The problem is that if I had it to do again, I wouldn't do anything different. I'd just feel bad again.
I have always been the first one to say that Commissioners should accommodate the wishes of BP residents. Especially when those wishes are legitimate. Tonight, I failed some of my neighbors, or at least I did not accede to their very clearly stated wishes. The problem is that I would have failed some neighbors no matter what I did.
The sentiment about outsourcing sanitation was divided on the Commission. Coviello and Ross wanted to outsource, Watts didn't want to outsource, and Anderson thought it was too soon to commit to doing it. He was poised to vote against. I felt it was better to outsource than not to, although I thought Anderson made an excellent point: we could try some adjustments with in-house service first, then see if the problem was solved. If not, he might be sympathetic toward outsourcing.
I made neither points nor friends in voting to outsource. My weakest argument was that if we don't outsource, we need to have complete confidence in each other to pay whatever in-house service costs, and I was beginning to see flinching among those who said they would support the in-house program. I had to trust them without question when the big bills came, and they were not leaving me total confidence that I could. I hate to see Linda Dillon that annoyed with me, but I earned it tonight.
My better argument, although I don't think it got great traction, was that this is a good time to outsource, if we're going to do it, because the task we would have if we don't outsource (buying expensive new equipment and hiring new employees) is identical to the task many said we couldn't or wouldn't do if we had to consider reversing outsourcing. If they know we can do it now, then they agree we can do it, any time.
My best argument, in my own opinion, is that not outsourcing leaves us vulnerable to unpredictably and unmanageably escalating costs and a system with too many weaknesses in it. I cited in particular the cost of the Affordable Care Act. I consider it very unfair that large employers, let's say like WastePro, get a better deal on ACA costs than do smaller employers, let's say like the Village of Biscayne Park. We need the help and discounts more than WastePro does. But we don't get them. So whatever happens to insurance premiums happens to the Village. It's not a good place to be when you're on a tight budget.
But why am I reiterating this argument for you? I was talking to myself then, and I'm talking to myself now. I did what I thought was best for the Village, I betrayed a lot of people to do it, and I don't feel good about it. Except that I think it was the right thing to do.
Now I will say this. In the past week or so, two people have said unexpected things. One anti-outsourcer said Heidi Shafran made a good argument in favor of outsourcing. Another of my anti-outsourcing friends told me she had actually convinced herself outsourcing wouldn't be so bad, until she saw the proposed contract and got spooked by some funky language. And another of my friends, after tonight's Commission meeting, told me she was actually on the fence about this matter. I had approached her to apologize for my vote, which I assumed was a substantial disappointment to her, in that she had always and consistently spoken against outsourcing.
Here's another reason I felt I should vote as I did. I asked more than one person, including Bob Anderson, about what would be involved if we didn't outsource, then decided we should. There was general acceptance that if we didn't outsource, we would have to buy trucks now and hire more workers now. But I was concerned about the expense of buying the trucks, then deciding we didn't need them after all. And more than one person said the same thing: we'll just sell the trucks, at a loss. I wasn't prepared to do that.
So I'm truly very sorry for disappointing some of my neighbors, and moreso because I said I wouldn't. I really did use my best judgment. But I clearly understand many of my neighbors would say my judgment wasn't necessary. All I had to do was represent my neighbors' clearly stated preference. I didn't. I failed them from that perspective.
The best defense being a good offense sometimes, though, I will say this. It was pointed out, many times, that only one non-Commissioner resident spoke in favor of outsourcing. That person was Dan Keys. Every other speaker spoke against outsourcing. But Chuck Ross didn't advocate for outsourcing. (He later said he didn't want to say the words, because he didn't want people to tune him out.) Neither did Brad Piper or Brian McNoldy, who were both there and are outsourcing advocates. Milt Hunter was there, and he didn't comment in favor of outsourcing. Drew Dillworth came to the meeting specifically, I'm told, to speak in favor of outsourcing, but he didn't. I'm pretty sure Richard Ederr thinks outsourcing is a good idea, and he didn't speak in favor of it, either. So you see, I had notable support for my position. They just didn't agree to take heat for it. With friends like that, huh?
