Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Contortionists Creep Me Out

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.


7 comments:

  1. This kind of thinking has become commonplace and is an embarrassment to our Village. The amount of waste by those who are either unqualified or unprepared is staggering.

    I guess somewhere along the way the message got lost in the journey of serving personal agendas.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for another incredibly accurate, insightful, well-crafted literary work. LOVE your blog! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I reposted to clarify a few items about the contract.

    Chuck

    Quote from Jacobs E-mail on the alleged contract:
    “Unfortunately, although Commissioners Ross, Anderson and Watts have frequently and publically acknowledged how pleased they are with both the Chief and the police force, they were not willing to put into action those words. I must admit some frustration with this not infrequent contradiction between what is said and what is done. In any event, the unfortunate result is that the motion failed with Commissioner Cooper and me voting for the 3 year contract, and Ross, Anderson and Watts voting against it.”

    Jacobs has the entire subject of the Chief’s agreement turned on its head. The Chief put forth a proposal to secure his position “Now” in light of the change in administration, in case the next manager gets some crazy notion that we can do better than Ray as our Chief. Rox, Bob and Barbara (after she consumed many minutes of meeting time playing devil’s advocate as she called it) and Jacobs agreed to give the Chief what he requested. So that Vote was 4 to 1. I think Barbara was all over the place on this issue frankly even though she voted for it.

    During the debate before the vote Cooper vehemently objected to the agreement and called for a “Long Term” contract, with a raise! He further stated that he was against the severance the Chief would be paid should he choose to leave! That was not the agreement term, the severance only kicks in on termination as Chief without cause. So Cooper either has no reading comprehension skills or didn't read the agreement or just lied, you pick I give up.

    It was all well and good to enter into a long term contract with the Chief, but for now the Chief wanted something immediate and a “Long Term” contract could be negotiated later. Cooper persisted, he knew better than the Chief, and all the rest. When asked directly the Chief flat out told him that the agreement he proposed was what he wanted and if a contract could be worked out in the future great. Cooper then stated let’s vote this down (the agreement) and move forward with a contract. Several problems with this: 1) A long term contract negotiation was not on the agenda, 2) It would take time to negotiate a contract, 3) It is not common for a Police chief to have a contract per the attorney, 4) We don’t want to do a rush job on it and 5) he wasn't asking for it at this time.

    Despite the foregoing, they took the vote and it passed 4 to 1 (Cooper against) as stated above. Next as promised came the motion by Cooper and seconded by Jacobs to instruct the attorney to draft a “Long Term” contract. It was not clear what the terms would be, maybe for 3 or 5 years, no other parameters were defined, etc. (After 3 ½ years Cooper still cannot articulate a motion) Would the Chief like a contract he was asked, yes but for now it was important that he have the agreement that was presented in place and just voted on. This motion by Cooper was actually a homework assignment for the attorney so he could bill the Village (Cooper again trying to waste the Village's money) and craft a “Long Term” contract prematurely with no guidance whatsoever and that is why it was voted down. No one was against the idea of a “Long Term” contract but it was not properly presented, premature and not on the agenda.

    So the statement that there was a vote for or against a contract is a complete fabrication, there was no contract.

    I’ll get to the rest of the meeting in the next comment.

    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Although an out-of-towner, I read “News from the July Meetings” - a newsletter- type email from “Mayor Noah Jacobs” on “From the desk of the Mayor…” stationery and signed by “Noah Jacobs, Mayor of Biscayne Park”. Yes, this seems to have come from your mayor. I also follow Fred’s blog and was confused to learn that not all citizens in the community for which Jacobs is mayor receive this update. Jacobs may not even realize he is excluding a group of folks he may not want to alienate. The mayor claims to have great concern for those residents who are financially burdened. These are the residents who cannot afford another penny be added to their tax bill, and still others who cannot afford to move their “watercraft, RVs, and commercial vehicles” from their front yards. I am surprised that the Mayor doesn’t realize that these same folks probably cannot afford internet access either. Not only that, but there are any number of folks who will not use email even if they have internet. So, I recommend a simple solution. A small number of copies of “News” from Mayor Jacobs should be printed and left in a few public locations – Village administrative office, police station, a table at the next Commission meeting. Less fortunate residents could then pick up their copy and stay informed.
    Oh wait, it does occur to me that, just maybe, this “News” is only written for friends of Noah Jacobs rather than for the residents of Biscayne Park – that place he wants everyone to know he is mayor of. In this latest piece, Jacobs felt it important to state what villains Ross, Anderson and Watts are. Because he only sent this divisive material to a select few – probably those who didn’t attend the meetings and those who believe in conspiracy theories - he believed there would be no one to correct or contradict him. Good plan if you hope to tear apart the community you have agreed, as mayor, to keep together.
    Mimi D’Angelo
    Wellesley, MA

    ReplyDelete
  7. My Comments on the TRIM portion of Jacob's e-mail:
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________
    Quote from Jacob's e-mail on the TRIM Vote:
    “There was also the matter of beginning the process to set the millage rate for the upcoming year. At the meeting we set a maximum tax rate, and then through the budget process we will be setting the actual rate. Unfortunately, the rate was set at 9.9. This is only 0.1 mill less than the highest allowable rate. Watts, Ross, and Anderson voted for this rate. I strongly disagree for a number of reasons:
    (1) The professional staff, the individuals we pay to manage these issues day to day, only asked for 9.5 mills.
    (2) The only reason we had previously raised the millage up to 9.5 was the possibility of a financial hit to the Village based on changes to the Florida Retirement System. This never fully materialized. The ultimate result was a cost of about half of what we had thought it might be.
    (3) Our home values are going up compared to last year, and I think we can all be thankful for that. The result is that at the current rate Village income will increase.
    (4) Two years ago Commissioners Ross and Anderson voted for a millage of 8.9, a full point lower effectively saying that the Village would be just fine with that amount of revenue. I admit that the economy has changed since then. Property values have gone up subsequently, Therefore, I see no need to raise the millage from the 9.5 rate that was requested.”
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    Let’s review the TRIM discussion point by Jacob's point quoted above.
    Point 1) Let’s set the record straight on the administration’s position, it was for setting the Millage to a rate higher than 9.5 mills as set out in the Managers memo and during discussion the Finance Director said it should be set to highest maximum rate that is 10 Mills. Everyone that spoke (That would be all three that spoke about the TRIM of the five residents at the meeting) about the TRIM urged the Commission to raise it to the MAX!

    Points 2 & 3) I’m going to keep this simple, Jacobs has demonstrated that he has no concept as to where we stand financially so I give his opinion no weight, property values have risen but many are at a lower value than 5 years ago, the increase is capped at a 3% annually on homesteaded properties and expenses are on the rise.

    Point 4) First, this vote was two years ago and irrelevant today, but let me point out that Jacobs never attended any of the budget workshops before he became an elected official. So accordingly how he would know what transpired back then is hard to say. At that time the administration recommended 8.9 mills and the majority of the Commission followed that recommendation. If he had been paying attention this year then he should have voted to raise the Millage to the Max. We can always work our way down.

    So to recap, he misstated the recommendation of the administration which after discussion from the Dais was to raise the TRIM to 10 mills by the finance director.

    That’s two material misstatements so far in his e-mail if you are keeping count.

    Chuck

    ReplyDelete