"I Like Hearing Myself Talk. It Is One of My Greatest Pleasures." Oscar Wilde

Tonight, we sat through the overflow agenda from last week's Commission meeting.  Tracy Truppman had stopped the meeting after about 3 1/4 hours, because there were other items she wanted to discuss, and she felt they needed adequate time.  And she should have known how much time they would have needed, since almost all of them were her issues.  Tonight, she apologized for having had to schedule this extra meeting, and she blamed the necessity on the variance exploration from last week.  Yeah, that's where the fault lies.

I'll tell you now that tonight's overflow took three hours.  As someone in the audience pointed out, that was 6 1/4 hours to do one meeting.  And that's under the guidance of a Mayor who's showing us how to streamline meetings, to keep them short.

Here was the overflow agenda:

13.c  Discussion of the hiring of reserve police officers.  Johnson-Sardella.  This consumed some time, at the end of which, we learned that it is the Manager and the Police Chief who determine how many officers, including reserves, we need, and they have not in any way inhibited or failed to consider applicants.  We had 21 last year, and of those, we hired two.  We wanted quality, not just quantity.  So this item actually didn't need to come up at the meeting tonight.  It was already attended to.  Had the sponsor of the item discussed it with the Manager first, she would have discovered there was nothing to discuss.

13.d  Discussion on Police Department: Shift in policy to address overtime expenditures, proactive policing, increased enforcement, and visibility.  Truppman.   We learned in public comment at the beginning of the meeting that changes have already been made, under the appropriate direction of the Manager and Police Chief.  This was the Manager's purview (as was pointed out about several topics tonight), and it did not require formal discussion from the Commission.  As above, had the sponsor of this item discussed it first with the Manager, she would have learned that the discussion was not necessary.  There was a good deal of it, though.  Tick, tick, tick.

13.e  Setting Policy for Job Requirements for Chief of Police.  Truppman.  It was never clear what this item was supposed to be about, but what became very clear was that the Manager was already managing the hiring very well, and this discussion did not need to take place.  What it needed was for the sponsor to discuss it with the Manager, before placing it on the Commission agenda.

13.f    Discussion on Log Cabin fire suppression and detection/alarm system status and fire alarm system in the Village Hall.  Truppman.  This was probably the lengthiest discussion of the evening.  Tracy Truppman was having a devil of a time trying to decide what she wanted to accomplish.  Apart, of course, from her central aim, which was to use lots of engineering terms.  She kept saying she only wanted to "look forward," but she could not for a given whole minute refrain from raking one or another person over the coals.  If it wasn't the former Manager, then it was the building inspector, or the contractor, or the prior Commission.  But mainly, she was more than content to channel Oscar Wilde.  And at various points on the long, long course of this meeting, she sort of (sort of) apologized for "monopolizing" the meeting, as if she would have had it any other way.  She could see it, but she couldn't stop it/herself.  But back to the tragedy of the log cabin and the Village Hall, Tracy repeatedly pointed out how endangered occupants of these two buildings were, because no one inspected them properly!!  The Village resident sitting next to me leaned over and pointed out how much more expeditious it would have been if Tracy had simply had this discussion with the Manager a month or two ago, and the problem would have been resolved by now.  Thus saving building occupants from the danger under which Tracy saw them as laboring.  Sure, sure the problem would have been solved, but then Tracy would not have been able to hold court before her subjects, and been able to show how perspicacious she is.  And she very much made sure we all knew.  Most of her comments were made to the microphone, while Tracy gazed out among the audience.  This discussion wasn't about safety.  It was for show.  The Tracy Truppman Show, starring Tracy...Truppman.

13.g  Discussion on the amendments to the Charter corresponding with a special election timelines (sic).  Truppman.  Tracy surprised me here.  So many of her neighbors spoke against her attempted "power grab" that she actually retrenched on this one.  But she still wants someone to have more control over the hirings of "all Village employees."  She did, however, agree to hold meetings, and even perhaps seat a newest Charter Review Committee.  (If these descriptions give the impression that Tracy spoke as if she thought all decision-making was up to her, she did.)  And it took Tracy way too long even to relent on the effort to force this through.

13.h  Resolution [to have a special election to replace David Coviello].  With more experience, Tracy will learn that matters like this one don't require discussion.  They are obvious, and they are very quickly passed.

