Never Assume

I was not able to attend the overflow meeting last Friday, March 10.  I will be at the continuation overflow meeting on Wednesday, March 15.  For someone who promised to shorten meetings, Tracy Truppman seems to make them essentially endless.  In any case, I have begun listening to the recording of that 2 1/2 hour long March 10th slog.  And I found something important in the 40+ minutes of public comment at the top of the meeting.

Several speakers who were in support of the Truppman regime, and even some who weren't necessarily Truppman hounds, not only urged patience with Tracy, and confidence in her, but they also relied on a theory: that elected officials all want the best for their constituencies.  It was presented as a reason not even to criticize the regime, at this early phase.  I had to admit that that's quite an assumption to make.

Frankly, I don't think anyone, or certainly not most people, make assumptions like that.  And the more heated the campaigns, the less blind confidence people have in the commitments of the opposing side.  Just to take a highly visible example, I would say a very large proportion of conservatives did not assume that Hillary Clinton wanted what was best for the country, or even what she thought was best for the country.  And I would say almost no liberals assumed Donald Trump wanted what was best for the country.  Almost no one was agreeing to disagree, on the theory that we're all honest brokers at heart.

Not only do people tend not to make that assumption about "the other side," but it's not rare that people turn out to be right to be skeptical.  So why should we here in BP make the assumption that any elected official wants what's best for the Village, or even probably does?  There are various reasons to want to hold elected office, and not at all all of them are based in honesty, real concern for the whole constituency, or anything like altruism.

Noah Jacobs, for example, pointed out to the audience that no one would want to be a BP Commissioner for the money.  Money could certainly motivate some people in some places to want elected office, but I agree with Noah that the money is so meager here that it's very highly unlikely that it's the money that's of interest to office-holders.  But... some of our Commissioners have seemed to want every fiscal benefit they could lay their hands on-- some of them have seemed to nickle and dime the Village-- while at the same time, these Commissioners have not wanted to part with any of their money to donate to the Village.  For example, the Village has acquired three public sculptures, and it was three different Commissions that approved these acquisitions.  Some of the Commissioners were the same from one Commission to another, so it wasn't 15 different Commissioners who voted in favor.  And an uncommon Commissioner was opposed.  So maybe 10 different Commissioners voted for the Village to accept the gift of public sculpture.  And each of these sculptures was provided by a relatively small group of Village residents, who pooled money to buy the pieces of art.  But of the maybe 10 different Commissioners who approved these gifts, maybe only four of those Commissioners, or their families, donated.  So the other approximately six Commissioners may not have "made" a lot of money being Commissioners, but they sure didn't give anything back.  (There were several Commissioners I couldn't persuade to give $20 a year to the Foundation!)  Looking just at Noah's case, he received the high Village stipend: $4000 per year for two years.  And he voted in favor of the Village's receiving one of those sculptures.  So did he donate back $500 to contribute to that purchase?  $100?  $50?  $20?  $10?  Nope, not a cent.  Was Noah wrong, even about himself?  Was he in fact in it for the money?  Only Noah could know that.

And money isn't the only thing, apart from actual interest in the constituency, that would motivate someone to want elected office.  Some people like the power.  Or some sense of acclaim, or specialness.  As if it appealed to their personal narcissism.  Some might be padding resumes.  For example, there have been plenty of Commissioners who have served the Village on the Commission, but not on the volunteer Boards.  And most won't attend Commission meetings, either before they became Commissioners, or after they're not Commissioners any more.  It's as if if the meeting wasn't about them, or they didn't have ultimate power, then there's nothing to interest them even in being there.

So no, I wouldn't make the assumption that people who are Commissioners must, necessarily, obviously, automatically, want the best for the Village.  I wouldn't assume that at all.  And anyone who might criticize me for not making that assumption is seriously kidding him- or herself.  Or being disingenuous.  Or not paying much attention.

We can take as a perfect example the matter at hand.  The issue, before anyone tries to shift attention away from it, is the departure of our most recent Manager, and whether Tracy was being honorable or dishonorable about it.  Tracy has made a show of expressing concern over the Village's fiscal situation, and she tries to portray to us her conclusion that Sharon was either irresponsible or dishonest in addressing it.  What Tracy is trying to act out is what is supposed to look like her efforts, based on what she would like us to believe is her wanting the best for the Village.  That's the assumption.  It's the one speakers referenced when they asked that we not criticize Tracy, or when they themselves criticized those of us who did criticize Tracy.

