Good Evening Everyone,
On April 1, 2014 a majority of the Commission passed a Motion to direct the Manager to
proceed with Contract Negotiations with Waste Pro to outsource (and therefore dismantle)
our Sanitation Department.
proceed with Contract Negotiations with Waste Pro to outsource (and therefore dismantle)
our Sanitation Department.
They will be making their final vote to out-source on Tuesday, May 6, 2014, at which point
they will theoretically have a negotiated contract to approve, as well as an estimate to
keep Sanitation in-house.
they will theoretically have a negotiated contract to approve, as well as an estimate to
keep Sanitation in-house.
As an architect and contractor, I review and qualify bids and budgets on a regular basis,
and I felt that some important facts have not yet been conveyed to the public. My analysis
is based on available public facts and my own experience, and my purpose is to share my
observations of the data - even though there are still questions left to be asked and
answered. Anyone (including our Commissioners) could have come up with this analysis
if they chose to, and I have provided the source material at the end of this email... as
always, I am willing to make myself available by phone or email to articulate further any
part of this analysis.
and I felt that some important facts have not yet been conveyed to the public. My analysis
is based on available public facts and my own experience, and my purpose is to share my
observations of the data - even though there are still questions left to be asked and
answered. Anyone (including our Commissioners) could have come up with this analysis
if they chose to, and I have provided the source material at the end of this email... as
always, I am willing to make myself available by phone or email to articulate further any
part of this analysis.
I would apologize for the length, but it’s a complex issue, and a lot is riding on the May 6,
2014 vote… the following is my assessment of why I think it’s a very bad idea to out-source
our Sanitation Department:
2014 vote… the following is my assessment of why I think it’s a very bad idea to out-source
our Sanitation Department:
#1 – Qualifying the Bids:
a. WASTE PRO BID
In the simplest of explanations, the Waste Pro Bid is $388, 932. (1)
Subtract from that the following hard costs:
Tipping Fees (2)
Recycling (3) $ 46,728
Gas & Oil (4) $ 16,620
The Subtotal for these items that
must be paid, no matter who does it is: $246,688
The difference Bid and hard costs is: $144,244
Therefore, Waste Pro says that they will perform their Contract (not including the above
hard costs) for $144,244. This amount must cover Employee Costs, Management,
Overhead, AND profit, not to mention a CEO's salary.
hard costs) for $144,244. This amount must cover Employee Costs, Management,
Overhead, AND profit, not to mention a CEO's salary.
b. BP SANITATION COSTS
The total BP Sanitation Enterprise Fund Budget is $733,178. (5)
Subtract from that an “Administrative Fee” $145,522 (6)
(I’ll get to this later)
Subtotal for Total Budget:
Subtract from that the following hard costs:
Tipping Fees (2)
Recycling (7) $ 35,000
Gas & Oil (4) $ 16,620
The Subtotal for these hard costs: $234,960
The difference Budget and hard costs is: $
c. ANALYSIS:
Waste Pro will supposedly do for $144,244 what BP has been doing for $352,696.
This is $208,452 (about 40%) less than what we’ve been doing for years.
This is $208,452 (about 40%) less than what we’ve been doing for years.
The cost for our 7 full time employees ALONE is $264,688. Waste Pro says they will hire
our employees and give them raises and better benefits, but how can they do that with only
$144,244 to spend on employees plus overhead plus p
our employees and give them raises and better benefits, but how can they do that with only
$144,244 to spend on employees plus overhead plus p
d. Other Bids (1):
There were a total of 3 bids for the option to retain current services:
Waste Pro - $388,932.
Southern Waste Systems - $383,013,
Republic Services - $534,257. This is $145,325 more than Waste Pro and $53,400 less
than BP’s Budget without Admin Fees.
than BP’s Budget without Admin Fees.
Which is more realistic, Waste Pro’s savings of $208,452 or Republic’s savings of $53,400
on an adjusted total of $587,656?
on an adjusted total of $587,656?
#2 – Administrative Fee ($145,522 or $189,936):
a. Current “Admin Fee” Amount - It’s $145,522 (6), and it’s a pretty big chunk of money.
Supposedly it’s to ‘pay back’ the Village for various Administration time. In reality, it’s just
a thinly veiled means to transfer money from the Sanitation Enterprise Fund (which is
supposed to be "Money in, Money out) to the General Fund. When it first was proposed in
2009, it was $50,000 (7) and it has only grown from there… because it’s probably legal,
as long as we provide a half-way reasonable breakdown of what it’s for – which
Administrator puts in how much time for how many Sanitation workers, etc. (8)
Supposedly it’s to ‘pay back’ the Village for various Administration time. In reality, it’s just
a thinly veiled means to transfer money from the Sanitation Enterprise Fund (which is
supposed to be "Money in, Money out) to the General Fund. When it first was proposed in
2009, it was $50,000 (7) and it has only grown from there… because it’s probably legal,
as long as we provide a half-way reasonable breakdown of what it’s for – which
Administrator puts in how much time for how many Sanitation workers, etc. (8)
b. Proposed “Admin Fee” Amount: - It’s shown as $189,936 in the Proposed In-House
Estimate (9), an increase of $44,414. Is this because after out-sourcing, our Administrators
will somehow be doing MORE work to Administer Sanitation? Of course not, it’s part of the
plan to shift money from our Sanitation Fund to our General Fund.
