I Stand Corrected

I recently posted in this blog a letter I wrote to Noah Jacobs.  In that letter, I criticized Noah for withholding from some of his neighbors his insights and leanings about various elements of Village business.  My feeling was that since Noah is an elected official here, and he represents all of us, he should communicate his insights to all of us.

But I failed to take something into account.  Noah does not always, shall we say, tell it like it is.  And if he's going to, shall we say, invent something, he might well not like to communicate it to people who care about the truth, or are in a position to know fact from fiction.  He would be foolish, for example, to send a description of an event to someone who was there and knows the event did not happen as he described it.  At least he wouldn't like to send the fanciful tale to someone who might confront him about the fact that he made it up.

If we look, for example, at the e-mail Noah sent on 2/8/13, providing his recapitulation of the Commission meeting of 2/5/13, we can see that he provides his own summary of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) discussion.  Noah correctly indicates that there is a windfall to the Village, of an amount he says was $103,792, that Bryan Cooper suggested putting that $103,792 in the reserves, and that the motion was defeated, with only Noah and Bryan voting for it.  Noah's summary was that the transfer "would have shored up the Village's finances, and therefore put us on a better footing for next year."  What Noah doesn't include in his story is that there was disagreement about the number of dollars, with some understanding that the amount was in the 70's, not over $103K.  It would not have been acceptable to approve transfer of $103,792, if there were in fact only $75K.  Noah also omits to summarize the discussion that pointed out that proposed transfers like this are not the correct mechanism for handling money in the municipality.  The very next week, there was discussion of giving the Village Manager a raise, and Noah argued against it, noting there was nothing in the budget that would provide for it.  He was reminded about the recent FRS windfall, but appears not to have considered it relevant.  So one week he considered us awash in money, which we didn't need for active operating expenses and could transfer to the reserve, and the next week he considered us bereft and impoverished.  He also failed to mention that the matter was not on the agenda in the first place, about which he had been confronted in the meeting, so there was no opportunity for preparation by the rest of the Commission, and no opportunity for public comment.  Some Commissioners voted against it for these procedural reasons.  Noah's summary is deeply lacking in depth, perspective, and accuracy, and it runs very much counter to the theme of "transparency" he often says he favors.

Noah's description of the discussion of his new crusade, to ban sales of certain guns in Florida, got a more subtle (mis)treatment.  He begins, "During the opening public comment, numerous residents rose in support of the resolution advocating the prohibition of sales and possession of automatic and semi-automatic weapons."  So the picture Noah wanted to paint for people who were not at the meeting was that he introduced an idea, and lots of people, "numerous" people, agreed with him.  How many supporters comprise "numerous?"  Four people addressed this issue during the opening public comment.  Two were vigorously opposed to Noah's proposal.  The other two thought a communication to the Florida State government could be appropriate, but not Noah's proposed communication.  One specified she liked Bryan Cooper's alternate proposal better.  So it may be a matter of connotation, but I would have said that to the extent that anyone "rose," or rose up, to express anything on the matter, the strongest sentiment was against the proposal, not for it.  And does maybe a half a person, qualifying any sense of even partial agreement, or maybe two halves of people, constitute "numerous" residents?  I wouldn't have said so.  If we strictly count those residents who "rose in support of the resolution," the total is none.  I feel sure that is not the impression Noah meant to leave when he used the word "numerous."

Noah also fails to recognize, or correct himself about, a crucial flaw in his proposal.  He wants to ban "automatic" weapons.  They are already banned in this state, and maybe all states.

Much of the rest of Noah's recapitulation of this discussion focuses on his annoyance and frustration at how "remarkably unfortunate [it was] that a single resident can stop the Village from passing a resolution that has overwhelming support."  "Overwhelming support?"  I'm more virulently anti-gun than Noah is, and I don't support his initiative at all.  Two of the four speakers were very much against it.  The other two were very tentative in supporting any part of the idea.  So it's not clear what sense of support overwhelmed Noah, unless it was what usually overwhelms him, which is his own thought process.  But perhaps more to the point is his sense of outrage at the power of "a single resident."  When Noah himself was that single resident, or tried to be, he didn't seem bothered at all, except to the extent that his tantrum didn't fully prevail.  It did get him a great deal of extra and exceptional attention and accommodation, and he didn't seem to be complaining about that.  When that single resident was Steve Bernard, or Bryan Cooper, Noah wasn't complaining.  So the expression of distress when Linda Dillon is the one resident complaining comes across as most disingenuous.

So I complained about Noah's sending his interpretations and syntheses only to a selected group of his neighbors, but I see I was wrong to complain.  Noah is telling tales that simply could not be told to a wide audience, and he is right to choose his readership carefully.  It would be nice if Noah confined himself to the truth, so that he could safely communicate with everyone, but if he apparently isn't going to do that, in keeping with a pattern he has by now established pretty well, then it is prudent and reasonable for him to avoid readers who know enough to give him reactions he has no reason to want.