The problem is that what Tracy tried to portray to us wasn't true.  Tracy did not find that Sharon did this, that, or the other thing, which Tracy then determined was faulty.  Tracy was out to get Sharon from the start.  Or just before the start.  Tracy was warning us that Sharon would make a poor Manager before we hired Sharon.  It was when Sharon was one of three finalists that Tracy was calling the then Commissioners (of which I was one), telling us what a mistake it would be to hire Sharon, and that Tracy's preference was someone who had already been dropped from consideration.  Tracy wasn't being fair or careful or protective of the Village when she laid into Sharon, from the moment Tracy took office.  Tracy does not in any way deserve that we should make the positive and politically correct assumption about people in elected office.  Not even close.  And if Tracy did not own and control two other Commissioners, Sharon, and the rest of us, would have ignored her foolish and undermining campaign.  It meant nothing, and would have been seen for what it was, except Tracy has stooges.  And we can't make the nice assumption about them, either.  Because they're not careful or decent or respectful.  They're simply dutiful, and their duty is to Tracy.  Not to the rest of us.

In fact, the reason we can't simply assume that Tracy and her pets have the Village's best interests at heart is that they don't make that assumption about us.  They didn't care about Sharon, they didn't care about the deliberations of the Commission that hired Sharon, and they didn't care about the deep well of positive sentiment of all their neighbors who very much favored Sharon.  I'm on record at the time, and I'll repeat here, that my first choice for the Manager position was not Sharon.  It was Mark Kutney.  But I liked Sharon very much, and when I could hear how Village resident after Village resident extolled the desirability to them of having Sharon as our Manager, I agreed to vote for her.  And it didn't matter if I didn't.  David Coviello, Roxy Ross, and Bob Anderson all preferred Sharon.  So Sharon was our choice, 3-2 or 4-1.  But she was the overwhelming choice of our neighbors in the Commission room audience.

So I heard it.  A number of our neighbors pleaded for the feel-good assumption about Tracy.  And they said it as if it should be the assumption about all elected officials.  It never is, and it isn't in this case.  And Tracy doesn't for an instant deserve that assumption.

If anyone has anything to say about my opinions, the comment opportunity of this blog is the place to say it.  Be honorable, and have courage, if you disagree with me.  Don't run behind my back, accusing me of  "cyber-bullying."  Is all editorializing, or reporting of news, "cyber-bullying?"  I'm stating what I observe and what I think.  You're welcome to do the same.  If you think I'm wrong, say so.  Publicly.  Here.  Have the courage of your convictions.  I do.  And whatever exposure or consequence anyone fears in stating his or her opinion is identical to the exposure and possible consequence I accept in presenting myself here.

You Can Put Your Party Shoes Away.

Oy, what a silly odyssey.  No one planned a Meet the Candidates event for this election, so I planned one.  I had in mind to make it different and more interesting (and illustrative) than the ones we typically do.  It was more unstructured, and it involved actual unrestricted conversations among the candidates.  The conversations were to be about various issues that have been or could be the stuff of Commission Agendas.  Instead of hearing what candidates A, B, and C would say about how they would think through one vague, hypothetical, and overgeneralized issue or another, I wanted them to have the actual conversations, exactly as they would if they were Commissioners.

Here are the Agenda topics I planned:

1)  Annexation.

As you know, our biggest problem is our finances.  Last year, the County Commission refused to hear our application for annexation of an area to our east, just over the track.  We have just gotten word that the reason they wouldn't consider our application is that they thought we were "cherry-picking," and not solving enough of the County's problem with unincorporated areas.  We have been informed that they could look much more favorably on an application from us, if we agree to annex the area we requested last year, and two residential blocks south of there, too, as well as a commitment to continue to annex gradually over the years, until we reach 108th Street.  Do we want to re-apply?

2)  Feral cats.

Residents continue to complain about the populations of feral cats in various parts of the Village.  They want something done.

3)  "Public" Art in BP.

