The dirty words used to be making Biscayne Park "A Better Place to Be." Tonight, we heard about the "Love Fest" held for our Manager. The term was mentioned by four people, three of them sarcastically and derogatorily, and the fourth referring to the phrase uttered by the other three. A "Love Fest" is where people present themselves at the special session to consider the Manager's performance and her contract, and they like her. A lot. Non-Commissioner residents like her a lot. Three of five Commissioners like her a lot. Her coworkers and subordinates like her a lot. Even the people who were critical of her in any way talked about how likeable and effective she is, but the fact that that is what was said repeatedly rubbed some the wrong way. So saying you like the Manager and think she does a great job, and saying this in the context of a meeting in which receiving and evaluating feedback about the Manager is the point of the meeting, is a "Love Fest."
But here's the problem. Every non-Commissioner resident who spoke spoke positively about the Manager. Even those who had any criticism spoke positively. And the two Commissioners who were negative about the Manager are negative about everything. So it seems the conclusion really is that our Manager is that good. So if she's really that good, and if almost everyone with anything to say says she's that good, then why is telling like it apparently is a "Love Fest?"
Calling tonight's meeting a "Love Fest," or criticizing the Mayor for her ambition to make the Park "A Better Place to Be," isn't an assessment. It's a posture. It's a ploy. It's being a misanthrope. Pure and simple. It's what some people do: they make it their business to complain and find fault. There might be fault to find (as the Manager said, no one is perfect), or there might not, but the self-appointed task for some people is just to grouse. If there's something to grouse about, they're all over it. If there isn't, they grouse about nothing. But they don't say it's about nothing. Wouldn't they look foolish if they said they were whining because they like to whine. Or because they're just unhappy and poorly adjusted people. They twist and distort a matter until they've wrung from it something they think they can portray as a problem worthy of complaint. Or accusation. That's become a pretty consistent offering from some people around here.
One Commissioner accused the Manager of not meeting her responsibilities to the neighborhood. But that Commissioner never comes to any Village events except Commission meetings (of which he misses more than any other Commissioner). It may be that he doesn't think coming to Village events is his responsibility, but I don't know anyone who agrees with him. He has also never turned in his Manager evaluation from a year ago. When he was confronted about that tonight, he said he had completed it, but not submitted it, and that he had "legal advice" that he should not submit the evaluation. His angle was that he considered the Manager under some kind of investigation, and that somehow that meant he shouldn't turn in the evaluation he claims he did and which was due a year ago. And tonight, he was one of two Commissioners who advocated strongly that Manager evaluations should be required to be in writing. You can see how twisted this is. It's actually tortured. And it's all about whining and complaining and accusing and being dissatisfied. But there's no real content. What is presented as content is ethereal. All it really is is bad attitude disguised as righteous scrutiny. Nasty, nasty stuff. Divisive, ill-tempered, and hypocritical.
And for the record, I completely agree with both Commissioners (Bernard and Cooper) who said they thought evaluations should be written, not just verbal. But they're both such miserable people that by the time they get done taking swipes at everyone, any feeling of accord with them is gone for me.
So that was our gathering for tonight. I'm happy to report, though, that when all was said and done, those of us who were in love were still in love. The "Fest" wasn't spoiled. The Mayor remarked at the amazing resilience of the Manager. It came through again, and it buoyed all of us. She really is a gem.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Dumbing Down
It's Wednesday morning, October 12, and I have to confess I'm writing this under the influence. Last night, I watched not more than about 5-6 minutes of the lastest Republican debate. I didn't watch long, but the toxin was strong. (BTW, I'm not really sure how this was configured as a debate. The one debating opponent of all the Repbulican participants, Barack Obama, wasn't included. Sort of a straw man debate, I guess. That may be part of the toxicity.) Anyway, the debate happened to be among Republicans, but it wouldn't have mattered if it had been a Democrat debate. The problem would have been the same. It's several people working hard never to give serious consideration to anything, avoiding serious questions, and spouting slogans which were intended to earn the applause of the audience. Which they did, from time to time. It's an empty, foolish, insubstantial undertaking, and it leaves the viewer wondering which of these mindless and apparently fearful losers will be the party's nominee for President of the United States.
In 2006, someone sent me the following quote:
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Much more recently, I stumbled across this quote:
“Palin’s supporters identify with her: she represents the erasure of any distinction between the governing and the governed.” New Yorker, 12/7/09
You can see the theme is the same.
In its meeting last week, our Commission had an opportunity and a responsibility. It squandered one, and abdicated the other. The subject was trees. A couple of weeks before, arborists (2) from the County had come to talk to us. They warned about the Australian pines along Griffing Boulevard, and they pointed out the trees were at the end of their lives. They pointed to signs of death at the tops of the trees, and they suggested the trees should be felled and replaced by other trees. They suggested oaks, but agreed the County would install whatever we wanted. So the Commission agreed (3-2, as it agrees to most things), and the trees were taken down.
