 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
IT'S GREAT to be home! Forgive me if I insert a bit of nostalgia, but as I stand here today, I can't help but recall my experiences in Illinois. Some 18 years ago the commissioners of Skokie decided our village of 14,000 people required a substantial uplifting of their park system and its image. It was my good fortune to be the first Superintendent of Skokie and to propose a plan and program for consideration of the board. The program proposed in 1954 was for a bond issue of about $2,000,000. Some of you will remember this. The announcement that our board was even considering such a "preposterous amount" for a village of 14,000 found much doubt that it should be further considered much less approved by the public. However, the board had the faith and the courage to proceed. Much to the surprise of the prophets of "doom and gloom" the referendum was overwhelmingly approved and the accomplishments brought local, state and national recognition to our village. I suspect that if we had relied upon political judgment alone we would never have undertaken such an endeavor. We played for large stakes and won. Now I ask you to think about this: If you deliberately play for peanuts and you win—what do you win? Why, peanuts! You end up with peanuts because that's all you were ever trying for. Did it ever occur to you that if you are going to jump over a gorge you can't do it in two jumps? Let's face facts. Our future can't be paid for with peanuts. I've come here today to share with you the kind of stakes for which we are playing. In fact, you in Illinois have a great deal at stake for you continue to potentially have the greatest opportunity in the country to advance the cause of leisure specifically because of the special district laws which distinguishes you head and shoulder above other states. If you wish to continue your role as being the leader, or one of the leaders, you can't look over your shoulder for it's too easy to stumble and someone will pass you by. The permissive park and recreation legislation you have is the envy of all, and really accounts for the tremendous interest displayed by laymen in this state. It is the sincere dedication and political commitment of laymen as well as the professionalism of staff in and out of park districts to which I wish to address myself. It becomes increasingly apparent to me that we suffer from an inability to articulate our purpose because that purpose has been superficial, relatively unimportant and confusing. The problem has essentially been that we have assumed that an increased amount of leisure automatically results in a full and abundant life. However, there are too many instances to the contrary. It does appear that if our services are to take on meaning, we must develop a consistent central purpose directed to not only what man does in his leisure, but, more important, understanding what happens to him when he does it! In a word, I believe we have given attention to the wrong things. Recreation has emerged as a response to the learning or skills through an "activity orientation". The "fun and games" image created in the minds of the public conveys the impression we serve an unimportant public service. Activity alone has not produced the results anticipated. The activity-for-activity's-sake concept in the minds of the public reduces our purpose to keeping kids off the street, to curbing delinquency and to providing recreation solely for the economically and socially deprived. Those citizens economically privileged have assumed they themselves are not socially deprived so they suggest those socially deprived must be poor. The truth is the "poorest" are frequently the "wealthiest". Did it ever occur to you that the major reason the "street worker concept" is prevalent in many cities is that delinquents show remarkedly good judgment in not coming to parks? What they seek is frequently not available. Conversely, the "resource orientation" attributed to a park has received substantial acceptance in the minds of the public because it uses landscape design to emphasize aesthetics as the major recreation function of a park and human enrichment as the objective. Certainly parks are enriching, but their overall impact has been quantitatively minimal, mostly because there is a dependency upon spontaneous use. Parks have done an outstanding job of enabling users through man made or naturalistic design to achieve fulfillment as demonstrated by a bliss of solitude experienced in a beautiful landscape or enjoyable contemplation while sitting on the proverbial park bench. The problem has been the refusal, at least in urban settings, to provide active type facilities to carry on a qualitative and balanced recreation program. There is a fear, with substantial justification, that the type recreation program offered will be in conflict with the objective Robert W. Ruhe is Superintendent, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and formerly Director of the Skokie Park District. Illinois Parks and Recreation 4 January/February, 1973 intended for a park—an enriching experience. Systems, too, are turning away from the recreation "leadership concept" to a "supervised facility orientation". We find more and more special facilities being constructed requiring