I do have every confidence this will work out just fine. I just regret the feelings of resentment and betrayal I caused to get us there.
PS: I suppose I had two kinds of friends at the meeting last night. My friends who thought outsourcing was a good idea, but who didn't come to the speakers' podium and say so, sort of abandoned me in a way. I was counting on them, and they sort of let me down. They're my friends, though, it is clear to me what burden they were under, and I more than forgive them. My friendships with them are much more important than my wish to have been shown the overt support. The other kind of friend I have is the kind of friend I disappointed, too. I betrayed them, and I didn't show them the support they wanted and expected from me. I hope they can be forgiving of me, and I hope our connection seems bigger to them than whether we try outsourcing of the sanitation function. It would surprise me greatly if I was a Commissioner in four and a half years from now, when the Village has to decide whether to extend the contract with WastePro, but if for some reason I am, I will have been watching this like a hawk. If it's not clearly better than an in-house program, I will advocate not to request extension of the contract, and I will be ready to buy those trucks and hire those PW workers we would have to buy and hire right now anyway to keep the program in-house.
I can honestly say I'm surprised that the commission successfully looked beyond the emotions of certain residents and did what was right for the village. That's not an easy thing to do. But the choice was clear when you simply look at what was in the best interest of Biscayne Park as a viable community. I never once heard a valid, rational reason for not outsourcing, despite coming into the process leaning that way. Once I heard both sides, the choice was clear, and my initial inclination quickly switched.
ReplyDeleteThis was a case where the Commission had a difficult choice: to do what the majority of active meeting-attending residents wants, or to do what the Village of Biscayne Park needs. It's always prudent to put our needs before our wants. So thank you to Fred, Rox, and David for recognizing that, and to Heidi for doing all of the background work to get the comparisons, workshops, and presentations organized.
(P.S., yes, I was there, but having written to the Commission and Manager several times on this matter, I assumed my opinion had been heard.)
Fred, You unquestionably did the right thing. And doing so in the face of spirited opposition is precisely what you signed up for, frankly. If there are any hard feelings among your neighbors, that's on them, not you.
ReplyDeleteYes, I came late to the meeting only for the purpose of supporting the notition that each of you are fiduciaries, something I can relate to. As a fiduciary, you are supposed to act in the best interests of all the beneficiaries of your trust. That is not the 75 or so people in the room. That is not just those that vote either. Your trust belongs to the broader community that you serve, the residents. The idea that there is broad support for paying twice what is necessary to take out the garbage has no merit. That is why those in the minority were so vocal and personally upset by your decision.
I decided to leave after the cheering for the first few comments. What's the point. I couldn't vote for you and each of you knew my views. And, the Heat are in the playoffs, I have two teenagers at home ... just had better options than to sit around a few hours talking about who gets to take out the garbage. That is all this is about afterall.
First world problems right here.
Thanks for your vote, Fred.
From Tracy Truppman:
ReplyDeleteI woke up this morning deeply sad and conflicted. When I asked the commissioners and staff to explain why we looked at outsourcing, my motivation was simple. If outsourcing will bring us an estimated 10% re-allocation of revenue stream, why don’t I want it? The answer came to me after listening to so many of my neighbors who spoke from the heart. Yes – emotional and human. Simply, we love our guys and our personalized service we have come to expect. There are so many stories that can be told about our loyal staff, and hope will be. Something has been lost, and it is not something we can replace – an error of simple small town service. To some of my fellow residents, this is emotional and not rational and cannot understand why this is such a big deal. Well it is. After 20 years of living here, it is emotional for me and many others. The rational side of my brain understands the decision but my human side does not like it. I will not fault any of the commissioners or the new village manager or staff, who did their jobs well. They were being fiscally responsible. Rather, I take responsibility for not being more vocal about the state of affairs at public works earlier, and for not attending the budget meetings very often. The Village did not get into this situation overnight. It is easy to point fingers and start false rumors and question individual motivations. It is a bind many governmental agencies face – mostly due to federal economic policies which in the end, negatively impacts small municipal governments.