Some residents of the Village appear to be art lovers.  They so much like art that they display it on their front lawns.  Some of these displays are quite conspicuous.  Other BP residents, however, do not appreciate this kind of imposition, and a few of them have lodged complaints.  Our Code is an "inclusive" one, meaning that anything not explicitly included in the Code is not permitted.  Public display of private art is not cited in the Code, and the offended neighbors want these private installations removed.  They consider them Code violations.  The Code Compliance officer is not sure whether this is the proper interpretation of the Code.  Neither is the Code Compliance Board.  They are all now turning to the Commission.

4)  Outsourcing.

The Commission has been receiving what seems like a flood of e-mails.  Some neighbors are complaining about WastePro, and they want you to end the contract, and revive a sanitation program run by the Village, as it was before we outsourced.  Other neighbors (about as many) are preoccupied with Village finances, and they want to outsource more Village functions.  They are aware of a lapse in leadership in the Recreation Department, and of the recent resignation of the Manager, and they consider this to be a perfect time for the Village to outsource many or most of its management functions.

For what it's worth, question 1 was Chuck Ross' idea, question 2 was Barbara Kiers' idea, question 3 was my idea, and question 4 was Roxy Ross' idea.  I was waiting for ideas from a few other people.

I asked the Commission for permission to hold this event in the log cabin, and to excuse me from paying for premises rental (as all Commissions give such permission and excuse such rental for this event) on Tuesday, March 7.  By the end of that day, all three candidates had agreed to the MTC plan for March 16, and the Commission had approved it.  And that's when things began to fall apart.  Or when some candidates began to get very cold feet.

First, it was Harvey Bilt, who wouldn't participate if I was the moderator (which was absolutely the plan).  I could never get Harvey to tell me what problem he was imagining, but I think, as best I could tell, that he thought I was somehow going to ambush him or fool him.  The most specific he would get was to say he objected to my authoring the questions.

Then, it was Dan Samaria, who told me he wouldn't participate unless the questions came from the audience, and told someone else he was worried about what Harvey was worried about.  I should say that I have never been unsupportive of either of them, and I offered, and delivered, help to Dan when he ran against me last fall, and to both of them regarding using this blog to publicize themselves, and appeal to their neighbors.  Harvey even took me up on the latter in 2013, when we opposed each other.  But now, both were in terrified mode and could not participate in any event that involved me.

Mac Kennedy was game from the outset.

I had a lot of back and forth with the three of them (not much with Mac, though) in the past week.  I couldn't get Harvey or Dan to flinch from their refusals to participate, and I decided their participation was vastly more important than was my fully controlling the event.  So I reached out to three people to moderate.  Drew Dillworth and Richard Ederr couldn't, and John Hornbuckle could.  So there it was.  And I made two other modifications to the original plan.  One was that I sought questions from neighbors other than myself (although I had reached out in advance anyway), and the other was that I gave the candidates the questions in advance.  And I told them that only one of the four was mine.  The only concession I would not make was to turn the event from a conversation among mock Commissioners into the stilted system we always use, where each candidate in turn has the same number of minutes to respond to the same questions.  It was essential to me that we try a different system.  It was to be an experiment.  It was to be fun.

But no, no matter what I did, I could not assuage Harvey.  As it turns out, I couldn't assuage Dan, either.  I took away every complaint, concern, or element of paranoia they had, except one, and they would not budge from their terror of this event.  And I have to say, I was very provocative with them.  I told them, and so did Mac, that it was wrong of them to try to control this event, and to try to minimize discomfort for themselves.   The thing they were afraid of is precisely the characterization of being a Commissioner.  Mac told them to "man up," and to "grow a pair," and I supported the challenge.  But no, they were not going to waver at all.

So Mac dropped out of the race altogether.  He wanted no part of such behavior.  I couldn't blame him.  I told him so.  I told him that the most he could accomplish was to be part of a 3-2 minority in which Tracy Truppman and her puppets would simply steamroll him and Roxy Ross.  So what was the point?  No one would listen to him anyway.  And it's not that I agree with every leaning Mac has or position he takes.  It's just that I think he's open-minded, reasonable, fair, and has the interests of the Village at heart.  If he's coming from the right place, I would trust his conclusions, even if I don't agree with all of them.

