Thursday, July 10, 2014

"Top Heavy." "Too Many Chiefs?"


You don't talk to too many people in Biscayne Park before you hear from someone who is complaining about Village Hall.  The specific complaint is what many perceive as an awful lot of "staff" for such a small municipality.  It was only eight years ago that we had no Manager and no Assistant to the Manager.  We had five Commissioners, a Clerk, and a couple of other employees, including a part-time Finance person.

It's true that the Commissioners had much more responsibility and got more money than they do now, and the Clerk was, um, haphazard.  It's also true that the Village was not run efficiently, and that many important (essential?) functions did not get done, or at least not done well.

A Charter Review Committee at the time determined that we could not continue responsibly this way, and that we should have a professional municipal Manager, who would run all operations.  The Committee had no trouble convincing the Commission of this recommendation, and the Commission unanimously agreed to surrender its authority to a Manager.  The Commission put its money where its mouth was, too, and decreased its own salary.  Because this functional change required a change in the Village Charter, the matter was submitted by referendum to the residents of the Park, and they, too, agreed.

So we hired a Manager.  Was the first bicycle you ever got, or the first guitar, or the first car, or the first house, top of the line, luxury, no expense spared?  Mine, neither.  We learned a little bit about what it's like working with a Manager, and we decided to upgrade.  It's like every other educational opportunity: we learned something, and we paid for the tutorial.

Most of us thought our second Manager was terrific.  Some of us didn't approve of her.  She accomplished a great deal for the Village, and she tightened things up very considerably.  I never heard anyone say she wasn't a very hard worker.  When she told us she needed an assistant, for whom we would have to budget a good piece of change, she got some distinct resistance.  Not enough to prevent a Commission majority approval, but enough to leave some ill feelings among some Village residents/tax-payers.  Some of that continues to this day.  It wasn't always easy for Ana Garcia to explain, to enough people's satisfaction, exactly what Candido Sosa-Cruz does, and why his contribution is important to the functioning of Village Hall and the whole neighborhood.  Then, and even now, some people simply don't believe Candido accomplishes that much, or has that many responsibilities, or is that important.  And that's sometimes the bottom line: they simply don't believe or accept it.

Ana left, Candido stayed, Heidi Shafran joined us, and Candido is still here.  Questions about that again?  You bet.  What is it exactly these people, Ana/Heidi and Candido, do?  Can it really be that much, and take that much time?  Is it worth what we pay?  Explanations about delineated responsibilities and even accomplishments do not reassure all questioners.

We have now outsourced the sanitation function of our Public Works Department, over which Candido has supervisory responsibility.  The question is quickly raised as to whether that substantial reduction in Candido's responsibility might (must?) mean that we either don't need an Assistant to the Manager, or at least not a full time employee in that position.  I wondered, others have asked me, and you can be very sure I have asked the Manager.  Here is the response.

Candido unquestionably works hard and full time or more, doing what he is doing.  As is true of so much of what should be Village functioning, there are many things we don't do.  Things we can't afford to do.  Things which Candido might be doing, if he had the time, and if we had the money.  If we didn't outsource, Candido had his work more than cut out for him.  He and Heidi would have been quite busy reorganizing and managing our PW/Sanitation Department.  With outsourcing of sanitation, one of the benefits is increased income to the Village, and some of that income is substantial.  It is so substantial that it will allow us to do things we could never do before.  Things like road maintenance.  If Candido has less PW oversight responsibility, he will have new responsibility in other areas.  This is what I have been told, and I believe it.

I'm not a municipal manager.  I don't manage a business, except my own tiny personal professional business.  We went to trouble to find and hire someone we thought would be a great municipal manager.  We wanted someone who knows a lot more about this than we do.  If Ana, and Heidi, tell me we need an Assistant, and they give me what sound like good enough reasons why we do, I am in no position, nor poised, to second-guess them.  My hypothetical reason to doubt them would be to think that either or both of them are lazy, and they just want someone else to do work for them.  And that they both care so little about the Village that they don't mind stressing Village coffers to buy themselves a glorified gofer.  This is not what I believe to be true.