And that's where three hours went tonight.  Had Tracy been at all moderate, and had she had any real sense of proportion, this agenda would have been accomplished in an hour or less last week.  But I'm sure the Village Attorney isn't complaining that Tracy took two more hours than were remotely necessary.

OK, I Surrender. Thank "God."

"The Tracy Truppman Show, Starring Tracy...Truppman" is better than "The Noah Jacobs Show, Starring Noah...Jacobs."  It's less crazy, less raging (although still with moments of the hostess' bitterness), and more goal-directed.  It lasts just as long, or perhaps longer (because it had to be adjourned, to be continued some other day), and somehow manages not to get quite enough done.  And it has that same focus on the central character.  At one point, Tracy apologized for "monopolizing."  So she perceived it.  She just couldn't stop herself.

Admittedly, it was an ambitious agenda, and part of it took a deservedly long time.  There was a complicated variance issue that involved various and ranging and contradictory testimony which resulted in more questions than answers.  The end result, although fair, was unsatisfying, because it left the petitioner very unhappy.  But within this matter we could see how parts of this new Commission might coalesce.  And it was interesting to observe.

No one would say the matter wasn't complicated.  It very much was.  And it involved neighbors who were accusing each other of various forms of misbehavior.  The question came down to whom to believe: never a happy place to be.  But there was a convenient way out for the Commission.  It could decide, as it did, that the petitioner had an argument that could not be supported, because the old records were gone, so he could not prove his case.  The decision therefore went against him.  This was a bit of a technicality, or a cop-out, but it allowed the matter to be settled.  But it was a very difficult conclusion at which to arrive.

When it came time to make a motion-- to support the petition for the variance, or to deny it-- none of the Commissioners said anything for what seemed like many seconds.  My own thought was that this required finesse and intelligence, and that if either Roxy Ross or David Coviello made any motion at all, the other three would agree to it, since they didn't know what they were doing.  But Roxy and David reserved input, letting the others figure out what to do.  It was finally Jenny Johnson-Sardella who made the motion, and she relied entirely on comments Roxy had made, and avenues of inquiry Roxy had pursued in her exploration of the matter.  Jenny's motion was seconded, and it was passed 4-1.  The outlier was Will Tudor, who throughout the meeting made repeatedly clear that he had no idea what was going on, or what his tenure was about.  On this occasion, he said he could not vote in favor of the motion (although it had to be explained to him what a no vote or a yes vote on this motion to deny implied), because the matter was too unclear.  Yes, that's exactly right, Will.  That's the job for which you applied.  I know you're only there to stop someone from making you have a driveway on your property, but in the meantime, there are lots and lots of other tasks.  And they're all yours.

Then, there was the matter of the police.   We're in a bit of trouble.  The Chief is gone, and our detective has resigned.  We're down manpower.  And we have no Chief.  Sharon Ragoonan said she was refused by two people before Nick Wollschlager grudgingly agreed to be the acting Chief.  Sharon was very happy, and relieved, that Nick agreed, and the matter at hand last night was how to compensate Nick.  He's still doing his old Corporal's job, the new Chief's job, he's totally enthusiastic and effective (and very well-liked among the rest of our force), and he's somehow available for consultation 24/7.  He represents what Sharon described as substantial "intangibles" to the neighborhood.  So Sharon calculated that we should continue to give him his regular salary, and supplement it by $5000 per month.

Tracy agreed that Nick does a wonderful job and is a wonderful asset to the Village.  And she felt a raise was more than appropriate.  She did not, however, think an extra $5000 per month was reasonable.  She was concerned about the budget, and she just felt an extra $5000 per month was, well, just too much more than Nick was already making.  She thought maybe like $2500 more, or $2000 more, would be the right amount.  She described Sharon's suggestion of $5000 more per month as "irrational."

Sharon's calculation that Nick would be doing two jobs, and was available for X number of hours per week, was reality-based, and therefore rational.  Her introduction of "intangibles" would be considered at least semi-rational, coming from someone who understands about the influence of good workers and good leaders in a work environment.  What was completely irrational was Tracy's personal, idiosyncratic sense that $5000 per month seemed to her like a lot of money, and that some other arbitrary figure, like $2500, or $2000, seemed somehow better.