Does it make any difference whether Dan wins, or Harvey does?  No, not at all.  It seems to make a difference to Tracy, though.  She's been out campaigning with Harvey.  What does she want with him, though?  Is she afraid she's losing complete control over Jenny and/or Will?  Maybe.  I don't know the content of all the colluding that's very clearly going on among the three of them outside of Commission meetings, and I haven't seen the faintest suggestion of independence from either of them in meetings, but maybe Tracy knows what she's doing, or at least what she has to worry about.

So don't bother to come to the Meet the Candidates event on Thursday evening.  There's no event to attend.  But I'm told (not by our fearless candidates) that they're having their own event on Sunday.  I don't know the place or time.  But it doesn't matter.  I'm not voting anyway.  We're getting a new Commissioner on 3/28.  It'll either be Dan or Harvey.  You decide which one it is, if it matters to you more than it matters to me.

Not Junk Mail

I owe an apology for last night.  I lost control of myself, and I said things I should not have said.   And I do apologize.

The audience gallery of the log cabin Commission room was SRO.  It was pretty clear what the crowd was about: item 12.a, the Manager's evaluation.  We've been talking about and anticipating it for at least a month, and last night was to be the night.  ("...to be...?")

At the outset of the meeting, Tracy Truppman announced that she had just that day received from Sharon Ragoonan Sharon's resignation, effective yesterday.  The room was in admitted "shock," even including Roxy Ross and David Coviello, so they said.  Everyone had come hoping either to ward off Tracy's final killing of the beast she had been wounding, or to egg Tracy on.  It was all over the neighborhood, and on Nextdoor.  People who didn't come to meetings came to that one.  And there was suddenly a breathtaking deflation in the room.  Sharon was gone.  She had left.  It was over.

Many residents asked Tracy why Sharon left, and Tracy insisted, repeatedly, that she didn't know.  Jenny Johnson-Sardella and Will Tudor didn't know, either, but they were fully composed.  They didn't even want to venture guesses as to why Sharon left, because, they both said, it would not be fair to Sharon to talk about her in her absence, when she couldn't defend herself (from what?).  And we wouldn't want to utter on the record things that might lead to the Village's being sued by Sharon.

But if Sharon told Tracy that she was resigning, didn't she say why?  Didn't Tracy even ask?  The stories we were given sounded like no.  Sharon didn't tell, and Tracy didn't ask.  Not curious?  Evidently not.

So, very many of us were left with empty speeches we intended to deliver either in support of Sharon or to express dissatisfaction.  And then, it was time for public comment.  Tracy offered.  No one flinched.  I hadn't been sure if there was anything I would have wanted to say, and my plan was to wait until near the end, to see if there was anything left to say.  But with precious instants of dead air after Tracy's offer for public comment, I decided I should arise.  I would hold a place, while others gathered themselves and their thoughts.

I really didn't know what to say.  I have been furious with Tracy for quite some time, watched her undermine and dismantle Village administration, and torment Sharon.  I like Sharon.  We all do.  She hadn't told me she was leaving, and the whole thing was very sudden.  Funny enough, when Tracy was in a more aggressive form of assault on Sharon, a few weeks ago, Sharon told me she was thinking of simply leaving early every day.  Like what was the point of trying, if Tracy (et. al.-- it doesn't work, unless there's an et. al.) was gunning for her and grinding her down?  But I told Sharon to keep doing the job she was doing.  If Tracy and her posse want Sharon's scalp, make them work for it.  Don't hand it to them.  So she soldiered on.  Until yesterday.  If something happened yesterday, I don't know what it was.  And Tracy isn't talking.

So there I stood, looking at Tracy, filled with anger and frustration, and loss.  And I directed my comments to Tracy.  I reminded her of her lack of involvement with the Village, except when she had her pearls of genius to unload on us.  And her bizarre application for the Manager's job last year.  And how she hounded Sharon, until Sharon couldn't take it any more.  And I told Tracy what adjectives about her occurred to me.  I told her I found her predatory, corrosive, nasty, dishonest, self-involved, full of herself, disgraceful, and disgusting.  I just lost it.  The people who don't like you will always criticize you.  But when your friends tell you you "went too far," and you sort of knew it anyway, well, there isn't much else to say.  Except I'm sorry.  And I am.

Much of the rest of the meeting involved trying to clean up the mess that was just made, and trying to anticipate its future consequences, of which there are several, at least.