The problem is that some Griffing residents particularly liked the trees, or they were used to them, and they were sorry to see them go. Although some of the stumps were all but hollow, demonstrating how right the County arborists had been, some were not yet hollowed by insidious death, and the mourning residents latched onto pictures of those vital-looking stumps, to suggest the trees had been needlessly killed. Did I say "mourning" and "killed?" Indeed I did. Well, it's not so much that I said it. The unhappy residents themselves said it. One talked about how the trees had been "murdered" and "killed." Another talked about how not only she and her husband had been bereft by the loss of the trees, but that even the household pets had been disoriented, off their feed, and otherwise undone by the disappearance of these dear botanical friends. Two residents, having apparently given up on wishing the trees qua trees were still there, complained that the large stumps should have been left standing, so they could lovingly have been converted into wood sculpture, as is done "in Europe" (photographic show-and-tell included).
Some people are willing to spend heroically to try to salvage ailing pets that are really at the ends of their lives. Some can't bring themselves to turn off life supports when family members are brain dead and vegetative. And evidently, some people just can't let go of dead or dying trees. And this is with apparent complete suspension of recognition that if the trees are that badly off, it may be likely that they will either drop large branches, or fall over altogether, placing property and life at risk.
So this is what confronted the Commission last week. Now let's remember the Mencken and New Yorker quotes, and the political debate. These provide a critical frame of reference. The debates demonstrated that apart from the self-serving effect of pandering, the contestants had an underlying fear of the audience (local and TV). Contestants could not speak candidly, honestly, and with regard to the question at hand, because they were afraid the audience wouldn't approve. "Audience," of course, equals potential voters. So if contestants were afraid of the audience, and Mencken and the New Yorker tell us there is decreasing difference between candidates and the general public, then we should understand that candidates are also afraid of themselves. Not only can they not be assertive because they fear the public, they can't be assertive because they are, in some sense, the general public, and they know they don't know what they're doing. And they certainly know the general public doesn't know what it's doing. Otherwise, they wouldn't jerk the public around as they do. And if we further understand what Mencken tells us, we have to assume that at some level, the general public, who are not running for office, because they know they don't have the skills and knowledge, are afraid of themselves and their elected officials, as exemplified by the effigies of themselves they just elected. Or are now considering electing. In other words, they're in conflict. They say they don't want a class different from themselves governing, but they know they themselves are not up to the responsibility, and neither are their equals whom they propose to elect.
So back to the Commission and last week. The Commission had, in theory, a job to do. It had to sympathize with the complaining public who mourned the loss of their dead trees. It had to express understanding of the natural and near universal reflex gut reaction. And it had to reassure the public that the decision was a correct one, that prevented future problems and would provide a better environment for Griffing Boulevard. It had to remind residents that this project cost the County money, and the County would not have spent that money unless there was a reason to. And if the County had money it had to spend somewhere, why there? Why those trees, with the stigmata of impending death on them? It had to remind residents that two County arborists agreed the trees were not salvageable. It had to help residents move on.
But the Commission didn't do that. It didn't do any of it. Parts of the Commission fanned primitive flames, encouraging residents to feel somehow mistreated by the County. That part of the Commission enabled and nourished feelings that the County, its arborists, and even the Village, by agreeing to this battery, were enemies of the public. That part of the Commission cultivated the plaintiffs' feelings of loss, and it never confronted words like "murdered" and "killed" as they apply to taking down dead or near dead trees. And that part of the Commission whipped up or proposed to legitimize enough primitive fear and anger in some residents that it succeeded in getting one other member of the Commission to agree to spend up to $5000, next time we have to replace dead trees, to hire a "second" (third, in this case) opinion arborist to check to see if the dead or dying trees are really dead or dying. So the Village, which is operating on something akin to a shoestring, which will now see even lower revenues, which just voted in a mindless, self-destructive, and public-pandering gesture, to lower property taxes, and which already agreed last year to flush $5000 down the toilet because one Commissioner was feeling angry and spiteful, has now agreed (different 3-2 this time) to completely waste up to $5000 next time we need dead trees replaced. And all of this is a collusion between residents who nurture their primitive impulses, and three Commissioners who are afraid of those residents, and may be nurturing their own primitive and self-serving impusles.
Mencken could really not have said it better.
In 2006, someone sent me the following quote:
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Much more recently, I stumbled across this quote:
“Palin’s supporters identify with her: she represents the erasure of any distinction between the governing and the governed.” New Yorker, 12/7/09
You can see the theme is the same.
In its meeting last week, our Commission had an opportunity and a responsibility. It squandered one, and abdicated the other. The subject was trees. A couple of weeks before, arborists (2) from the County had come to talk to us. They warned about the Australian pines along Griffing Boulevard, and they pointed out the trees were at the end of their lives. They pointed to signs of death at the tops of the trees, and they suggested the trees should be felled and replaced by other trees. They suggested oaks, but agreed the County would install whatever we wanted. So the Commission agreed (3-2, as it agrees to most things), and the trees were taken down.
