Last night, there was a special Commission meeting. There was only one agenda item, which was consideration of five adjustments to the budget. Yes, the budget. This is the thing, apart from FPL, that has gotten so much attention, especially from two Commissioners and a few allegedly interested parties, for its extreme importance to the Village, and its susceptibility to nefarious manipulation. Threats of rolling heads, including of the Manager and finance staff, have been made over this budget. Two residents are running for Commission in part based on complaints of secrecy, "fuzzy math," and mischief made over this budget. Did I give the impression this matter is considered by some to be earth-shaking? Good.
Let's say it how it was: this was a shockingly poorly attended meeting. Fewer non-Commissioner residents were there than are usually at Commission meetings. Meetings where the agendas are not as important to the functioning of the Village are better attended than this one was. One of the two primary plaintiff Commissioners was not there. He said in advance he wasn't coming to any more Commission meetings. The other four Commissioners were there. Most of the Village meeting regulars weren't there. Of the three residents running for Commission as non-incumbents, only one was there. The two who have been campaigning on platforms against secrecy, against "fuzzy math," and in support of the Commission's hearing and endorsing the voice of the residents, weren't there. That's a level of interest in the Village? And we're talking about people who are running for Commission.
No non-Commission resident had any advance comments about the budget. The other main plaintiff Commissioner about alleged legislative and managerial mischief had several questions. Every one was answered directly, completely, and in detail. Nobody else had much. There was no i left undotted or t left uncrossed by the Manager, the Finance Director, the Police Chief, and the Finance clerk regarding this budget.
A vote was taken. The budget, with amendments, passed 3-1. The Commissioner who demanded answers, and got them, voted against the budget anyway. Not that his vote mattered. Not that it ever matters. He is an inveterate nay-sayer. He's a misanthrope. He's a hopeless and lost curmudgeon. And he brings nothing to the table. He has completely marginalized himself, and made himself meaningless and irrelevant. Last night was no exception. There is no pleasing him, any more than his absent lame duck partner can be pleased, because neither of them wants anything. "The answer is no: what's the question?" This is pure and self-contained obstructiveness and negativity. We saw exactly the same thing at the last Commission meeting about the budget (See my "Bada-Bing.")
Well, we're down one saboteur. We can only hope that if one or both of his preferred replacements wins election, they don't pick up in the same miserable, blind, negativistic place where he left off.
What a sad, sad career.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Boss
I've begun to wonder. I thought I should check myself. Perhaps I've made a huge mistake.
There has been fairly incessant rumbling about what the residents of the Park want. The rumbling has come from Bernard and Cooper, and a few of their followers. A consistent drone has focused on FPL, whether we should have signed the Franchise Agreement with them, and whether we should have allowed them to replace the old wood poles with concrete ones. And the refrain is always that the residents of the Park didn't want the Agreement, or didn't want the concrete poles. The most recent examples of this argument were published in the Herald's Soapbox section a few days ago, and were represented by letters from Carmen De Bernardi and Bryan Cooper. So I've begun, as I say, to wonder. Whether I've fallen into a trap and been unfair, to Bernard, Cooper, De Bernardi, Watts, Jacobs, and some of the others.
In my partial defense, I have been lulled by the fact of so many misstatements. Some are distortions, some manipulations, and some outright dissembling. Because these clinkers are so common, I have allowed myself to disqualify whole positions. But have I, perhaps, thrown out an embryo with the contents of a septic tank?
The arguments tend to suggest two things. One is that the majority of the Commission, the steamrolling brutes, have been mindless and unfair (sometimes accused of being criminal) in taking the positions they have. And for all intents and purposes, we're talking about FPL here. Yes, it's true the FPL decision was made a year and a half ago, and is untouchable for the next 28 1/2 years, but the minority still invokes it as its primary example of the problem of which they complain. So as irrelevant and foolish as it is to waste one more instant on it, it's all they got, and we have to talk about it. The other thrust is that the people, usually framed as something related to a majority, want something, but their wishes are ignored. The demonstration of this theme is that "many residents have sent e-mails, or called" or whatever, making their feelings and wishes known. Again, this position was cited in the Herald Soapbox.