a "management concept" as distinguished from an "activity or resource orientation". I refer specifically to tennis centers, ice arenas, swimming pools, golf courses, etc. This alarms me, not that we are building these facilities, but that we seem to be doing so little about improving the quality of life through leadership services. Could advocacy of special facilities possibly be a silent admission that activity for activity sake is really inconsequential? We seem to be looking for an operation that is related to a capitalistic concept based on profit and loss in substitution of a type which requires a deeper understanding of a social purpose and which depends upon people to respond. Make no mistake, special facilities are essential and desirable, but they are only supplements to, rather than replacement of, leadership services. I sincerely wonder if we aren't saying, "I don't understand people so I must substitute something which I do understand." I suggest to you that we emphasize a "human orientation" which makes the "resource orientation" of land, "facility operations" and the "activity orientation" of program, compatible. Obviously, if we want people to achieve personal growth we must have a type of leadership which can identify leisure interests and skillfully assist the user in extracting meaning and purpose from that experience. This can be accomplished regardless of whether the participation is spontaneous or planned, active or passive, structured or unstructured. Activity, facilities and aesthetics must all be recognized as functional, but in balance, and contributing identically to the enrichment of life. This change in perspective requires an academic preparation which emphasizes the place of leisure in our society, an understanding of human behavior, a proficiency in evaluating the outcome of learning experiences, an effectiveness in working with others and an appreciation and understanding of the place of parks in our environment. A recent letter from Dr. Allen Sapora, University of Illinois, states: "the recreation and park movement is in an unprecedented era of change which most of us have tremendous difficulty in understanding. Recreators must be behaviorial scientists." I strongly agree and believe general acceptance and implementation of the curricula objectives stated will answer the demands of students who simply say: "We want a profession with a purpose and one which is relevant to the times." The quality of curricula continues to improve, but it is apparent that as universities continue to respond to academic demands they may be guilty of trying to be "all things to all people." It seems reasonable to suggest the undergraduate curriculum emphasize at the lower division level, humanities and the social sciences and be designed to give attention to human understanding. The upper division level courses then would contain courses of a professional level intended to prepare the student for his field of specialization with options in public, voluntary, therapeutic recreation, park management or whatever is desirable. Courses should specifically be offered at this upper level, which give insight into the meaning and effect of participation regardless of whether it is active or passive. The overall intent is to produce more "Indians" than "Chiefs" which in itself would be a refreshing change! Proficiency in administration and supervision is then directed to graduate work and indigenous to the major chosen. Intelligence, however, is not enough. I suspect that in our haste to gain professional recognition we have over-emphasized intelligence for two reasons: 1) it is convenient to measure and 2) intellectual potential implies effective use. Gene Pomerance, Past President of IAPD recently made the following astute observations: "1) professionals are not always right, 2) everyone has a boss, and 3) it is not enough to call yourself a professional for if you deserve it you need not ask for it." Simply, possession of intellect does not assure its effective use, nor that success will automatically accrue to all who possess it. Achievement is really at the base of success. Several qualities are essential to the type of success which has depth, meaning and permanence: 1) the ability to extract meaning from our experiences which enables us to work effectively with others, 2) a type of self-motivation which creates a continued on page 25 Illinois Parks and Recreation 5 January/February, 1973 ROBERT RUHE . . . continued from page 5 high standard of performance, 3) a self-confidence which carries a strong degree of personal stability and enables one to take a calculated risk without the fear of failure, 4) the personal warmth necessary to enlist the respect and cooperation of others by building sound personal relationships and, 5) the presence of a set of personal values which place emphasis on ethical and moral character. These observations are offered to not only entice professionals to aspire to greater heights but to also strongly suggest that policy makers raise their sights! The responsibility for government rests with the people through their elected representatives. I hope you are filled with an inspiration for parks. The purpose suggested requires a substantial dedication on the part of the elected policy makers to make it come true. Prerequisites for elected public office are minimal, generally limited to age and residency. Many feel these pre-requisites are not enough, but our democracy guarantees every citizen the right to serve with minimum qualifications. Despite some short comings we must admit the elective process has worked remarkably well. There are a number of basic responsibilities common to all policy bodies which make policy making effective! These are: 1. The trusteeship of public assets in the long term interest of the citizenry. This type of trusteeship goes beyond the immediate obligations to those "present and voting" and involves a social responsibility to future generations. 