Saturday, April 23, 2016
"Communication Breakdown." And a Perversely Perfect Storm.
Led Zeppelin has stolen frequently and shamelessly from lots of people, and I don't feel one bit sheepish about co-opting part of the title of this post from them. As for the "perfect storm," it appears to be essentially public domain, it's so trite now. So I snagged that, too. Sue me.
One of our neighbors told me today about something I had missed. Our grand entrance sign coming north just over the 6th Avenue bridge had nice landscaping in front of and around it. Apparently, that shrubbery is now gone, and it has been replaced by common sod. It was our neighbor's understanding that what happened was that the Parks and Parkways Advisory Board, or some representative of it, didn't like the plantings that were there, and somehow, this antipathy resulted in a change in landscaping. No one from P&P would have taken it upon him/her/themselves to go out and remove shrubs and replace them with sod, and the only way this would have happened is if members of the Public Works Department of the Village did the work. But they wouldn't do it on their own initiative, or in response to a request from anyone from P&P, and the work would only have been done if the Manager had ordered it. And someone would have had to pay for the new sod, so that expense could only have been approved by the Manager.
There is a protocol, and a chain of command, for decisions like these. P&P, as is true of some other Village Boards, is an "advisory" board. It can conceptualize whatever it wants, but it cannot make anything happen without approval from the Commission. It is the Commission, and not anyone else, whom the Board advises. That did not happen in this case.
For the record, our neighbor was not personally happy about the landscaping change, and for the record, neither am I. But that's not even the point. Under proper conditions of protocol, and propriety, and respect, my aesthetic, or that of our neighbor, could have been outvoted. I have no problem being outvoted. It happens, and it's a fair outcome when there are various opinions about something. What I do have a problem with is being circumvented and disregarded, if someone invents his or her own protocol, in order not to have to deal with the opinions of others. That appears to be what happened here.
P&P cannot attempt to effect action by circumventing and ignoring the Commission. That is not the deal, with "respect" to the Village Charter. And even if they tried, the Manager should have redirected them to the Commission for a decision like this one. But the Manager has apparently been mad at us, culminating in her resignation, and she appears to have decided to 1) ignore proper protocol, and cut out the Commission, and 2) spend/waste Village money undoing something that most of us liked very much.
The communication breakdown was not a mistake or an oversight. It was mischief made by two parties. One party has long complained about the landscaping around the sign, and the other party recently got mad at the Village. They colluded, each out of antipathy and passive-aggressiveness, to poke their fingers in our eye. This is not OK.
PS: I have explored this matter with the Chair of P&P. I am told that at a P&P meeting, where the landscape architect (LA) was present, both the LA and the P&P Chair (and the rest of P&P?) agreed with each other that the array of foliage installed when the sign was erected under the guidance of the prior Manager was somehow not the original design or part of someone's original intent or preference, and that the current/departing Manager agreed to remove it in exchange for the common sod that is now there. "The [now departing] Manager made the decision." As a result of the discussion I had with the P&P Chair, I will stand by the conclusions I already formed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I should add here that I have always been a fierce advocate for the Advisory Boards and their dedication and comparative expertise. I have always advocated for deference to their opinions whenever possible. It is not possible, however, to continue to take that approach when the deference and respect are only a one-way street.
ReplyDeleteFred
If you're going to lie about an issue it's better if there's no Public Record.
ReplyDeleteJan. 20, 2016 Minutes from Parks & Parkways
"K. Discussion of changes made to landscape in front of 113th St. entrance sign - In the course of the discussion with Mr Miller outlined in item "I" above, Mr. Miller asked how the multitiered planting in front of the main village sign at 113 St. had come about, as it was not what was intended by his earlier design of that planting. It was explained that the previous administration had undertaken the planting, possibly to minimize the expense of changing out seasonal flowers for that location. Mr Miller advised the the intent for the front of the front of the sign was to insure that the sign itself, including the metal & stonework, would be the design focal point & that these elements would be fully visible. He advised that at this point in time, the lower part of the stonework & metalwork were obscured. He further advised that the very formal clipped hedge was not complementary to the more informal planting behind & on each side of the sign. Originally the area in front of the sign was simply planted with lawn-grass. Mr Miller left open the possibility of one level of low hedge, but that this was not necessarily advisable. Mr. Keys questioned the need for any hedge as this required unnecessarily cost maintenance, as did the current planting. No specific recommendation was made as the Village Manager had not yet had the benefit of hearing the discussion mentioned above. The item would be brought forward at the next meeting for further discussion." (The item was never brought up again at P & P)
Barbara,
DeleteYou're confusing things. Your comment is regarding whether the planting arrangement was anyone's original intent. It doesn't matter. Barry Miller says that in his opinion, there was a difference between the original intent and the effect of what was planted there.