Before I go on, I want to be clear about something. I am not discussing whether the Agreement with FPL was the best idea for us, or whether we had any real say about the new poles. Many people, in the Park and in other municipalities, felt the Agreement was a good idea. But it's certainly debatable, as are most things. And many of us, even those whose houses are now graced with the new concrete poles, like mine, are either not complaining or are happy about the new poles. And no one argues that hardening shouldn't have happened, or wasn't going to happen. There has been a bit of mischief, in terms of saying things that are in no way true, by some who want to argue about the project and what it really was, and this is a distraction. The fact is, we could have replaced the old wood poles with concrete ones, at about one new pole to one old pole, or we could have requested replacement with new wood poles. Had we succeeded in obtaining the latter, assuming anyone wanted wood instead of concrete poles, we would be talking about 3-4 new wood poles for every old one (not three to two), the new wood poles would have been made available by cutting down lots of trees somewhere, and the wood poles would come treated with creosote and a collection of other rot-retarding chemicals, which leach into the ground. So it may be a bit less clear than some portray as to which kind of pole is more "environmental." But still, these are all matters fair for debate.
What I want to discuss is the question of what the people want, and how anyone knows. There are two primary self-appointed messengers of the people's will. They are Commissioners Bernard and Cooper. Cooper complains theoretically about the Village's failure to hear the people, and Bernard is specific and demonstrative. Bernard typically relies on two things to transmit the thoughts and will of other people. One is communications from them to him. These communications are most often alleged to be by e-mail. Sometimes, he will say he has received e-mail from some roughly calculated number of people. When he claims e-mail contact, he will sometimes wave a sheaf of papers, which he says are the printed e-mails. (And there is nothing "transparent" about a sheaf of papers containing who knows what writing, waved about, then hustled out of the Commission room without anyone's having seen them.) He almost never names any of the senders, and he occasionally says something which he portrays as a quote. On at least one inspection, the quote turned out to be a few words lifted completely out of context, and concluding exactly the opposite of what the e-mailer said. What he has never ever done is presented these alleged e-mails to his colleagues, or turned them in to the Village Clerk, so they could be made part of the public record. And apparently, he does not ask correspondents to send the same e-mails to the other Commissioners. Even Bernard's faithful ally, Cooper, does not apparently receive these e-mails. Stacks of reported signed petitions are equally mysterious.
Bernard's other source of information about what other people think is conversations he reports having had with them. I'm not talking here so much about "the people," or residents at large, but consultants and other specialists. On many occasions, these people, who tend to be under contract employment to the Village, will have articulated a position, including various "facts," to the general Commission and the Manager. But Bernard will report having had with them private conversations in which they reportedly gave him very different "facts," and very different, often diametrically opposed, conclusions and recommendations. It's never clear what to do with these massive discrepancies.
Cooper's approach manifests much less finesse, and is best characterized as essentially referencing Bernard and saying "yeah, what he said." What Cooper adds is results of internet or other researches, which at best reveal conclusions that are idiosyncratic, and at worst completely disrespect information clearly presented by others. His droning about a walking/bicycle path painted on the streets, mentioned in his letter to Soapbox, is a perfect example. He completely ignores a determination that the streets are too narrow, and that no knowledgable person ever recommended such a thing. Apart from just saying it, it's not clear Cooper has any idea what people think or want, or how he would possibly know.
The reason to look carefully at Bernard and Cooper is that they each and together present an alleged mandate from the residents, and if these Commissioners could be trusted, the opinions of so many residents should be given substantial weight. Not necessarily controlling weight, but at least substantial weight.
So thus far, a good opportunity to trust them is mitigated by their presenting arguments that rest on patently untrue assertions, and the fact that the messages they claim to transmit from the public at large cannot be confirmed. There is no way to tell whether the sheaf of papers Bernard waves around is printed e-mails from resident correspondents, or jokes people sent him. Assuming they are printed e-mails at all.
