The Foundation has worked to find an accessible, but satisfying, goal for its fund-raising. Our theory is that our neighbors would sooner and more enthusiastically contribute to their Foundation, which is really only themselves, if they had in mind a clear picture of how the money would be spent. "What are you planning to do with the money?" is a very frequent question when we solicit donations. So we have a loose list of ideas and theories as to how money would be spent, and we recite them to people. They're usually vague and hypothetical, and often enough, they can be grand schemes. So we applied ourselves to getting real about a goal.
Some of our goals are too small to be captivating. They can require as little as a few hundred dollars. Sometimes, we thought of projects that really cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. None of these satisfied those we solicited, and none of them really satisfied us. And sometimes, we tried to attach ourselves to accessible projects, just because they were accessible, not because they were such good ideas.
We relied primarily on others to suggest projects. We had no special way to come up with ideas ourselves, unless it was some idiosyncratic idea, like my public art obsession. But we would hear, either individually or in the context of a Foundation meeting, about others' ideas or others' wishes. And our job was to react to an idea, and experience interpersonal resonance to it.
The winning idea was the following: The park has a tot lot (it sort of has two of them), and the surface of that lot is mulch. Mixed into the mulch is (reportedly) excrement from pets or wild animals, and there is a sprinkling of cigarette butts. There seemed to be pretty good agreement that this surface needed to be replaced. Not with new mulch, which would suffer the same fate as the old mulch, but with something else.
We decided resurfacing the tot lot was just the project for us. It's not a small cost, and it's a stretch at about $30,000, but we felt it would be a wonderful improvement for the neighborhood, and it's something that wasn't exactly a pie in the sky financially. Not easy, but not impossible.
So thanks for your participation ($20 per household per year) if you've been a contributing neighbor, and welcome aboard if you haven't yet. For a project of this financial magnitude, we'll have to extend ourselves, and we will look for outside sponsors as well. But remember, the Foundation is you. It's ourselves. And its fruits are for our enrichment. So give us your best consideration. It's consideration you're really giving yourself.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Some Clarification about My Friend, Our Visitor
I recently mentioned an out of town visitor who attended one of our Commission meetings. She had heard from me about the Commission, she reads this blog, she had some reservations about how accurate was my description of the dynamics and personnel, and she "wouldn't miss" seeing this for herself.
She later told me not only that I was unexpectedly, and somewhat disturbingly, accurate in my description, but that frankly, she wouldn't fully have believed it had she not seen it herself. One word she used was "disgusting," and she particularly cited and indicted "your [our] Mayor." He wasn't on a rampage that day, just doing what he does. She was also very unimpressed with Commissioner Dr Cooper. Or maybe she found him depressing.
But these specific insights and observations are almost beside the point. She had an overarching message for me and for us. Telling it to me was preaching to the choir. I've said it ad nauseum myself. The message to all of us was that it seemed to her essential that Villagers attend these meetings. Even once. Even just for part of a meeting. She felt it was undermining to democracy and to public participation in the governing process for people not to see what they elected.
So I've said it before, and I'll say it again: PLEASE COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS!!! Most likely, and sadly, the people who are the most likely readers of this blog already come to Commission meetings. So I'm preaching to the choir, too. But if there are any readers of this blog who don't come to Commission meetings, please come. And whether readers come to meetings or not, please ask your neighbors to come.
And I'm not trying to say that in my opinion, one or another of the Commissioners is better or worse than any other Commissioner. If I did say it, it would only be my opinion. And my opinion is worth no more than your opinion. My opinion is expressed in this blog. If you choose to comment, which you are welcome to do, then your opinion will be expressed here, too. In fact, tell me you want room to express yourself, and I'll give you a guest post. Say whatever you want. On my dime.
Don't believe what I say. Assume I'm wrong. Or lying. Or stupid. Come see for yourselves. These are your elected representatives. You voted for them. Or you didn't successfully vote against them. You pay them. PLEASE COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS!! Please.
