Somebody passed me Noah Jacobs' most recent "Village News" synthesis. I'd call it a synopsis, but it isn't quite sufficiently reality-based to be considered a summary. It's quite the document, though. I will protest, however, that Noah still doesn't send it directly to me. He has my address, I asked him always to send them, and as far as I know, he's still taking my money.
The layout is priceless. The header is a banner with a slice of the American flag, a view of the Statue of Liberty, and the note, "From the desk of the Mayor..." As best I can tell, it doesn't come with sound. (If you want to see Noah's production, let me know. I'll e-mail it to you.)
Noah then gets into his expression of deep concern for BP residents, and how we should be careful about hurricanes. He puts it right out there, prominently: he hopes we're doing well. And if we have any anxiety, we should "stay informed, using not only Village updates, and [his] e-mails [if he can be so immodest as to offer them], but also TV and radio outlets, or whatever media [we] choose." See, that's not sickeningly patronizing at all. He offers us an independent choice of source of information. If you're not feelin' the love, then you're not payin' attention.
Then, he's down to business. If you have some image of the Village resident who's interested enough to read what Noah writes, but somehow doesn't yet know that Ana Garcia is leaving us, then you know the target audience. And Noah lets these intensely interested and involved people know that there's an opening for them on the manager search committee, too. On the other hand, Noah flirts with the idea, which he must surely have come up with all by himself, that perhaps we don't need a manager at all. Maria Camara and our staff do very well without one, by which Noah presumably means when the manager is away. This is just the warm-up, though. This is how Noah gets himself limber.
What Noah wants to discuss, or at least the propaganda he wants to spew, is about that conniving police chief of ours, and the mischief made by three of Noah's colleagues. Since we're about to get a new manager, the chief naturally worried that the new manager might have his or her own ideas about who would make a good police chief. Our chief worries that he could get bounced. But the problem is that he likes it here, and he doesn't want to hit the pavement looking for work. So he asked us to promise that if he got bounced without cause, we would keep him on, even as a sergeant, and even at sergeant's pay. Just so he doesn't have to go looking, and wind up someplace he doesn't love being, as much as he loves being here. Anderson, Ross, and Watts fell into the trap. They foolishly thought that if that's all the chief wants, and if it's easy for us to give it to him, then we should shake hands on the deal with him. And here's where Bryan Cooper, and his buddy Noah, go to town. Not only do they decide the chief is making a mistake, and that he and we would be better off giving him an extended contract instead of letting him stay on as a sergeant, which is what he imagined he wanted, but Noah somehow concluded in his update that Anderson, Ross, and Watts showed lack of appreciation for the chief by giving him what he asked for. Go ahead, I want to see you try gymnastics like that. I can't do it, and I'm betting you can't, either.
Noah was now ready to give an impression of the discussion about the proposed property tax rate for the coming year. Here, as with the deal with the chief, Noah did not win, and he was not happy. And if Noah's not happy, then someone must be up to no good. Noah tells us the final decision was 9.9 mills, which it was, and he tells us that 10 mills is as high as we can go, which it isn't. Noah, who thinks the universe revolves around him, thinks that if 10 mills is the highest he, as a Commissioner, can go, then it's the highest anyone can go.
And if you want to know why 9.9 mills was wrong, I mean why he disagrees with it, the most obvious proof is that our staff, whom we pay, only proposed to tax at 9.5 mills. Who are we, Noah asks, to second guess our professional staff? Well last year, Noah was one to declare our manager wrong about her proposal of 9.5 mills. He wanted 9.3 mills. But that was last year. Now, Noah wouldn't think of disagreeing with her. Then Noah points out that our FRS contribution was half of what we feared, suggesting to him that we must be awash in money. Never mind that we aren't: on paper we could be. And local and national real estate prices have begun to rise, creating yet another imagined windfall. Noah is mindless, I mean not mindful, that homesteaded assessments drop quickly but rise only slowly, and that the result of the housing crisis is many foreclosure sales that will value homes much less than they were in the past. And obviously (to most of us), expenses can increase faster than revenues can. Finally, Noah recalls that Anderson and Ross agreed to the 8.9 mills experiment two years ago. Never mind that the experiment failed, and it cost us reserves and breathing room. If they agreed then, then they should agree now. If Noah knows nothing and doesn't learn, then no one should know anything, or learn from mistakes.
Finally, Noah prevaricates, I mean predicts, what position his colleagues will take regarding annexation. They'll advocate for it, Noah indicts, and they'll claim, he sneers, that they're concerned for the Village's "financial solvency." This is what separates mediocre politicians, like Anderson and Ross, from the great and inspired ones, like Noah and Bryan. Noah and Bryan don't get distracted from essential truths. They couldn't care less about "financial solvency." They're seeing the truly big picture.
Noah talks to us about his "dismay" over the final vote regarding boats and RVs. Sadly, "limits" were placed on the opportunity to own and store these vehicles. Some idiots, or cruel people, apparently placed "aesthetics of the neighborhood" over "individual rights." The nerve. Who can bear to live in a society where limits are placed, or individual rights are sacrificed for the greater interests, or the greater good? Heartless. I imagined the soundtrack for the header as "God Bless America" or something. Now I'm thinking "I Gotta Be Me."
Noah concluded by "taking a moment to thank everyone who came out to the...July meeting." Well, it turns out Noah wasn't exactly thanking "everyone." If a vocal minority of Village residents came out and shrieked and threatened and tore their clothes over the deep injury done by the idea that they could have only one boat or RV, and that if possible it should be obscured by a fence or foliage, Noah was thanking those people. He was not at all thanking residents who had opposing opinions. Noah fantasizes that those residents represent some sort of nefarious and powerful cabal (he said cadre, but he meant cabal), that directs Village functioning. Our little version of the Trilateral Commission, positioned to frustrate poor Noah, and his pal Cooper, who were only trying to "leave decisions to [the people]," as any self-respecting anarchist libertarians would.
We deviants were at work, undermining government by speaking our minds, but Noah-devotees should have no fear. "Unfortunately these tactics do sometimes seem to work on influencing some [weak-minded] Commissioners; it (sic) does not work on me[!] In fact, it encourages me to redouble my efforts..." There you have it. Noah may be muddled, but if you disagree with him, he'll get obstinate, too.
And that was Noah's message, Noah's recapitulation of the July Commission meetings. If you can twist yourself, and other people, the way Noah can twist his world, you're good.
PS: I can't get on Noah's list, but you can. Request to receive his e-mails by contacting him at njacobs@biscayneparkfl.gov. It seems I have a hopelessly bad attitude, and I only deserve to pay him, but not to receive his e-mails.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
Would You Like a Piece of Outdoor Metal Sculpture? It's Very Nice, and You Can Have It For Free.
That seems like an offer it would be hard to refuse, don't you think? I mean assuming that you liked outdoor art, that you agreed the piece of art itself was very nice, and that it really wouldn't cost you anything. So let me walk you through what the process of making an offer like this is like.
A few years ago, a small group of your neighbors bought a piece of outdoor metal sculpture and offered it to the Village. For free. There was resistance. There was concern about who would pay for a concrete pedestal. One of your neighbors came forward and paid for it. Then there was talk about the cost of landscaping around it. Another of your neighbors came forward and paid for that. But still, there was resistance. The resistance took two forms.
There was the blanket resistance. Some said the "process" of acquiring the piece of art and offering it was faulty. We should have had an "art committee." This resistance came mostly from Steve Bernard and Gaspar Gonzalez. So, we went about trying to find a "committee." We asked the Commission, which then included Bernard and Bryan Cooper, to appoint one. The Commission unanimously didn't want to, and it assigned this responsibility to the Foundation. The Foundation? OK, the Foundation. The Foundation didn't believe in the concept of relevant art experts for this kind of task, and it too declined to appoint a committee. So no committee.
Then, there was the specific resistance. Two people said they didn't like the particular piece of sculpture. (Too bad no one chose a piece of art that everyone in the world, or at least everyone in Biscayne Park, would like.) Well, it's actually a bit unclear how many people didn't like it. Barbara Watts was the first complainer. But she didn't exactly say she personally didn't like it. She said that she, an art history professor, had shopped it around to some of her FIU colleagues, and two of them didn't like it. So she declared it bad art, on behalf of her colleagues. The other person who didn't like it was Kristin Montouri. Although I'm not sure she ever said she personally didn't like it, her concern was that the ibises wouldn't like it, and that it would scare them away. Do not tell me you don't believe Kristin actually made this argument. It was witnessed by many people.
Back in those days, the majority of the Commission was not trying to obstruct, resist, derail, and suggest crises and conspiracies, so the offer was made, and it was accepted by that majority. Bernard and Cooper voted their consciences, or something, and stood valiantly against the sculpture. And funny enough, both Bernard and Cooper, and Gaspar Gonzalez, conceded that the sculpture, and the concept of public art in BP, might be good. It was just the "process" they didn't like.
We're now back to making a new offer. This time, it's a larger group of your neighbors, and this time, it's a different sculptor. But more importantly, this time, it's a different Commission. And this time, Cooper, Watts, and Noah Jacobs, are in charge. They've punished Roxy Ross, and secondarily Bob Anderson (though Cooper isn't through with Bob yet), and now they want to spank me, beyond something as subtle and mundane as trampling my First Amendment rights.
I asked Barbara Watts, the supposed art maven, to put the sculpture offer on the Commission agenda for the August meeting. It wasn't the sculptor her friends reassured her was inferior, so I thought maybe this time. And Barbara herself was busy, sort of, trying to control the recreation center mural project. For all I knew, maybe she was in a public art mood. So even though she wouldn't be commandeering the sculpture project, as she did the mural project, perhaps some crumbs of enthusiasm might fall the sculpture's way. Barbara eventually wrote back to tell me she didn't agree with the "process" by which the offer was being made, although there is, of course, no other process, and she refused to sponsor the agenda item. (She wasn't concerned about a lack of process regarding "her" mural. She simply invented one and forged ahead.) And she let me know that if I didn't back off, the spanking for which I was angling would lead to hurt feelings, anger, resentment, and polarization, resulting in more rancor in the Village. Was I quite sure I wanted all that on my head?
