The Professor's Notes

Update:  The Citizen, Bobby Maguire, was given permission to use a 33′ right of way.  In exchange for his use (not ownership) of 1/2 an acre of land, he has voluntarily given to the state 1 full acre, and $15,000.  More than fair, I would say.

I enjoy, no LOVE, my place at Rose Valley Lake in PA. Perhaps you have seen some of my photographs that I have posted here ocassionally, or visited my  sets on Flickr (around Rose Valley Lake and  creeks and rivers)  The beauty remains despite reasonable and rational development.

I love it so much that I am, In fact, disappointed every time I have to leave here to return to “Civilization.” That said, I also understand that private citizens have a right to use their private property in ways that they see fit, so long as the proposed uses are in line with the general guidelines and zoning of the area.

The “Friends of Rose Valley Lake” are stepping beyond the bounds of good citizens, as they are now seeking to block an individual from using his property in accordance with the zoning laws of the area. They are asserting that by granting this man access to his property (through the State fish commission property) he will somehow be violating the law.

They write on their homepage that:

” The ‘intent’ for Rose Valley Lake, was to ‘prevent developments . . . and retain the area in generally primitive conditions,’”

They then are somehow complaining that this citizen is willing to “trade with the PFBC one acre of land (generally inaccessible to the public) and $15,000 in exchange for an expanded farm lane right-of-way through Rose Valley Lake.”

Apparently the fact that he isn’t asking for a flat trade of one acre for another, but rather giving the state the land, AND $15,000, isn’t sufficient. Also, apparently the statement that the one acre of land is “generally inaccessible to the public” is meant to imply that is somehow a negative. Interesting in that many believe that in order to meet the objective of maintaining land in “generally primitive conditions” we should keep people from going there. (Remember, the biggest enemy of National Parks tends to be visitors to those same parks….)

One final comment from them. They are argue that the proposed trade would be for an “expanded farm lane right-of-way through Rose Valley Lake public lands in order to facilitate private development.”

Note this citizen isn’t proposing to DEVELOP public lands. He is simply seeking access to his privately owned property, so that he can exercise his legal right to develop his property as he sees fit, in accordance with the local zoning ordinances.

I ask–who are the unreasonable ones?

Also, they are requesting people sign their petition, but there exists no comparable avenue to elicit support for the land owner.  I have created a form, and would appreciate your taking the time to respond.  And for the record, I am interested in learning about BOTH sides of this.

Transparency has been in the news not only with the occupy movement, but also with penn state following the big scandal.  But what is transparency?

Does transparency mean that you tell everyone everything you do and why do it?  bust you violate all levels of confidentiality?

It seems to me when people an organization promise transparency, they are acknowledging a problem and suggesting they can no longer continue doing things the way they have always been done.  I realize this is not always the case, in that sometimes we’re just promising to foster an environment of trust, but that trust is based on the concept of sharing information.

reach leads me to ask these questions is the reality of organizations promising transparency while then defending your actions as being consistent with how things have always been done. If things have always been done this way how is that being more transparent?  Or to put it another way, if you have always been transparent why promise transparency as if it is something new?

I welcome your thoughts on these questions.

My mother-in-law has a website (jar-jaf.com) where she sells “findings” that are used for making miniature lighting and for jewelry.  The latest she has added is “ojime beads.”  These oriental beads are hand carved in China, shipped to the US and are quite attractive.  On her site she describes these beads as:

Ojime are hand-carved sculptures that originated in Japan.

From about 17^th century, the Japanese people (especially the men) carried a small compartmentalized box called an Inro. There was also a Netsuke to balance the Inro over the person’s sash and an Ojime to slide down the string and keep the Inro closed.  By the end of the 19^th Century, they had evolved into elaborately carved boxes with the accompanying Netsuke and Ojime. While many people are familiar with the larger 2” Netsuke; Ojime are typically between 3/4 inch to 1 inch – a perfect size for 1/12 scale miniatures. The Ojime are found in most of the same designs as the Netsuke.

Go visit her site, and check out the wide selection, ranging from cute bunnies to skulls, cats, monkeys, and large wild animals.

The pressure worked on Facebook (Again.)

According to this story in the New York Times, Facebook has once again made a change, angered their users, and then have to backtrack.

===========

The word choices are interesting.  Facebook talks about the “feedback” they received.  How about: canceled accounts, deleted files, and angry emails.  I suppose that’s “feedback.”

What is really interesting though is that they have reverted back to the old TOS “…while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”  Just what does that mean?  Does that mean they will not go back? They will more clearly state that they will only keep material that is cross-linked to other people’s accounts? Or does it mean that they will try again when no one is looking?

Given that I asked the question about “Outcome Focused Performance” a few posts back, I can’t help but wonder what “outcome” Facebook (the corporation) has in mind with their decisions.  Obviously every business has financial success as their goal, but that is usually achieved through a mix of product, service, and value that attracts customers.

Facebook doesn’t really generate revenue directly from the users.  We pay no fee to join, no monthly account maintenance fee, and no data storage fee.  One could argue they have no obligation to us, and that there is no “contract” since no money changes hands.  Therefore they should be able to do whatever they wish.  The revenue that Facebook generates is a direct result of our being there, but is derived from our presence, and our activity.  Given this, Facebook’s action in changing the TOS could be viewed as a business simply hoping to extend their opportunities for revenue through the users.

Of course, I think they are losing sight of one important fact–we are guests.  Now, some would remind us that guests should “behave themselves” when in someone else’s house.  True enough.

But Facebook should remember that they need to be gracious hosts.

====

n.b.:The link identified in the article excerpt above is here.

I would love to have you share YOUR best and worst service stories here.  I hope to use them with my course in Service Operations, and will certainly give attribution! Especially for the “Best Service” stories!

So-go to the comments, and let us know your story!