The other source of perspective on Bernard and Cooper, and to what extent they do or don't represent and transmit the voice of the people, is a look at their recent backgrounds in the Village. Bernard was a well-respected resident of the Park, and he was held in such high esteem that he was made Chairman of the Charter Review Committee, then later appointed unanimously by four sitting Commissioners to fill the spot of the fifth Commissioner, who had just died. At moments like those, it would have been easy to conclude that Bernard was an agreed representative of community sentiments. And the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee were accepted both by the then Commission and by the public at large. Further, Bernard ran for an elected seat when his appointment ended, and he won it. Again, good reason for confidence in his representing or reflecting something of his neighbors. But once attaining a Commission seat, Bernard has made himself increasingly marginal. He quickly alienated three of the four Commissioners who appointed him, and eventually alienated the fourth. Many votes at the end of the last Commission were 4-1. On the next Commission, the current one, Cooper joined Bernard, and the two of them represent an almost invariable 3-2 minority, about almost any topic. On the other side, there is a growing population of Village residents who say they respected and trusted Bernard at one time, but no longer. So it's no longer clear Bernard represents the voice of anyone except himself, Cooper, and a few residents who will sometimes come forward to echo Bernard's sentiments.
Cooper, for his part, had briefly been active in the Village before his election, having served on one Board (Parks and Parkways) and a related ad hoc committee. What is notable is that he didn't get along with anyone in either group, and he was most often outvoted or marginalized. Presumably, when he campaigned for his current Commission seat, he presented himself adequately well in people's homes, and he most likely did not tell them he was an outcast on the two groups where he served. So it is not really clear that he is a reliable reporter when it comes to the thoughts, or the will, of the people.
What's interesting is the power Bernard once had, and some of which he still retains. As the dust settles, it is dubious that that power is his ability to transmit, or know, or perhaps even care about, the thoughts, feelings, and voices of the people. His power is to whip up a form of activity among some of his neighbors. Even as he has lost increasing numbers of them, those who are devoted can be counted on to ask "how high" when Bernard tells them to jump. He very effectively gets them to the polls. He has now stimulated two of his followers to run for Commissioner. One of them says repeatedly she didn't, or perhaps doesn't, want to run. The other has lived in the Park for an unspecified, but apparently not very long, time, had been invisible until two months ago, when Bernard suckered him into coming to a Commission meeting to complain both about FPL and the Commission. He has never had any activity of any kind in the Village, and has never even voted in the Village. Not for a Village election or even a general election. So this Commission candidate would normally appear pretty improbable. But Bernard is a hard and tireless worker, and his devotees do what he tells them. As unlikely as one of Bernard's candidates appears, and as reluctant as the other is, I wouldn't bet against him. I've seen him in action, and I know what he can do. I've seen him make a foolish and unbelievably protracted crusade over the planting of one tree, and although he failed to get that one tree planted in two and a half years, and he engendered lots and lots of resentment and frustration from many of us, he never lost the devotion of some of his followers over it. To this day, they think the saboteur of the tree was someone else. It wasn't easy to get the Village to decline a new and free tree, but Bernard was provocative, stubborn, offensive, and off-putting enough to get it to happen, and some of his followers still think the culprit was what he likes to portray as the evil ruling triumvirate on the Commission. He probably blames the Manager as well. As I recall, he even blames me, although the reasoning is hopelessly tenuous. And when the County recently expeditiously planted a few blocks of new trees, Bernard complained about that, too, and got his followers completely undone over it. (See "Dumbing Down" in this blog.)
So when Bernard and Cooper talk, and tell us what should happen about something, because they have inside information as to what our neighbors really think and want, should we believe them?
There has been fairly incessant rumbling about what the residents of the Park want. The rumbling has come from Bernard and Cooper, and a few of their followers. A consistent drone has focused on FPL, whether we should have signed the Franchise Agreement with them, and whether we should have allowed them to replace the old wood poles with concrete ones. And the refrain is always that the residents of the Park didn't want the Agreement, or didn't want the concrete poles. The most recent examples of this argument were published in the Herald's Soapbox section a few days ago, and were represented by letters from Carmen De Bernardi and Bryan Cooper. So I've begun, as I say, to wonder. Whether I've fallen into a trap and been unfair, to Bernard, Cooper, De Bernardi, Watts, Jacobs, and some of the others.
In my partial defense, I have been lulled by the fact of so many misstatements. Some are distortions, some manipulations, and some outright dissembling. Because these clinkers are so common, I have allowed myself to disqualify whole positions. But have I, perhaps, thrown out an embryo with the contents of a septic tank?