Incidentally, back in the days when there was talk of an "art committee," I asked Barbara Watts, you know, the art history professor, if she would do us the honor of sitting on such a committee if we formed one. She said it would not be useful, since her only area of knowledge is XVth Century art. So Barbara feels she's not qualified to criticize modern art, she feels she's not qualified to appreciate modern art, but she feels free to complain and try to obstruct the process. Now that I think back on it, Gaspar, the critic, curmudgeon, and "art committee" advocate, also refused to be part of such a committee. I asked him.
So what I think I'll do is ask Bob or Roxy to put the sculpture on the agenda, and have the offer rejected by the Commission, if that's what the juvenile and vengeful Cooper/Jacobs/Watts posse want to do. It's bad enough that they tell me they won't accept any improvement in the Village. Let them tell it to you.
A few years ago, a small group of your neighbors bought a piece of outdoor metal sculpture and offered it to the Village. For free. There was resistance. There was concern about who would pay for a concrete pedestal. One of your neighbors came forward and paid for it. Then there was talk about the cost of landscaping around it. Another of your neighbors came forward and paid for that. But still, there was resistance. The resistance took two forms.
There was the blanket resistance. Some said the "process" of acquiring the piece of art and offering it was faulty. We should have had an "art committee." This resistance came mostly from Steve Bernard and Gaspar Gonzalez. So, we went about trying to find a "committee." We asked the Commission, which then included Bernard and Bryan Cooper, to appoint one. The Commission unanimously didn't want to, and it assigned this responsibility to the Foundation. The Foundation? OK, the Foundation. The Foundation didn't believe in the concept of relevant art experts for this kind of task, and it too declined to appoint a committee. So no committee.
Then, there was the specific resistance. Two people said they didn't like the particular piece of sculpture. (Too bad no one chose a piece of art that everyone in the world, or at least everyone in Biscayne Park, would like.) Well, it's actually a bit unclear how many people didn't like it. Barbara Watts was the first complainer. But she didn't exactly say she personally didn't like it. She said that she, an art history professor, had shopped it around to some of her FIU colleagues, and two of them didn't like it. So she declared it bad art, on behalf of her colleagues. The other person who didn't like it was Kristin Montouri. Although I'm not sure she ever said she personally didn't like it, her concern was that the ibises wouldn't like it, and that it would scare them away. Do not tell me you don't believe Kristin actually made this argument. It was witnessed by many people.
Back in those days, the majority of the Commission was not trying to obstruct, resist, derail, and suggest crises and conspiracies, so the offer was made, and it was accepted by that majority. Bernard and Cooper voted their consciences, or something, and stood valiantly against the sculpture. And funny enough, both Bernard and Cooper, and Gaspar Gonzalez, conceded that the sculpture, and the concept of public art in BP, might be good. It was just the "process" they didn't like.
We're now back to making a new offer. This time, it's a larger group of your neighbors, and this time, it's a different sculptor. But more importantly, this time, it's a different Commission. And this time, Cooper, Watts, and Noah Jacobs, are in charge. They've punished Roxy Ross, and secondarily Bob Anderson (though Cooper isn't through with Bob yet), and now they want to spank me, beyond something as subtle and mundane as trampling my First Amendment rights.
I asked Barbara Watts, the supposed art maven, to put the sculpture offer on the Commission agenda for the August meeting. It wasn't the sculptor her friends reassured her was inferior, so I thought maybe this time. And Barbara herself was busy, sort of, trying to control the recreation center mural project. For all I knew, maybe she was in a public art mood. So even though she wouldn't be commandeering the sculpture project, as she did the mural project, perhaps some crumbs of enthusiasm might fall the sculpture's way. Barbara eventually wrote back to tell me she didn't agree with the "process" by which the offer was being made, although there is, of course, no other process, and she refused to sponsor the agenda item. (She wasn't concerned about a lack of process regarding "her" mural. She simply invented one and forged ahead.) And she let me know that if I didn't back off, the spanking for which I was angling would lead to hurt feelings, anger, resentment, and polarization, resulting in more rancor in the Village. Was I quite sure I wanted all that on my head?
Incidentally, back in the days when there was talk of an "art committee," I asked Barbara Watts, you know, the art history professor, if she would do us the honor of sitting on such a committee if we formed one. She said it would not be useful, since her only area of knowledge is XVth Century art. So Barbara feels she's not qualified to criticize modern art, she feels she's not qualified to appreciate modern art, but she feels free to complain and try to obstruct the process. Now that I think back on it, Gaspar, the critic, curmudgeon, and "art committee" advocate, also refused to be part of such a committee. I asked him.
So what I think I'll do is ask Bob or Roxy to put the sculpture on the agenda, and have the offer rejected by the Commission, if that's what the juvenile and vengeful Cooper/Jacobs/Watts posse want to do. It's bad enough that they tell me they won't accept any improvement in the Village. Let them tell it to you.
Friday, July 26, 2013
It's Decision Time.
I want you to share an assumption with me. The assumption is that the Village needs money, and if it doesn't get it, it will not survive. The extinction will take one of two forms. Either we will cease being a municipality, if we declare ourselves bankrupt or defunct, and either get annexed by someone else or revert to unincorporated County, or we will undergo a functional regression that will leave us poorly situated and poorly provided for. For example, we will have poorer and poorer public spaces, we will let the log cabin become a tear down, and we will either constrict our police force or abandon it altogether, in favor of lesser coverage by Miami-Dade police.
To give you an opportunity to join me in these assumptions, let me put you in mind that our reserves are gone, in the sense of providing a carry-over from one year to the next, that this has been progressive, that revenue increases from homesteaded properties, which is the sizable majority of them, are outpaced by increases in expenses, and that every reasonable opportunity to economize has been realized. We have cut expenses as much as a savvy, conservative, and hard-working manager can figure out how to do. We have fired many people, whom we declared superfluous. The Manager noted in passing during a recent Commission meeting that she can't even buy ball point pens for our office employees. Noah mentioned during another meeting that it is his understanding that we can't afford toner for the copiers. We barely get our bills paid, and to do it, we have to hope that nothing unexpected happens, like a repair that needs to be made.
We also do not do median development, log cabin renovation, and we cannot begin to consider erecting some sort of barrier between our eastern border and the train track. We need that to reduce noise and crime.
Some will argue that we have not economized enough. We could, for example, thin our police force. This is tricky, because we greatly value our police, upon whom we are deeply dependent for our safety, and we consider this protection perhaps our most central asset. Someone once proposed that we could add to the force, and that additions would be free, because officers bring in more in fines collected than they cost us. If this isn't patently preposterous, keep in mind that our police are our biggest expense. So apparently, they're not free at all. They don't simply magically, happily earn their own keep. We could also change our Charter to the way it was, and lose the expense of professional management. If this isn't obviously nonsensical and short-sighted, keep in mind why we moved to professional management in the first place. The idea was proposed by a Charter Review Committee, and accepted by the then Commission and the residents at large through referendum.
No, unless we're ready to surrender, we need money, and we have to decide how to produce it. We've tried to portray ourselves as cute, charming, and needy children whom someone else in the world should support. It didn't work. Our choice now is either to support ourselves, or annex revenue-producing territory that will provide an infusion of property taxes, while we hope not costing us as much as they remit. And there's every reason to suspect that would work. Fiscally, it's a net gain.
The problem is, it changes us. We are no longer compact; we are no longer "100%" residential. But perhaps we don't mind that change. That's the decision we have to make.
As a slight indicator of the Commission's leanings, it has just this week set the maximum ad valorem tax rate for the Village for the coming year. The highest rate the Commission could have chosen was 10 mills. It chose 9.9 mills, shying away from the strongest statement it could have made about our supporting ourselves. The Commission declined aggressive self-support and is driving the Village toward annexation. Or extinction.
But it really has to be one or the other. Either we take special responsibility to preserve this special neighborhood, or we give up the desire for it to be special in the way it has always been. (Maybe Arthur Griffing and the 1932 residents were wrong, or just not looking ahead.) Either position, raising our own taxes or annexing, has pros and cons, but we have to choose. The way our finances are trending, and in view of the likelihood that some other municipality would love the cash cow over the tracks, it's most likely that the time for choosing is now.
To give you an opportunity to join me in these assumptions, let me put you in mind that our reserves are gone, in the sense of providing a carry-over from one year to the next, that this has been progressive, that revenue increases from homesteaded properties, which is the sizable majority of them, are outpaced by increases in expenses, and that every reasonable opportunity to economize has been realized. We have cut expenses as much as a savvy, conservative, and hard-working manager can figure out how to do. We have fired many people, whom we declared superfluous. The Manager noted in passing during a recent Commission meeting that she can't even buy ball point pens for our office employees. Noah mentioned during another meeting that it is his understanding that we can't afford toner for the copiers. We barely get our bills paid, and to do it, we have to hope that nothing unexpected happens, like a repair that needs to be made.
We also do not do median development, log cabin renovation, and we cannot begin to consider erecting some sort of barrier between our eastern border and the train track. We need that to reduce noise and crime.
Some will argue that we have not economized enough. We could, for example, thin our police force. This is tricky, because we greatly value our police, upon whom we are deeply dependent for our safety, and we consider this protection perhaps our most central asset. Someone once proposed that we could add to the force, and that additions would be free, because officers bring in more in fines collected than they cost us. If this isn't patently preposterous, keep in mind that our police are our biggest expense. So apparently, they're not free at all. They don't simply magically, happily earn their own keep. We could also change our Charter to the way it was, and lose the expense of professional management. If this isn't obviously nonsensical and short-sighted, keep in mind why we moved to professional management in the first place. The idea was proposed by a Charter Review Committee, and accepted by the then Commission and the residents at large through referendum.
No, unless we're ready to surrender, we need money, and we have to decide how to produce it. We've tried to portray ourselves as cute, charming, and needy children whom someone else in the world should support. It didn't work. Our choice now is either to support ourselves, or annex revenue-producing territory that will provide an infusion of property taxes, while we hope not costing us as much as they remit. And there's every reason to suspect that would work. Fiscally, it's a net gain.