PS: Also, feel free to pass this blog around. Ask people who agree with you, and people who disagree with you, to read it. If I'm wrong, or my thinking is faulty, or someone just sees it another way, I'd like to know about it. And for the record, in the interest of "full disclosure," I get nothing for this blog. There are no advertisers. It makes no difference if two people read this, or 2000 people do. I don't make anything from it, and no benefit accrues to me if someone reads it. I have no way of knowing who, if anyone, reads it, and the "Stats" are unreliable, so I have no way of knowing even how many people read it. Just for the record.
She later told me not only that I was unexpectedly, and somewhat disturbingly, accurate in my description, but that frankly, she wouldn't fully have believed it had she not seen it herself. One word she used was "disgusting," and she particularly cited and indicted "your [our] Mayor." He wasn't on a rampage that day, just doing what he does. She was also very unimpressed with Commissioner Dr Cooper. Or maybe she found him depressing.
But these specific insights and observations are almost beside the point. She had an overarching message for me and for us. Telling it to me was preaching to the choir. I've said it ad nauseum myself. The message to all of us was that it seemed to her essential that Villagers attend these meetings. Even once. Even just for part of a meeting. She felt it was undermining to democracy and to public participation in the governing process for people not to see what they elected.
So I've said it before, and I'll say it again: PLEASE COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS!!! Most likely, and sadly, the people who are the most likely readers of this blog already come to Commission meetings. So I'm preaching to the choir, too. But if there are any readers of this blog who don't come to Commission meetings, please come. And whether readers come to meetings or not, please ask your neighbors to come.
And I'm not trying to say that in my opinion, one or another of the Commissioners is better or worse than any other Commissioner. If I did say it, it would only be my opinion. And my opinion is worth no more than your opinion. My opinion is expressed in this blog. If you choose to comment, which you are welcome to do, then your opinion will be expressed here, too. In fact, tell me you want room to express yourself, and I'll give you a guest post. Say whatever you want. On my dime.
Don't believe what I say. Assume I'm wrong. Or lying. Or stupid. Come see for yourselves. These are your elected representatives. You voted for them. Or you didn't successfully vote against them. You pay them. PLEASE COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS!! Please.
PS: Also, feel free to pass this blog around. Ask people who agree with you, and people who disagree with you, to read it. If I'm wrong, or my thinking is faulty, or someone just sees it another way, I'd like to know about it. And for the record, in the interest of "full disclosure," I get nothing for this blog. There are no advertisers. It makes no difference if two people read this, or 2000 people do. I don't make anything from it, and no benefit accrues to me if someone reads it. I have no way of knowing who, if anyone, reads it, and the "Stats" are unreliable, so I have no way of knowing even how many people read it. Just for the record.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave...
I listened again. Commissioner Dr Bryan Cooper has "researched" the matter, and he has learned that the idea of moving the BP election to the general election was actually my idea. He has further reasoned, intuited, or otherwise discovered that I have "brought forward" this idea through Commissioner Ross, whom he characterizes as my "friend."
This train of events and reasonings is beyond tricky. It is closer to death-defying. I must say, I have no idea what activity Commissioner Dr Cooper means when he says he "researched" something. Whatever it is, it has unfortunately led him in a very wrong direction. He might also have some attentional or memory problems. I moved to BP in the summer of 2005. I voted in my first BP election in December of that year. The next general election was the next November. It was some time in that time frame that I came upon the idea that there was something very inefficient going on, and I began to suggest to the Commission that there might be sense in unifying the elections. It would be cheaper, and the turnout would be better. I have made that suggestion to three different Commissions. I began to suggest it not only before Commissioner Ross became a Commissioner, but even before I met her. I never communicated this idea, or any idea, to one or another Commissioner, to the exclusion of the others. I have never communicated any idea for Commission action to Commissioner Ross unless I also communicated it to all the other Commissioners, including Commissioner Dr Cooper. If Commissioner Dr Cooper doesn't read e-mail I send him, I count that as his problem, not mine.
So Commissioner Dr Cooper is grossly wrong to imagine that I have ever promoted any idea through one Commissioner or another. His researches have also somehow failed to inform him that this idea has been mentioned in the Village for many years, long before I moved here. He says the idea was mine, but it simply was not. There isn't much else to say to him about that. He either made a mistake, was careless, or has made up a story. Only he knows which explanation is correct.