The arguments tend to suggest two things. One is that the majority of the Commission, the steamrolling brutes, have been mindless and unfair (sometimes accused of being criminal) in taking the positions they have. And for all intents and purposes, we're talking about FPL here. Yes, it's true the FPL decision was made a year and a half ago, and is untouchable for the next 28 1/2 years, but the minority still invokes it as its primary example of the problem of which they complain. So as irrelevant and foolish as it is to waste one more instant on it, it's all they got, and we have to talk about it. The other thrust is that the people, usually framed as something related to a majority, want something, but their wishes are ignored. The demonstration of this theme is that "many residents have sent e-mails, or called" or whatever, making their feelings and wishes known. Again, this position was cited in the Herald Soapbox.
Before I go on, I want to be clear about something. I am not discussing whether the Agreement with FPL was the best idea for us, or whether we had any real say about the new poles. Many people, in the Park and in other municipalities, felt the Agreement was a good idea. But it's certainly debatable, as are most things. And many of us, even those whose houses are now graced with the new concrete poles, like mine, are either not complaining or are happy about the new poles. And no one argues that hardening shouldn't have happened, or wasn't going to happen. There has been a bit of mischief, in terms of saying things that are in no way true, by some who want to argue about the project and what it really was, and this is a distraction. The fact is, we could have replaced the old wood poles with concrete ones, at about one new pole to one old pole, or we could have requested replacement with new wood poles. Had we succeeded in obtaining the latter, assuming anyone wanted wood instead of concrete poles, we would be talking about 3-4 new wood poles for every old one (not three to two), the new wood poles would have been made available by cutting down lots of trees somewhere, and the wood poles would come treated with creosote and a collection of other rot-retarding chemicals, which leach into the ground. So it may be a bit less clear than some portray as to which kind of pole is more "environmental." But still, these are all matters fair for debate.
What I want to discuss is the question of what the people want, and how anyone knows. There are two primary self-appointed messengers of the people's will. They are Commissioners Bernard and Cooper. Cooper complains theoretically about the Village's failure to hear the people, and Bernard is specific and demonstrative. Bernard typically relies on two things to transmit the thoughts and will of other people. One is communications from them to him. These communications are most often alleged to be by e-mail. Sometimes, he will say he has received e-mail from some roughly calculated number of people. When he claims e-mail contact, he will sometimes wave a sheaf of papers, which he says are the printed e-mails. (And there is nothing "transparent" about a sheaf of papers containing who knows what writing, waved about, then hustled out of the Commission room without anyone's having seen them.) He almost never names any of the senders, and he occasionally says something which he portrays as a quote. On at least one inspection, the quote turned out to be a few words lifted completely out of context, and concluding exactly the opposite of what the e-mailer said. What he has never ever done is presented these alleged e-mails to his colleagues, or turned them in to the Village Clerk, so they could be made part of the public record. And apparently, he does not ask correspondents to send the same e-mails to the other Commissioners. Even Bernard's faithful ally, Cooper, does not apparently receive these e-mails. Stacks of reported signed petitions are equally mysterious.
Bernard's other source of information about what other people think is conversations he reports having had with them. I'm not talking here so much about "the people," or residents at large, but consultants and other specialists. On many occasions, these people, who tend to be under contract employment to the Village, will have articulated a position, including various "facts," to the general Commission and the Manager. But Bernard will report having had with them private conversations in which they reportedly gave him very different "facts," and very different, often diametrically opposed, conclusions and recommendations. It's never clear what to do with these massive discrepancies.
Cooper's approach manifests much less finesse, and is best characterized as essentially referencing Bernard and saying "yeah, what he said." What Cooper adds is results of internet or other researches, which at best reveal conclusions that are idiosyncratic, and at worst completely disrespect information clearly presented by others. His droning about a walking/bicycle path painted on the streets, mentioned in his letter to Soapbox, is a perfect example. He completely ignores a determination that the streets are too narrow, and that no knowledgable person ever recommended such a thing. Apart from just saying it, it's not clear Cooper has any idea what people think or want, or how he would possibly know.
The reason to look carefully at Bernard and Cooper is that they each and together present an alleged mandate from the residents, and if these Commissioners could be trusted, the opinions of so many residents should be given substantial weight. Not necessarily controlling weight, but at least substantial weight.
So thus far, a good opportunity to trust them is mitigated by their presenting arguments that rest on patently untrue assertions, and the fact that the messages they claim to transmit from the public at large cannot be confirmed. There is no way to tell whether the sheaf of papers Bernard waves around is printed e-mails from resident correspondents, or jokes people sent him. Assuming they are printed e-mails at all.