The problem is, it changes us. We are no longer compact; we are no longer "100%" residential. But perhaps we don't mind that change. That's the decision we have to make.
As a slight indicator of the Commission's leanings, it has just this week set the maximum ad valorem tax rate for the Village for the coming year. The highest rate the Commission could have chosen was 10 mills. It chose 9.9 mills, shying away from the strongest statement it could have made about our supporting ourselves. The Commission declined aggressive self-support and is driving the Village toward annexation. Or extinction.
But it really has to be one or the other. Either we take special responsibility to preserve this special neighborhood, or we give up the desire for it to be special in the way it has always been. (Maybe Arthur Griffing and the 1932 residents were wrong, or just not looking ahead.) Either position, raising our own taxes or annexing, has pros and cons, but we have to choose. The way our finances are trending, and in view of the likelihood that some other municipality would love the cash cow over the tracks, it's most likely that the time for choosing is now.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Kicking and Screaming.
This wasn't complicated. Well, let me rephrase that: this didn't have to be complicated. I'm referring to the 7/23/13 special Commission meeting.
The first order of business was the police. Larry Churchman was promoted to Captain. That happened without complication, and with only the good kind of fanfare. The second order of business was to respond to Ray Atesiano's request. Ray is our Chief. Everyone, without exception, agrees he's a great Chief. The best we've ever had. The best we could imagine wanting. We don't want to lose him. And the issue was that he doesn't want to leave us, either. Ever. He wants to retire from BP. So because we're getting a new Manager, and because no one can predict what a new Manager might want in terms of staff and employees, and because Ray loves it here as much as we love having him here, Ray had a proposal. He wants us to guarantee that if a new Manager has his or her own Chief in mind, which Ray can apparently imagine, understand, and even accept, we agree not to fire him. Specifically, he asked that we bust him down to Sergeant, and let him stay as a BP employee. He would take the cut in pay. He just likes it here, and he doesn't want to leave. It's really hard to complicate this, isn't it? Now, to be entirely fair, there was slight ambiguity as to whether Ray's proposal was that he would keep his Chief's salary, even as a Sergeant, and whether he insisted on being compensated for "100%" of his sick days, if he doesn't use them. The latter applied only if he was fired, though. These ambiguities were cleared up instantly, simply by asking Ray. Nope, Sergeant's pay is good enough, and whatever is the standard proportion of sick days, depending on tenure at the time, will be fine with him. If he's fired without cause. That's the thing that no one thinks is going to happen. But boy, was this a struggle. You do not need me to tell you which Commissioners provided all the resistance.
Then, we were on to the budget, and the estimated opening tax rate. This rate is chosen in advance of detailed scrutiny, and it can be lowered as the process goes on, but it cannot be increased. The very few of us non-Commissioner residents who attended, and two of the Commissioners as well, reminded the Commission that we are in a money-losing mode at the current tax rate and that we can always decrease the estimated rate, if we find we can manage it. Given what kind of neighborhood this is, with its limited resources, there is never any reason to start deliberations at less than 10 mills. But Cooper wanted us in the 8s, Jacobs wanted us at 9.5, where it is now, and Watts understood the problem, but just couldn't bring herself to start at 10. She wanted 9.9. So you understand, considering an average home valuation in BP, the difference between 9.9 mills and 10 mills is approximately $12 per YEAR. That's the stretch Watts was unwilling to ask BP residents to make. The torment this woman puts herself through, over nothing, is amazing. And she doesn't like to be tormented. So she says. Ultimately, Cooper and Jacobs were unable to agree to this abuse of taxpayers. Jacobs doesn't appear to be about anything, and his actions seem mostly to appeal to his sense of power and aimless relevance. Cooper, who has massive distrust of government (of everything, come to think of it, except his newfound safe haven, "non-profits"), recalled that even with the increase from mid 8s to almost 10, he did not see us solving our fiscal problems. Presumably, he meant this to suggest that whatever revenue the Village gets through ad valorem taxes somehow gets diverted somewhere. But what he wasn't considering, and apparently didn't realize, is that the Village is so far from being able to thrive that even increases like that, as much as an average $180 per home per YEAR, don't put us on good fiscal ground. As we all, audience, Manager, Finance Director, even Police Chief, have tried to tell him, it's not enough.
The further problem is that Cooper, and his bargain basement pal, Jacobs, as well as the skittish Watts, don't want to annex. Well if we need the money, and we don't get it, through either increased tax revenues or annexation, what do they imagine is going to happen to the Village? Or don't they care? Not exactly what you want representing you, and making decisions for your Village.
But they won't get out of the way. Well Cooper is partly out of the way. He did come a couple of minutes late and leave 15-20 minutes early, but he shows up for votes way too often. He really needs to bow completely out, and let us have Commissioners who have actual concern for and interest in the Village. Not looking like it, though. Mostly, he tries to resist whatever anyone else wants. I know it doesn't sound like much of a fulfilling lot in life, or claim to fame, but it appears to be all he's got.
There is good news, though. We gave the Chief what he wanted, so he's relieved (and so are we), and we got as close to 10 mills as we could without simply deciding to get there. And Barbara Watts can feel good that she saved her friends an average of $12 a year, and it only cost the Village $13K. Which the Village desperately needs.
The first order of business was the police. Larry Churchman was promoted to Captain. That happened without complication, and with only the good kind of fanfare. The second order of business was to respond to Ray Atesiano's request. Ray is our Chief. Everyone, without exception, agrees he's a great Chief. The best we've ever had. The best we could imagine wanting. We don't want to lose him. And the issue was that he doesn't want to leave us, either. Ever. He wants to retire from BP. So because we're getting a new Manager, and because no one can predict what a new Manager might want in terms of staff and employees, and because Ray loves it here as much as we love having him here, Ray had a proposal. He wants us to guarantee that if a new Manager has his or her own Chief in mind, which Ray can apparently imagine, understand, and even accept, we agree not to fire him. Specifically, he asked that we bust him down to Sergeant, and let him stay as a BP employee. He would take the cut in pay. He just likes it here, and he doesn't want to leave. It's really hard to complicate this, isn't it? Now, to be entirely fair, there was slight ambiguity as to whether Ray's proposal was that he would keep his Chief's salary, even as a Sergeant, and whether he insisted on being compensated for "100%" of his sick days, if he doesn't use them. The latter applied only if he was fired, though. These ambiguities were cleared up instantly, simply by asking Ray. Nope, Sergeant's pay is good enough, and whatever is the standard proportion of sick days, depending on tenure at the time, will be fine with him. If he's fired without cause. That's the thing that no one thinks is going to happen. But boy, was this a struggle. You do not need me to tell you which Commissioners provided all the resistance.
Then, we were on to the budget, and the estimated opening tax rate. This rate is chosen in advance of detailed scrutiny, and it can be lowered as the process goes on, but it cannot be increased. The very few of us non-Commissioner residents who attended, and two of the Commissioners as well, reminded the Commission that we are in a money-losing mode at the current tax rate and that we can always decrease the estimated rate, if we find we can manage it. Given what kind of neighborhood this is, with its limited resources, there is never any reason to start deliberations at less than 10 mills. But Cooper wanted us in the 8s, Jacobs wanted us at 9.5, where it is now, and Watts understood the problem, but just couldn't bring herself to start at 10. She wanted 9.9. So you understand, considering an average home valuation in BP, the difference between 9.9 mills and 10 mills is approximately $12 per YEAR. That's the stretch Watts was unwilling to ask BP residents to make. The torment this woman puts herself through, over nothing, is amazing. And she doesn't like to be tormented. So she says. Ultimately, Cooper and Jacobs were unable to agree to this abuse of taxpayers. Jacobs doesn't appear to be about anything, and his actions seem mostly to appeal to his sense of power and aimless relevance. Cooper, who has massive distrust of government (of everything, come to think of it, except his newfound safe haven, "non-profits"), recalled that even with the increase from mid 8s to almost 10, he did not see us solving our fiscal problems. Presumably, he meant this to suggest that whatever revenue the Village gets through ad valorem taxes somehow gets diverted somewhere. But what he wasn't considering, and apparently didn't realize, is that the Village is so far from being able to thrive that even increases like that, as much as an average $180 per home per YEAR, don't put us on good fiscal ground. As we all, audience, Manager, Finance Director, even Police Chief, have tried to tell him, it's not enough.
The further problem is that Cooper, and his bargain basement pal, Jacobs, as well as the skittish Watts, don't want to annex. Well if we need the money, and we don't get it, through either increased tax revenues or annexation, what do they imagine is going to happen to the Village? Or don't they care? Not exactly what you want representing you, and making decisions for your Village.
But they won't get out of the way. Well Cooper is partly out of the way. He did come a couple of minutes late and leave 15-20 minutes early, but he shows up for votes way too often. He really needs to bow completely out, and let us have Commissioners who have actual concern for and interest in the Village. Not looking like it, though. Mostly, he tries to resist whatever anyone else wants. I know it doesn't sound like much of a fulfilling lot in life, or claim to fame, but it appears to be all he's got.
There is good news, though. We gave the Chief what he wanted, so he's relieved (and so are we), and we got as close to 10 mills as we could without simply deciding to get there. And Barbara Watts can feel good that she saved her friends an average of $12 a year, and it only cost the Village $13K. Which the Village desperately needs.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
And These People Are Supposed to Hire a New Manager?
There was a way this could have been easy. Of five Commissioners, only one was involved in hiring both our current manager and her predecessor. The other four have had no experience hiring a manager, or anyone for the Village, and two of them were never Commissioners until after our current manager had been at her post for about two years. She, on the other hand, has abundant municipal experience, including four years as a head manager, with us, and she has gotten herself well-connected in the County. Furthermore, four of the five Commissioners have expressed great confidence in her, and appreciation of her. So the easy road to have taken was to have accepted the road map she devised for a mechanism and a time line to replace her. Maybe a minor tweak or two, here or there, for imprecise details, but generally, she proposed a navigable route. But no, if you're wondering, it did not go smoothly. And if it had, it would certainly have taken less than three hours.
