Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Frankly, I Liked Steve Bernard's Idea.
Steve says we should wait a month before we go ahead with outsourcing. His thinking, as he described it in an e-mail, was that we could use that month to get more information about what would be involved with keeping the sanitation program in-house.
It appears Steve didn't realize we already signed a contract with WastePro. We don't have to use them to pick up our garbage, but we do have to pay them for the next five years.
And there isn't much we don't already know about keeping this program in-house, except how unpredictably high our expenses will get. Besides, how much would we learn in a month?
But here's what I like about Steve's idea. We could use that month to send out sanitation bills for $755, and see if anyone notices that that's higher than the prior years' bills of $572. We would get a chance to see if anyone had any feeling about the new bill. (Actually, what we could have done is sent out an explanation, apologizing for the unusually high bill, and explaining that with the need for new trucks, the attention we finally paid to embarrassingly low wages, below the County poverty level, the need for two new employees, the ACA, etc, it was necessary... We would have noted that the good news is that we are no longer paying $40K per year to MSV, since we have decided to take over the recycling program ourselves. To be fair to homeowners, we would probably have had to say that they should expect increases every year, but we don't have a way to predict what those increases might be. We would of course, however, make every possible effort to limit them as much as we can. We could then have explained that we considered outsourcing this program, to save money, which would have left homeowners with a bill of $400-something this year, then $300-something next year, but we felt that BP residents like it that we keep the program in-house, so we opted to do it this way.)
The reason I like this idea, in theory, if we hadn't already committed to WastePro, is that it would give essential feedback from all BP homeowners, not just the vocal or opinionated ones on either side of this. We would learn, would have learned, whether it's important to them that we not outsource sanitation, and whether they're as willing as some say to pay the higher fee.
This was really what all of us, on both sides, wanted. We wished we could know what all of us, all BP homeowners, think about this issue.
Steve's idea was how we would have found out. Either we would get a lot of checks for $755, or we would get a lot of angry feedback. That's what I wanted to know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So does this mean that whilst the Mayor of Biscayne Park was meeting with "the opposition" to discuss rescinding his vote, he already knew that the contract was signed?
ReplyDeleteOne more point. Our Mayor agreed to meet with, from what I understand was Steve's handpicked group. No one else was welcome and one resident that went (uninvited) was activity pressured to leave by Steve. What kind of nonsense is this?
DeleteBut the larger point is, who planted the idea that our Mayor would rescind his vote and why was he singled out? The courtesy he demonstrated by meeting with this "select group" should not have been pitched as grounds or guarantees for any change of action. Some of the disappointment felt today was self-inflicted.
As mentioned by our attorney, the contract was binding at the time of the vote during the second reading last month. Any commissioner, past or present should have known this and informed those at the time.
ReplyDeleteThis is all one Village. The movement to designate "sides" such as your use of the word "opposition" lessons our Village and community.
I apologize. You're right.
DeleteFred
As Bramblewitch indicates and Milt highlights, if David was considered the "opposition" to the anti-outsourcers, who were Roxy and I? No one wanted to meet with us at all. Why are there sides, instead of real attempts to meet and discuss. Among the three of us, I was the only one who said he was available to change his mind. And I could have, in theory. If the anti-outsourcers had met with me, I would have told them what kind of petition, or what input, would have given me the basis I needed to reconsider. Two petitions, to influence me, and no one approached me in advance about them? This begins to look like a situation in which no one wants a different outcome. It was a struggle and a battle for the sake of struggling and doing battle.
ReplyDeleteMilt and Rodney King ask the same question: Can't we just get along? Can't we? Not if we don't want to, I guess.
Fred
PS: Come on, Bramblewitch. Don't hide. I don't. Milt doesn't. These are your neighbors. All you're doing is reinforcing the concept of antipathy. We do all live together and share the Village, "at the end of the day."