And then, there was 12.b.  Roxy Ross had been receiving lots of e-mails from Tracy.  The whole Commission had.  They were rants and screeds about whatever crusade (against Sharon) was occupying Tracy, and she sent them not only to Sharon, but also to all the other Commissioners.  Roxy had an idea that this kind of spilling was a Sunshine violation.  And in the end, it was determined, even by Tracy, that this kind of indiscretion was not a good idea, and not "best practice," but it was not technically a Sunshine violation.  And that's true.  It was not, in itself, a violation.

The Sunshine Law says that members of Boards in Florida cannot discuss Board business except in appropriately arranged meetings.  The meetings have to be announced in advance, open to the public, and minutes have to be kept.  And the definition of a discussion is technical and specific.  It is the mutual sharing of information pertinent to matters on which the Board will vote, or matters which have a reasonable likelihood to come up for a vote.  So if Tracy says something to another Board member (Commissioner), but the other Commissioner doesn't reply, then there was no mutual sharing, and a conversation did not occur.  It was made clear that each of Tracy's e-rants opened with a caveat for the recipient not to reply.

So Roxy was wrong.  There was no Sunshine violation.  But Roxy asked the wrong question.  The question was not whether this sharing was a Sunshine violation, but rather, what was Tracy's goal in sharing at all.  What was Tracy's purpose in informing her Commission colleagues over which coals she was then raking Sharon?  Discussions like that, among Commission colleagues, where real and mutual conversations can occur, is what Commission meetings are for.  So what was Tracy doing?  That was the question.

And there are three possible answers.  First, it's possible that Tracy is in fact completely full of herself, totally uncontained, and cannot do, say, write, or think anything, unless the whole world has to know about it.  Even if it's inappropriate and unnecessary.  That's the least terrible possibility.  The next, somewhat more terrible possibility is that Tracy was using these distributions to telegraph to her colleagues what she was thinking and doing, so they would be ready to back her up later, when there was an actual meeting.  They would know whence she was coming, so they could prepare themselves to agree and support.

And then, there's the most terrible possibility, Sunshine-wise.  That possibility is that the circulation was superfluous, and intended to create e-camouflage.  The possibility is that Tracy and some of her colleagues were already actively colluding, in exactly the way the Sunshine Law proscribes, and the e-mails were intended to create what could later be presented as the basis for how Tracy's colleagues knew what was in Tracy's mind.  You don't have to admit you met privately to discuss something you weren't supposed to discuss, if you can say that only one person communicated, and only one way, and to everyone.

Why Tracy sends out e-mail so unnecessarily and inappropriately?  Who knows?  Like why Sharon abruptly quit, having a good relationship with two Commissioners, and no great difficulty on record with two others?  Who knows?

A Different Kind of Meet the Candidates Event.

The election to fill David Coviello's seat is on Tuesday, March 28.  There are three BP residents running for this seat.  They are, in order of declaring candidacy, Dan Samaria, Harvey Bilt, and Mac Kennedy.

Typically, in advance of Commission elections, we hold a Meet the Candidates event.  The event has, over the years, been sponsored by one or another group.  This year, perhaps in the commotion preceding the special election, no one planned a MTC event.  So I planned one.  It will occur at the log cabin on Thursday, March 16, at 6:30 PM.

Traditionally, we have structured the event so that candidates are asked a question, with each in turn giving his or her response to that question.  Then, on to the next question.  Questions are composed by the sponsoring group, and they often include some questions submitted by audience members the night of the event.

In my experience, both as an observer and a participant, the questions have an over-generalized and stilted quality to them, and responses are often a series of platitudes, frequently repeated by each of the various candidates.  I decided this time to structure the exercise or demonstration differently.

What I will do is compose a few scenarios.  Each one will describe a typical Village problem which the Commission will confront.  Commission candidates, instead of giving isolated, and timed, answers to the problems will take the roles of Commissioners.  They will be a Commission of three.  They will discuss the scenarios, looking either to form a consensus about a solution, or to make clear what are their differences of opinion or approach.  In these discussions, exactly like the discussions that occur among Commissioners, candidates will take whatever time they need, say as much or as little as they like, and show how they can in some sense work together to conclude a decision about each scenario.  Working together might mean coming to consensus, or agreeing to disagree, or finding a new solution.  We shall see.

So come to the event next week.  Find out what Commissioner Samaria, Commissioner Bilt, and Commissioner Kennedy look like.