What is most curious about his comment is the idea he now exposes, that a non-Commissioner resident of BP, like me, could bring forward an agenda by using a Commissioner. He is describing a situation in which a non-Commissioner resident has great power over Commissioners, and can direct them to do what he wants. It would seem that he treats them like puppets, and they do his bidding. Commissioner Dr Cooper is making a pretty clear statement about Commissioners who are so weak, mindless, and susceptible. Presumably, he is also saying something about such a resident, who we should imagine must be rather dramatically taken with himself and his power, and is essentially predatory in the way he uses other people, including elected officials.
I guess this is what Commissioner Dr Cooper is saying, and what he believes. I can disagree with him about me personally, and he has no way of knowing how independent-minded Commissioner Ross is, and how often she has disagreed with me or declined suggestions of mine, but Commissioner Dr Cooper may know something I don't know. He may be referring to something entirely different. He is wrong to think I have either the inclination or the power to control Commissioners, but I am not in a position to say that no one has such an inclination, or that there are no Commissioners who can be so manipulated. If Commissioner Dr Cooper is trying to tell us something when he makes these assertions, he will have to be a bit more explicit, and more detailed.
This train of events and reasonings is beyond tricky. It is closer to death-defying. I must say, I have no idea what activity Commissioner Dr Cooper means when he says he "researched" something. Whatever it is, it has unfortunately led him in a very wrong direction. He might also have some attentional or memory problems. I moved to BP in the summer of 2005. I voted in my first BP election in December of that year. The next general election was the next November. It was some time in that time frame that I came upon the idea that there was something very inefficient going on, and I began to suggest to the Commission that there might be sense in unifying the elections. It would be cheaper, and the turnout would be better. I have made that suggestion to three different Commissions. I began to suggest it not only before Commissioner Ross became a Commissioner, but even before I met her. I never communicated this idea, or any idea, to one or another Commissioner, to the exclusion of the others. I have never communicated any idea for Commission action to Commissioner Ross unless I also communicated it to all the other Commissioners, including Commissioner Dr Cooper. If Commissioner Dr Cooper doesn't read e-mail I send him, I count that as his problem, not mine.
So Commissioner Dr Cooper is grossly wrong to imagine that I have ever promoted any idea through one Commissioner or another. His researches have also somehow failed to inform him that this idea has been mentioned in the Village for many years, long before I moved here. He says the idea was mine, but it simply was not. There isn't much else to say to him about that. He either made a mistake, was careless, or has made up a story. Only he knows which explanation is correct.
What is most curious about his comment is the idea he now exposes, that a non-Commissioner resident of BP, like me, could bring forward an agenda by using a Commissioner. He is describing a situation in which a non-Commissioner resident has great power over Commissioners, and can direct them to do what he wants. It would seem that he treats them like puppets, and they do his bidding. Commissioner Dr Cooper is making a pretty clear statement about Commissioners who are so weak, mindless, and susceptible. Presumably, he is also saying something about such a resident, who we should imagine must be rather dramatically taken with himself and his power, and is essentially predatory in the way he uses other people, including elected officials.
I guess this is what Commissioner Dr Cooper is saying, and what he believes. I can disagree with him about me personally, and he has no way of knowing how independent-minded Commissioner Ross is, and how often she has disagreed with me or declined suggestions of mine, but Commissioner Dr Cooper may know something I don't know. He may be referring to something entirely different. He is wrong to think I have either the inclination or the power to control Commissioners, but I am not in a position to say that no one has such an inclination, or that there are no Commissioners who can be so manipulated. If Commissioner Dr Cooper is trying to tell us something when he makes these assertions, he will have to be a bit more explicit, and more detailed.
