In
my world as a financial analyst, I need to consider and understand the
relationship between financial numbers, trend lines, technical and fundamental
indicators, and also the often confusing existence of market sentiment.
Sentiment is, at times, the irrational component of the mix but is something
that needs to be factored in nonetheless. This is typically the most difficult
part of client education in that it can often contradict all of the other
indicators and defy facts and/or common sense. But to refuse to acknowledge it
is not wise.
With
this in mind, I realized that I needed to do a better job of understanding
those who did not see the outsourcing situation the way I did. I reached out to
some of our residents whom I've grown to know and respect over the years, to get
their take on the cause of the discord over the sanitation issue. The purpose
of this discovery was not to further voice my beliefs, but to try to better
understand theirs. And what I took away from these conversations were several
points that I believe will, if acted upon, reduce future community divide and
displeasure. But it will be up to each of us to make this work. No one else can
do it for you.
Personal Accountability
I
had a communication recently with Dan Keys who mentioned that "unless
you stay closely in touch, you are going to miss things. I have been
behind the 8-ball on some issues because I took myself out of the action and I
had to play catchup. My bad and my tough luck." Bingo! Dan hit
the point directly and his last thought is key, "My bad and My tough
luck." He is taking personal accountability for being "out of
action" at times and not blaming others for it. If we all followed Dan's
thinking there would be no need or reason to feel "railroaded" on
issues. If we are not being personally accountable, then we create a weak
platform to complain after the fact.
Proper Fact-Finding
I
became curious about how many residents (during the late March to early June
timeframe) sought to learn about the main reason behind this outsourcing
proposal. That being our dwindling financial reserves. I asked our Village
Manager prior to our last meeting, "how many people had reached out to her
since this discussion started to ask about our fiscal condition and
remedies." Her answer was "only a handful." I also asked our
Clerk, and Maria said basically the same thing. So, I decided to look a little
closer and to see if people were instead going directly to our website
financial pages for the answers.
Below
are the traffic stats for our financial pages during the period of 4/2/2014- 5/30/2014:
Fiscal
year 2013-2014= 79 views
I
know I visited several times myself and that other page views were probably
from our financial or accounting staff members. What the numbers tell me is
that few went directly to the source (Village Manager and staff) or our audited
financial pages for the information needed. So where were they getting their
information from? How could they know it was accurate? Or, more to
the point, "who" did they rely on for such an important
subject?
The
fact that so many were confused and, in my estimation, deliberately misled was
not due to the Village not giving this matter its proper time or attention. It
centered on too many of our residents not taking the time personally to do
their own due diligence and fact finding. If they had, there would have
been far less conflict because they would have understood all of the reasons
for this change and agree or not, at least understood the motives. It would
have been, could have been, more of a discussion and less of a mob mentality
trying to bully the Commission with threats.
We
must all understand that there is a divisive element within our Village, and it feeds on the uninvolved and uneducated. This fact has been proven time and time
again. They don't want you to know the truth but to rely on "their
version" of it, which is typically combative, twisted and incomplete. The
best way to combat and diminish this group is to educate yourself! This
will expose their true motives and help to eliminate further community divide.
So,
my hope is that in future we all will seek information directly from the
source and learn all we can about important topics during the proper
discussion period. This will require some personal sacrifice of time, but what
you will gain in understanding will be your payoff.
Milton
Hunter
Biscayne
Park Resident
Milt,
ReplyDeleteYou have highlighted what was for me the central problem with this issue. There was a "handful" of people who gave evidence of having researched this matter, and a truckload of people with ardent opinions. The skew was clear, and it was as you synthesized.
You will not be happy to be reminded of this, but as I've said it before, I will say it again: given a clear majority of my neighbors who wanted sanitation kept in-house, coupled with an unflinching commitment to pay whatever the in-house program would cost, I was prepared to advocate, with my vote, for what the majority wanted. It's true I personally felt outsourcing was best for the Village, but my neighbors are as much stakeholders here as I am. If in-house was truly what they wanted, and they were really willing to pay the acknowledged higher cost, I was not the person who was going to deprive them.
My problem was the problem you summarized. If all indicators showed that so many of my neighbors did not adequately understand the issues and the eventualitiies, then I could not feel I would really be advocating for their stated request. Their stated request, at least according to the petitions they signed, was not rationally connected to the issue at hand. Whether the fault was failure to perform one's own "due diligence," or simply reliance on the spurious assertions of someone else, the end result was that I was not given a coherent and reliable preference for which I could advocate. So I defaulted to my own judgment.
I'm sorry there wasn't more fact-finding, and that I, as the only Commissioner who stated clearly he was willing to change his position, was not consulted by the group who wanted to preserve in-house service. This, too, might be a reflection of your point: the presentation, or demand, or threat, was a lot of posturing, and not a lot of deliberation and inquiry. Not inquiry of the acceptable sources, anyway. You learned that few people inquired of "the Village." Next to no one inquired of me. So many fewer people attended the informational sessions than wound up expressing opinions that it's hard to say many people inquired of WastePro. This left me with little to work with.
But what's done is done, we are now all in a position to determine if WastePro is good for its word (and it will be fiercely challenged if it isn't), and we can all be a bit more careful in the future. I hope we will be.
Fred
Fred,
ReplyDeleteI believe that valuable lessons were learned from this and that we can do better in future. Our new Manager should have a much better feel for what she's dealing with now. But as mentioned, it is up to all of us to educate ourselves as opposed to leaning on apathy.
It will be interesting to see the outcome from this and those who are truly interested in fostering a better Biscayne Park.
Excellent post, Milt. And a perfect quote from Dan that is the essense of so many complaints. If people would rely on fact rather than rumor or opinion, and take responsibility for their own action and inaction, imagine the world we'd live in!
ReplyDeleteThanks Brian,
DeleteAnd thank you also for your hurricane prep instructions earlier this week. As a victim of Andrew [which is how I got here], I know all too well the destruction that they can produce. Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
As an aside, Milt, I'm still trying to understand what this whole issue was about. I think much of it, for those who wanted to outsource, was about the "fundamentals" and what, on paper, is best for the Village. But some of our language suggests there may have been a component of disdain, or what some have called "arrogance," too. Some sense of superiority. Outsource advocates declared themselves the true, honest, and only thinking stewards of the Village.
ReplyDeleteFor those who didn't want to outsource, I think some of it was about certain preferred features of not outsourcing, features like a sense of ownership, and various levels of "familiarity." But everything I hear suggests a large dose of feeling manipulated and overpowered. There appears to have been a considerable resistance created from that feeling. I think many who said they didn't want to outsource were resisting those who wanted to outsource more than they were resisting outsourcing. They declared themselves the true, honest, and only populists.
The result of this, and we've seen this with our Commissions before, is that people were rejecting each other more than they were rejecting each other's ideas. Once outsourcers think they can declare anti-outsourcers out of touch, they can dismiss the idea of not outsourcing, because it comes from people who are experienced as not worth listening to. And once anti-outsourcers think they can conceptualize outsourcers as pompous bullies, they can dismiss the idea of outsourcing as just another disrespectful and elitist ploy.
We all botched this issue. I've said it, and so have you: I hope we do better with each other next time. It may be an occupational hazard, but I think the only thing that will prevent this kind of issue is communication. We need to figure out how to maximize communication.
Fred
Fred,
ReplyDeleteOn this we agree... communication and correct first hand education can take us far.