Things were not looking good at the outset. Noah Jacobs came in, when only Anderson and Ross were there, and he wanted the Commissioner seating arrangement changed. He didn't say why, but he wanted Watts placed between him and Cooper, instead of next to Ross. He got some resistance, and he stormed out of the room, demonstrating only an attenuated version of his patented temper tantrums. The manager, clerk, and attorney had to go outside to mollify him. Eventually, he came back in.
Watts was a few minutes late. Cooper was 40 minutes late. It was never clear what Jacobs' tantrum was about.
The meeting started with Dan Samaria's presenting a request that an RAB event be combined with the Halloween event. There was a great deal of attempted exploration of this issue, but Dan was partially equivocal and partially evasive as to what RAB's consensus was about this move, and if they had actually voted on it. It was clear what Dan wanted, but it was not clear what the RAB wanted. The other complicating factor is that the Commission didn't seem to know what it should be doing. It phrased this complication as if it was Dan's fault: "we don't understand what it is you want us to do." The glaring cause of uncertainty came later in the meeting, when Noah mentioned in passing that the Commission had "usurped too much power." If only the Commission in general, and Noah in particular, could have kept this insight in focus for the whole meeting.
And this was really the overarching problem. The answer to Dan's question was that the Commission didn't need to get mixed up in this, and that Dan and RAB could work it out with the Manager and the recreation Director. So the real response to Dan should have been "what's this got to do with the Commission?" But that would have required the Commission to recognize and acknowledge that not everything is its business and purview. It would have required the Commission to have the capacity not to usurp power. Likewise, the Commission did not need to comb through the Manager's recommendation for how to replace her. The main thing the Commission had to do was pick an end date. It now appears this will be early in October. The Commission did not need to bother itself with things like the differences among "should," "shall," and "will," although this debate was clearly self-stimulatory for the Commissioners, and it allowed Eve Boutsis to carry on in her usual excessive way.
Only one of the Commissioners has legal-related training, but it was clear that all of them fancy themselves junior attorneys. As such, it was most important to them to get lost in irrelevant minutiae. Regular attorneys do that to keep the clock running. It wasn't clear why the Commissioners were doing it, unless it was to continue to satisfy the self-stimulatory urges. The range of desperately important details that absolutely required careful debate and exploration was impressive. If you think it's unimportant to take an uneducated guess as to whether people you don't know are on vacation, and how long these imagined vacations enjoyed, hypothetically, by these unknown people are likely to last, like might it be two weeks (from when?) or three weeks, or are they out of work and therefore not on vacation at all, it just shows how little you know. It wasn't unimportant to our Commissioners. And then there was the critically important insight that people who know nothing about municipal management might actually make wonderful municipal managers, and we would be foolish not to hire one of them. Bryan Cooper thought people in general management of something or other, which he then rethought and decided should be "non-profit" organizations, might have just the right skills and connections. Noah Jacobs, the teacher, thought we should consider people whose expertise is in teaching. Barbara Watts, one of our college professors, had a sense that a good place to look for a municipal manager might be in academia. Ana Garcia, our, um, Manager, tried to suggest that we really wanted someone with municipal management skills and experience. Cooper, Jacobs, and Watts weren't so sure that was important. And what about the characteristics of the manager? Jacobs felt strongly, very strongly, that we don't want to advertise that we want someone with a "can-do" attitude and excellent communication skills. Too bad he was in his completely-unaware-and-disinterested-in-the-Village phase when Frank Spence was our manager. There was Noah's perfect manager: can't do, couldn't care less, terrible communication skills. Not a teacher, though.
The other big topic of debate and maneuvering was how many committees should preview the manager applications, and who should be on these committees. Only Bryan Cooper was "adamant" that no one from the County, or the "League of Cities," should be involved. He didn't say why, but I assume the reason is connected with his overpowering contempt for and mistrust of government. So no, he doesn't want any advice from anyone connected in any way to anything related to any government. Apart from that, there was discussion of an ad hoc committee of "residents" (as if the Commissioners weren't residents) who would preview the applications. There was careful and cagey debate about how such a group of "residents" would be chosen, and how many there would be. And then, abundant advance consideration of how hard and long these people would have to work to get through the "100" (imagined) applications. The last time we did this, there were eight. And how short should the ultimate short list be? (Knock it off, you. Quit laughing. This is important to determine far in advance of any actual data. You see, this is why Noah was right about the Scouts. "Be Prepared!")
Nothing substantive was accomplished by this exercise. We needed a document to post in the search for a new manager, our current manager composed one, the Commission provided many "corrections," and now we have a document to post in the search for a new manager. It is not materially different, and certainly not usefully different, from the one the manager proffered. It just took an extra and meaningless 3 hours, which included paying the attorney ($500) and the video guy ($300-$400).
I expected to have to stay at this 6:30 meeting until 8. After 8, I convinced myself to continue on until 9. I decided at 9:30 enough was enough, and it sounded as though the group might be angling itself in the general direction of wrapping up anyway. If I said there wasn't much else they could have found to talk about at that point, it's a statement I could have made at least an hour before. So who knows.
Do you think this post was painfully long? You should have come to the meeting.
Things were not looking good at the outset. Noah Jacobs came in, when only Anderson and Ross were there, and he wanted the Commissioner seating arrangement changed. He didn't say why, but he wanted Watts placed between him and Cooper, instead of next to Ross. He got some resistance, and he stormed out of the room, demonstrating only an attenuated version of his patented temper tantrums. The manager, clerk, and attorney had to go outside to mollify him. Eventually, he came back in.
Watts was a few minutes late. Cooper was 40 minutes late. It was never clear what Jacobs' tantrum was about.
The meeting started with Dan Samaria's presenting a request that an RAB event be combined with the Halloween event. There was a great deal of attempted exploration of this issue, but Dan was partially equivocal and partially evasive as to what RAB's consensus was about this move, and if they had actually voted on it. It was clear what Dan wanted, but it was not clear what the RAB wanted. The other complicating factor is that the Commission didn't seem to know what it should be doing. It phrased this complication as if it was Dan's fault: "we don't understand what it is you want us to do." The glaring cause of uncertainty came later in the meeting, when Noah mentioned in passing that the Commission had "usurped too much power." If only the Commission in general, and Noah in particular, could have kept this insight in focus for the whole meeting.
And this was really the overarching problem. The answer to Dan's question was that the Commission didn't need to get mixed up in this, and that Dan and RAB could work it out with the Manager and the recreation Director. So the real response to Dan should have been "what's this got to do with the Commission?" But that would have required the Commission to recognize and acknowledge that not everything is its business and purview. It would have required the Commission to have the capacity not to usurp power. Likewise, the Commission did not need to comb through the Manager's recommendation for how to replace her. The main thing the Commission had to do was pick an end date. It now appears this will be early in October. The Commission did not need to bother itself with things like the differences among "should," "shall," and "will," although this debate was clearly self-stimulatory for the Commissioners, and it allowed Eve Boutsis to carry on in her usual excessive way.
Only one of the Commissioners has legal-related training, but it was clear that all of them fancy themselves junior attorneys. As such, it was most important to them to get lost in irrelevant minutiae. Regular attorneys do that to keep the clock running. It wasn't clear why the Commissioners were doing it, unless it was to continue to satisfy the self-stimulatory urges. The range of desperately important details that absolutely required careful debate and exploration was impressive. If you think it's unimportant to take an uneducated guess as to whether people you don't know are on vacation, and how long these imagined vacations enjoyed, hypothetically, by these unknown people are likely to last, like might it be two weeks (from when?) or three weeks, or are they out of work and therefore not on vacation at all, it just shows how little you know. It wasn't unimportant to our Commissioners. And then there was the critically important insight that people who know nothing about municipal management might actually make wonderful municipal managers, and we would be foolish not to hire one of them. Bryan Cooper thought people in general management of something or other, which he then rethought and decided should be "non-profit" organizations, might have just the right skills and connections. Noah Jacobs, the teacher, thought we should consider people whose expertise is in teaching. Barbara Watts, one of our college professors, had a sense that a good place to look for a municipal manager might be in academia. Ana Garcia, our, um, Manager, tried to suggest that we really wanted someone with municipal management skills and experience. Cooper, Jacobs, and Watts weren't so sure that was important. And what about the characteristics of the manager? Jacobs felt strongly, very strongly, that we don't want to advertise that we want someone with a "can-do" attitude and excellent communication skills. Too bad he was in his completely-unaware-and-disinterested-in-the-Village phase when Frank Spence was our manager. There was Noah's perfect manager: can't do, couldn't care less, terrible communication skills. Not a teacher, though.
The other big topic of debate and maneuvering was how many committees should preview the manager applications, and who should be on these committees. Only Bryan Cooper was "adamant" that no one from the County, or the "League of Cities," should be involved. He didn't say why, but I assume the reason is connected with his overpowering contempt for and mistrust of government. So no, he doesn't want any advice from anyone connected in any way to anything related to any government. Apart from that, there was discussion of an ad hoc committee of "residents" (as if the Commissioners weren't residents) who would preview the applications. There was careful and cagey debate about how such a group of "residents" would be chosen, and how many there would be. And then, abundant advance consideration of how hard and long these people would have to work to get through the "100" (imagined) applications. The last time we did this, there were eight. And how short should the ultimate short list be? (Knock it off, you. Quit laughing. This is important to determine far in advance of any actual data. You see, this is why Noah was right about the Scouts. "Be Prepared!")
Nothing substantive was accomplished by this exercise. We needed a document to post in the search for a new manager, our current manager composed one, the Commission provided many "corrections," and now we have a document to post in the search for a new manager. It is not materially different, and certainly not usefully different, from the one the manager proffered. It just took an extra and meaningless 3 hours, which included paying the attorney ($500) and the video guy ($300-$400).