The other source of perspective on Bernard and Cooper, and to what extent they do or don't represent and transmit the voice of the people, is a look at their recent backgrounds in the Village. Bernard was a well-respected resident of the Park, and he was held in such high esteem that he was made Chairman of the Charter Review Committee, then later appointed unanimously by four sitting Commissioners to fill the spot of the fifth Commissioner, who had just died. At moments like those, it would have been easy to conclude that Bernard was an agreed representative of community sentiments. And the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee were accepted both by the then Commission and by the public at large. Further, Bernard ran for an elected seat when his appointment ended, and he won it. Again, good reason for confidence in his representing or reflecting something of his neighbors. But once attaining a Commission seat, Bernard has made himself increasingly marginal. He quickly alienated three of the four Commissioners who appointed him, and eventually alienated the fourth. Many votes at the end of the last Commission were 4-1. On the next Commission, the current one, Cooper joined Bernard, and the two of them represent an almost invariable 3-2 minority, about almost any topic. On the other side, there is a growing population of Village residents who say they respected and trusted Bernard at one time, but no longer. So it's no longer clear Bernard represents the voice of anyone except himself, Cooper, and a few residents who will sometimes come forward to echo Bernard's sentiments.
Cooper, for his part, had briefly been active in the Village before his election, having served on one Board (Parks and Parkways) and a related ad hoc committee. What is notable is that he didn't get along with anyone in either group, and he was most often outvoted or marginalized. Presumably, when he campaigned for his current Commission seat, he presented himself adequately well in people's homes, and he most likely did not tell them he was an outcast on the two groups where he served. So it is not really clear that he is a reliable reporter when it comes to the thoughts, or the will, of the people.
What's interesting is the power Bernard once had, and some of which he still retains. As the dust settles, it is dubious that that power is his ability to transmit, or know, or perhaps even care about, the thoughts, feelings, and voices of the people. His power is to whip up a form of activity among some of his neighbors. Even as he has lost increasing numbers of them, those who are devoted can be counted on to ask "how high" when Bernard tells them to jump. He very effectively gets them to the polls. He has now stimulated two of his followers to run for Commissioner. One of them says repeatedly she didn't, or perhaps doesn't, want to run. The other has lived in the Park for an unspecified, but apparently not very long, time, had been invisible until two months ago, when Bernard suckered him into coming to a Commission meeting to complain both about FPL and the Commission. He has never had any activity of any kind in the Village, and has never even voted in the Village. Not for a Village election or even a general election. So this Commission candidate would normally appear pretty improbable. But Bernard is a hard and tireless worker, and his devotees do what he tells them. As unlikely as one of Bernard's candidates appears, and as reluctant as the other is, I wouldn't bet against him. I've seen him in action, and I know what he can do. I've seen him make a foolish and unbelievably protracted crusade over the planting of one tree, and although he failed to get that one tree planted in two and a half years, and he engendered lots and lots of resentment and frustration from many of us, he never lost the devotion of some of his followers over it. To this day, they think the saboteur of the tree was someone else. It wasn't easy to get the Village to decline a new and free tree, but Bernard was provocative, stubborn, offensive, and off-putting enough to get it to happen, and some of his followers still think the culprit was what he likes to portray as the evil ruling triumvirate on the Commission. He probably blames the Manager as well. As I recall, he even blames me, although the reasoning is hopelessly tenuous. And when the County recently expeditiously planted a few blocks of new trees, Bernard complained about that, too, and got his followers completely undone over it. (See "Dumbing Down" in this blog.)
So when Bernard and Cooper talk, and tell us what should happen about something, because they have inside information as to what our neighbors really think and want, should we believe them?
Monday, November 14, 2011
Heads up.
Well, this is most perplexing. I have continued to receive requests to remove the "Heads up" post. The basis is always the same, with one exception. Everyone who asked me to remove it cited concerns that I was being divisive or inflammatory. Only one person asked me to remove it on the basis that the assertion wasn't true, and that person had no direct reason to know. No one who is in a position to know has said anything about the post. What's curious about this is that anyone could say anything he or she wants. Anyone could assert the rumor wasn't correct, even if it was. And I haven't even gotten that.