Estimate (9), an increase of $44,414. Is this because after out-sourcing, our Administrators
will somehow be doing MORE work to Administer Sanitation? Of course not, it’s part of the
plan to shift money from our Sanitation Fund to our General Fund.
If we outsource, we no longer pretend that there can legally be an “Administrative Fee”.
Which means we lose that $145,522. Or that $189,936. And for what? For a Franchise Fee.
Which means we lose that $145,522. Or that $189,936. And for what? For a Franchise Fee.
#3 – Franchise Fee ($60,000):
Not included in the Waste Pro Bid, but what will likely be included in the Contract is a
Franchise Fee. This is a fee that Waste Pro will charge our Residents, that will then be add
ed to our General Fund Revenue. It’s legal, and it’s common, and it’s a
less-than-transparent way to get Residents to pay more into Village General Fund
Revenues.... and you will pay every penny of it, so it’s not like Waste Pro is gifting it to us.
So how much is it worth? The Document handed out at the Workshops (10) says it can be
between 10 and 20% of the Contract, so if we use a 15% rate, we’re talking about $60,000.
(388,932 x .15 = $58,339).
Franchise Fee. This is a fee that Waste Pro will charge our Residents, that will then be add
ed to our General Fund Revenue. It’s legal, and it’s common, and it’s a
less-than-transparent way to get Residents to pay more into Village General Fund
Revenues.... and you will pay every penny of it, so it’s not like Waste Pro is gifting it to us.
So how much is it worth? The Document handed out at the Workshops (10) says it can be
between 10 and 20% of the Contract, so if we use a 15% rate, we’re talking about $60,000.
(388,932 x .15 = $58,339).
#4 – Math:
A $60,000 Franchise Fee is much less than a $145,522 Administrative Fee, and even
more less than the proposed $189,936. If we outsource, we can get the Franchise Fee,
but what about that larger Administrative Fee?
more less than the proposed $189,936. If we outsource, we can get the Franchise Fee,
but what about that larger Administrative Fee?
#4 a– Math for Non-Sanitation Funds:
According to page 16 of the Workshop Document, there’s a line item for one option called,
“Reserve For Future Stormwater, Roads & Other Capital Projects”, in the amount of
$163,548. It seems to be a way to balance out the current rate of $572 per resident per
year, and might be done as an additional fee to the residents.
“Reserve For Future Stormwater, Roads & Other Capital Projects”, in the amount of
$163,548. It seems to be a way to balance out the current rate of $572 per resident per
year, and might be done as an additional fee to the residents.
What this does is maintain the existing yearly resident Sanitation fee, because of the
supposed savings of Waste Pro's low bid... but if those savings don't materialize, the
amount would go lower. I do not know how the mechanism would practically be done, or
even if it is a yearly fee, but it might be as a special assessment that theoretically could be
done with or without out-sourcing Sanitation.
supposed savings of Waste Pro's low bid... but if those savings don't materialize, the
amount would go lower. I do not know how the mechanism would practically be done, or
even if it is a yearly fee, but it might be as a special assessment that theoretically could be
done with or without out-sourcing Sanitation.
#4 b – Recycling/Environmental Math
As long as we keep our own Sanitation service, we have the ability to increase our
Recyclables at no extra charge, which reduces the tipping fees for ourselves. What we
have now (with the proper education and procedures) can be good for the environment
and good for our pocket book. I do not know if Waste Pro offers us that same opportunity.
Recyclables at no extra charge, which reduces the tipping fees for ourselves. What we
have now (with the proper education and procedures) can be good for the environment
and good for our pocket book. I do not know if Waste Pro offers us that same opportunity.
#5 – Real Numbers:
Because Waste Pro’s bid shows they will do the same work, INCLUDING Employee costs,
Administration, Overhead AND Profit for $144,244, as compared to BP’s $352,696,
someone (Waste Pro) is either very low, or the BP Budget is very high.
Administration, Overhead AND Profit for $144,244, as compared to BP’s $352,696,
someone (Waste Pro) is either very low, or the BP Budget is very high.
Or, more likely, we are looking at both - Waste Pro is likely low to win the bid, and the BP
Budget is higher that it should be.
Budget is higher that it should be.
a. What’s the problem with a low bid?