I expected to have to stay at this 6:30 meeting until 8. After 8, I convinced myself to continue on until 9. I decided at 9:30 enough was enough, and it sounded as though the group might be angling itself in the general direction of wrapping up anyway. If I said there wasn't much else they could have found to talk about at that point, it's a statement I could have made at least an hour before. So who knows.
Do you think this post was painfully long? You should have come to the meeting.
Conservatives, Liberals, and Some Biscayne Park Residents. Egg On Faces.
War was being waged in Washington, DC. There's news, however, of a kind of victory. Senate Repubicans had been filibustering, to prevent confirmation of a large group of Executive Branch appointees. Some were Cabinet and Department-level people, and some were judges. The logjam broke yesterday, the result of a combination of threats and compromise, and Republicans have ended their strike against the appointments and the President. Filibuster is not nice, but it's a time-honored tool for exerting pressure, to get one concession or another, or to stop something terrible from happening. The problem with this filibuster is that having agreed to end it, Senate Republicans then approved all the appointees. Overwhelmingly. So they didn't get anything, and they didn't want anything. All they were doing was obstructing. It was reportedly John McCain who finally told them to knock it off, and grow up.
In the meantime, Senate (and all other) Democrats cried every day about how Republicans weren't playing nice, and were hogging the game. They pleaded with their faithful to complain, make calls, write letters, sign petitions, demanding that this childish and obstinate filibuster maneuver stop right this minute, so the good work of government could proceed. The problem with this portrayal of righteous indignation is that the very same liberals were, at the same moment, wildly celebrating Wendy Davis' victory over the suppressive forces in the Texas State House. Her tool? The filibuster. You can't have it both ways, people.
And Davis' crusade was to combat Texas Republicans' attempt to pass a law approving all abortions up to 20 weeks and some after that. Davis, and liberals in general, got so caught up fighting Republicans over abortion that they assumed any Republican position, or even offer, was an attempt to restrict rights. They couldn't stop to realize that Republicans were giving them a massive concession and a massive gift, which they should have accepted with deep gratitude. It turned out, when you took a step back and looked at it, that liberals were fighting conservatives over abortion, because that's what they do. The fight wasn't about anything. It was fighting for the sake of fighting. Very much, come to think of it, like the ancient and opaquely mysterious Hatfield/McCoy feud.
Sadly, some of us in BP have that aimless and mindless reflex to dispute, too. "Whatever you want, there must be something wrong with it." "The answer is no; what's the question." It's every bit as primitive, pointless, and non-productive as it sounds like it is. The commonest set-up is claiming to be a victim, or advocating for someone else who claims to be a victim, and mounting a crusade of liberation on behalf of the poor, downtrodden soul. In the recent past, it was about FPL and their distribution trunks, then FPL again and the Franchise Agreement, then FPL Chapter 3 and the concrete poles. Imagine those bullies, coming in here, providing the electricity we crave, and then charging us one of the lowest rates in the country for it. And of course, the evil juggernaut of the majority of the last Commission. It shifted for a little while to the big, bad City of North Miami, and its abusive policy of charging us a low rate for our water. Now, it's the Codes and how they victimize poor people. Like speed limits victimize people who are in a hurry. The cruelty of it all. All courageous and meaningless crusades.
And as in the cases of Senate Republicans, and Texas (and other) Democrats, and Biscayne Park little guys, the fights aren't really about anything. They're posturing, and the postures are empty. No one wins, because there's nothing to win, and everyone loses. Oh, you found a bogeyman du jour? Who cares? Bogeymen are only inventions of children anyway. Maybe we all just need to grow up.
In the meantime, Senate (and all other) Democrats cried every day about how Republicans weren't playing nice, and were hogging the game. They pleaded with their faithful to complain, make calls, write letters, sign petitions, demanding that this childish and obstinate filibuster maneuver stop right this minute, so the good work of government could proceed. The problem with this portrayal of righteous indignation is that the very same liberals were, at the same moment, wildly celebrating Wendy Davis' victory over the suppressive forces in the Texas State House. Her tool? The filibuster. You can't have it both ways, people.
And Davis' crusade was to combat Texas Republicans' attempt to pass a law approving all abortions up to 20 weeks and some after that. Davis, and liberals in general, got so caught up fighting Republicans over abortion that they assumed any Republican position, or even offer, was an attempt to restrict rights. They couldn't stop to realize that Republicans were giving them a massive concession and a massive gift, which they should have accepted with deep gratitude. It turned out, when you took a step back and looked at it, that liberals were fighting conservatives over abortion, because that's what they do. The fight wasn't about anything. It was fighting for the sake of fighting. Very much, come to think of it, like the ancient and opaquely mysterious Hatfield/McCoy feud.
Sadly, some of us in BP have that aimless and mindless reflex to dispute, too. "Whatever you want, there must be something wrong with it." "The answer is no; what's the question." It's every bit as primitive, pointless, and non-productive as it sounds like it is. The commonest set-up is claiming to be a victim, or advocating for someone else who claims to be a victim, and mounting a crusade of liberation on behalf of the poor, downtrodden soul. In the recent past, it was about FPL and their distribution trunks, then FPL again and the Franchise Agreement, then FPL Chapter 3 and the concrete poles. Imagine those bullies, coming in here, providing the electricity we crave, and then charging us one of the lowest rates in the country for it. And of course, the evil juggernaut of the majority of the last Commission. It shifted for a little while to the big, bad City of North Miami, and its abusive policy of charging us a low rate for our water. Now, it's the Codes and how they victimize poor people. Like speed limits victimize people who are in a hurry. The cruelty of it all. All courageous and meaningless crusades.
And as in the cases of Senate Republicans, and Texas (and other) Democrats, and Biscayne Park little guys, the fights aren't really about anything. They're posturing, and the postures are empty. No one wins, because there's nothing to win, and everyone loses. Oh, you found a bogeyman du jour? Who cares? Bogeymen are only inventions of children anyway. Maybe we all just need to grow up.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Janey Anderson Says My Reasoning is Flawed. We Don't Need to Increase Revenue.
Well, she didn't exactly say it was flawed. She said others would tell me it is. She said someone would say the answer to our fiscal problems is that we should reduce expenses. I already said we had cut expenses to the bone, but Janey says someone will say we haven't. Someone will declare us still wasteful, and presumably they'll point out where the waste is. And all of this, again presumably, will be able to pave the way to a balanced ledger and a successful and forward-looking Village budget.
It's not that I didn't imagine someone would make that argument. It's that I considered it so patently ridiculous that I dismissed it out of hand. But let's assume Janey's right; that someone would assert that remedy for our problems. And I have to confess: I do not deal in snapshots. Ever. I insist on context and a big picture. I do not spot the grapefruit I like at the bottom of the pyramid, and just pluck it out.
The most compelling contextual issue is that under present circumstances, the Village is failing. It may not look like it at the end of each month, when that month's bills get paid. But the decay is there. At the last Commission meeting, Ana Garcia pointed out that the Village has not bought ballpoint pens for a year. Employees bring them in, and Ana is happy to get promotional pens from vendors. Village pens don't say VBP on them. They say Ed's Plumbing. We've streamlined, outsourced, and economized on the maintenance of grass in the medians. The result is that the grass gets cut, but not as frequently as it once did. It now spends more of each month being too high. If any part of the goal of having medians is that they look nice, that's not much happening. And that's not taking into consideration that we are doing no median development. So on the day the grass gets cut, the medians still don't look good. We spend every cent we get. We save nothing. When that "rainy day" comes, we're going to get wet. The day one of our PW trucks or police vehicles fails, we're stuck. We'll rob Peter to pay Paul that day, but at some point, soon enough, some responsibility won't get met, because of that repair. And lucky for us, the vehicle we repair didn't cost us anything to acquire. It was a hand-me-down from some other municipality. The log cabin is already not adequately workable. There is structural damage and increasing deterioration. We can't afford to fix it. If you're one who looks at the building from the outside, or steps into the ante-section to conduct business at the front window, and you don't see a problem, take a job there. And don't complain when the roof leaks and the rats scurry. And that's just now. Nothing caved in, yet. Except, perhaps, the rotting wood floor under the toilet. Whatever else we need, now or in the foreseeable future? Forget it. Out of the question.
That's one context. Here's the other. Critics will point to our largest identifiable "new" expense: our administration. Specifically, the Manager and Assistant to the Manager. They'll find almost $150K a year in what looks to them like completely unnecessary, redundant, and frankly gratuitous expenditure of Village money. Has it ever occurred to you that one reason your airline ticket is as expensive as it is is that the pilots have to get paid? Would you suggest there shouldn't be pilots, because it makes the enterprise more expensive? So who's going to fly the plane? You? For over 70 years, we relied on untrained amateur pilots who received very little in salary. There were five of them at a time. We called them Commissioners. Look at all the money we saved every year. Was the Village a showcase, run smartly and tightly, and successfully? Not at all. That's why a Charter Review Committee recommended that Commissioners no longer pretend to know how to manage a municipality, and that we hire a professional municipal manager instead. (If you think the Committee were wrong, you can take it up with Chair Steve Bernard, and members Maria Camara, Karon Coleman-Ise, Dan Keys, Barbara Kuhl, Tom Leach, Chester Morris, Vickie Smith-Bilt, David Twitchell, and Mark Wolin.)
The Charter Review Committee urged professional management, the then Commission agreed with the Committee, and the residents at large, through a referendum, agreed with all of them. Forget Frank Spence. Look what Ana Garcia, who had no head manager experience before she came to us, did here. We were a mess, and she cleaned us up. We're in vastly better shape now, and that's with drastically decreased revenues, because of the real estate crash. And under intense and relentless attack from two goof-ball Commissioners. "Backwards and in high heels," indeed. Did she cost us money, and even more with an assistant? Sure, but they were and are worth it. They saved us much more than they cost us. If the crash had occurred under the old regime, we would be bankrupt and de-incorporated by now. We'd be administered by the County.