Candido has recently accepted a bigger and better-paying position.  Heidi is faced with the idea of replacing him.  She has told us she intends to "underfill" the position.  She intends to hire someone with less responsibility, and who will accept less pay, than Candido.  I don't know whether this makes sense.  I don't know, and will find out, what motivates Heidi in this choice.  The question for me is how we will get the tasks accomplished.  If a Manager, or an Assitant to the Manager, no longer has to supervise the sanitation function of the Public Works Department, good.  Either we need less help from Village Hall, and they can reduce staffing, or they can apply themselves to other tasks: tasks we didn't have the manpower, money, or wherewithal to do before.

Whether we have an Assistant to the Manager, or how much of one, or how much we pay this person, is not my concern.  Elevating the Village, and providing for ourselves what we as a municipality deserve, is very much my concern.  At the moment, we are failing in our responsibilities to ourselves.  No self-respecting municipality should have streets like ours, drainage problems as we do, and medians that look like ours.  We should not do without relatively inexpensive upgrades, like security cameras and a public address/recording system.  We should not have to hope for grants from someone in order to maintain ourselves.  This needs to change.  It's certainly true we need more revenue.  We also need more initiative and organization.  I think Candido did a great job.  I will miss him, personally and for the work he did.  If Heidi can do her own job and his, I'll be happy to have her do it, and save us the money.  If Ana could have, I'm sure she would have.  Frank didn't have an assistant.  He also didn't do anything.  Should we do the math?


9 comments:

  1. Years ago, I sent a letter to the editor of the Miami Times. Considering the content of my letter, and the mission of the Miami Times, I was afraid my sentiments would come across as too provocative, and I asked the editor to keep my letter anonymous. The editor, correctly, insisted either that I allow my letter to be signed, or that I understand it could not be printed. He pointed out that authors of articles are not anonymous, and people who respond should be just as open, and courageous. As I say, I thought he was right, and I agreed to have him ignore my letter. Evidently, I was not feeling courageous.

    It happens often enough (three times so far today) that someone will contact me outside this blog to give me feedback. That kind of feedback is always criticizing feedback. I always ask the reader to enter the comment/criticism as a comment in the blog, or even to allow me to do it for him or her. I have even agreed without hesitation or complaint to enter the comment for the reader, and keep it "anonymous." At this moment, none of the three people who complained has agreed to enter a public comment, or even to allow me to do it, even if I keep it anonymous.

    I have to confess that this is substantially frustrating. I don't at all mind being disagreed with, and I don't mind having to support my point or opinion. What I do mind is being unloaded on privately, with a seeming opportunity to explain repeatedly and to people who either don't have a stated wish or who want something unfair. One person wanted me to pull the post, and the opening offer was that I pull the post, after which he or she would explain why. No, I don't think so.

    I'm not as demanding, or as restrictive, as the Miami Times. But I do have a limit. This is the limit. If you want to comment, or gripe, or blame, please feel free. It's a public blog, my contributions are public, and yours will have to be, too. I will, however, as always, keep your name out of it, if that's what you need. But if you want to have a conversation about a blog post, have it with all of us. That's what I do.

    Fred

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fred,
      You need to understand that many people will only want to give their opinions/feedback or "unload" as it were in private. It is unrealistic for you to expect everyone to come here, list their name and issues for all to see. It just doesn't work that way. This frustration you're feeling is not necessary and, in my opinion of your own making.

      Now, should everyone stand up and own what they believe in? That's an all together different conversation.

      Delete
    2. Milt,

      I agree that everyone should take responsibility for his or her beliefs. I have not, however, insisted that commenters "list their names...for all to see." As I said, and have demonstrated, I am more generous and accommodating than that. Some commenters have, on their own, concealed their identities, and I have helped others, by posting their comments for them and letting them be anonymous.

      The further fact is that I have usually accommodated "private" communications, too. Some people have communicated sensitive issues, and I have even made changes, even very rarely pulled blog posts, based on private communications. But that reaction has been reserved for unusual issues. In the case of this post, I had three responses, all complaining about one thing or another, and all "private." The complaints were not sensitive or unusually privileged, and each one was intended to allow the complaining person to try to influence, scold, or compromise me without the complainer's having to take real responsibility by making the observation or confrontation publicly, even if anonymously.

      That's too much to ask, Milt.

      I'm tempted to illustrate the point by telling you what the complaints were, but I couldn't do it without possibly exposing who the people were. They don't want that. So I'm ignoring their complaints altogether.