Have you ever hired a contractor because he gave you the lowest price, but it later turned
out that he couldn’t perform the work for the price he had quoted -- after you’ve committed
to him and spent money to hire him? What happens if the service is substandard (because
of their lowball bid)? What if we can’t afford the next bid? What if Waste Pro, knowing we
have no choice, decides to terminate our contract for a better one, or if they get bought out?
Once we out-source, we lose our facility, our employees, our equipment, our trucks…
never to be created again. This puts us at the mercy of the contract fees from other Waste
companies, including Waste Pro.
out that he couldn’t perform the work for the price he had quoted -- after you’ve committed
to him and spent money to hire him? What happens if the service is substandard (because
of their lowball bid)? What if we can’t afford the next bid? What if Waste Pro, knowing we
have no choice, decides to terminate our contract for a better one, or if they get bought out?
Once we out-source, we lose our facility, our employees, our equipment, our trucks…
never to be created again. This puts us at the mercy of the contract fees from other Waste
companies, including Waste Pro.
b. What’s the problem with a high budget?
We’re seeing it right now. It’s being used as an excuse to out-source, even though a close
look at our budget shows costs that aren’t being used for Sanitation, and not enough
Maintenance expenses to keep up our trucks and equipment. It’s bad business to inflate
numbers, just so the General Fund can be increased.
look at our budget shows costs that aren’t being used for Sanitation, and not enough
Maintenance expenses to keep up our trucks and equipment. It’s bad business to inflate
numbers, just so the General Fund can be increased.
Here’s a simple bit of math that doesn’t add up: In 2009, the total Sanitation budget was
$738,190, with the Admin Fee being $50,000. Five years later, the Sanitation budget is
$788,178, and the admin fee went up to $145,522. Why did the budget increase by only
$50,000 while the Admin Fee increased by about $100,000? Clearly, because it was an
artificially high budget.… and yet there’s no money set aside to maintain and repair
the trucks.
$738,190, with the Admin Fee being $50,000. Five years later, the Sanitation budget is
$788,178, and the admin fee went up to $145,522. Why did the budget increase by only
$50,000 while the Admin Fee increased by about $100,000? Clearly, because it was an
artificially high budget.… and yet there’s no money set aside to maintain and repair
the trucks.
Keep that in mind that when the numbers come out to show "how much higher" keeping
our Sanitation service in-house and intact will be... and remember that what was artificially
high before will continue to be artificially high, maybe even to skew the data into proving
that we 'must' outsource. As it is, we already know that the new Admin Fee is set to be
$189,963, or $44,414 more than it currently is. (9) Why?
our Sanitation service in-house and intact will be... and remember that what was artificially
high before will continue to be artificially high, maybe even to skew the data into proving
that we 'must' outsource. As it is, we already know that the new Admin Fee is set to be
$189,963, or $44,414 more than it currently is. (9) Why?
#6 – Resident Requests:
By a margin of about 24 to 4 at the last Commission Meeting, residents were against
out-sourcing. The Commission voted to proceed anyway. It may be a tradition for
Commissioners to ignore requests from Residents, but why do it when the math doesn’t
prove it, and the Residents are so clear about it? How many will show up AGAIN, to
express their displeasure? Seriously, how many times does someone have to take the
time to go to a public meeting, only to be ignored, before they stop going? And when they
don’t show up at the final one, the Commissioners will look around and say, “gosh, no one
is opposed to this”, let’s out-source. Or Annex. Or anything else that most people don't
want, but not might be aware of or don't have the time to continue attending meetings.
out-sourcing. The Commission voted to proceed anyway. It may be a tradition for
Commissioners to ignore requests from Residents, but why do it when the math doesn’t
prove it, and the Residents are so clear about it? How many will show up AGAIN, to
express their displeasure? Seriously, how many times does someone have to take the
time to go to a public meeting, only to be ignored, before they stop going? And when they
don’t show up at the final one, the Commissioners will look around and say, “gosh, no one
is opposed to this”, let’s out-source. Or Annex. Or anything else that most people don't
want, but not might be aware of or don't have the time to continue attending meetings.
#7 – A Working, Appreciated Service :
Ask yourself if you’ve had any problems with your garbage and trash pickup. Ask your
neighbors. As a Commissioner, I can recall only one or two complaints, and they were due
to the timing as proscribed by the Commission, not the work our men did. Ask our
employees if they are confident that after they are hired by Waste Pro they will be able to
stay longer than the time it takes for the ink on the Contract to dry. I've heard some 'concern'
from those that want to outsource that Waste Pro will pay them more, treat them better,
give them better benefits... but how, if the math doesn't allow it? In any case, our
employees are very much not in favor of not working for Biscayne Park directly, so the
concern you're hearing ought to be taken for what it is - one more push to out-source.
neighbors. As a Commissioner, I can recall only one or two complaints, and they were due
to the timing as proscribed by the Commission, not the work our men did. Ask our
employees if they are confident that after they are hired by Waste Pro they will be able to
stay longer than the time it takes for the ink on the Contract to dry. I've heard some 'concern'
from those that want to outsource that Waste Pro will pay them more, treat them better,
give them better benefits... but how, if the math doesn't allow it? In any case, our
employees are very much not in favor of not working for Biscayne Park directly, so the
concern you're hearing ought to be taken for what it is - one more push to out-source.