My point was that regardless of the original intent, or the effect of the landscaping that was done, P&P do not have authority on their own simply to change it. Their role is to advise: "the original intent was... Barry Miller points out... we agree... we would propose a different approach to landscaping..." and this advice is only properly presented to the Commission. It is to the Commission the Advisory Boards are asked to give advice. When you give advice to the Manager, and she takes your advice, neither of you consulting the Commission, you and the Manager have both cheated the system. Let me give you an example that might be clearer to you. If the Foundation wants to raise money for some wonderful project, they never do it without first asking the Commission if it would like the Village to have whatever it is. And they wouldn't do an end around and just ask the Manager instead. And if they did, the Manager would properly tell them it sounds like an interesting idea, but it has to be approved by the Commission first. That's the deal. Those are the rules. That's what the Commission is for. You can't just take it upon yourself to decide you don't want to deal with the opinions of Commissioners, so you're going to do whatever you want, securing just the approval of the Manager. That's not the structure of it. It's not protocol. It's not right. It's not fair to your neighbors.
Barbara, please run for Commission. If you want a dispositive say about things, that's the closest you'll come to having one, although you still have to deal with the requirement that to get your way, you have to have majority support. That's just the way it is. That's how democracy in the Village is structured.
Fred
And Barbara, let's say, for purpose of discussion, that P&P and Barry Miller were right about the effect of the landscaping, and even right about its violation of the "original intent" of a landscaping scheme. So let's say you're right about that. What I'm saying is that you're wrong to have handled it the way you did. That's my criticism.
DeleteSuppose this was presented to the Commission, and the Commission said "yeah, but we think the sign is still easy enough to see, and we like the landscaping arrangement. It wasn't the original intention, but it has its own appeal." In a case like that, you have a point, and it might be a correct point, in some sense, but there are other variables now, and you got outvoted. Live with it. It happens.
I will also remind you that on three occasions, you participated in making available to the Village public outdoor sculpture. But you didn't just give the pieces to the Village, or impose them on the Village. In each case, the offers were presented to the then Commission, of which there were three different, and the Commissions had to decide whether they wanted the gift for the Village. And let me tell you that in those cases, whoever bought those pieces in advance, on spec, was taking a risk. If the Commissions had said no, thanks, those people would have been stuck with the sculptures. P&P take no risk. They offer advice, and it might be accepted or rejected. That's the deal.
Fred
Barbara,
DeleteIn reading your excerpt from the relevant minutes of the January meeting this year, and my summary of the e-conversation I had with the Chair of P&P, as well as everything else I summarized in this post, I do not detect any difference at all, except the excerpt is more detailed and complete. The message seems identical. What seemed to you like a "lie" you think I told?
Fred
Fred,
ReplyDeleteThe Parks and Parkways Board took no action with regard to the recently removed planting in front of the sign. Barbara is not the confused party here as you so allege.
The Manager, after reviewing the plans for the sign (Produced for the Village by Mr Millers firm and approved by the then Commission) and hearing the fact of the intent of the original landscaping from the creative mind behind the plan (Mr. Miller), "managed" the plants away. An act that was well within her jurisdiction - even as it and any decision any Village Manager ever makes, was done at her own peril. In doing so, she undid that which was done without Commission approval or knowlege by the previous administration (the planting of the multi tiered hedges). Why were you not so enraged by that earlier act? Maybe because you liked the unauthorized change at that time, so why rock the boat? The idea that a Village Manger is not acting within their rights to remove some bushes or frankly put some in, as long as the funding for such has been provided by the Commission, is absurd and just wrong. Like it or not, the Village manager has those rights as per our Charter and a person in that position can take advice, hear opinions and receive information from anyone they please in coming to a decision.
The act of putting them in, violated the understanding that the Commission desires the opinion of the duly appointed Parks and Parkways Board regarding landscaping issues on the Public Right of Way and the Community Parks. That advice was not sought out and therefore the Commission didn't hear what we might have thought about the idea before planting. Where is your indignation for that?
The fact that the Manager did not inform you of her pending action in this regard, speaks volumes as to your lack of oversight of this employee under your direct management.
Thats the real deal.
Dan,
DeleteI did not say Barbara was confused. I said she confused two things. Is the ad hominem and gratuitous distorted swipe at me important to you?
No, I was not indignant over the original landscaping. For one thing, I was unaware of Miller's or anyone else's intent (is Miller's intent, or yours, some kind of gospel?), and as you say, I liked what was done. I don't know anyone, except you, who didn't like it. You have been complaining relentlessly about it since the day Ana installed it. It started with your endless gripe over some palm trees Ana did not remove, even though you didn't like them, and it went on from there. I would ask you to drop it, but clearly, you can't. Years later, you're still finding a way to finagle your preference, whatever it's based on, into that spot. And it seems you have succeeded. Does the fact that one of our neighbors is disappointed, and so am I, affect you? Or are you just glad you prevailed, at long, long last?
This is not about the "rights" of the Village Manager. As you say, it is her right to do as she pleases about something like that. It was Ana's right, too, but that did not stop you from interminable grousing about it. It's about whether to consult and honor the community, or instead, to take matters into one's own hands, opportunity arising. You approve of that approach, if Heidi is giving you what you want. You don't approve, if Ana frustrates you.
