I don't want to be patronized. I don't want to be endured. I don't want to be appeased. I don't want to be supported. I want to be understood; and, just as importantly, I want to understand. If I am understood, or even if I feel a sincere effort has been made to understand me, and if that effort is reciprocated, and we still disagree, then we may just have to agree to disagree. And I can live with that.

In this specific circumstance, I cannot be understood in a 30 minute or even an hour-long meeting. Yet that is all the effort that has been put forth, leading me to believe I am on a back burner being patronized and endured and appeased. If we disagree about something this important, shouldn't an effort be made to understand? If that effort is not made, those with the power are either discounting the importance or discounting me; or perhaps both.

You asked what I wanted. I want the respect and the acknowledgement that my interpretation has the potential to be every bit as valid as yours. And in return I promise to make the same strong effort to listen with empathy and understand your interpretation. As I said above, in this circumstance I don't believe this effort toward a mutual understanding can be accomplished in a one hour meeting. And unless all parties concerned have a much greater depth of understanding than what I perceive, (not only of the details but also of my interpretation), I also believe all parties concerned should be present for this effort.

I know this is a lot to ask, especially from where I sit. But you also asked about what I would like to see as an ultimate outcome, and I stumbled because I cannot formulate (what I believe would be) a just and fair resolution without first making this effort toward mutual understanding.

… … … … …

But then again...

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps my role is such that I have only three choices: 1) to trust, 2) to let go, or 3) to raise hell. I maintain it would be better and best to opt for 4) mutual trust and understanding, but the equality of my role is dictated by you. And without this mutual trust and understanding it is difficult for me to let go; and I have found that there is only so much hell to raise before it becomes self-defeating. Yet in many past hell-raising undertakings, I have been known to go to that point and beyond based on principle, in pursuit of my perception of justice. With decades of experience, I am finally though learning to spot this point of optimal utility in the midst of the commotion and from the perspective of my subservience, and recognize it as the place to let go.

Nonetheless, I am disappointed. In this specific circumstance I am pretty confident now that the importance is not being minimized. And I understand (and I want to believe) that my insignificance is ordained for the sake of expediency. But if we disagree in our respective interpretations, I still don't understand why or even how differing roles, (largely determined by random circumstance), invalidates my interpretation. And it is sad that this cloak of bureaucracy serves to hide both justice and injustice from the very people justice is supposed to serve.

And because of this, the words “transparency” and “accountability” have no meaning.

In this circumstance I have been and I believe I will be allowed to glimpse some justice. But that is because of where I sit. There will be many others directly or peripherally impacted, who will never know wrongdoing took place. I understand the practicality of expediency. But in theory shouldn't we practice what we preach regarding transparency and accountability. In theory shouldn't we all publicly admit our mistakes. If we did this, individually and organizationally, I believe it would bring us closer together as we each and all recognize human frailty in each and all. But of course this isn't realistic. There are many, most obviously those at the pinnacles of power, who will never admit to frailty; just look at our Facebook pages.

So lacking this complete and total truthfulness, perhaps we should at least be truthful with ourselves regarding our (lack of) transparency and accountability and instead of professing a “strong commitment” perhaps we should acknowledge our selective commitment.

I understand.

But it is still a slippery slope from strong commitment to selective commitment to rhetoric to politics to fake news.

And I am still disappointed