So the argument continued, until everyone who wanted to speak had spoken, and a vote had to be taken.  The vote was unanimous to give Nick the $5000 per month raise.  Amazingly, inexplicably, and very irrationally, Tracy voted against every argument she herself made in opposition to the amount of the raise.

Somewhere, in one of the discussions, Tracy relinquished the floor to allow Roxy to speak.  Roxy said something, and Tracy cut her off, accusing her of being out of line.  Roxy pointed out to Tracy that she was only speaking, because Tracy had recognized her and allowed her to speak.  Before the meeting began, while we were all waiting outside, I got to talking to someone who had had a conversation with Bryan Cooper, about Cooper's Commission tenure.  The person asked Cooper why he didn't resign, as he seemed to have no role on the Commission, and didn't seem to want to be there.  Cooper told him that his mission on the Commission was to give Roxy Ross the hardest time he (and Steve Bernard, and later Noah Jacobs) possibly could.  In the last meeting of our new Commission, Roxy suggested a standard civility Resolution.  Tracy, Jenny, and Will joined together to defeat this completely normal and friendly Resolution.  It seems they've been handed a baton.

A lot didn't get done last night.  Tracy had had enough by before 10:30.  Roxy and Sharon persuaded her to take up just two more important and timely matters.  One of them was producing a list of priorities for our lobbyist, who needs to know what funding to try to get from the State legislature.  The Commission worked up a list of maybe eight wish list items, and Sharon suggested the lobbyist would do better with a list of maybe two items.  Tracy decided to ask those of her neighbors who remained at that hour, instead of having the Commissioners decide.  Tracy pointed out more than once that she's new at this.  And how.

An important matter that didn't get discussed, and that stimulated several or many public comments early in the meeting, was Tracy's suggestion that Commissioners, including the new ones, should have ultimate authority to hire new department heads.  This is the responsibility of the Manager, as established by a Charter Review Committee in 2005, confirmed by the Commission that year, reconfirmed by the Village residents at large through referendum, reconfirmed again by a Charter Review Committee in 2015, and reconfirmed by the then Commission that year.  Tracy, who has had no meaningful involvement with Village functioning, no meaningful involvement with the Village Administration, and is newly on the Commission, decided that the Manager should not have the sole authority to hire new department heads, but that the Charter should be changed to position Commissioners to have overarching powers here.  And Tracy would like to start now, just as we are hiring a new police Chief, and a new Recreation Director.  Tracy sees this is so urgent that she is not interested in the scrutiny and contemplation of yet another Charter Review Committee, and she doesn't want to wait for a proper electorate.  She wants it sneaked in at the special election to replace David Coviello, who is resigning his Commission seat at the end of March.  Tracy wants to rely on the smallest possible voter turnout, ASAP, and she's not interested in workshops.  More of us spoke against this kind of what Mac Kennedy properly called a "power grab" than those who favored it.  The matter was a casualty of the long variance discussion and poor clock management, and it will be considered at the make-up meeting, to complete last night's agenda, on January 19.  7:00.  Log Cabin.

Thinking back on this meeting, it seems to have been the new Commission's salvation that Roxy Ross and David Coviello are still on it, and that Sharon Ragoonan has assertiveness and a very level head.  "Thank 'God'" they were there.  And Jenny Johnson-Sardella showed some promise as well.

The Big Picture

I sent the following e-mail to the Commissioners on 1/6/17.

Commissioners,

Some of you know the history of the current Charter provisions, and some of you may not.  In consideration of item 13.c in the upcoming Agenda, that history may bear some recalling.

Until 2005, the Village's functions were overseen by its Commissioners.  These people were, municipal management-wise, lay people.  Sometimes, they did a better job than at other times, but none of them were experts in the tasks at hand.

In 2005, the then Charter Review Committee concluded that the Village should have professional management, and it forwarded that consensus to the then Commission.  That Commission agreed (I'm not sure if it was unanimous), and it further submitted the concept to the Village residents at large, as such a change was a Charter change, and could not be ratified without a referendum.  The concept of changing from lay management to professional management was adopted by the Village residents voting that year.  So three groups of people-- the Charter Review Committee, the Commission, and the residents at large-- all agreed that professional management would be better than lay management.  And to demonstrate their commitment to this change, the then Commissioners also agreed to decrease their stipends from the Village.  There was nothing uncertain or tentative about this repeatedly confirmed change.