So, as far as I can tell, the rumor is correct. I believe this to be the case, and I have no reason nor even meaningful suggestion to believe otherwise. On the other hand, I have no reason to be divisive or inflammatory, and if reasonable people experience the post, or me, that way, then I will conclude the posting made its point, and there is no reason to belabor it. So I have removed it.
So, as far as I can tell, the rumor is correct. I believe this to be the case, and I have no reason nor even meaningful suggestion to believe otherwise. On the other hand, I have no reason to be divisive or inflammatory, and if reasonable people experience the post, or me, that way, then I will conclude the posting made its point, and there is no reason to belabor it. So I have removed it.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Saw it. Don't completely believe it. Certainly don't get it.
Imagine the final convergence of two great forces. Or are we about to view the collision of forces? Let's imagine, at least for purpose of discussion, that Steve Bernard had a theory, and a vision, and he stood for what he tells us incessantly he stands for. And let's summarize that that theory, and that vision, is that the people count, they are the primary entities in our neighborhood, and that the goal of government, here or anywhere, is to see to it that those people are heard, respected, and taken into highest consideration. I think it's not too far to go to say that Steve feels, or says, the people, when they make their feelings known, should be obeyed. Government is there to effect the will of the people. Not the other way around.
So last night, on the Commission agenda, as on the Commission agendas for each of the past very many months, was an item about a change in our Code regarding fences. This item has been on the Commission's agenda for months for two reasons. One is that whenever it is actually considered, which it has been from time to time, the Commission sends it back to the Code Review Committee, who are no doubt sick to death dealing with it, to refine it. Further and repeatedly. The other reason this item has not been resolved is that the Commission most often does not, in fact, take it up, because the Commission gets bogged down in other nonsense. We saw a typical, if somewhat bizarre, example last night. One of the Commission's favorite time wasters is fussing about the minutes. The Commission ALWAYS wastes inordinate time with this pathetic and frustrating exercise, where that very Steve Bernard will introduce proposed correction after proposed correction, none of which are adopted, and it seems his primary purpose in proposing them (this is essentially what he says) is to draw attention to what he likes to portray as the ethical flaws, and abuse of power, of three of his colleagues. Last night, same thing. What made it more bizarre last night was that one of the enemies of the people wasn't there, so every proposal was "defeated" by a mind-numbingly recurrent 2-2 tie. Furthermore, Steve told us in advance that he wasn't running for re-election next month, and he might not be attending any more Commission meetings at all. So what was his point? But whatever it was, it cost us about an hour.
So thanks to Steve, in part, this fence issue has dragged on interminably. This delay has tested the patience of residents who simply want fences, and it has all but unnerved the CRC, which has recrafted the fence ordinance who knows how many times, often because Steve 1) doesn't like the language, and 2) insists the people must be best represented by the Code. The CRC, of course, is the people. It includes members some of whom were appointed by Steve.
Last night. Drum roll. Final revision submitted. CRC Chair personally there to shepherd the presentation. It don't get better, or more comprehensive, than this in terms of hearing the voice of the people.
Force number two. As I said, Steve announced at the outset of the meeting that we wouldn't have him to kick around any more. (Sorry, Dick; Sorry, Pat; Sorry, Checkers) This was the finale. The swan song. The culmination of his opportunity, and his career, as a Commissioner whose one and only stated goal was to elevate the people and their voices.
So in theory (beginning to look like one of Einstein's, where up may be down, and down may be up), Steve thanks the CRC, and the Commission, and the Attorney, and the impatient residents, and he reassures everyone that it was necessary to protract this fence ordinance business, so that the best voice of the people would be developed and heard. In theory, he votes proudly, perhaps even gloating, to pass this final revision of the fence Code. Ta-Da! Sort of a crowning achievement.
You will recall that I said it wasn't completely clear whether we were about to witness a convergence, or a collision. And if you have any sense at all, you will not read further without donning a crash helmet.