We as residents are all responsible equally – for not compensating our guys more so we could maintain a proper staff, for not putting aside money for trucks – simply for not being more involved. This email is to all the loyal staff at public works – we did fail you, and am deeply sorry.
Tracy
Yup, Tracy, that sounds like a perfect example of a conflict. If it makes you feel any better, I think many of us experienced conflict not unlike yours, no matter where the greater weight fell. And what might perpetuate your sadness is that you would have felt something uneasy even if the decision had gone the other way. The conflict would have preserved discontent and disturbance for you, either way.
DeleteI would like to think that the suggestion made to you by the "rational side of [your] brain" will turn out to be well-founded. I guess we'll all find out. Please remember that this counts as an experiment. It is a trial. There were reasons, maybe even compelling reasons, to try to address Village finances with this move. If the experiment is a success, including that we happen to see some familiar faces on WastePro trucks, we'll all be happy. If it's not a success, for one reason or another, we can always reclaim the program.
Fred
Fred
I cannot state the points any better than Drew has above. It was disappointing that after over 1 month of debate and discussion that many of the speakers last night were no better informed than when this started. You know, "you can lead a horse to water"...
ReplyDeleteLost, once again on these speakers is the present fiscal situation that the Village faces. Nope, no one wanted to touch that subject. There was one comment of "if it's not broke-don't fix it." Well, in truth it is broke. And the Village could very well be too if we do not evolve. Look at the financial numbers and tell us otherwise. We cannot continue doing business in the way we have in the past and hope to survive.
As Chuck Ross pointed out... they was chaos from some residents when the Rec. Center outsourced their service. Look at it now... a better more streamlined service that makes sense.
Brian and Drew,
ReplyDeleteIt is unfair for some of our neighbors to write us off as heartless and driven only, and coldly, by a fiscal bottom line, with no concern for any of the people involved. By the same token, we should not write them off as intoxicated by empty and childish emotionality. There is much more on both sides, and each position has real merit to it. If I had thought we had another year or two in our garbage trucks, and if we didn't have to hire two new employees right now anyway, I would have thought that Bob Anderson's approach was the wisest and the best. We could have tried this, with some much more sharpened pencils, to see if we could get it to work, and to see how eager our neighbors really are to pay a relatively inflated price. We would also have learned what some of the thus-far silent neighbors think of an unexpectedly high sanitation bill. But the opportunity to outsource seemed too promising not to take, and now really was the time, if this is what we were going to try. We can always change our minds and rebuild an in-house program. Really, we can. I doubt we will, and I doubt anyone will think we should, once this is in place, and the bugs are ironed out, but we most definitely can.
Fred
Fred,
ReplyDeleteIt was not my point to be dismissive about the impact on existing staff and our small town feel (which seems to be where the opposition is coming from). My point is that you don't need to lose that simply by letting someone else take out the garbage at 1/2 the cost. There is simply no logical connection between the two except the failure of imagination.
It is your job to figure out what is next. I would advocate that you don't completely dismantle the public works department. The Village should maintain current pricing (even increase it slightly) and use the spread to rebrand its function. The new function should focus on maintainance and beautification. Both of these activities, as I understand it, already fall within the umbrella of public works. So why not make it the focus of public works? Keep a staff of our existing employees and refocus what they do going forward. In other words, try to make everyone happy, that is what you "politicans" are supposed to do afterall!
Drew,
DeleteI know you weren't being dismissive. But you do understand that a group of our neighbors feel very much dismissed.
There was never any question of dismantling PW altogether. One of the advantages of outsourcing the sanitation function is to accomplish exactly what you suggest: refocusing available attention, effort, and staffing for general maintenance and beautification. In that interest, we are retaining up to half of the PW employees as Village employees. Cesar Hernandez, Derrick Murray, and John Jenkins, and possibly one more PW employee are staying on as full time Village employees. There was even talk of whether we had enough work for two of our employees other than Cesar, Derrick, and John. That will be Heidi's and Candido's call, depending on how much and what kind of responsibilities we have that are unconnected to sanitation per se.
So you're absolutely right in what you think, and this will indeed become the focus of a reorganized PW department. Whether this will "make everyone happy" is perhaps questionable, but it's good to have your reassurance that making everyone happy is indeed the job description of a "politician." I'll get right on it. Starting tomorrow. Or maybe next week.