Because our employees have been loyal and watchful for many years, and that loyalty
equates into a feeling of community and safety. And if (or when) our employees get fired
from Waste Pro, there will be less loyal, less capable, less caring people (that are not hired
to our standards) are coming into our Village and our backyards.
equates into a feeling of community and safety. And if (or when) our employees get fired
from Waste Pro, there will be less loyal, less capable, less caring people (that are not hired
to our standards) are coming into our Village and our backyards.
And that's not even mentioning Hurricane Cleanup - if we have our own forces, we know
clean up is at least partly within our control... will Waste Pro guarantee that Biscayne Park
will be a priority?
clean up is at least partly within our control... will Waste Pro guarantee that Biscayne Park
will be a priority?
#8 – A Real Analysis:
If you get a chance, ask those Commissioners who voted to proceed with Contract
Negotiations if they did their own analysis of these bids before they voted. If they are
willing to put in writing that they want to charge you an Administration Fee for an outsourced
Sanitation program, or for Road and Storm Water through a Sanitation fee. Ask if they did
the math, and looked at the downside of out-Sourcing. Because this seems pretty much
like their approval to Annex – only looking at the upside, denying there’s any
downside. Just ask them why they think Waste Pro can do a decent job for $200,000 less
us, when the next highest bidder is $150,000 more than theirs.
Negotiations if they did their own analysis of these bids before they voted. If they are
willing to put in writing that they want to charge you an Administration Fee for an outsourced
Sanitation program, or for Road and Storm Water through a Sanitation fee. Ask if they did
the math, and looked at the downside of out-Sourcing. Because this seems pretty much
like their approval to Annex – only looking at the upside, denying there’s any
downside. Just ask them why they think Waste Pro can do a decent job for $200,000 less
us, when the next highest bidder is $150,000 more than theirs.
Do we need one or two new trucks? Should we buy outright or lease/purchase or borrow
for 5 years or 10? Do we count both new truck costs and depreciation? Do we have the
proper number of employees? According to that Admin Fee, there's a whole lot of money
going to non-Sanitation salaries, what happens we no longer can charge Sanitation fees?
There's been no real analysis or budget discussed yet, and to approve a contract now is
more than premature.
for 5 years or 10? Do we count both new truck costs and depreciation? Do we have the
proper number of employees? According to that Admin Fee, there's a whole lot of money
going to non-Sanitation salaries, what happens we no longer can charge Sanitation fees?
There's been no real analysis or budget discussed yet, and to approve a contract now is
more than premature.
#9 – The Sky is NOT falling:
If you got this far, you will see that outsourcing will likely COST the Village General Fund
Money, even though those pushing so hard to do this claim it will MAKE the Village Money.
This is why they want to do this, to bolster the Village General Fund. They aren’t doing
it because we don’t like our Sanitation Service, or that people are complaining about our
rate of $572 per year… it’s pure money. And why?
Money, even though those pushing so hard to do this claim it will MAKE the Village Money.
This is why they want to do this, to bolster the Village General Fund. They aren’t doing
it because we don’t like our Sanitation Service, or that people are complaining about our
rate of $572 per year… it’s pure money. And why?
a. We’re Going BROKE!!! No, not necessarily, that’s just what you’re being told. The data
has not once been publically revealed, and the sources and assumptions made are as
equally secret. What I was shown by the Manager is that in 5 years, we may have about a
$150,000 deficit. No sources, no references, no data as to why, just a chart showing that
number. But you know what? Our budget (11) is $2,329,231. So saying that in 5 years we
will be down $150K is like saying that we’re losing 6.4%, or 1.3% a year. And this is based
on non-proved sources… so why are we moving forward with Annexation and Dismantling
our Sanitation for 1% a year? If this was your household budget, and someone told you
(without a shred of proof) that you’d be bankrupt in 5 years unless you sold off your assets
today, would you do it without a full analysis? How about if all you had to do was find 1%
of your income in savings each year…. would you still do it?
has not once been publically revealed, and the sources and assumptions made are as
equally secret. What I was shown by the Manager is that in 5 years, we may have about a
$150,000 deficit. No sources, no references, no data as to why, just a chart showing that
number. But you know what? Our budget (11) is $2,329,231. So saying that in 5 years we
will be down $150K is like saying that we’re losing 6.4%, or 1.3% a year. And this is based
on non-proved sources… so why are we moving forward with Annexation and Dismantling
our Sanitation for 1% a year? If this was your household budget, and someone told you
(without a shred of proof) that you’d be bankrupt in 5 years unless you sold off your assets
today, would you do it without a full analysis? How about if all you had to do was find 1%
of your income in savings each year…. would you still do it?