Steve's reception of the new Code was as follows: He felt it didn't really represent the real wishes of the people. He did not make clear what those real wishes really are, and how he knows. Maybe it was that standard large collection of mysterious e-mails, sent by anonymous residents, and only to him. Further, in that we are about to have an election, and at least one Commissioner will be different than the current roster (someone will take over Steve's vacant seat), he somehow decided that the current Commission should not feel authorized to make decisions regarding the fence Code. He seems to have felt that if even one member of the current Commission is a lame duck, which he is, then the Commission is disqualified from making important decisions. (He did not, however, recommend cancelling or quickly adjourning the meeting. Line of thinking unknown. Possibly not rational anyway.) And we must remember that it was this lame duck, irrelevant, disqualified Commission that 1) kept sending the iterations of the proposed Code back to the CRC, and that 2) was too irresponsible and ignoring of the needs of the residents to address the reviewed Code in a timely way. Buck stops where?
So Steve's suggestion, with which my one-time friend Roxy Ross agreed (I'm scolding you, Rox; you're a bad, bad girl. Mayor, indeed!), was to delay consideration of the Code and let the real representatives of the residents, the next Commission, whoever they are, deal with it. Would you believe me if I told you there were residents who were dying to get permission to put up fences, and at least two representatives of the CRC, in attendance last night, and none of them was very pleased at this gross abdication of responsibility? And if you think that Steve seems to be at war with himself, I think you're right.
I give myself the task of trying to explain this behavior. I won't saying making sense of it, because I don't think there is any sense to it. But here goes. And this is all speculation. 1) Maybe Steve is just blindly obstructive, or sabotaging. Anything to interfere with progress and/or equanimity. 2) Steve is angry at everyone over whatever made him to decide not to run for re-election, so he's punishing everyone. 3) With all his bluster and portrayal of broad knowledge, if not expertise, Steve doesn't trust himself and is really afraid to make decisions, and it's easier for him to interfere with them than to take real leadership in one. 4) Steve sees a no-win situation here, where no matter what, someone will be disappointed, or angry, and he wants someone else, not himself, to take responsibility for it. 5) Steve doesn't really like fences here. He's sort of said that, and he sort of said it last night. But the new Code was about allowing them. So Steve caught himself with his own pants down, and really isn't that interested in what the people want anyway, if it conflicts with what he wants, so he just wanted to run away from the whole matter. Other than that, I think I'm outta material.
Now Rox. What's got inta ya, girl, as Frank Zappa said. I only have three theories, not having spoken with her about it. 1) She was tired of the monotonous 2-2 votes, of which this would surely have been yet another, so why bother? 2) She was tired of fighting with Steve, which is what occupies most of her time, Anderson's time, Childress' time, Ana's time, Maria Camara's time, Charlie Smith's time, and all the rest of our time, and again concluded, why bother? 3) Rox calculated (she said so last night) that if she agreed to set it aside until next month, there would be a one month delay in dealing with it. (Groan.) But if it got voted down (2-2 is defeat), there would be a three month delay in being able to reintroduce it. (Hysterical shrieking!) So better to delay. And anyway, there was always 1).
What an unsatisfying evening. And an affront to everyone who lives here.
So last night, on the Commission agenda, as on the Commission agendas for each of the past very many months, was an item about a change in our Code regarding fences. This item has been on the Commission's agenda for months for two reasons. One is that whenever it is actually considered, which it has been from time to time, the Commission sends it back to the Code Review Committee, who are no doubt sick to death dealing with it, to refine it. Further and repeatedly. The other reason this item has not been resolved is that the Commission most often does not, in fact, take it up, because the Commission gets bogged down in other nonsense. We saw a typical, if somewhat bizarre, example last night. One of the Commission's favorite time wasters is fussing about the minutes. The Commission ALWAYS wastes inordinate time with this pathetic and frustrating exercise, where that very Steve Bernard will introduce proposed correction after proposed correction, none of which are adopted, and it seems his primary purpose in proposing them (this is essentially what he says) is to draw attention to what he likes to portray as the ethical flaws, and abuse of power, of three of his colleagues. Last night, same thing. What made it more bizarre last night was that one of the enemies of the people wasn't there, so every proposal was "defeated" by a mind-numbingly recurrent 2-2 tie. Furthermore, Steve told us in advance that he wasn't running for re-election next month, and he might not be attending any more Commission meetings at all. So what was his point? But whatever it was, it cost us about an hour.
So thanks to Steve, in part, this fence issue has dragged on interminably. This delay has tested the patience of residents who simply want fences, and it has all but unnerved the CRC, which has recrafted the fence ordinance who knows how many times, often because Steve 1) doesn't like the language, and 2) insists the people must be best represented by the Code. The CRC, of course, is the people. It includes members some of whom were appointed by Steve.