DeleteFred
Fred, I am not hiding. I just pointed out what has been happening in the Village (in my estimation) for a number of years. There seems to be an "us" and "them" mentality. I have had people that I considered maybe close acquaintances that barely talk to me anymore because I don't agree with their ideas of how the Village should be, so be it, I don't like it, but I acknowledge it.
DeleteBramblewitch,
DeleteI'm very grateful for your commitment, to the neighborhood and to these discussions. I'm sorry to hear you have lost friends over disagreements about ideas about how the Village should be, but may I say, you're not at all the only one. "I hear ya." Am there myself.
When I said you were hiding, I just meant that you're one of our neighbors in the Park, but you don't use your name. Are you afraid of losing even more friends? One thing I figured out for myself, and had reinforced by a few select others, is that if you lose a "friend" over a disagreement about ideas, you should recalculate whether you really ever had the "friend" in the first place.
Come on out.
Fred
Fred - you and the entire commission failed to disseminate adequate information to your constituents. That is why there is an opposition. There is general feel among many residents that the commission is this evil entity executing back room deal without explaining their logic to their constituents. You used to be part of that anti-establishment group and have now become part of the establishment.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to criticize anyone, you and the entire commission should start by looking in the mirror and thinking about what could have been done differently to avoid situations like this.
With great power comes great responsibility.
Thank you, H. I appreciate the thoughts and the comment. I certainly acknowledge the sense of the Commission's "failure" in this instance, and the sense of "back room deals." The "back rooms" were actually open. You or anyone else were really welcome to come. If by "back rooms," you mean "rooms" where secrets were shared, there were no secrets. Frankly, it frustrated me that relatively few people came to these information opportunities, and the vast majority of people who came to express opinions at Commissions had not been there. That's also true of the vast majority of people who signed petitions, asking for something that was not relevant.
DeleteI don't think it would be at all fair to say explanation of logic was not given. I think it was one of those situations where we were focusing on different things. I think my explanations were heard, and just not agreed with. And the opinions of people who didn't want to outsource were heard, but just not agreed with.
The option available to me, and to the other two who voted to outsource, and "what could have been done differently to avoid situations like this," was to vote to advocate for the expressed wishes of the most vocal of my neighbors, whether I agreed, or thought it was best for the Village, or not. That choice was more than clear to me, and I didn't take it, though I did give it very serious consideration. Clearly, you think I should have taken that choice. That's a fair argument.
Fred
As a fellow resident, I don't agree at all with this feeling that the commission "failed to disseminate adequate information". The information was, in fact, provided in the newsletter and via various email lists. It was discussed at length at multiple public workshops and meetings. We also had the contract available to review.
DeleteJust because you're not paying attention doesn't mean information wasn't shared and available.
Just wanted to apologize if that last statement came off as sounding rude... it wasn't intended to be. There are plenty of residents everywhere who don't take an interest in local government by expressing concerns or attending meetings or engaging their representatives, etc. -- and that's fine, they're the "go with the flow" crowd (the majority of most places).
DeleteI fully expect that plenty of people ignored this whole debate and are MAYBE only hearing about it now. But, it's absolutely NOT for lack of communication by the commission or staff. I'm not anyone special in the village (just an average resident), but I certainly never felt that information wasn't available or that something sneaky was going on.
I was against outsourcing our sanitation at first (but open-minded)... then after learning about it and our current state, it quickly became obvious that it was the only viable and responsible option we had.
So for the vast majority of residents who opt not to get involved, they can go about their daily lives knowing that a very good decision was just made on their behalf, and for the future of Biscayne Park.
Brian,
DeleteI'm not sure how I feel about whether the Village (the Commission or the managerial administration) adequately disseminated information. I'm not sure how I feel about whether we gave this enough time. There were reasons to act when we did, and for me, those reasons were compelling. I don't regret the position I took, although I think I could have expressed myself better.
