Can You Hear Us?At the first public RIOC board meeting after Susan Rosenthal’s dismissal, a longtime resident had to borrow an official’s voice to ask whether the people governing Roosevelt Island could hear us
In earlier meetings, a bright light behind Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation Vice President and General Counsel Gretchen Robinson had left her face nearly invisible. On July 2, 2020, with Susan Rosenthal gone and a new administration forming, Gretchen appeared fully lit. One woman had moved into the light of the new administration; the other, The WIRE Circulation Manager Sherie Helstien, a longtime resident and former RIRA officer, had to borrow her voice to be heard. Public comment arrived already excluded from the board meeting. When Susan presided, she would ask the board for permission to respond. Those taking her place stayed quiet, a habit that would become more familiar in the years ahead. There was one exception, and it would become the focus of this memory. The administration on the screen had been born in procedural shadow. Rosenthal was fired on June 19 after a state investigation said it had substantiated racially and sexually offensive language. According to Chair RuthAnne Visnauskas, a partial board met after her dismissal and appointed Shelton that day. RIOC treated the transition as accomplished, then brought Shelton’s appointment back for public ratification. David Kraut and Conway Ekpo were absent. Apparently even plausible deniability needs two empty chairs. July 2 was less the birth of the new order than an effort to place a public seal on what had already been done.
Residents were permitted to speak, but only after surrendering their voices. Their words passed through an executive who now looked more visible than she ever had. Gretchen did not flatten Helstien’s letter. She paused where the thought required it, gave the questions room and allowed the anger to remain anger. For a few minutes, a process designed to contain the public produced something unexpectedly alive. Sherie Helstien’s PleaHelstien had worked on the letter. You could hear it in the architecture of the sentences, the movement from memory to warning and the discipline beneath its fury. Gretchen understood the writing and read it accordingly. She gave the letter breath. If Sherie could not speak in her own voice, this was as close as a borrowed voice could bring her. She began by reminding the board that Southpoint Park was not simply a state parcel awaiting improvement. Roosevelt Island residents and the Trust for Public Land had collaborated on its design. Southpoint’s wildness was intentional. RIOC saw nature and assumed somebody had forgotten to improve it. When RIOC later cut down the seagrasses without public input, Helstien wrote, the agency “basically denuded the park and shaved away its character.” Then came her warning: “I suppose we should be grateful RIOC left any grass at all, and, up to now, the trees. But wait, there’s more.” Helstien agreed that the deteriorating seawalls needed repair. She called that work “a good and necessary thing.” She distinguished between repairing the seawall and rebuilding the park. RIOC distinguished between residents who agreed and residents who needed more information. RIOC turned the repair into an opportunity to add a pathway residents had not requested and remove what she described as 325 trees. Then Gretchen read the lines Helstien had built to be impossible to mistake:
According to Helstien, the pathway answered Hudson Related developer David Kramer’s desire to bring more visitors to Roosevelt Island more faithfully than it answered residents who wanted their park left wild. She spoke of the shops, but the larger commercial value of more arrivals was clear: more people seeing the Island and what Related had built there. The resident directors could hear Albany, developers and commercial ambition perfectly while refusing to listen next door. Apparently their hearing improved with distance. “What is your purpose for sitting on the board?” she asked them. A RIOC board meeting was not the community’s meeting, she concluded. “It’s yours.” The Trees They Counted AfterwardsResident director Michael Shinozaki responded “for the record.” RIOC was not removing 325 trees, as far as he knew, a qualification that provided more shade than any tree. He said the design had already changed in response to community comments and that similar vegetation would be planted. At RIOC, a tree becomes “vegetation” the moment somebody wants to remove it. Of all the public comments read that evening, Helstien’s was the one that earned an immediate board answer. Shinozaki was entitled to challenge her number. Helstien’s 325 appears to have come from the Save Our Shorelines petition, which warned that more than 320 trees would be lost but did not publish a tree-by-tree inventory. After the comments ended, resident director Jeffrey Escobar said misinformation about Southpoint needed correcting. The shoreline merely needed clearing. Nine days later, RIOC said the project would remove roughly 99 small trees, not 325, and plant 79 replacements. It did not show residents how it reached that number. Helstien may have overstated the count, but for those who loved the untamed Island promised by Southpoint, 99 was not an acquittal. It was a confession with better arithmetic. The seawalls needed repair, but the pathway did not become necessary merely because RIOC attached it to necessary work. Helstien had asked who was entitled to decide what the park would become. RIOC answered by arguing about how much of it would be destroyed. The Fog MachineAfter the public comments, Director David Kapell identified detachment between the board and the community as the common complaint. He blamed some of it on RIOC’s basement boardroom, calling it the “antithesis of what a public meeting space should look like.” Apparently residents would accept powerlessness if the room had better windows. At RIOC, that qualified as transparency: a basement window useful mainly for proving daylight existed somewhere else. Shelton agreed that meetings should feel more open and inviting. He promised a communications plan, greater engagement, more transparency and better information about projects. The administration born in shadow announced itself with a promise of light. I remember Sherie asking for feedback on her writing. That is why hearing Gretchen read this letter hurts. The words were not the reflexive