b. Our Reserves are dwindling down to nothing!!! Again, not really. You’ve heard this,
but you’ve never been shown it. You’ve never been told WHY our reserves have gone
down… an important part of any financial analysis. I’ve asked, and haven’t gotten an
answer, but I can say that as a Commissioner for 4 years, the only reasons we’ve spent
reserves is due to old Worker’s Comp claims, not operational funding. So this Commission
moves forward with Annexation and Out-sourcing, but hasn’t addressed those old
Worker’s Comp Claims? Do they even know what we’ve spend the reserves on?
but you’ve never been shown it. You’ve never been told WHY our reserves have gone
down… an important part of any financial analysis. I’ve asked, and haven’t gotten an
answer, but I can say that as a Commissioner for 4 years, the only reasons we’ve spent
reserves is due to old Worker’s Comp claims, not operational funding. So this Commission
moves forward with Annexation and Out-sourcing, but hasn’t addressed those old
Worker’s Comp Claims? Do they even know what we’ve spend the reserves on?
c. There are many options available - if we outsource, if we don't... decisions still must be
made, but they must be made with facts. Will outsourcing be less expensive? Maybe, at
least in the short term... but is that the long term view our long term residents want? Can
we reduce the yearly resident fee without hurting our General Fund? Can we be assured
that our leaders have taken both the good AND the bad into account?
made, but they must be made with facts. Will outsourcing be less expensive? Maybe, at
least in the short term... but is that the long term view our long term residents want? Can
we reduce the yearly resident fee without hurting our General Fund? Can we be assured
that our leaders have taken both the good AND the bad into account?
#10 – The Big Picture:
According to this analysis, out-sourcing is a bad idea – it hurts our bottom line, it replaces a
way a known system we all enjoy, and it leaves us no control for the future. If it’s used to
bolster our General Fund, it may fail miserably, and if it’s to save Residents some money
in the short term, it could cost us much more in the long term – because the bids and the
budget don’t add up, literally.
way a known system we all enjoy, and it leaves us no control for the future. If it’s used to
bolster our General Fund, it may fail miserably, and if it’s to save Residents some money
in the short term, it could cost us much more in the long term – because the bids and the
budget don’t add up, literally.
If the goal for all of us is higher property values (and once again, sales are going
significantly up), then in-house service, at least in my opinion, can contribute to that end.
For 23 years, I have enjoyed and appreciated this service, and to watch it go the way of a
more commercial process would be a shame.
significantly up), then in-house service, at least in my opinion, can contribute to that end.
For 23 years, I have enjoyed and appreciated this service, and to watch it go the way of a
more commercial process would be a shame.
But for those that are concerned about the General Fund, here’s my question for you, and
it’s one I’ve been asking for 7 years – if our Sanitation Budget is inflated, isn’t there a very
good chance that our General Budget is also inflated? I don't believe that out-sourcing is
the way to solve our problems, but I know that demanding actual fact gathering, real
analysis and a zero based budget will take us very far.
it’s one I’ve been asking for 7 years – if our Sanitation Budget is inflated, isn’t there a very
good chance that our General Budget is also inflated? I don't believe that out-sourcing is
the way to solve our problems, but I know that demanding actual fact gathering, real
analysis and a zero based budget will take us very far.
If we can resist the urge to try to get something for nothing, and if we can budget what
actually is required and not a penny more, we as a Village can come out better and
stronger than we are right now.
actually is required and not a penny more, we as a Village can come out better and
stronger than we are right now.
Please let your Commissioners know your thoughts, no matter where you stand on this
issue. Or, stay silent, and watch it happen... it's your choice.
issue. Or, stay silent, and watch it happen... it's your choice.
Here are your Commissioner's emails:
David Coviello, Mayor
Email: dcoviello@biscayneparkfl.gov
Barbara Watts, Vice Mayor
Email: bwatts@biscayneparkfl.gov
Bob Anderson, Commissioner
Email: banderson@biscayneparkfl.gov
Fred Jonas, Commissioner
Email: fjonas@biscayneparkfl.gov
Roxanna Ross, Commissioner
Email: rross@biscayneparkfl.gov
Sincerely,
Steve Bernard
Resident
ps Thanks for making it to the end!
(1) Bids begin on pg 167 of the 4/1/14 Agenda - http://www.biscayneparkfl.
(2) BP Tipping Fees - pg 2 of the attached 2013-2014 Sanitation Budget (it’s not online)
(3) Waste Pro Recycling - pg 192 of the 4/1/14 Agenda -http://www.biscayneparkfl.