2. Determination of the objectives of the system and translation into policies. 3. Selection of the chief administrator and probably the ratification of his key subordinates. 4. A continual review of objectives, policies and programs to assure relevance to changing conditions and times. 5. Assurance that major plans conform to established objectives. 6. Approval of major decisions required by law as well as those determined by policy to be in the perogative of the board. 7. Through controls, to ascertain that events are conforming to plans. Simply stated, checking on the results. To assure effective board-staff relationships, three main understandings are required: 1) the board and staff must mutually understand their respective roles and functions, 2) the board must establish policy, and should hold the staff responsible for attainment of policy, and 3) the staff has the right to obtain assistance from the board in successfully accomplishing their job. Administration, and its effectiveness with boards, is simply the art of problem solving. An intelligent administrator appreciates an administrator in whom they have faith. In general, it is only the administrator obsessed with monolithic power, doubtful of the soundness of his proposals or the accuracy of his judgment, and fearful of his own security and competence, who opposes board participation. Conversely, this also applies to the board. Each must develop a relationship which limits decision making to matters which are within their respective purview with an understanding it is human to error. Fundamental to this relationship is achievement. The relationship flourishes best when each is contributing and each is being recognized. The policy maker and staff member each seeks achievement while acting and keeping within the defined role of his capacity. Since the staff member is professional in his work capacity, his needs are satisfied generally through recognition and in his earnings, and we need no longer be concerned about him. But what about the layman? I must confess a complete intolerance with colleagues who question the value of laymen or who look to board members as a threat. This simply is insecurity. Let me also respectfully suggest "I've had a belly full" of board members who insist on administering. Regardless of which condition prevails, each produces mediocrity—to the sacrifice of the community. Why? Because each is acting in a capacity beyond his responsibility as well as upsetting the time proven "check and balance" system. Board and staff relationship must be based upon an understanding and confidence in each other, recognizing that the fine line of balance varies with the individuals involved. Has it ever occurred to professionals that in our search for excellence we may have attached a superficial degree of job complexity to justify a status? Has it ever occurred to you that when we define activity as the beginning and end of program that we give credence to the erroneous concept that any local jock can direct a program? Has it ever occurred to you some workers show remarkedly good judgment when they quit? Board-staff relationships should be reduced to the simplest terms. I suggest that effective leadership is helping participants to help themselves and that our objective is to achieve for them a meaningful, rewarding and purposeful experience. Did it ever occur to you that this can also apply to board members? Did it ever occur to you that park commissioners may be seeking the same satisfaction of fundamental human needs as do participants? Perhaps if we "think smart" we can extend the same purpose to policy makers. Think about this: "Effective leadership enables policy makers to determine wise public policy with the expectation the depth and quality of participation determines how meaningful, purposeful and rewarding is the decision and the experience." Remarkedly close to the aspirations for program participants, isn't it? The complication is "how do you accomplish the relationship?" That's what makes a professional— lay or paid! Now, ladies and gentlemen, if you came here looking for specifics, I don't have them and I do hope you are not disappointed. Recently I received a letter from Prof. Tony Mobley, formerly from Western Illinois University, who wrote: "You can make a major contribution at the conference by discussing ways we can better develop relationships with elected public officials as well as developing a sound understanding of the total political system and how to work within it without compromising one's professional integrity." My response is I appreciate the confidence but I could