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?
No comments:
Post a Comment