outrage of someone unwilling to accept change. Sherie had considered the history, conceded the necessity of the seawalls and worked to make the distinction between repair and destruction impossible to miss. RIOC listened closely enough to locate the number it could attack. The project proceeded, the shoreline was cleared and the pathway was built. Recently, Theo asked me to watch the second and third Steam Plant Community Advisory Group meetings. I declined. They were too boring even for me, which may be the clearest evidence that the machine has been perfected. Everything is orderly. Everyone is permitted to speak. The only human drama left is watching Kalin try to make someone hear him after they have already listened. The process is so well oiled that it produces no friction and, therefore, no movement. David Stone calls it the fog machine. It does not silence residents. It lets them speak, repeats enough of their language to create the sensation of recognition and then proceeds unchanged. Their objections do not enter the official minutes because public comment is not part of the meeting. They leave instead as Island memories, carried by the people who remember when something might still have been different. Sherie Helstien asked, “Can you hear us?” RIOC listened closely enough to correct her. Six years later, it may have perfected listening as a way of never having to hear. Your concern is important to us and will be ignored in the order it was received.
|
genderequalitygoals
genderequalitygoals
Friday, 16 October 2026
Can You Hear Us?
Still Yours? Writing with AI Without Losing Your Voice or Your Credibility
Organizational History Network is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Still Yours? Writing with AI Without Losing Your Voice or Your CredibilityAn unanticipated part 3 to a loose series, pointing out the pitfalls of using AI to write, and not disclosing it
Calling this part 3 of a series is a stretch. Basically, this is me backtracking substantially on what I wrote before. Not everything, but still a lot. If you haven’t read the first two parts, check them out here: Not sure if you saw this one? Oops… A Harvard professor bot-shamed by the FT - well, I never. I hadn't planned to write a third part of the series about academics using AI for public engagement, but since I wrote parts 1 and 2, I have had ample opportunity to reflect on what happens when it’s done badly … because it. Very. Often. Is. Harvard prof up there is not at all unusual. I edit another blog (Business Research Unpacked), and I get quite a few AI-generated submissions. Sadly, those often require less work than the ones academics write without assistance, because they avoid most academic pitfalls: big words, classic research sentences and structure, lots of hedging and a lack of clear, punchy insight… well, I could go on. And I should make clear: they are by no means botshit, as they are usually based on academic research, only rendered through AI prose; they have substance, just with the AI lingo that gives everyone the ick by now They are still work because I have to revise them. Substacks can now be scanned by any reader with Pangram, and it would be quite embarrassing for all concerned if that came back with the shame-badge of the 100% AI-generated label. (Of course, you could disable it, thereby signposting that it is clearly AI-generated…) Funnily enough, like the Kennedy School professor in the FT, many of our colleagues don't realise that. I was recently asked to review a grant application that was clearly entirely AI-generated and frankly on the less substantial side. I mentioned it to the research support office, but I remain unclear whether anyone did anything about it. The rise and rise of the meat proxiesUK universities are curiously blasé about all the AI-generated slop. I also marked dissertations… wow, sometimes I could identify with pinpoint accuracy which model iteration they used (I know the Claude Opus range too well). I politely pointed out that their chances of landing a consultancy role after graduation may be much lower if all they can offer is AI-generated insights… Seriously, what employer would pay six (or even five) figures for that?! Our universities' deeply laissez-faire attitude is even more puzzling given the significant online ire about AI-generated text. As you know, I don't share this, but even I now feel ground down by the constant botshit I am expected to read and comment on. People: Use a decent model, learn to set up a good harness, know that prompting guides are bs, and for god’s sake, REVISE THE TEXT AFTERWARDS!! The internet rage granted me a boon, nevertheless, in the form of an amazing new word: “meat proxy” I shall deploy this from now on. You may ask why a relative AI advocate like me is suddenly siding with the haters. Truth is, I have also reached my “too much.” There are good reasons to use it: information retrieval, summarisation, research assistance. Claude is a great aide. But not a great writer. Read this LinkedIn offering: If you cannot see the AI tells, let me tell you:
Another thing AIs endlessly do is tell you what something isn't, then what it is. Or the other way round. Which is completely redundant. One presupposes the other. (Using it sometimes for emphasis is fine. Using it all the time in dry academic writing that normally aims for brevity over expressiveness, not so much.) If you still think it’s all about em dashes and “delve”, you are so 2025. And I can use my favoured en dash again (which sadly doesn't work on Substack). Claudish lexica are now online, in case you want to catch up with the frontier. But while AIs are not great writers, they write excellent copy. So I stand by my earlier claim: they provide a great counterweight to the curse of knowledge. Just see the amazing engagement that this arguably clickbait piece on LinkedIn had: Substack, for all its collaboration with Pangram, just promoted a fully AI-generated piece to me today. It always seems to be some loosey-goosey psychological stuff that meat proxies favour: People love botshitTrained on vast swathes of the internet, LLMs know how to frame pithy attention-grabbers. Hollis Robbins provided a great analysis of why their prose is so loved by so many: the aphorism. But if you work with LLMs fairly regularly, you spot that type of prose pretty quickly. I find myself in a similar position to Johan Fourie, who uses AI himself but keeps rejecting papers because they are AI-generated. And crap.