What I feel much more sure about is the fact that very many of the people, the vast majority of them, who complained that they didn't have enough information (and knew enough that something was going on to register a complaint), or that not enough time was taken, did not attend any of the informational opportunities, did not ask questions at the relevant Commission meetings, walked out when the Manager presented her report and opinion, and did not do anything to increase their knowledge. Listening to a very limited description from people who presented only one side of the issue is not, in my opinion, a reasonable effort to understand the issue.
Could we have done more and done better? Yes, I think we very much could have. But seeing what I saw, it's not clear to me that it would have made any difference. If someone isn't listening, it doesn't do good to talk more to them. If they walk out of the room as soon as you start to speak, it does even less good.
I agree with you that a good decision was made on behalf of the municipality. I think that decision will serve Village functioning, and the future of the Village, well. The decision has left a number of people angry and frustrated, and I deeply regret that. All I can say is that most of those people did not show that anything other than blind obedience to them would have made them feel differently. The question is, and was all along, whether the Commission should have done what the vocal majority wanted, or alternatively what it determined, in its role as custodian, or husband, of the Village, was best. I can be accused of being wrong in what I thought was best. I don't think I was, but some may disagree. I cannot be accused of wanting less than what was best for this Village.
And interestingly, only one person who advocated to keep sanitation in-house ran for Commission and lost. Every one of the rest who demanded to be obeyed did not want this kind of responsibility.
Fred
Brian,
DeleteJust for a further frame of reference. The question of outsourcing sanitation began to be mentioned in Commission meetings last summer (2013). It began to get a bit of community comment shortly after that. By the time we had the "Candidates' Forum," just before the December Commission election, the idea was so well known that there was a question to Commission candidates as to whether they were disposed (sorry) to outsource sanitation. I will tell you, if you weren't there, that there was only one moment of audience applause during the whole Forum, and it was when I said I wouldn't outsource anything.
So the idea, in general, was known. What was not at all known was what it would cost to outsource, what it would really cost not to outsource, and any real accounting about what else was involved in running this program, besides paying for it. It was these considerations, especially the last one, that led me to rethink this issue, and change my mind. When I said I wouldn't outsource anything, I meant it, but it was not based on real knowledge.
So the question is whether the Commission, or the management team, failed to make this information clearly and widely known after it was known to anyone at all, which it was not at the beginning of the conversation. I think there were distinct opportunities for people to know much more than they did, and essentially as much as I knew. I don't know that this knowledge would have changed everyone's mind, as it changed mine, but it would have changed the thinking of some. To give the most obvious example (apart from my change of mind, and yours, and Brad Piper's), there were people who signed the first petition, which was faulty, and who said they regretted their endorsements as soon as they got even the least additional information.
Did we do enough? I don't know. I would like to think so. There were certainly people who remained firm in their decisions, even with additional information. So maybe their decisions were educated enough. Or maybe some people would not have changed their views, no matter what they learned. And there are always some who will say they didn't have time, weren't ready, or hadn't been told enough, essentially as a delaying or deflecting tactic, or a way to cast blame, not because of anyone else's real failure.
We were definitely in a hurry, as there was a deadline for us to make a decision. Deciding the other way, or even delaying, would have required us to make commitments we could not reverse. I'm not sure we made that clear enough, but again, maybe some people wouldn't have cared.
Fred
Honestly, I don't know where I stand on the outsourcing issue. Rox sent an e-mail out a couple days ago laying out a very logical argument for the outsourcing which I tended to agree with. The reality is that commission meetings are not a viable way for many residents to communicate with our elected representatives due to work or personal schedules. Getting the word out and fostering healthy debate based on facts and analysis should be all of our goals and, in my personal opinion, the village website, e-mail and / or the village newsletter (what ever happened to that?) are likely the most viable way to do that.
ReplyDeleteThe good news is that we have an engaged populous that wants to be involved and cares about the future of our village.