(4) BP Oil & Gas costs (if Waste Pro can buy gas for less, it would be offset by the daily
travel to the Village) - pg 2 of the attached 2013-2014 Sanitation Budget (it’s not online)
travel to the Village) - pg 2 of the attached 2013-2014 Sanitation Budget (it’s not online)
(5) BP Sanitation Budget - pg 1 of the attached 2013-2014 Sanitation Budget (it’s not
online)
online)
(6) BP Admin Fees - pg 3 of the attached 2013-2014 Sanitation Budget (it’s not online)
(7) BP Admin Fees in 2009 - pg 67 of 09-10 Budget - http://www.biscayneparkfl.
(8) Admin Fee Calculations, pg 89, 2012-2013 Budget - http://www.biscayneparkfl.
(9) Increased Admin Fee - pg 14, Estimated Sanitation Assessment to Maintain Village
Services – http://www.
Services – http://www.
(10) Franchise Fees, pg 15 & 16 of the” Review of Options for Garbage & Trash Collection
Services Presentation.pdf”http://www.
Services Presentation.pdf”http://www.
(11) pg 4 of 13-14 Budget - http://www.biscayneparkfl.
Yes, as Steve acknowledges, it's very long. I, for one, did make it to the end. Steve raises
many questions, a few of which are worth answering. He even makes the rare good point.
Steve has expressly formed an opinion about this matter, he suggests his readers should
join him in adopting his opinion, and he advises his now opinionated readers to contact
Commissioners. I thought I would save Steve the trouble, so I reached out to him. He did
not answer the phone, and he did not return my call, although I left a message asking him
to.
many questions, a few of which are worth answering. He even makes the rare good point.
Steve has expressly formed an opinion about this matter, he suggests his readers should
join him in adopting his opinion, and he advises his now opinionated readers to contact
Commissioners. I thought I would save Steve the trouble, so I reached out to him. He did
not answer the phone, and he did not return my call, although I left a message asking him
to.
Both of the people who sent me Steve's e-mail pointed out the many factual errors and
distortions. Did Steve refuse to talk to me, because he is already confident that he couldn't
have said anything that was not correct? Or does he not want to have to examine the
things he said and the foundations that led him to say them? It appears we won't know.
distortions. Did Steve refuse to talk to me, because he is already confident that he couldn't
have said anything that was not correct? Or does he not want to have to examine the
things he said and the foundations that led him to say them? It appears we won't know.
Steve points out in his e-mail that he has special knowledge and perspective, once having
been a Commissioner himself. Has he forgotten that in a small neighborhood like ours, it
is neither necessary, practical, nor good politics or good judgment to hide from one's
neighbors? I suppose that if I said the kinds of things Steve says, I'd want to hide, too, but
because I know I'd react that way, I don't say those kinds of things.
been a Commissioner himself. Has he forgotten that in a small neighborhood like ours, it
is neither necessary, practical, nor good politics or good judgment to hide from one's
neighbors? I suppose that if I said the kinds of things Steve says, I'd want to hide, too, but
because I know I'd react that way, I don't say those kinds of things.
It's really a terrible shame to have someone like Steve skulking around, spewing
nonsense, and stirring up discord. It's much worse that he likes to do it guerrilla-style. It
would otherwise be funny that Steve so frequently commented that he didn't know or
comprehend one thing or another, while at the same time, he absented himself from every
one of the meetings and workshops that would have given him exactly the information and
understanding he now complains he lacks.
nonsense, and stirring up discord. It's much worse that he likes to do it guerrilla-style. It
would otherwise be funny that Steve so frequently commented that he didn't know or
comprehend one thing or another, while at the same time, he absented himself from every
one of the meetings and workshops that would have given him exactly the information and
understanding he now complains he lacks.
And he can't even bring himself to talk to me about it. Well, he has four other choices
among Commissioners. Maybe he'll talk to them.
among Commissioners. Maybe he'll talk to them.
From Linda Dillon, who was unable to post this herself:
ReplyDeleteYou state that two people have pointed out Steve’s many errors and distortions, yet not one word or backup to prove how wrong he is. Then there is your comment that, “he even makes the rare good point”. You go on to write, “like Steve skulking around, spewing nonsense, and stirring up discord.”
Sorry, Fred, but considering the history between the two of you and these comments among some of the others past and present, I wouldn’t talk to you either.
Linda
Linda,
DeleteThere are two issues here. One is that Steve used a tremendous of space to make very many assertions and points. (Did you read his whole e-mail? He seems to imagine people might not. Even he recognizes he has dumped a great deal.) One response is that either the two people who sent this to me or I could similarly use a tremendous amount of space to correct, inform (why didn't Steve do the adequate, entry-level job of informing himself?), or explain. Don't you think Steve's e-mail is long enough? Do you want me to double the space he took by answering his questions and correcting his faulty assertions in this blog?