You might not like trade unions. Neither do I. But before you propose to do away with them, don't forget why they're there; what problems they solved. If you get rid of their graft and muscling of employers, you get back employer abuse of workers, less-than-living wages, child labor, unsafe work conditions, and a whole host of very serious social problems. And if it's the grapefruit on the bottom that catches your eye, just make sure no one sees you take it, and get out of there fast, so you won't have to pick up all the other grapefruits from the floor. Let that be someone else's problem.
No, we're tight, tight, tight. And we're stuck, stuck, stuck. If further economizing is your argument, bring it. Can you look at the budget and find $37 you think should be managed differently? Probably. And probably so can I. Different $37, too. So that's $74 we geniuses can save the Village. Penny wise, and pound foolish. If you'd seen the set-up of deck chairs on the Titanic, could you have suggested a better arrangement? I bet you could have. In fact, if you could have rebalanced all the furniture on the ship, maybe you could have kept it afloat for 4 minutes longer than it was. A satisfying accomplishment, right?
It's not that I didn't imagine someone would make that argument. It's that I considered it so patently ridiculous that I dismissed it out of hand. But let's assume Janey's right; that someone would assert that remedy for our problems. And I have to confess: I do not deal in snapshots. Ever. I insist on context and a big picture. I do not spot the grapefruit I like at the bottom of the pyramid, and just pluck it out.
The most compelling contextual issue is that under present circumstances, the Village is failing. It may not look like it at the end of each month, when that month's bills get paid. But the decay is there. At the last Commission meeting, Ana Garcia pointed out that the Village has not bought ballpoint pens for a year. Employees bring them in, and Ana is happy to get promotional pens from vendors. Village pens don't say VBP on them. They say Ed's Plumbing. We've streamlined, outsourced, and economized on the maintenance of grass in the medians. The result is that the grass gets cut, but not as frequently as it once did. It now spends more of each month being too high. If any part of the goal of having medians is that they look nice, that's not much happening. And that's not taking into consideration that we are doing no median development. So on the day the grass gets cut, the medians still don't look good. We spend every cent we get. We save nothing. When that "rainy day" comes, we're going to get wet. The day one of our PW trucks or police vehicles fails, we're stuck. We'll rob Peter to pay Paul that day, but at some point, soon enough, some responsibility won't get met, because of that repair. And lucky for us, the vehicle we repair didn't cost us anything to acquire. It was a hand-me-down from some other municipality. The log cabin is already not adequately workable. There is structural damage and increasing deterioration. We can't afford to fix it. If you're one who looks at the building from the outside, or steps into the ante-section to conduct business at the front window, and you don't see a problem, take a job there. And don't complain when the roof leaks and the rats scurry. And that's just now. Nothing caved in, yet. Except, perhaps, the rotting wood floor under the toilet. Whatever else we need, now or in the foreseeable future? Forget it. Out of the question.
That's one context. Here's the other. Critics will point to our largest identifiable "new" expense: our administration. Specifically, the Manager and Assistant to the Manager. They'll find almost $150K a year in what looks to them like completely unnecessary, redundant, and frankly gratuitous expenditure of Village money. Has it ever occurred to you that one reason your airline ticket is as expensive as it is is that the pilots have to get paid? Would you suggest there shouldn't be pilots, because it makes the enterprise more expensive? So who's going to fly the plane? You? For over 70 years, we relied on untrained amateur pilots who received very little in salary. There were five of them at a time. We called them Commissioners. Look at all the money we saved every year. Was the Village a showcase, run smartly and tightly, and successfully? Not at all. That's why a Charter Review Committee recommended that Commissioners no longer pretend to know how to manage a municipality, and that we hire a professional municipal manager instead. (If you think the Committee were wrong, you can take it up with Chair Steve Bernard, and members Maria Camara, Karon Coleman-Ise, Dan Keys, Barbara Kuhl, Tom Leach, Chester Morris, Vickie Smith-Bilt, David Twitchell, and Mark Wolin.)
The Charter Review Committee urged professional management, the then Commission agreed with the Committee, and the residents at large, through a referendum, agreed with all of them. Forget Frank Spence. Look what Ana Garcia, who had no head manager experience before she came to us, did here. We were a mess, and she cleaned us up. We're in vastly better shape now, and that's with drastically decreased revenues, because of the real estate crash. And under intense and relentless attack from two goof-ball Commissioners. "Backwards and in high heels," indeed. Did she cost us money, and even more with an assistant? Sure, but they were and are worth it. They saved us much more than they cost us. If the crash had occurred under the old regime, we would be bankrupt and de-incorporated by now. We'd be administered by the County.
You might not like trade unions. Neither do I. But before you propose to do away with them, don't forget why they're there; what problems they solved. If you get rid of their graft and muscling of employers, you get back employer abuse of workers, less-than-living wages, child labor, unsafe work conditions, and a whole host of very serious social problems. And if it's the grapefruit on the bottom that catches your eye, just make sure no one sees you take it, and get out of there fast, so you won't have to pick up all the other grapefruits from the floor. Let that be someone else's problem.
No, we're tight, tight, tight. And we're stuck, stuck, stuck. If further economizing is your argument, bring it. Can you look at the budget and find $37 you think should be managed differently? Probably. And probably so can I. Different $37, too. So that's $74 we geniuses can save the Village. Penny wise, and pound foolish. If you'd seen the set-up of deck chairs on the Titanic, could you have suggested a better arrangement? I bet you could have. In fact, if you could have rebalanced all the furniture on the ship, maybe you could have kept it afloat for 4 minutes longer than it was. A satisfying accomplishment, right?
Saturday, July 13, 2013
ANNEXATION—A PRACTICAL ANALYSIS by Chuck Ross
I want to thank Fred for allowing me to publish a guest post on his blog.
Chuck Ross
I for one want to see our Community alive and thriving.
Chuck Ross
I must respond to some of what Fred has posted and Barbara’s comments, both of whom I consider my friends. It’s good to have this point counterpoint and keep it constructive. It is a matter that requires a practical analysis.
But first I want to rephrase some of what Fred has posted about my position. I believe we need to do something to raise additional revenue and one of the few options is annexation of the commercial properties east of the Village.
There are a couple of points that need to be corrected.
First, there is no guarantee what millage rate the village will be able to initially assess. The annexation process is a negotiation between the Village and the County Commission (CC). One of the components is the initial rate that results from the process. It is up to us to justify to the CC what will be charged according to Alex David one of our planners.
Next, I don’t think Sally Heyman would ever say “Tax the hell” out of them, not sure where that came from, after all they are her constituents too.
As Barbara indicated I said that area will be annexed by some city and if not us then it will likely be North Miami. Should the Village reach out to the property owners east of us, yes and the Village will likely do so after the analysis has been completed.
If BP annexes the proposed area what are some of the benefits to the area?
1) One of the best Police Departments in Miami-Dade County.
2) The personal attention of belonging to a small Village.
3) The convenience of dealing with Village hall not that far away to transact Village business.
4) Becoming part of the Biscayne Park community.
Pro’s to BP:
Other than the taxes what other advantages are there for BP? There are additional revenues above and beyond the Ad Valorem tax base, there will be a Police presence in a place that has presented many challenges to keeping BP safe. The proposed area has a limited number of residents approx. 560 or so based on the *420 living units contained in two gated communities. So according to the study the majority of the additional cost to maintain the area will initially be 3 Police Officers and a FT or possibly PT Code Officer.
Con’s to BP:
I don’t really see any because as a practical matter BP is running out of resources, the reserves have diminished, critical improvements to our infrastructure need to be made, our police need to be better compensated for the excellent work that they do, and our local streets and medians need to be improved.
It’s not going to come from BP’s existing tax base which is at best flat lined, ad valorem revenues are capped annually, Intergovernmental revenues are on the decrease and expenses are on the increase. Don’t believe me I’ll show you the charts I have prepared based on BP’s Audited Financials.
What if we do not find additional Revenue sources?
My opinion is that in order to survive we will need to cut services. Where will we start? I don’t know you tell me. Our annual General Fund expenses have already been reduced over $400,000 since the year ended Sept 2008. The unrestricted fund balance in the general fund is down substantially despite the reduction in annual expenditures since Sept 2008!
If action is not taken make no mistake, there will be no money for Village improvements, services will be cut and ultimately there will be no Biscayne Park as we know it today, if at all.
Chuck Ross
*One of the Communities is still under construction and will hold 240 units so the number of residents is an estimate.
Friday, July 12, 2013
I Stand Corrected. Now I Understand Why We Have to Annex.
My friend Chuck Ross has said consistently that we have to annex some territory east of the tracks. There's only one reason to do it, and that reason was his argument. The Village needs the money. Sally Heyman made us the same argument: you need the money, and you can "tax the hell" out of those people. Erik Bojnansky and Jim Mullin of the Biscayne Times made the same argument: you have the highest tax rate in the County, and it's not enough; you need to save yourselves with a "land grab." Our Manager tells us precisely the same thing. I got it. We all get it.
I know we need the money. I know we're not meeting our responsibilities, and we're not building reserves for general purposes or specific ones, like rehabbing the log cabin. I know. But it's our Village! It has a certain character, that is abetted by its funky little geography. It's so easy for us to connect with each other, and many of us do. You don't even have to drive to reach most of your neighbors and friends. You certainly don't have to go to 125th, or Griffing, go several blocks east, cross the tracks, then go south or north to reach the rest of your BP neighbors. It's not even contiguous, because of the tracks. And the sizable majority of "us" are homeowners. Almost all of "them" are renters. We're not the same people, with the same interests. And we're "residential." It's just not right. It's not the right way to do it. There has to be another way to get the money.
It's not going to grow on trees, or fall from the sky, or come in an envelope postmarked from Tallahassee. Property values, and the consequent ad valorem taxes, are not going to rebound as quickly as they fell. And even if values did rise robustly, the homesteaders, which is the vast majority of us, will only pay 3% more each year, which will never get us where we're going, because costs rise faster than that. We can soak new homeowners, but that's not going to result in an overall flood of cash. We've cut expenses to the bone, and we're still falling behind every year. No, there's only one place we can get the money, I argued to Chuck, and Sally Heyman, and Bojnansky/Mullin. We'll get it from ourselves. We love this neighborhood enough to want to live here, and we'll love it enough to want to save and support it. We'll just open our bank accounts and get generous to ourselves.