All that being said, I do understand the point of view of those who see the FPL deal, the waste management deal and the impending annexation as forgone conclusions which they are powerless to influence and don't understand until after the ink has dried.
What we've got here is failure to communicate - Cool Hand Luke
H,
DeleteI can't begin to tell you how frustrated I am that we don't have good debates about things like annexation, outsourcing, and whatever else. I have pleaded for them on a number of occasions, but the "other side" never wants to debate. I don't know if you heard about the gathering that occurred Monday evening, but it reportedly consisted of Steve Bernard and several other people trying to muscle David Coviello on the sanitation issue, and no one wanted to talk to me or Roxy Ross. I'd love to know whose idea of a debate that is. Commission meetings could serve for debates, but it would require a small enough agenda that the time would be there, and enough restraint on the parts of all speakers that there could be a meaningful back and forth.
On the sanitation issue, there were workshops. Those could have been a venue, but many of the people with the strongest opinions didn't come. Some did. When some of those people did come to subsequent Commission meetings, they were all piss and vinegar, waving around spurious petitions, and demanding to be obeyed.
It's hard to have a debate on a website, and the newsletter comes out very infrequently.
Yes, an engaged populace would be great news, if they were engaged to learn and interact, not just to stake out positions that come from who knows where, and threaten Commissioners if they don't get their way. When "engaged" residents posture at the podium, don't want a reply, and walk out when it's someone else's turn to speak, there's not much of a debate going on. And it most certainly leads to the phenomenon of which you and others complain: Commissioners come to their own conclusions, and those conclusions are experienced as faits accomplis, or the "forgone conclusions" you describe.
If you have ideas, I, for one, am all ears.
Fred
By the way, H, not to state the obvious, but it seems we're having a debate right now, right here on this blog. And it's not a bad venue, either. The fact is, I have on a number of occasions asked representatives of "the other side" either to enter comments or even to take whole posts, which I would more than cheerfully give them. I have offered to make them guest authors, and they can write anything in the world they like. If you think any of them jumped at the chance, you're wrong. All I get for those invitations is regrets, or I get ignored. In my opinion, these people want very much to avoid any interaction in which they could be responded to, or, heaven forbid, challenged. One of them sort of told me so, when he said his accepted way of communicating is through his own facebook page, because he can "control" it. It's true, in a debate, you don't get to control what the other person says. Apparently, that's a problem for some. Two way streets are dangerous places to negotiate.
DeleteFred
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYes, this type of forum allows for the back and forth discussion(s) necessary to build an understanding on any topic. It works. For anyone new to this site, go back and look at ALL of the coverage on the sanitation issue. It was extensive!
DeleteFred, I think your terms of "the other side" and "anti-outsourcers" haven't helped the cause of uniting our community. Education will help bring down these walls of divide.
I do understand that those responsible for these "anonymous self-appointed groups" spread their agenda which is usually combative, incomplete and meant to misinform those who haven't studied the topics themselves. THIS IS BY DESIGN. IT WILL STOP when people realize that they've been duped.
In my opinion, this should be the role for this community blog. If people truly want to be involved/invested and have their voices heard, they need to be accountable and take the time needed to educate "themselves."
I hope that this idea can be the silver lining from the dysfunction we just went through.
The failure comes from us residents not paying attention to the declining state of our public works, over the last few years. I attended 2 different sanitation meetings, and no more than a small handful of residents showed up for the meetings. Our street was was informed about the meetings, and we chatted about the issues while standing in our front yards, or while walking our dogs, and they never showed up for the meetings. I heard many residents expressing how we are losing the small town "feel" of the city, however those that were being vocal, never show up for any of the meetings. We are all busy, however we still prioritize our schedules, and city government doesn't seem to be a priority for most of Biscayne Park residents. The majority of our commissioners feel that outsourcing is going to benefit this community, and we need to respect their decision. It is very hypocritical to NOT be active in the process, and then "beat up" the commission after the fact.
ReplyDelete--