The second issue is that Steve does all of this, this distorting and misinforming, whether I or anyone else has demonstrated to you that he did distort and misinform, in the peculiar and sheltered way he does. You attend Commission meetings. How many times did you hear Steve complain about things that are not transparent? If anyone else did what Steve did, and what he is now actively complaining they do, he would be, he very much is, all over them. Do you accept his complaint that numbers and theories, unexplained and unrevealed, are being perpetrated on residents of the Village? Do you accept my complaint that this is precisely what Steve is doing?
If you think it's important, to you or to anyone else, I will do a separate post in which I will correct as much of Steve's distorting and misinforming as I can. Let me know if that's how you think this should be handled. For myself, I wish Steve had come to informational meetings and asked his questions, so he would have answers, and he wouldn't now go around accusing people of holding out on him. No one did. He just didn't bother to come and ask. Frankly, I think he likes it this way.
Fred
Linda,
DeleteIt is true that Resident Bernard does not have to respond to any Commissioners request but also should not be attempting to incite through emails to others using his customary scare tactics and partial truths. You know full well that this is his style and usually offers very little in the way of solutions. Only accusations.
More to follow soon.
Linda, I agree with you. Fred and Milt, reread your post and comments. You both say you want an open dialog but you don't. Your words are full of contempt and that's not helping anyone. As a commissioner, you Fred should be tempering your disdain for residents who don't agree with you. I wonder how many people you've frightened off from speaking at commission meetings or posting a reply on your blog.
DeleteBarbara,
DeleteYes, and no. I do experience some contempt, but not for people who don't agree with me. There are many such people. You don't agree with me, and I don't have contempt for you. I have contempt for underhandedness, manipulativeness, intentional distortion, misrepresentation, deliberately saying things the speaker or writer knows are not true, incitement, and cowardice. If you think you can identify someone who has no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with him, who accuses, demeans, and demonizes such a person, it is not I.
As for your other concern, it is my concern as well. I can't imagine that I have intimidated anyone from speaking at Commission meetings, not before last December or after, but I do worry that people who don't agree with me might be reluctant to comment here, in this blog. If someone writes in disagreement, and I am not convinced he or she is right, I will debate the issue with them. If you're saying that intimidates some people, I regret it. It clearly doesn't intimidate everyone, and I'm glad to see it didn't intimidate you. I am always outspoken in my way, and you have been outspoken in yours.
Fred
Barbara,
ReplyDeleteAre you insinuating that anything I stated above is not the truth? If so, you'll need to correct me in that I have, on your recommendation reread my post and will stand by it.
A difference of "opinion" does not alter the truth based on past actions.
I cant believe this man Jonas represents a town and bashes a resident with a different opinion and who is providing information for a debate - and for the betterment of the town in the end. If Mr Jonas cannot see the nature or personal attacks in his writing, both which are very unbecoming for an elected official, perhaps he is not fit for office. I have witnessed time and time again these kind of attacks and it is stunning. I have no horse in this race but I read from time to time this blog and over the years all I can come up with is Mr. Jonas "can't quit" Mr Bernard.
ReplyDeleteAnd as a resident of North Dade, we need more good behavior - and less bad. I do not think Mr Jonas "gets it" either - judging from the above comments, he will just defend himself and refuse to grow and will tell me how I am wrong. Peace and goodness to all. Let's show some love and cooperation - and have our leaders be... leaders.
Ma'am (if I'm not mistaken),
DeleteI did not bash a resident, and I did not bash someone with a different opinion. If I bashed anyone, it was someone who asserted ideas that were not coherent and that were intended to undermine precisely "the betterment" of the Village. (You are assuming, of course, that Mr Bernard was right, or even at least thought he was right, when he recommended not outsourcing sanitation. Your idea that he intends betterment of the Village comes into question if he's wrong, and especially if he knows he's wrong.) The only thing not offered by Mr Bernard was a "debate." I would more than welcome one. I have asked Mr Bernard for one "debate" or another on many occasions. He scrupulously avoids them, and not only with me.
As for whether I can "quit" Mr Bernard, it was not I who sent out the e-mail you read. It would please me greatly, and it would please others as well, if Mr Bernard would quit. We would love to see him quit his divisiveness and persistent efforts to discomfit, disrupt, and sabotage. Mr Bernard had a number of ways to pursue this matter. As he makes clear, he has a lot of questions. Wouldn't it have been nice-- peaceful, as you say-- if he had gotten answers to his questions in the way we all sought and got answers, instead of his essentially accusing a wide range of people for the fact that he did not choose to get his questions answered? And wouldn't it have been nice if he had made any effort even to point out the questions adequately long before the vote has to be taken? If you know much about Mr Bernard, you will know that he makes quite a habit of bringing things up at the 11th hour, and implying that unanswered questions are the reflections of the nefarious fault of one person or group or another.