never find the words to express it, for anyone who knows me also knows I maintain the maximum flexibility until a specific route is required, and that route may change from instance to instance and within the specific. I can only say that a political system which has worked so well for so long can't be all bad and we must make it work for us rather than against us with our individual talents. You gotta know the territory. The quantity and quality of Illinois park commissioners present at this continued on page 33 Illinois Parks and Recreation 25 January/February, 1973 ROBERT RUHE . . . continued from, page 25 conference is phenomenal. I attribute your interest to the fact that as elected officials you have complete authority, as compared to appointed or advisory status. This suggests that the more policy authority you have the greater contribution you can make and the more recognition you require. Special districts are and will continue to be under substantial scrutiny particularly with their ineligibility to participate in federal revenue sharing and the continual search for efficiency in government. There is little doubt that special districts can be more effective and efficient, but only if the public believe it is doing a better job. This requires a sense of purpose which is worthwhile and a quality of staff and policy makers justifying the special status. The uniqueness of the special district status rests with the elected commissioners and their ability to retain qualified staff. This staff in turn must understand how to work with the board. Remember the commissioner seeks and comes to office for a purpose, and assuming such is desirable, he must have the opportunity to accomplish his objective. Policy boards are a heterogenous group which require skillful direction and handling to enable them to work effectively as a group. This group process does not mean compromising independent political judgment for we must not lose sight of the fact that policy makers and their electorate come from various intellectual, economic and social backgrounds. We must preserve the integrity and dignity of the individual, but at the same time develop a respect for group decisions, irrespective of which side or issue prevails. The problem of the policy maker and the professional delving into each others authority may well be due to the difficulty of knowing whether it is policy or administration which results in the success achieved. I suggest the professional step aside for even the most unselfish and dedicated layman does seek and is entitled to more than the satisfaction of a job well done —we must help him achieve if we are to attract and keep qualified policy makers. Citizen representation through laymen is at the base of our potential success. You have indeed been kind to me and for this I am deeply appreciative. The epitomy of a man's career is to be called back "from whence he came"! I do hope the remarks offered will assist in placing in perspective the framework for commissioners and professionals to develop a better understanding and appreciation of the role each should play. You have a great future and I hope all realize we have been dealt a good hand to play the game. In fact, I remember as a young man in St. Louis of an incident which aptly describes my feelings. Every year one of our Baptist churches used my Father's services as a church organist to play at Sunday evening evangelistic services. After the preacher had won enough converts he would conduct baptismal services at the Mississippi River the next Sunday morning. It was near the spot where the Riverfront Inn is now located. The congregation would attend and the converts would wade out into the river just as they did in the days of John. On one Sunday, one of the converts turned out to be a fellow best known for his card playing and drinking. His name was "Luke" and he was dressed in his Sunday best, white shirt and tie, suit, spats—the works. "Luke" and the minister waded out into the river and it was obvious "Luke" had done the town the night before. When "Luke" got in as deep as his pockets, the Jack and Ten of Spades went floating into the river. This created a ripple of laughter and embarrassed "Luke's" wife who was present. But the minister and "Luke" kept going out and when the water reached "Luke's" vest pocket, the King and Queen of Spades floated out onto the water. This time there was a little stronger reaction from the crowd on the cobblestone incline. This didn't stop them and the minister and "Luke" kept going and when the water got as deep as "Luke's" inside coat pocket the Ace of Spades floated out and rippled on waters top downstream. The crowd by this time was in loud laughter and this was too much for "Luke's" wife and she cupped her hands and shouted to the minister, "Reverend, there's no use foolin' with Luke! He's lost. Lost, I tell you." The reverend turned around, leveled a look of scorn at "Luke's" wife and said, "I am ashamed of you. How in the hell could he be lost with a hand like that!" That is my message to you today as you open this conference. We've got good cards in every pocket and the stakes are high! We shouldn't lose with a hand like this, but it really depends upon how we play the cards! Illinois Parks and Recreation 33 January/February, 1973 |
|
|