The Republic of Biscayne Park: Jacobstown
Before I begin, I would like to say two things. First, Gaspar Gonzalez approached me to tell me how offensive is my demeanor, how unlikeable I am, and particularly how disrespectful I am in calling Commissioners by their first names. Guilty as charged, to all of it. (Guilty to calling Commissioners by their first names. Some are personal friends, and the rest I simply know. That's what happens in a tiny municipality. Although Gaspar likes to interpret disrespect in my way of addressing people I know, that is his game. But if he's so delicate, I have no need to discomfit him.) So I have resolved to show more respect, and I will from now on refer to Commissioners by their proper titles and names.
Second, I had a friend visiting from out of town this past week. She is aware of my blog, has read it, and I have described our little goings-on to her. I don't miss Commission meetings if I'm in town, and I offered her the chance not to waste her time. She "wouldn't miss it." She concluded after the meeting that the personnel and dynamics were exactly as I have described them, to her surprise. So I'm glad I have not misled or distorted. As for the topic at hand...
In the Commission meeting of May 1, 2012, Noah Jacobs informed us that the Village is not a democracy. It is a Republic. Although it is not clear what distinction he was drawing, his somewhat arresting assertion deserves some scrutiny. Republics are generally understood to be countries, or "States," not States like the 50 United States. There doesn't seem to be much precedent for a State among states being a Republic, and certainly not a municipality within a state. But what is perhaps more at issue is how we think about the leader of a Republic. Although according to my new resolution I should refer to Noah as Mayor Jacobs, his title according to the Charter of the one-time Village of Biscayne Park, it is likely I would be understating his importance, and showing all the disrespect of which Gaspar (Dr Gonzalez) accuses me, if I did not refer to Noah as President Jacobs. So until I hear differently from our Head of State, I will dutifully refer to him as President Jacobs. The alternative is that I challenge President Jacobs and tell him that in my opinion, having read our Charter, I think we are not a Republic. But this in itself might be unbearably disrespectful. Disrespecting President Jacobs can be a dangerous business.
Commissioner Ross knows what happens when President Jacobs doesn't get the respect to which he considers himself due. In the past, when she was Mayor Ross, she felt the future President's wrath. Last month, after he had dethroned her, she felt it again. Both times, she spoke when he didn't want her to, and she failed to provide direct and dutiful answers to his provocative, and even irrelevant, questions. He fumed, he raged, he drowned her out. He mocked her. He tried his best to silence her, only stopping short of having her removed. He is prone to rather ugly temper tantrums.
With others, too, he can be ruthless in his dismissals and suppressions. In my case, he has silenced me on more than one occasion, and was imperious in so doing. For whatever were the President's reasons, he was more tolerant of Chuck Ross, who was permitted to go over time to finish a thought. Others are treated even more cordially, depending, it seems, on the President's mood.
Our President is not schooled in the art of presiding over a meeting of Commissioners. He is frequently tutored by his informal council of Advisors, chief among them the Attorney of the Republic. But these tutorials seem to have about as much impact as what is commonly jokingly said of the satiation-inducing capacity of Chinese food. The President seems never able to retain the idea that a second is needed before discussion can begin, that public comment must precede Commission discussion regarding Ordinances, under what circumstances the vote must be a roll call vote, and that he cannot simply "call the question" whenever he has tired of the prattlings of the Commissioners. Funny enough, though, at one point he decided it was the moment for him to hand the gavel to his right hand aide, Vice Mayor Dr Barbara Watts, and he was practically erupting in suggestions for her as to how to call upon him for his contributions.
The end of the meeting was another demonstration of the President's whims, his personal touches. When his colleagues bored him, he moved yet again to "call the question." The Attorney for the Republic tried, yet again, to tell him that he could not call the question until everyone had spoken. For the listener in the audience, this concept seems almost simple and straightforward. Evidently, there are subtleties and complexities only the President understands. It wasn't at all simple or straightforward to him. In the midst of this discussion, which also involved Commissioner Ross' effort to preserve her chance to finish a discussion, and a thought, it was realized that the 11:00 meeting limit had expired, and the meeting was in fact over. A motion was offered, to extend the meeting 30 minutes, and the President was inclined to accept this motion. The Attorney for the Republic, however, pointed out that the meeting was statutorily over, and no motion could be offered, voted on, or accepted, even by Presidential fiat. Pish, tosh! This is not some small town Mayor we're dealing with. This is the President of a Republic. The President of RBP:J. The meeting was continued for 30 minutes.