Over the last two months, I have accepted almost every invitation to review academic papers. On almost every one, I recommended rejection. Nearly all had been written with a large language model, which is fine by me, since I, too, use Claude Code or Codex for every paper I write. The trouble was that they were terrible in the same way, with an abstract …
2 months ago · 8 likes · 4 comments · Johan Fourie
Actually, I refused to review a piece for a major management journal after spotting AI prose in the abstract. And I just don’t have the time to read another piece of junk. Sure, it may not be junk. But why would I donate my time for free if I am already getting a whiff of the stuff in the first 100 words?? This is even more ironic because I hate composing abstracts. I am bad at it. So I use AI. Because it is good at it. And then I revise the text… Universities seem to be in cloud-cuckoo-land…The general attitude in UK HE seems to be that AI use is permitted because we cannot clearly determine whether someone is using it. Nonsense. By now I can spot AI-generated text a mile off. AI use is, of course, another matter. (But then I don’t think that is always bad.) If only we had a Turnitin for AI… which Turnitin would like to be good at because nobody needs it anymore. Plagiarism has gone the way of the dinosaurs, but that’s a subject for another day. But wait, we do! It’s called Pangram. And yes, you might remember me saying it did not work. Claude and I could fool it with light revision. Well…. My money is on 2027 being the year AI detection becomes the new plagiarism detection. It’s changed. VERY quickly. As of last month, Pangram is so good that I would call it nearly foolproof. (It’s not reliable on really short texts, like under 50-100 words.) In all my tests, it’s like a spaniel sniffer dog. Gone are the days when a light revision fooled it. Now, when I generate any text with AI, I either use it for background research or (re-)write each paragraph from scratch. I got a free 7-day trial with Pangram, and wow… … it is like X-ray vision for AI botshitWhat I hadn't realised is that it runs in your browser and automatically scans your social feeds. So my LinkedIn now looks like this: Who’s been swimming without their gear now the tide is out? But THEY DON’T KNOW THIS YET!! Yikes. Personally, I still don’t care much if people post AI-generated stuff on LinkedIn and other socials, because the human-generated stuff there ain’t so great either. Also, academic LinkedIn remains reassuringly human-to-mixed, so my feed is ok. Should you live in fear that you're one ill-advised step away from being slop-shamed if you regularly use AI-generated text without disclosing it? Probably. And thinking that you can get away with denying it because you still think AI detection doesn’t work? Well, that will soon be very 2025, too. My money is on 2027 being the year AI detection becomes the new plagiarism detection. And if you are telling me LLM text can never be detected because it was trained on human writing and therefore cannot be disambiguated, then, sadly, you don't understand how LLMs generate text. If you don’t believe me, try Pangram for free on their website. Or, if you follow this (affiliate) link or QR code, you get 20% off the paid version. But if you want to avoid bot-shaming and learn how to write with AI without losing your voice, you'll want the excellent resources full subscribers get below. ;-) This post has bonus content for paid subscribers. Upgrade to get full access. Thanks for reading (I know it’s a long one today) and have a great weekend! Too much, not everything relevant to your interests?Manage which types of content you receive from History in Organizations:
There’s a shortcut, too: the Unsubscribe link at the bottom of every email will offer to unsubscribe you from individual sections rather than the whole newsletter. So if one post too many lands in your inbox, use that link to drop the section. You're currently a free subscriber to History in Organizations. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
© 2026 Stephanie Decker |
Can You Hear Us?
At the first public RIOC board meeting after Susan Rosenthal’s dismissal, a longtime resident had to borrow an official’s voice to ask wh...
-
Dear Reader, To read this week's post, click here: https://teachingtenets.wordpress.com/2025/07/02/aphorism-24-take-care-of-your-teach...
-
A slightly unconventional guide to your first time ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...