And that's when the cold water dousing occurred. I didn't listen to Chuck, or Sally Heyman, or the BT boys. No, it was Noah Jacobs and Bryan Cooper who finally convinced me we are going to annex what's east of the tracks. They have made abundantly clear, and have not flinched, and have gotten exquisitely little public resistance, that we are not going to raise our taxes, by statute or voluntarily. They keep telling us we're marginal, miserable people, and we don't have the wherewithal to lift ourselves up. Or maybe they're saying we're mean and selfish. To the extent that these two have any say about it, and they do, we're moving in the direction of lowering our taxes. More generous? No, stingier. They don't care that we're thin. They aren't moved by our becoming emaciated. They seem to want us dead. First, they want us dangerously deconditioned. Then, they'll turn off the oxygen. "If the right one don't get you, then the left one will." We have been left no choice but to annex. It's not what I wanted, but I can see it's what's going to happen; what must happen. Unless Ron Coyle gets his way, and we become the chattel of Miami Shores. But that's not going to happen, either. And neither Ron nor Noah nor Bryan would like it if it did.
So now I get it. I understand. I have no further argument. Noah and Bryan have convinced me that the only thing they will permit is annexation. Or death. Where do we sign, Sally?
I know we need the money. I know we're not meeting our responsibilities, and we're not building reserves for general purposes or specific ones, like rehabbing the log cabin. I know. But it's our Village! It has a certain character, that is abetted by its funky little geography. It's so easy for us to connect with each other, and many of us do. You don't even have to drive to reach most of your neighbors and friends. You certainly don't have to go to 125th, or Griffing, go several blocks east, cross the tracks, then go south or north to reach the rest of your BP neighbors. It's not even contiguous, because of the tracks. And the sizable majority of "us" are homeowners. Almost all of "them" are renters. We're not the same people, with the same interests. And we're "residential." It's just not right. It's not the right way to do it. There has to be another way to get the money.
It's not going to grow on trees, or fall from the sky, or come in an envelope postmarked from Tallahassee. Property values, and the consequent ad valorem taxes, are not going to rebound as quickly as they fell. And even if values did rise robustly, the homesteaders, which is the vast majority of us, will only pay 3% more each year, which will never get us where we're going, because costs rise faster than that. We can soak new homeowners, but that's not going to result in an overall flood of cash. We've cut expenses to the bone, and we're still falling behind every year. No, there's only one place we can get the money, I argued to Chuck, and Sally Heyman, and Bojnansky/Mullin. We'll get it from ourselves. We love this neighborhood enough to want to live here, and we'll love it enough to want to save and support it. We'll just open our bank accounts and get generous to ourselves.
And that's when the cold water dousing occurred. I didn't listen to Chuck, or Sally Heyman, or the BT boys. No, it was Noah Jacobs and Bryan Cooper who finally convinced me we are going to annex what's east of the tracks. They have made abundantly clear, and have not flinched, and have gotten exquisitely little public resistance, that we are not going to raise our taxes, by statute or voluntarily. They keep telling us we're marginal, miserable people, and we don't have the wherewithal to lift ourselves up. Or maybe they're saying we're mean and selfish. To the extent that these two have any say about it, and they do, we're moving in the direction of lowering our taxes. More generous? No, stingier. They don't care that we're thin. They aren't moved by our becoming emaciated. They seem to want us dead. First, they want us dangerously deconditioned. Then, they'll turn off the oxygen. "If the right one don't get you, then the left one will." We have been left no choice but to annex. It's not what I wanted, but I can see it's what's going to happen; what must happen. Unless Ron Coyle gets his way, and we become the chattel of Miami Shores. But that's not going to happen, either. And neither Ron nor Noah nor Bryan would like it if it did.
So now I get it. I understand. I have no further argument. Noah and Bryan have convinced me that the only thing they will permit is annexation. Or death. Where do we sign, Sally?
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
The Hatfields and the McCoys. Commission Meeting, July 9, 2013.
Think West Side Story, with the dance first, and the rumble later. Now take this scene to Appalachia.
The happy ho-down was a long string of presentations. Mostly, they were opportunities for our police to congratulate each other, and for us to congratulate them, too. Several got awards. One accomplishment, of the force and particularly attributable to one officer, is our "clearance rate" of burglaries so far in 2013. How many burglary cases have been solved? 100%. No, this does not exist in the real world, but our police are unreal. There was one departure, through a modified "retirement," and we swore in three new officers. Welcome to the family, guys. After that, a representative from "All Aboard Florida," the new and private railroad line from Miami to Orlando, gave us a canned presentation. It was interesting, but not entirely relevant. I'm sure the presentation was necessitated by the fact that part of the involved track runs along our eastern border, or what has been our eastern border. Oops, I anticipate other material. Finally, Noah Jacobs' daughter either is or wants to be a Girl Scout, so Noah took the liberty to invite a representative of the Girl Scouts to give us a presentation. These were not two of the best spent hours we've ever abided, but at least the police part was uplifting.
Then, we had Public Comment. All of the comment was about two things: the second reading of the boats/RVs Ordinance, and the discussion of annexation. Steve Bernard had sent out his war cry e-mail the day before, so his cousins, and he, were there in force. This was the "get your hands off our rights to have boats and RVs," and "we don't want to annex anything" crowd. Steve had fired them up with inflammatory rhetoric and half baked, and less than half correct, information. I can't call it facts, because there wasn't much if any of that. But it was more than enough to get 'em plenty riled up.
The other side was the "we want a classier neighborhood" crew. They (OK, we) were straightforward. You could disagree, but there weren't any logical or factual distortions. There were just a couple in the middle, most notably Linda Dillon, who wanted the option of boats/RVs in her front yard, but weren't rabid and extreme and misinformed about the proposed Ordinance. Things deteriorated pretty quickly, with factions clapping after those who agreed with them spoke.
Noah addressed the matter of "misinformation," after Roxy Ross introduced it as an obvious problem dynamic. Roxy said there had been a good deal of it, and she demonstrated her point fairly clearly. Noah cleverly suggested that "misinformation" is what someone who doesn't agree with you has. This would have been a great point if Noah hadn't been one of the prime perpetrators of spreading actual misinformation. Well, it's Steve Bernard's stock in trade, as he demonstrated tonight, and Noah has shown himself to be a very apt pupil of the tactic. For example, he said a number of speakers advocated for no boats or RVs at all in Biscayne Park. In fact, no one advocated for that. He also kept interrupting Roxy when she was trying to make a point, by trying to get her to admit either that she wanted to be more restrictive than the County rules, or that she was anti-family.
Noah and Bryan Cooper, and the godfather, Steve Bernard, all resisted the boat/RV Ordinance, saying they preferred proper enforcement of the Codes we already have. This would have played fairly well, if it had been true. The fact is none of them has ever moved to have our current Codes adequately enforced, and each of them has alleged to provide advocacy for people who claim they don't have the resources, or the taste, to meet the Codes. Or, they've moved to undermine or impeach the Code Compliance Officer. Their pandering is for adequately enforced Codes, but their actual motions are for relaxation of the Codes, and spotty enforcement of them. So the proposal was nice, but phony.
Then, after several hours (the meeting was extended twice, so it ended at 11:45), we heard from our Manager, who has now given notice, and our planner, regarding the annexation the Manager is recommending. She gave us a slide show, but there was so little time left by the time we got to it, that we really just rushed through. We agreed to have a workshop, for more comprehensive and relaxed deliberation. I have a paper copy of the slide show, so if you want to see it, let me know.
We will also have a special Commission meeting next Wednesday, July 17, to talk about how to find a new manager, and another special meeting the following Tuesday, July 23, to talk about the budget, and get that ball rolling. The annexation workshop is TBD.
Folk left the meeting snarling at each other a bit, and trying to wipe each other's finger prints out of their eyes, but maybe if you didn't get poked too badly, you could see what was going on.
Addendum: Linda Dillon has written to me to take issue with something I said. She told me one person said he or she didn't want boats/RVs at all, then she said "several people" said they didn't want them. These announcements were made, according to Linda, in some prior, outside, and unrelated meeting. A meeting I didn't attend, and a meeting Noah Jacobs didn't attend. So I will stand by my comment, that at the Commission meeting this week, where Noah said some people said they didn't want boats/RVs at all, in fact no one said that. No one did. Not at that meeting. If anyone said it anywhere else, I wasn't there and don't know about it, and Noah wasn't there and doesn't know about it. Noah's language at the Commission meeting was that at that meeting, some people, or a number of people, or several people, or some such vague quantifier, said they didn't want boats or RVs at all. Nope. Not one speaker at that meeting said that.
Linda also thought I criticized her for saying what she said about her own wishes. I thought I complimented her on her civility and modulation in expressing those wishes, in a setting where other speakers didn't show these traits at all. So perhaps a misunderstanding. My apologies, Linda. And again, my compliments.
The happy ho-down was a long string of presentations. Mostly, they were opportunities for our police to congratulate each other, and for us to congratulate them, too. Several got awards. One accomplishment, of the force and particularly attributable to one officer, is our "clearance rate" of burglaries so far in 2013. How many burglary cases have been solved? 100%. No, this does not exist in the real world, but our police are unreal. There was one departure, through a modified "retirement," and we swore in three new officers. Welcome to the family, guys. After that, a representative from "All Aboard Florida," the new and private railroad line from Miami to Orlando, gave us a canned presentation. It was interesting, but not entirely relevant. I'm sure the presentation was necessitated by the fact that part of the involved track runs along our eastern border, or what has been our eastern border. Oops, I anticipate other material. Finally, Noah Jacobs' daughter either is or wants to be a Girl Scout, so Noah took the liberty to invite a representative of the Girl Scouts to give us a presentation. These were not two of the best spent hours we've ever abided, but at least the police part was uplifting.
