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.