ACL Live at the Moody Theater
Robbins Had No Agenda
RECEIVED Fri., Nov. 15, 2013
Dear Editor,
I was the moderator of the Oct. 17 Prop. 6 forum at which Paul Robbins was a panelist. I am also the co-president of the League of Women Voters of Austin, the forum's co-sponsor. Our intention was to make a complicated proposition as understandable as possible to interested voters.
Knowing that Prop. 6 has many facets, the League (and Northwest Austin Civic Association, the forum's host) wanted a forum that would not leave attendees wondering whom to believe. We wanted a voice that might be able to reconcile differences between the other two panelists. To anyone in attendance, I think it was clear that the agenda of all the speakers was to convey accurate information, not to "win" a pro/con debate. Based on the comments I received from the audience, the forum achieved its goal.
Richard Whittaker, in his response to Paul Robbins [Postmarks, Nov. 15], says that Robbins "thoroughly, categorically, and at great length lambasted the proposition.” I was there, Mr. Whittaker, and this is simply not accurate. Mr. Robbins did state his opposition to the measure and raised a few of his own concerns. But he had no agenda other than to add nuance to the points made by the other panelists, which is what he was asked to do. I think this is quite different from how Mr. Whittaker described Mr. Robbins' posture at this forum.
I was the moderator of the Oct. 17 Prop. 6 forum at which Paul Robbins was a panelist. I am also the co-president of the League of Women Voters of Austin, the forum's co-sponsor. Our intention was to make a complicated proposition as understandable as possible to interested voters.
Knowing that Prop. 6 has many facets, the League (and Northwest Austin Civic Association, the forum's host) wanted a forum that would not leave attendees wondering whom to believe. We wanted a voice that might be able to reconcile differences between the other two panelists. To anyone in attendance, I think it was clear that the agenda of all the speakers was to convey accurate information, not to "win" a pro/con debate. Based on the comments I received from the audience, the forum achieved its goal.
Richard Whittaker, in his response to Paul Robbins [Postmarks, Nov. 15], says that Robbins "thoroughly, categorically, and at great length lambasted the proposition.” I was there, Mr. Whittaker, and this is simply not accurate. Mr. Robbins did state his opposition to the measure and raised a few of his own concerns. But he had no agenda other than to add nuance to the points made by the other panelists, which is what he was asked to do. I think this is quite different from how Mr. Whittaker described Mr. Robbins' posture at this forum.
Stewart Snider