      Barbara, below, asks an interesting question: "if someone wants to criticize [me, are they] ineligible to contact [me] directly [by which she means privately] ?" Actually, in a way, yes. Why should a routine criticism or confrontation be private? The blog post isn't private. The rest of the readers aren't privately excluded from access to the blog. What does it mean that someone wants to unload on me, but I'm the only one who should know about it? Here are two examples of this problem. A few months ago, a guy named Michael Miller wrote in the Miami New Times a highly compromising column about our police and our management. I thought he was very wrong. But I couldn't find an e-address for "letters to the editor." Miller's e-address was there, though, and I wrote to him directly to complain. He and I had some back and forth, but he never referred my letter, clearly structured as a letter to the editor, to the editor. It wasn't only that I was cheated out of an opportunity to make the complaint I wanted to make. MNT readers never got to read my side of the matter. That wasn't fair to anyone, except illegitimately to Michael Miller. Similarly, some of our own neighbors, when they have wanted to (mis)communicate something, have sent out e-mails to some secret circulation list. It's possible to respond by challenging the authors of the e-mails, but it's not possible to communicate with their recipients. But if these authors say something wrong, I, for one, want to make the correction publicly. I'm deprived of the opportunity.

      No one is deprived of an opportunity to communicate with all blog readers here. It is encouraged. I essentially insist. You're telling me I'm too idealistic. Yes, I'm sure you're right. But I think it's a fair standard.

      Fred

      Delete
    3. PS, Milt: Long ago, I conceptualized things that I call understandable, but not acceptable. So yes, I "understand" that "many people will only want to give their opinions/feedback...in private." My capacity for empathy allows me to recognize this as understandable. I do not, however, consider it acceptable.

      Delete
  2. You seem to think of yourself as Blogger first and Commissioner second. I would think that you would be happy to get feedback any way you could get it. Does this mean that if someone wants to criticize you they are ineligible to contact you directly? When you make a comment, whether it's on your blog, at a meeting or in the park, you're a Commissioner first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want to criticize me the person or me the Commissioner, you can do it any way you like. If you want to criticize a blog post, or me the blogger, you should do it in the blog.

      Really? Hard to comprehend? You wouldn't have predicted that?

      Fred

      PS: Yes, I appreciate the feedback.

      Delete
  3. When the waste pro meetings were happening, I supported keeping them in house and even signed the petition to do so. After listening to all of the arguments, it seemed the savings were minimal and would not directly benefit the village expenditures whereas loyalty had value in this case. As the situation became more heated and the council still stuck to its guns, some neighbors spoke of voting out through recall certain members, which I most certainly did not support as I'm new here and could have no opinion on such matters. My only question was ok are you ready to take up the responsibility? The answer was always a deer in the headlights look. Asking your critics what they would do in yor shoes quickly weeds out those with valid ideas from those who are expressing aggression for no benefit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter,

      Those of us who thought outsourcing was the best idea botched our argument. We were not clear or complete enough, and we did not persuade in ways we should have. I, for one, wound up being defensive instead of being informative.

      There is a considerable fiscal advantage in outsourcing. Under various kinds of pressure, the numbers were manipulated, until they didn't sound impressive any more, but when the dust settles, the savings are very great. There is the obvious personal savings for each property owner. Clearly, some people said they were not interested in that saving, but a number of those betrayed that they really were. They didn't want the advertised cost of in-house to be what it really would be. Apart from that, there is the direct money "savings" to the Village, in the form of the Franchise Fee. Beyond that-- and this is much greater than the Franchise Fee-- there is the freeing up of the entire PW Department, when it no longer has to spend so much of itself backing up sanitation. It can then do what we need it to do, and we will have more money with which to do it.

      As for "loyalty," you might be surprised. The sanitation workers are proud to remind us that even though we pay them slave wages (below the County's poverty level), they never ask for an increase. Let me just say, in case you yourself aren't wondering about that, there's a reason they cheerfully agree to such an embarrassing wage. And it's not "loyalty."

      I am not personally concerned with the recall talk. If I, or any of us, are that destructive to the Village, we should be recalled. What I do resent is how easily a number of my neighbors get themselves to want to press the "recall" button. Not only "aggression for no benefit," but aggression for no valid reason.

      Fred

      Delete
    2. Hello Peter,
      The petition was neither accurate, complete, nor based on real discovery and honest representation. It was not properly constructed [in any way] and as such was invalid. Please understand that it was not by chance that the Commissioners (past and present) involved with pushing this petition knew the shortcomings, but still encouraged residents to waste their time and toyed with their emotions.

      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.

      Milton

      Delete