Second, I had a friend visiting from out of town this past week. She is aware of my blog, has read it, and I have described our little goings-on to her. I don't miss Commission meetings if I'm in town, and I offered her the chance not to waste her time. She "wouldn't miss it." She concluded after the meeting that the personnel and dynamics were exactly as I have described them, to her surprise. So I'm glad I have not misled or distorted. As for the topic at hand...
In the Commission meeting of May 1, 2012, Noah Jacobs informed us that the Village is not a democracy. It is a Republic. Although it is not clear what distinction he was drawing, his somewhat arresting assertion deserves some scrutiny. Republics are generally understood to be countries, or "States," not States like the 50 United States. There doesn't seem to be much precedent for a State among states being a Republic, and certainly not a municipality within a state. But what is perhaps more at issue is how we think about the leader of a Republic. Although according to my new resolution I should refer to Noah as Mayor Jacobs, his title according to the Charter of the one-time Village of Biscayne Park, it is likely I would be understating his importance, and showing all the disrespect of which Gaspar (Dr Gonzalez) accuses me, if I did not refer to Noah as President Jacobs. So until I hear differently from our Head of State, I will dutifully refer to him as President Jacobs. The alternative is that I challenge President Jacobs and tell him that in my opinion, having read our Charter, I think we are not a Republic. But this in itself might be unbearably disrespectful. Disrespecting President Jacobs can be a dangerous business.
Commissioner Ross knows what happens when President Jacobs doesn't get the respect to which he considers himself due. In the past, when she was Mayor Ross, she felt the future President's wrath. Last month, after he had dethroned her, she felt it again. Both times, she spoke when he didn't want her to, and she failed to provide direct and dutiful answers to his provocative, and even irrelevant, questions. He fumed, he raged, he drowned her out. He mocked her. He tried his best to silence her, only stopping short of having her removed. He is prone to rather ugly temper tantrums.
With others, too, he can be ruthless in his dismissals and suppressions. In my case, he has silenced me on more than one occasion, and was imperious in so doing. For whatever were the President's reasons, he was more tolerant of Chuck Ross, who was permitted to go over time to finish a thought. Others are treated even more cordially, depending, it seems, on the President's mood.
Our President is not schooled in the art of presiding over a meeting of Commissioners. He is frequently tutored by his informal council of Advisors, chief among them the Attorney of the Republic. But these tutorials seem to have about as much impact as what is commonly jokingly said of the satiation-inducing capacity of Chinese food. The President seems never able to retain the idea that a second is needed before discussion can begin, that public comment must precede Commission discussion regarding Ordinances, under what circumstances the vote must be a roll call vote, and that he cannot simply "call the question" whenever he has tired of the prattlings of the Commissioners. Funny enough, though, at one point he decided it was the moment for him to hand the gavel to his right hand aide, Vice Mayor Dr Barbara Watts, and he was practically erupting in suggestions for her as to how to call upon him for his contributions.
The end of the meeting was another demonstration of the President's whims, his personal touches. When his colleagues bored him, he moved yet again to "call the question." The Attorney for the Republic tried, yet again, to tell him that he could not call the question until everyone had spoken. For the listener in the audience, this concept seems almost simple and straightforward. Evidently, there are subtleties and complexities only the President understands. It wasn't at all simple or straightforward to him. In the midst of this discussion, which also involved Commissioner Ross' effort to preserve her chance to finish a discussion, and a thought, it was realized that the 11:00 meeting limit had expired, and the meeting was in fact over. A motion was offered, to extend the meeting 30 minutes, and the President was inclined to accept this motion. The Attorney for the Republic, however, pointed out that the meeting was statutorily over, and no motion could be offered, voted on, or accepted, even by Presidential fiat. Pish, tosh! This is not some small town Mayor we're dealing with. This is the President of a Republic. The President of RBP:J. The meeting was continued for 30 minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)