You have a mixed up sentence having to do with what advice the Commission is seeking from P&P. I don't know what advice you think was sought, or whether you're complaining none was sought from P&P. What I can tell you is that before and during my time on the Commission, I have endlessly pleaded with you and P&P to give us a Village-wide scheme for the medians, and you work reasonably hard to avoid doing it. You have produced a collection of reasons why not. Am I indignant that P&P won't help the Village that way? Yes, I am. But powerless to get you to do it.
I have nothing further to say about anyone's-- mine or anyone else's-- failure of oversight of the Manager. You've been to at least some of the recent meetings. You've heard what was said.
Fred
Dan,
ReplyDeleteJust not to protract and torture this any more than it already is, you're disagreeing with me about something. That's fine. Just disagree with me about the issue at hand. Tell me that in your opinion, "advisory" Boards are not limited to advising the Commission, and that you think they have their own independent mandates. Tell me you think they have their own authority.
If you can take a position like that, which is your right to interpret, although that is NOT what the Charter says, I will tell you that as a technical matter, something similar is true of the Manager. I will tell you that the Manager is limited by the budget, and almost nothing else. (The only other limitation is that the Manager cannot hire or fire the Village Attorney.) I will suggest to you that if there was a budget item called "Village beautification" or "Village aesthetics," it would be in the Manager's authority to decide she doesn't like the entry sign at all, for aesthetic reasons, need for cleaning, or anything else, and it is her "right" to decide to remove it, and replace it with a canvas banner with a smiley face and "VBP: Love it, or leave it."
You good with that?
This was my complaint: protocol, and a sensitivity to and respect for the feelings and wishes of Village residents. I didn't complain about whether there is a difference between the "original intent" of the planting, and the effect of what was actually chosen. I didn't care about that. It was Ana's call, if she wanted to call it, and no one, except you, seemed not to like it.
I will also remind you that 1) part of the "original" plan took into account flowering plants that would be anticipated to need renewing, and 2) one of your excuses for not providing a median scheme has been that any scheme only has a limited lifetime, and would need to be redone. Although I disagree with you, your view was based on the inevitability of change. So no "original intent" for the landscaping around the sign should have been considered "carved in stone." Only the sign is carved in stone. Lighten up about whether the plantings were anyone's "original intent." It doesn't matter. It's all a process and somewhat up for grabs anyway. And in that sense, I can't really even complain that you, or Barry Miller, or Heidi, changed the landscaping. And that's not my main complaint. My main complaint is that you all did it without consulting anyone except each other, even though what you did affects a lot more people than just you. It was very recently that you argued that side yard garbage service was a "right," because we've always unofficially offered it. Anyone who would statutorily eliminate it was going against proper procedure and was violating the "rights" of Village residents. Well, that's what you did. You took something that is a recent tradition, and you decided to change it, without asking your neighbors. The correct and accepted procedure for doing that is asking the Commission.
Fred
What part of this statement from Parks & Parkways minutes don't you understand? "No specific recommendation was made as the Village Manager had not yet had the benefit of hearing the discussion mentioned above. The item would be brought forward at the next meeting for further discussion." (The item was never brought up again at P & P) The board never made a motion or recommendation to the manager to take out the hedge. The only other time the board discussed removing the tiered planting was at our meeting on June 17th, 2015, it ended in a three way tie - one for, one against and one undecided.
ReplyDeleteYou think I'm confused.
I thought I understood every part of the statement, but you're now obfuscating, so it's no longer so clear. The minutes say "Mr Keys questioned the need for any hedge," and your comment now is that "the Board never made a...recommendation to the Manager." Are you suggesting some sort of non sequitur here, so that Mr Keys says something, the Manager does essentially what Mr Keys suggests, but there was no connection between the two? Are you saying perhaps that Mr Keys questioned something in the Manager's absence (was she absent?), but she found out about the question later, but since she didn't find out about it directly from Mr Keys, then he cannot be said to have made a recommendation to her? Those sound like pretty mischievous semantics to me.
DeleteBut again, this is not my point. No, I don't think you're confused. I never said I thought you were confused. I said you confused two things, but now I'm thinking you're trying to confuse others, with the semantic gymnastics. I don't think my point was lost on you. I think you have chosen something you think you can defend, and you have persistently ignored what is not so easy to defend.
Funny enough, I just passed the sign coming into the Village several minutes ago. I looked at it this time. I get it. Although I liked it before, I can see the greater openness now. I don't like it better, but it makes the effect of the sign clearer. That's the point you want to defend. And it's not hard to defend it. But the process was not respectful of your neighbors. You could not convince me that you don't clearly know that's my criticism. If you're saying it just seemed so right and so important to you, that you simply had to proceed, no matter what anyone else thought, in fact best just to do it, and don't even ask anyone else what they thought, I get that. I just don't agree it was the way to do it. Aren't you one of the people who regularly criticizes the Village for failing to inform residents of things? And of course, you're taking one further step that you want to say makes you completely innocent. You and P&P never even asked anyone, not the Manager or anyone else, to do anything. You were just musing as to how you wanted it to be, and what do you know, the next thing that happens, coincidentally (?), is that the Manager does exactly that.
OK, Barbara.
Fred