I could have called this post "Hizzoner." But what we witness month after month, and meeting after meeting, is something more imperious, and more provocative, and more threatening than that. I didn't want to let this seem cute, because it isn't cute at all.
I don't just mean the symbolism concretized in the ending of discussions. Where most chairpeople would make a casual, and certainly courteous, observation that there seemed to be no more discussion, or would ask if there was any more, Noah Jacobs likes to close consideration of topics by his own personal, and personalized, declaration, "I'm calling for the question." He leaves no doubt, and wants no doubt, about who's in charge here. He even customizes the phrase "calling the question," so you know this is Noah, and we'll do it Noah's way.
No, it's not just that. It's the way Noah tries to exercise his sense of power. It's the frequency with which he says, as he did again last night, that if you do this or that, or you don't do this or that, you won't get his vote. It's different from Bryan Cooper, who rarely agrees with anything, and says almost by way of explanation that he "can't vote for" whatever it is, for whatever is his excuse of the moment. He isn't bargaining. He's just telling you why the answer is no, as the answer is almost always no.
Jacobs' approach is different. It has a dynamic to it. He tells you what you can have, and what it will cost you to get it. Is this a nice way to deal with people? No, it is most assuredly not nice. But Noah isn't about nice, or cooperative. He's about his own little sense of power. And importantly, it's not about the issue. It's not about the Village. It's only about Noah. Last night, the issue was so minor that you could have overlooked it. It was insignificant. It was nothing more than where in the Village paperwork to put the requirement that the Code Officer work however many hours, or have whatever credential. Should this requirement be in the description of the Code Compliance Board, or should it be in the job description of the Code Compliance Officer? No one disagreed that the requirement was important.
So it's an oddity that sticks out like a sore thumb when Noah makes such a big deal about it, and uses it as the latest setting for his standard, and seemingly adored, ultimatum: if you move it to the job description, instead of the Code Compliance Board, you won't get my vote. It's bizarre. It's embarrassing. Though seemingly not to Noah. He treats a simple matter like a fight, as if it were consequential and important.
Now truth be told, there appeared to be an undercurrent dynamic at work. As it happens, Barbara Watts had the identical concern. Bob Anderson said he thought the Officer's job description was better placed under the personnel section of Village regulation, but it was OK with him if it was left in the Code Board's regulations. Roxy Ross didn't care, as long as the matter was moved along. Only Jacobs and Watts said they saw this as important. Critically important. How these two people, one of whom has no familiarity with the workings of the Village, and the other of whom has only a spotty little, came both to feel this seemingly minor and nominal matter was so critically important is perhaps anyone's guess. If you think about it, there is only one difference created by where you put the description. If you put the description in the personnel regulations, it's the Manager who monitors and controls it. If you put it in the Code Board regulations, it's the Code Board that monitors and controls it. Considering that it's the Manager who hires and fires, and the Manager who is a trained expert in municipal management, you would pretty much have to be at war with the position of the manager to want to make a battlefield of such a small issue. Is there anyone in the Village who seems persistently to be at war with the position of the manager, apparently no matter who fills that position? I don't know. I'll have to think about it. And if I could think of any such person, it would apparently have to be someone with influence over Jacobs and Watts. That's a pretty specific requirement.
But it doesn't change the issue about Jacobs' style. We're talking about someone who has gotten way ahead of himself. Who has no sense of proportion. Frankly, I wasn't fully expecting it last night, and not only because the issue was a non-issue. Jacobs made special mention of last week's tragedy in Connecticut, and he suggested that such an event should make clear what's really important in life. It seems Noah's conclusion is that he is.
PS: If it appears I left Bryan Cooper out of the discussion of last night's meeting, it's because he wasn't there. He left himself out. Some of us complained about it, again. After the meeting, Dan Samaria approached us and said there was a reason Bryan wasn't there, Dan could not reveal what that reason was, and that if we knew about it, perhaps we would be a bit more forgiving of Bryan's absence. We agreed that things do happen, and that if anyone in any capacity could no longer meet his or her responsibilities to an organization, it was appropriate to resign. And noting, of course, that Bryan isn't just occasionally absent. He's absent more than anyone else, and he invariably neglects a whole class of Commissioner responsibilities. At this point, Dan became muddled about his excuses for Bryan.
No comments:
Post a Comment