for the respective park, NYPD, Park Enforcement, Partnership for Parks which coordinates volunteer projects, and other community stakeholders (adjacent neighbors) or park user groups (schools or sports teams). The group meets regularly for Operations Meetings.  This operations group serves to keep the Borough Commissioner informed of current issues peculiar to a park, and also to serve as a working group to address ongoing problems or concerns.

As described in Gastil’s model, the “friends” group serves an important role because it is a membership organization that represents the public but is also a formally established park user group which is in regular contact with park management. This contact means the friends group is more informed as to City protocols and park operations.  Friends groups are valued as an extra set of eyes and ears in parks when regular staff are not on duty.  Most park visitors do not realize the level of technical expertise possessed by regular Parks staff that is necessary to maintain the landscapes and the recreational infrastructure.  A friends group is more enlightened in this regard through its regular contact with Parks policy makers and management by engagement through the Operations meetings.

For the record, Parks’ technical staff includes landscape architects, skilled tradesmen, specialized equipment operators, supervision, management, plus, all the back-office personnel required to run an agency. We do more than pick up litter.  Friends groups know this and they have a sense of what is and what is not possible with available resources.  They are comfortable working with park management and other city agencies to address park conditions.

Successful policies have been established on a park by park basis, responsive to the variable community standards in different neighborhoods, via the deliberative process at these meetings. Specifically, problems related to park usage, such as loud music and excessive barbecuing, have been resolved in the past at Operations Meetings or extensions of them.  Amplified sound, which includes spoken words as well as music, may have time limits or not be allowed at all, and barbecuing, where food is cooked in the park, is restricted to very specific locations in a limited number of properties.

Deliberation with the community representatives was key to the success of the new strategies because of the changing racial and socioeconomic demographics in more than one park. It was imperative that the institution of any seemingly new rules did not appear to be a product of gentrification.  In fact, there was a measure of gentrification pressure which led to the policies because relatively new residents had complained about park usage, smoke or noise.  Fortunately, there were long-standing local ordinances for sound levels and open flames that could be referred to during deliberation, and, there was a measure of compromise from all sides.

Good evening classmates. I am Paul Evans. This is my second semester at Baruch and I have enjoyed what I have experienced so far. I am a Park and Recreation Manager for New York City Parks, and I am currently assigned to Manhattan Park Districts 4 and 5. My parks include Union Square, Chelsea and Dewitt Clinton. I am currently in the MPA program.  This is my second Master’s degree. My Bachelor’s is in horticulture which enabled me to work at Parks, and my first Master’s degree is in education. I plan to use my education to help the city and its people to prepare for the climate change that is clearly upon us.

Twelve Angry Men clearly communicates that people bring personal baggage into the jury room despite being charged with making an important decision. As the film showed, many do not wish to perform jury service or may feel they have somewhere more important to be, even if it is just a baseball game.  In the context of murder, these concerns are minimal but reveal the individual’s values.

As a juror on a number of cases, I can state that the voting as portrayed does indeed happen in the jury room. The film’s presentation of a quick, public vote to determine any unanimity, followed by discussion, then another private vote rang true.  These discussions revealed who the more difficult jurors to persuade might be, their reasoning, and the emotional bias affecting their decisions.  The anonymous count freed the jurors from being put on the spot by admitting to an unpopular decision, or from being seen as going along with the majority opinion.  It was wise to go in juror number order to allow for all to participate in light of some very strong and impatient personalities.  This also made for great dramatic tension!   Although I have not observed any reversals as extreme as one that was portrayed, I have seen jurors persuaded by others on the jury.

In my experience, the jury foremen have generally been appointed by the judge to “lead” the jury based on their level of occupational leadership. Some may volunteer, others get the job because they sat in the wrong chair although all ultimately accept the responsibility with a measure of free will.  People who understand people tend to accept this role because they can be relied upon to facilitate and keep order.  The film does not confuse this type of organizational leadership with moral leadership, the ability to discern right from wrong.  In this case, both types of leadership are needed and there are two characters to represent both types.  Order is needed so that the required reasonable doubt can emerge.  This doubt can emerge only if the evidence can be discussed with some measure of thoughtfulness and care, and, as the film progresses, more jurors describe the circumstances shaping their thoughts and leading to their votes.

I believe that juries function because of the real life experiences of the jurors. Their experience provides different perspectives through which the law is understood by society. Some believe it is dangerous to give this measure of power to regular people. This position is understandable up to point, and, as we saw, most of the jurors were in hasty agreement at the start of the film.  Yet only two of the jurors had real hatred in their hearts.  The story clearly defines these two different types of hatred well– one is broad and one is personal– and at the conclusion separates the respective types of hatred from the decisions that needed to be made.