We have had three professional managers before the current one.  The first one was terrible, did nothing for us, and was a desperation choice, since we did not know how to choose a manager.  The second manager did substantial and very important things for the Village.  Her tenure with us ended for two reasons.  One was that the then Commission, the majority of which had no agenda, no direction, and no relevant experience, did the only thing they could have done: they rode the manager, and refused every attempt she made to help them function.  The other reason she left was that in the midst of this, the manager, who had already begun "looking," got a very advantageous offer from another municipality.  The third manager also did some very good things for the Village-- she will long be remembered for the successes she oversaw-- but her personality-based issues got in the way, and she made a couple of very bad mistakes.  She resigned under heavy criticism, some of which was scapegoating.

We now have a new manager.  Three of you had no role in choosing her, although you very much could have.  I, for one, made a public offer that anyone who was considering running for Commission, which each of you was then, could contact me early in the process, and I would have gone out of my way to include you and take into consideration your views.  None of the three of you accepted my offer.  One of you did contact me very late in the process-- when it was too late-- to tell me that the manager we finally did hire was, in this person's opinion, a poor choice, and that the best choice would have been someone who had already been eliminated.

You are now, as suggested by item 13.c, considering undermining the prerogatives of the manager, and imposing yourselves as arbiters of the manager's choices.  This kind of suggestion goes in the opposite direction of what a past Charter Review Committee, and a past Commission, and a consensus of your neighbors, wanted.  You may want to give that very careful reconsideration, before you go against everyone.

And part of your expressed theory is that some subsequent Charter Review Committee (a Charter Re-Review Committee) made a recommendation to the then Commission, which was the immediate preceding Commission, in 2015.  If you will examine that Charter Re-Review Committee's recommendation (included in the backup), it was that no change in the Charter was recommended.  So you're going against two Charter Review Committees, two Commissions, and the consensus of your neighbors.  I don't know if it's your math that's funky, or your philosophizing.

We have a system.  It works.  It doesn't please everyone, any more than anything pleases everyone.  None of you is expert in municipal management, and you frankly have no business imposing yourselves on the manager or the process and structure that have been created.  And even if each of you happened to be retired, or even active, municipal managers in other municipalities, what you are proposing is a Charter change.  It remains in effect even into the very distant future, when you are no longer Commissioners.

The Commission has a role in BP, and it's an important role.  That role is not demeaning professional managers, and having them come to you like school children for your approval.  Professional managers know vastly more than you do about how to manage municipalities.  Don't get yourselves so confused and disoriented that you forget that.

On your agenda for the upcoming Commission meeting, you have a couple of items that reflect the impressions of some of your neighbors, and perhaps of you yourselves, that it seems as if police visibility has decreased, or that crime has increased.  Telling that to the manager, who will review it with the police chief, is your job.  Imposing yourselves as determiners of who is hired as police chief, or how many reserve officers the Village should have, is not your job.

You talk about saving money, and you itemize a couple of areas of possible savings.  What you propose is meaningless.  (Let alone that it's really not your call.)  If you could save a couple thousand dollars, or a couple tens of thousands of dollars, this does nothing to solve the Village's real fiscal problems, and it does not even provide a meaningful basis upon which to try to lower taxes (also irrational, given our fiscal situation-- nice demagoguery, though).

Big picture.  That's your job.

Fred 

PS: I see that part of your theory as to why we could manage the manager differently than we do is that some other municipalities do it differently.  Yes, I'm sure some do.  And some probably don't.  But if you want to be like other municipalities, how hard did you try to get the Commissions, and your neighbors, to back annexation, so we would have a commercial component, as your models do?  Except, of course, Golden Beach.  We can't be on the ocean, as they are, but what are you proposing to do to create for us the look, order, and value that allows Golden Beach properties to have such a high assessed value that they don't need a commercial component?  Can I assume that the first thing you'll want to do is get cars off the swales, and tidily onto driveways on the property?  And will you be encouraging the Code Review Committee to offer you a plan for high class landscaping on private properties, as well, of course, as in our medians?

If you're going to talk the talk, then walk the walk.

I received the following reply the next day from Jenny Johnson-Sardella

Fred,

Thank you for your email and advice. 

Regards,

No other replies were received.