Remember I told you about the recent Code change workshop ("All Politics Are Local")? Well, here's something that happened there. We were talking about removing dead trees from swales. The issue was who was going to pay for the removal: the homeowner, or the Village. I said, "We're all in this together." (It's one of my sustaining personal philosophies.) Jeane Bergeron turned to glare at me, and she said, "No, we're not." But Jeane, you thought we were all in it together when you wanted all of us to pay, through our taxes, to remove the dead tree in your swale. So this is just a one-way street, huh? When it's a dead tree in your swale, we're all in it together. When it's a dead tree in someone else's swale, they're on their own?
So back to my philosophy, which I admit is mine, and no one else is required to share it. First of all, I figure we really are all in this together. By virtue of agreeing to live together, in a municipality, which has rules we agree to follow, and which levies taxes we agree to pay, we declare ourselves in this together. Now I know that at best, not every one of us will have such fellow feeling, but it seems to me that many of us should. Many of us do. We show up for things, we serve as volunteers on committees, we make extra little contributions for no other reason than that we want to support each other.
And if that applies to many of us, or some of us, there are some who we should imagine, or I imagine, would be the most dedicated and devoted of all. Not to minimize my own dedication, or that of any of the rest of us who participate in the heavy lifting, but some of us seek Representative status, as elected officials. They put themselves "out there" as wanting, and presumably thinking they deserve, special recognition, and the little honorarium that goes with it. Yes, they take our money, and they get to be Commissioners. Who in this Village should be more dedicated than that? If, as Orwell said, we're all equal, but some are more equal than others, then our Commissioners are the most "equal" of all.
So here's my gripe. Of our Commissioners, the majority refuse to donate money to public art in the Village. Two of the five won't even donate $20 a year to the Foundation. $20 a year? We pay them $2000 or $4000 a year. Really? They can't "give back" $20 a year? So what do they do? They're supposed to come to Commission meetings (duh), but one of them is a little light on that fundamental responsibility. Am I wrong to think they should bother themselves to come to Village events? One (Cooper) outright refuses, and says so! Another (Jacobs) is usually not there. One (Watts) shows up for pretty much everything. And two (Ross and Anderson) go way above and beyond. But I'm looking for all five of them to show maximum devotion. They're our Commissioners! Shouldn't they really, really care about the Village? One Commissioner, the Mayor (!), has never ever served on a committee or work group for the Village. He never even bothered himself to vote in a Village "stand-alone" election until he voted for himself. There's every indication that he not only doesn't really, really care about the Village, but frankly, that he couldn't care less. Another Commissioner, Cooper, served on one ad hoc group briefly, did not get his way on one issue, and has acknowledged being on a campaign to punish the Village for disrespecting him. The campaign includes wasting time, fomenting unrest and misery, draining the Village of money, accusing people of everything under the sun, and refusing to show up for anything. Doesn't really, really care about the Village? Couldn't care less? He's actively at war against the Village. It's a war he declared!
The Mayor is the one who gets to have the most prerogative, and he's the one who gets the $4000 a year. Is this just some kind of thrill for him, and for the winner of the "Least Devoted" competition? They're both good with getting the power and the money, but "not so much" when it comes to lifting a finger or sliding the Village a few bucks. And the Mayor has been talking about running for re-election! Seriously? You got nothing for us, but you'd like more for yourself? We haven't heard from Cooper yet, as to whether he'd like another ride.
What am I missing here? If I got this wrong, or my logic is faulty, I want to know about it. I want someone to tell me, and to explain it so I understand it.
No comments:
Post a Comment