Last night. Drum roll. Final revision submitted. CRC Chair personally there to shepherd the presentation. It don't get better, or more comprehensive, than this in terms of hearing the voice of the people.
Force number two. As I said, Steve announced at the outset of the meeting that we wouldn't have him to kick around any more. (Sorry, Dick; Sorry, Pat; Sorry, Checkers) This was the finale. The swan song. The culmination of his opportunity, and his career, as a Commissioner whose one and only stated goal was to elevate the people and their voices.
So in theory (beginning to look like one of Einstein's, where up may be down, and down may be up), Steve thanks the CRC, and the Commission, and the Attorney, and the impatient residents, and he reassures everyone that it was necessary to protract this fence ordinance business, so that the best voice of the people would be developed and heard. In theory, he votes proudly, perhaps even gloating, to pass this final revision of the fence Code. Ta-Da! Sort of a crowning achievement.
You will recall that I said it wasn't completely clear whether we were about to witness a convergence, or a collision. And if you have any sense at all, you will not read further without donning a crash helmet.
Steve's reception of the new Code was as follows: He felt it didn't really represent the real wishes of the people. He did not make clear what those real wishes really are, and how he knows. Maybe it was that standard large collection of mysterious e-mails, sent by anonymous residents, and only to him. Further, in that we are about to have an election, and at least one Commissioner will be different than the current roster (someone will take over Steve's vacant seat), he somehow decided that the current Commission should not feel authorized to make decisions regarding the fence Code. He seems to have felt that if even one member of the current Commission is a lame duck, which he is, then the Commission is disqualified from making important decisions. (He did not, however, recommend cancelling or quickly adjourning the meeting. Line of thinking unknown. Possibly not rational anyway.) And we must remember that it was this lame duck, irrelevant, disqualified Commission that 1) kept sending the iterations of the proposed Code back to the CRC, and that 2) was too irresponsible and ignoring of the needs of the residents to address the reviewed Code in a timely way. Buck stops where?
So Steve's suggestion, with which my one-time friend Roxy Ross agreed (I'm scolding you, Rox; you're a bad, bad girl. Mayor, indeed!), was to delay consideration of the Code and let the real representatives of the residents, the next Commission, whoever they are, deal with it. Would you believe me if I told you there were residents who were dying to get permission to put up fences, and at least two representatives of the CRC, in attendance last night, and none of them was very pleased at this gross abdication of responsibility? And if you think that Steve seems to be at war with himself, I think you're right.
I give myself the task of trying to explain this behavior. I won't saying making sense of it, because I don't think there is any sense to it. But here goes. And this is all speculation. 1) Maybe Steve is just blindly obstructive, or sabotaging. Anything to interfere with progress and/or equanimity. 2) Steve is angry at everyone over whatever made him to decide not to run for re-election, so he's punishing everyone. 3) With all his bluster and portrayal of broad knowledge, if not expertise, Steve doesn't trust himself and is really afraid to make decisions, and it's easier for him to interfere with them than to take real leadership in one. 4) Steve sees a no-win situation here, where no matter what, someone will be disappointed, or angry, and he wants someone else, not himself, to take responsibility for it. 5) Steve doesn't really like fences here. He's sort of said that, and he sort of said it last night. But the new Code was about allowing them. So Steve caught himself with his own pants down, and really isn't that interested in what the people want anyway, if it conflicts with what he wants, so he just wanted to run away from the whole matter. Other than that, I think I'm outta material.
Now Rox. What's got inta ya, girl, as Frank Zappa said. I only have three theories, not having spoken with her about it. 1) She was tired of the monotonous 2-2 votes, of which this would surely have been yet another, so why bother? 2) She was tired of fighting with Steve, which is what occupies most of her time, Anderson's time, Childress' time, Ana's time, Maria Camara's time, Charlie Smith's time, and all the rest of our time, and again concluded, why bother? 3) Rox calculated (she said so last night) that if she agreed to set it aside until next month, there would be a one month delay in dealing with it. (Groan.) But if it got voted down (2-2 is defeat), there would be a three month delay in being able to reintroduce it. (Hysterical shrieking!) So better to delay. And anyway, there was always 1).
What an unsatisfying evening. And an affront to everyone who lives here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)