Fred
I was not implying at all that those who voted in favor of outsourcing were heartless and driven only by the bottom line. In fact, what made it a challenging issue was that the thing you as a person might want in a perfect world differs from what you as a commissioner need to consider in the real world. It's a lousy situation to be in for sure.
ReplyDeleteIt was not black and white... it was a carefully weighted decision. But Biscayne Park IS a business; we have employees, revenues, expenditures, responsibilities, clients, liabilities, etc, etc. And when you're elected to serve the Village, that sometimes involves doing what's right for the Village even if it's seemingly unpopular at the time. We're hardly in a position to keep running with the status quo, and this is a step in the right direction.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteI don't feel that trying to secure our village's future is heartless, or lacking any sensitivity for the emotional residents. Listening to the resident's lack of concern for our fiscal viability is a big eye opener! Possibly, if our residents were active in generating additional tax revenue in the past (annexation), we would not have a need to outsource. It's time to take our medicine as bitter as it may be. If we all want to continue to not see the need to create a revenue source, we will see all these "extra" services fade away into a memory. Let's get motivated and bring more money into the village, and make this an exceptional community. This is our "wake up" call!
Brad,
DeleteI'm not saying YOU think outsourcing is heartless, or that Brian or Drew or Milt does. I'm saying the people who don't want to outsource think it's heartless. I don't think it's heartless, and I don't think the people who don't want to outsource are unthinking or careless, either. As I said, either position has something to recommend it. I just think the advantages of outsourcing are more tangible and more reliable, and they will make a more real difference to the Village. I know I don't have to tell this to you, because you think so, too. And I will remind you, in case you forgot, you didn't always look at this the way you do now. Neither did I.
Fred
Fred,
DeleteI hear you clearly, and didn't take your comment as such. Very true regarding my initial view on outsourcing, I didn't want to see it leave BP, but the reality is clear. My "IDEAL" vision for Biscayne Park would be a well funded small community supporting our "in house" services, underground power lines, and a lower millage rate with a percentage directed to public art and the recreation center. Ahhh.... one can dream!
From Linda Dillon:
ReplyDeleteWhat’s done is done, and I join Tracy in her sadness. At the same time, for those of you who were so in favor of outsourcing, I think you missed some basic points. First and foremost, and I think I speak for a number of quite intelligent people, we were not misinformed! We just had a difference of opinion. We also saw no need to belittle anyone who didn’t share our views. While sentimentality and caring may have been part of what had us not wanting to outsource, the real reason was that we (maybe this is where it should be “I”) felt we could and should re-structure the program, making it more efficient, and thus keeping the services that we all have come to expect. It wasn’t lack of concern for fiscal responsibility, quite the contrary. I could go on and on but see no point. I just hope that in the future, as there are bound to be other issues that polarize our small community, that there is more respect for those having divergent opinions.
On a far less serious note, I also hope that there will be an option as to size for the new recycling bin. Here, for me, size IS important and bigger is NOT better. I have always recycled everything allowable and probably even a few items not on the approved list. While the bin previewed last night may be suitable for those of you with multiple family members, it is far more than I need or want. What I want, however, is obviously unimportant to some, so this too will probably, although not really small enough, get shoved down my throat.
Linda Dillon
It's not great, it was never great, but I'm beginning to feel increasingly confident and not as bad about my vote to outsource. Since Tuesday, and as recently as today, increasing numbers of people have approached me, or told me in passing, that they're glad we're outsourcing sanitation, as they think it's best for the Village and best for them. I still wish there had been two lines of people speaking at the meeting-- a line of those who didn't want outsourcing, and a line of those who did-- but perhaps better late than never. It feels very much less lop-sided than it did a few days ago. I'm not sure it isn't seeming about even now.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm beginning to hear from that silent "majority(?)" Presumably, I would have heard from them if I had voted not to outsource. I would have heard how angry they were that their sanitation bill was going up substantially, and some of them now say they were not exactly in love with the service, either. Well, what's done is done, and we shall all see.
Fred