I don't know that you're wrong. I'm not sure what your point is. If it is that I can be scrappy, you're not wrong at all. If it is that I'm not fit for public office, that's probably debatable. Sometimes, I wonder about it myself. I will tell you, though, that one of our hardest working, most unwaveringly dedicated elected officials has quite often and even viciously been declared not fit for public office, guilty of a range of awful behaviors and attitudes by... Mr Bernard. So it probably depends on whom you ask.
I do appreciate your writing in. I think you can see that this blog is a pretty open place, and people seem free to speak their minds. You would be more than welcome to use your name.
Mr Jonas
By the way, if you know anything about this issue, you will know that it has a number of angles to it, and there are differing opinions and preferences. And this is among people who have taken the trouble to ask questions and get answers. I most certainly "get" the complete legitimacy of everyone's view, even if I disagree with some of my neighbors, and even if I think they're "wrong." If Mr Bernard had handled this properly, which he essentially never does, and still preferred not to outsource sanitation, I would have complete respect for him, as I do for all my neighbors who have an honest disagreement with me about anything.
Mr Jonas - I tried to use name and it would not print and made that odd number sequence. I tried with AIM and it would not work, but it could be my unfamiliarity with technology. It seems there was no way for you to respond to that comment I made without bashing Mr. Bernard, whether he is wrong or right. This is my point - as I said you do not seem able to see yourself - but you think you can so this is a useless exercise to try and reach you. I hope you may grow to learn from this - can you not see your addiction to berating him? Can you answer a question and take responsibility for your own self and stop making it about someone else, in this case Mr Bernard -- If you understand my reference to "quit him" it was a reference about being in love with him, as I do not understand your obsession with this man. Frankly, you give him quite some power over you. Maybe you should learn to take a breath and not spend so much energy on personally saying negative things about another human being - who took a lot of time and A LOT of words to offer information. Whether you agree or not, this is a democracy and healthy debate should be encouraged. I see no personal attacks on you in his missive about your trash collecting... and you yourself previously were asking for feedback and here this man takes time to do that - why not respond to his points which I do not see you do - and not bash HIM. And his "flock" which is so degrading. This "flock" are members of your community and I am certain decent men and women, mothers and fathers - and taxpayers.
DeleteAnd if in fact he is as bad as you say, then take the high road and stop with the attacks of one of your constituents. It is very unbecoming in my humble opinion, I have never in my many years seen a public official devote so much vitroil to one of his or her city members, and so publically as well. I do not want to continue farthur and I do wish you great success with your blog and city regarding all your issues. I do wish you great success. Please practice kindness and care and treat your neighbor as yourself. Good night, I wish everyone well. This has been enough negativity for me today. You seem more interested in defending your position and personally attacking another person than you do seem in actual dialog about the issue at hand. Perhaps you could have spent more time just going line item by line item - in an honest constructive way - about the outsourcing budget issue at hand. We are here to help one another. Peace and goodness. I will not be responding further.
You are certainly demonstrating why this exercise is frustrating. Like Mr Bernard, you make a lot of points-- some good, some not-- but you hide while you make them, then run away from any discussion or "debate." Also like Mr Bernard, you seem to come to conclusions without much appreciation for, or interest in, facts and perspective. All of this makes it impossible to explore anything with you, and it removes any interest in doing so. You seem to evade even the simplest suggestion: that you tell us who you are. You are able to make pretty good use of a keyboard, except to type the letters of your name. Again, as I said at the outset, very frustrating.
DeleteMr Jonas
The more I read Steve's e-mail, the more I realize how sad it is that he won't take his defender's advice to have a "healthy" debate. He asks so many easy-to-answer questions, and he takes so many patently inconsistent positions. So many of his concerns, if he's really concerned about them, could be resolved, if he would only do what the anonymous writer suggests. But not only will Steve not have a proper discussion, he won't tell us why he won't have a proper discussion.
DeleteFred
I have an inkling who the anonymous blog comment lady is. I think it's aReaderfromDade. She is obviously vindictive, relentless and extremely passive-agressive. But, I am quite certain it is she.
ReplyDeleteThere were so many similarities in writing style and exact word usage from other comments she wrote a while back, so much so that I was struck. I am very aware of writers' styles and voices, and aReaderfromDade's comments yesterday mirror, almost verbatim, those comments from a previous (Kienzle) post when that brouhaha was going on. First, I thought it might be NMBLady, but I am now quite sure it's ARFD.
For example: the use of "Mr. Jonas" by which she previously referred to you. The mention of the word "vitriol" as she employed it. Another, which finally allowed me to solve the mystery: "Peace and good things." She wrote this yesterday, as she had before when she was admonishing you before in a similar way. Only the subject matter differs now.
Hey, they don't call me Agatha Christie the Second for nothing.
Judith Marks-White
Funny enough, apparently she doesn't want the NMB crowd to know who she is, either.
Delete