The problem is that some Griffing residents particularly liked the trees, or they were used to them, and they were sorry to see them go. Although some of the stumps were all but hollow, demonstrating how right the County arborists had been, some were not yet hollowed by insidious death, and the mourning residents latched onto pictures of those vital-looking stumps, to suggest the trees had been needlessly killed. Did I say "mourning" and "killed?" Indeed I did. Well, it's not so much that I said it. The unhappy residents themselves said it. One talked about how the trees had been "murdered" and "killed." Another talked about how not only she and her husband had been bereft by the loss of the trees, but that even the household pets had been disoriented, off their feed, and otherwise undone by the disappearance of these dear botanical friends. Two residents, having apparently given up on wishing the trees qua trees were still there, complained that the large stumps should have been left standing, so they could lovingly have been converted into wood sculpture, as is done "in Europe" (photographic show-and-tell included).
Some people are willing to spend heroically to try to salvage ailing pets that are really at the ends of their lives. Some can't bring themselves to turn off life supports when family members are brain dead and vegetative. And evidently, some people just can't let go of dead or dying trees. And this is with apparent complete suspension of recognition that if the trees are that badly off, it may be likely that they will either drop large branches, or fall over altogether, placing property and life at risk.
So this is what confronted the Commission last week. Now let's remember the Mencken and New Yorker quotes, and the political debate. These provide a critical frame of reference. The debates demonstrated that apart from the self-serving effect of pandering, the contestants had an underlying fear of the audience (local and TV). Contestants could not speak candidly, honestly, and with regard to the question at hand, because they were afraid the audience wouldn't approve. "Audience," of course, equals potential voters. So if contestants were afraid of the audience, and Mencken and the New Yorker tell us there is decreasing difference between candidates and the general public, then we should understand that candidates are also afraid of themselves. Not only can they not be assertive because they fear the public, they can't be assertive because they are, in some sense, the general public, and they know they don't know what they're doing. And they certainly know the general public doesn't know what it's doing. Otherwise, they wouldn't jerk the public around as they do. And if we further understand what Mencken tells us, we have to assume that at some level, the general public, who are not running for office, because they know they don't have the skills and knowledge, are afraid of themselves and their elected officials, as exemplified by the effigies of themselves they just elected. Or are now considering electing. In other words, they're in conflict. They say they don't want a class different from themselves governing, but they know they themselves are not up to the responsibility, and neither are their equals whom they propose to elect.
So back to the Commission and last week. The Commission had, in theory, a job to do. It had to sympathize with the complaining public who mourned the loss of their dead trees. It had to express understanding of the natural and near universal reflex gut reaction. And it had to reassure the public that the decision was a correct one, that prevented future problems and would provide a better environment for Griffing Boulevard. It had to remind residents that this project cost the County money, and the County would not have spent that money unless there was a reason to. And if the County had money it had to spend somewhere, why there? Why those trees, with the stigmata of impending death on them? It had to remind residents that two County arborists agreed the trees were not salvageable. It had to help residents move on.
But the Commission didn't do that. It didn't do any of it. Parts of the Commission fanned primitive flames, encouraging residents to feel somehow mistreated by the County. That part of the Commission enabled and nourished feelings that the County, its arborists, and even the Village, by agreeing to this battery, were enemies of the public. That part of the Commission cultivated the plaintiffs' feelings of loss, and it never confronted words like "murdered" and "killed" as they apply to taking down dead or near dead trees. And that part of the Commission whipped up or proposed to legitimize enough primitive fear and anger in some residents that it succeeded in getting one other member of the Commission to agree to spend up to $5000, next time we have to replace dead trees, to hire a "second" (third, in this case) opinion arborist to check to see if the dead or dying trees are really dead or dying. So the Village, which is operating on something akin to a shoestring, which will now see even lower revenues, which just voted in a mindless, self-destructive, and public-pandering gesture, to lower property taxes, and which already agreed last year to flush $5000 down the toilet because one Commissioner was feeling angry and spiteful, has now agreed (different 3-2 this time) to completely waste up to $5000 next time we need dead trees replaced. And all of this is a collusion between residents who nurture their primitive impulses, and three Commissioners who are afraid of those residents, and may be nurturing their own primitive and self-serving impusles.
Mencken could really not have said it better.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
WTF. The BC Show is at it again.
Unnecessary investigation: $5000, No problem
Attorneys fees: $165 an hour for countless unnecessary hours, No problem
Second opinion (well, third) to cut down dead trees: Up to $5000, No problem
Overdue evaluation of Manager: $900, instead of $75, Unimaginable! What a waste of money! Would rather delay the overdue than to "waste" $825! (Having just complained about an overdue auditor's report)
Sanity between two Commissioners: Would be Priceless, but not available.
Attorneys fees: $165 an hour for countless unnecessary hours, No problem
Second opinion (well, third) to cut down dead trees: Up to $5000, No problem
Overdue evaluation of Manager: $900, instead of $75, Unimaginable! What a waste of money! Would rather delay the overdue than to "waste" $825! (Having just complained about an overdue auditor's report)
Sanity between two Commissioners: Would be Priceless, but not available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)