Then, we had Public Comment. All of the comment was about two things: the second reading of the boats/RVs Ordinance, and the discussion of annexation. Steve Bernard had sent out his war cry e-mail the day before, so his cousins, and he, were there in force. This was the "get your hands off our rights to have boats and RVs," and "we don't want to annex anything" crowd. Steve had fired them up with inflammatory rhetoric and half baked, and less than half correct, information. I can't call it facts, because there wasn't much if any of that. But it was more than enough to get 'em plenty riled up.
The other side was the "we want a classier neighborhood" crew. They (OK, we) were straightforward. You could disagree, but there weren't any logical or factual distortions. There were just a couple in the middle, most notably Linda Dillon, who wanted the option of boats/RVs in her front yard, but weren't rabid and extreme and misinformed about the proposed Ordinance. Things deteriorated pretty quickly, with factions clapping after those who agreed with them spoke.
Noah addressed the matter of "misinformation," after Roxy Ross introduced it as an obvious problem dynamic. Roxy said there had been a good deal of it, and she demonstrated her point fairly clearly. Noah cleverly suggested that "misinformation" is what someone who doesn't agree with you has. This would have been a great point if Noah hadn't been one of the prime perpetrators of spreading actual misinformation. Well, it's Steve Bernard's stock in trade, as he demonstrated tonight, and Noah has shown himself to be a very apt pupil of the tactic. For example, he said a number of speakers advocated for no boats or RVs at all in Biscayne Park. In fact, no one advocated for that. He also kept interrupting Roxy when she was trying to make a point, by trying to get her to admit either that she wanted to be more restrictive than the County rules, or that she was anti-family.
Noah and Bryan Cooper, and the godfather, Steve Bernard, all resisted the boat/RV Ordinance, saying they preferred proper enforcement of the Codes we already have. This would have played fairly well, if it had been true. The fact is none of them has ever moved to have our current Codes adequately enforced, and each of them has alleged to provide advocacy for people who claim they don't have the resources, or the taste, to meet the Codes. Or, they've moved to undermine or impeach the Code Compliance Officer. Their pandering is for adequately enforced Codes, but their actual motions are for relaxation of the Codes, and spotty enforcement of them. So the proposal was nice, but phony.
Then, after several hours (the meeting was extended twice, so it ended at 11:45), we heard from our Manager, who has now given notice, and our planner, regarding the annexation the Manager is recommending. She gave us a slide show, but there was so little time left by the time we got to it, that we really just rushed through. We agreed to have a workshop, for more comprehensive and relaxed deliberation. I have a paper copy of the slide show, so if you want to see it, let me know.
We will also have a special Commission meeting next Wednesday, July 17, to talk about how to find a new manager, and another special meeting the following Tuesday, July 23, to talk about the budget, and get that ball rolling. The annexation workshop is TBD.
Folk left the meeting snarling at each other a bit, and trying to wipe each other's finger prints out of their eyes, but maybe if you didn't get poked too badly, you could see what was going on.
Addendum: Linda Dillon has written to me to take issue with something I said. She told me one person said he or she didn't want boats/RVs at all, then she said "several people" said they didn't want them. These announcements were made, according to Linda, in some prior, outside, and unrelated meeting. A meeting I didn't attend, and a meeting Noah Jacobs didn't attend. So I will stand by my comment, that at the Commission meeting this week, where Noah said some people said they didn't want boats/RVs at all, in fact no one said that. No one did. Not at that meeting. If anyone said it anywhere else, I wasn't there and don't know about it, and Noah wasn't there and doesn't know about it. Noah's language at the Commission meeting was that at that meeting, some people, or a number of people, or several people, or some such vague quantifier, said they didn't want boats or RVs at all. Nope. Not one speaker at that meeting said that.
Linda also thought I criticized her for saying what she said about her own wishes. I thought I complimented her on her civility and modulation in expressing those wishes, in a setting where other speakers didn't show these traits at all. So perhaps a misunderstanding. My apologies, Linda. And again, my compliments.
Friday, July 5, 2013
The Second Time Was Charm Enough: Saying Goodbye to Ana Garcia
Ana Garcia, our second ever Manager, is leaving us. Does that sound harsh? Do I sound angry? Or just bereft? After almost four remarkable, accomplished, instructive years, Ana is moving "up." She got a job as Manager of North Miami Beach, and the offer is too good not to take. Ana herself would tell you, so I'll tell you: she's only 50. And we were her first job as head municipal manager. She'd had departmental positions before she came to us, and her resume made clear that she was a very hot property, with lots of style, accomplishment, and potential. We took a chance on her, over other choices that were more established, and she took a chance on us, a municipality that didn't know what it was doing, what it wanted, and how to work with a manager. I don't think anyone is sorry.
I'm not in a position to say that Ana is perfect-- she herself says she's not, and I don't know anyone who is-- and I can't even say I've agreed with every decision she's made. What I can say is that she's dedicated, personable, very hard-working, always available, responsive, smart, energetic, and creative. The prior Commission or two admitted it was not up to the full responsibilities of managing a municipality, and there's no reason to accuse it of having failed. The Commission that decided to trade amateur management for professional management was courageous and commendable. It saw what was good for the Village, and at the Commission's own expense, it agreed to recommend that it turn over heavy lifting, and decision-making, to a pro.
We didn't know how to proceed, so we accepted advice and a recommendation from Merrett Stierheim, one of the oldest pros in the business down here. He encouraged us to place ourselves in the hands of another well-seasoned manager, Frank Spence. Not to belabor the matter, but Frank didn't do us much good. His heart wasn't really in it. He was trying to figure out how to get a paycheck without doing much work. His schedule said work, and his mindset said retirement. It wasn't clear what having a manager was supposed to do for us, other than cost us money and provide an occasional lightning rod, and we soon enough realized something was wrong. So we let it be known that we were back in the market. We found several interested applicants, including Ana Garcia. I never saw the resumes, but every person who did said the same thing: they're all similar, except one, which leaps out at you. That was Ana.
Ana has spent almost four years with us, working hard to clean up messes left here by others, accomplishing things the Village never fully got around to accomplishing, and streamlining operations, to make them efficient and much less expensive than they were before.
We're not all there, and we probably never will be. There will always be things to be done, for the sake of proper maintenance of a municipality. Under present conditions, we have more than our share of what Ana calls "challenges." It's up to us to figure out how we want to respond to them, but we have now been provided with a sterling model of the kind of help we can get from a manager. And we're not finished learning how to work with one. Sometimes we have to cede decisions we might like to make ourselves, and other times we have to learn to assert our wishes about what we want.
I said Ana is not perfect, and she isn't. As best I can tell, she has one imperfection. She does not delegate every time she could, and should. She's such a go-getter, and so intent on fixing things, and getting jobs done, that she doesn't realize she doesn't have to do all the work. One of my friends said only this morning that one theory of interpersonal dynamics says that if you want to get someone to trust you and feel special, then ask them to do something for you. And let them do it. This is Ana's imperfection. She doesn't slow down enough to ask us to help her, and help ourselves, and we sometimes feel disrespected, and overlooked.
I really think we've learned a great deal from Ana. I hope she's learned just a little bit from us. Or maybe NMB is so big that no one wants to do much for themselves. They might be happy to have Ana to do it all for them. But we're a different kind of neighborhood, and we have to be taken into account more. That's what we'll learn to negotiate with Ana's successor.
In the meantime, I'm very fond of Ana, and I'm sorry to see her go, no matter how inevitable it was.
I'm not in a position to say that Ana is perfect-- she herself says she's not, and I don't know anyone who is-- and I can't even say I've agreed with every decision she's made. What I can say is that she's dedicated, personable, very hard-working, always available, responsive, smart, energetic, and creative. The prior Commission or two admitted it was not up to the full responsibilities of managing a municipality, and there's no reason to accuse it of having failed. The Commission that decided to trade amateur management for professional management was courageous and commendable. It saw what was good for the Village, and at the Commission's own expense, it agreed to recommend that it turn over heavy lifting, and decision-making, to a pro.
We didn't know how to proceed, so we accepted advice and a recommendation from Merrett Stierheim, one of the oldest pros in the business down here. He encouraged us to place ourselves in the hands of another well-seasoned manager, Frank Spence. Not to belabor the matter, but Frank didn't do us much good. His heart wasn't really in it. He was trying to figure out how to get a paycheck without doing much work. His schedule said work, and his mindset said retirement. It wasn't clear what having a manager was supposed to do for us, other than cost us money and provide an occasional lightning rod, and we soon enough realized something was wrong. So we let it be known that we were back in the market. We found several interested applicants, including Ana Garcia. I never saw the resumes, but every person who did said the same thing: they're all similar, except one, which leaps out at you. That was Ana.
Ana has spent almost four years with us, working hard to clean up messes left here by others, accomplishing things the Village never fully got around to accomplishing, and streamlining operations, to make them efficient and much less expensive than they were before.
We're not all there, and we probably never will be. There will always be things to be done, for the sake of proper maintenance of a municipality. Under present conditions, we have more than our share of what Ana calls "challenges." It's up to us to figure out how we want to respond to them, but we have now been provided with a sterling model of the kind of help we can get from a manager. And we're not finished learning how to work with one. Sometimes we have to cede decisions we might like to make ourselves, and other times we have to learn to assert our wishes about what we want.
I said Ana is not perfect, and she isn't. As best I can tell, she has one imperfection. She does not delegate every time she could, and should. She's such a go-getter, and so intent on fixing things, and getting jobs done, that she doesn't realize she doesn't have to do all the work. One of my friends said only this morning that one theory of interpersonal dynamics says that if you want to get someone to trust you and feel special, then ask them to do something for you. And let them do it. This is Ana's imperfection. She doesn't slow down enough to ask us to help her, and help ourselves, and we sometimes feel disrespected, and overlooked.
I really think we've learned a great deal from Ana. I hope she's learned just a little bit from us. Or maybe NMB is so big that no one wants to do much for themselves. They might be happy to have Ana to do it all for them. But we're a different kind of neighborhood, and we have to be taken into account more. That's what we'll learn to negotiate with Ana's successor.
In the meantime, I'm very fond of Ana, and I'm sorry to see her go, no matter how inevitable it was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)