Here We Go Again.

It was back in about 2014 that we considered outsourcing the remaining part of the sanitation function of the PW department (recycling had been outsourced to MSV years before), and we did it.  Some of our neighbors thought outsourcing was a great idea, and some thought it was a tragically terrible idea.  A couple or so of the latter put together a petition drive, and they presented to the Commission a petition allegedly signed by 327 Village residents.  This presentation was made literally at the last minute, on the night that the Commission vote for or against outsourcing was to take place.

The petition was grossly faulty.  For some stupid reason, I allowed Milt Hunter to dissuade me from publishing a blog post about it, and that draft subsequently mysteriously disappeared.

The reasons the petition was faulty included that the petition statement was wrong and inaccurate, leading signatories to ask the Commission not to do something it had no intention of doing.  And prospective signatories were either told an incomplete story as to why anyone would want to outsource the rest of the sanitation function of the PW department, or they were told things that weren't true.  In addition, some "signatories" never signed the petition.  Their names and signatures were forged.  Even looking at this petition when it was presented was unmanageable.  When I studied it, and made some calls to signatories, a few days later, it was impossible to give it any weight at all, even in retrospect.

Now, there's another petition being circulated.  This one simply requests that the Commission reinstate Krishan Manners.  There are 50 reported signatories, and they represent the outreach efforts of three (four, if you count the husband and wife team) of our neighbors.  But here are the problems.

Krishan's on paid administrative leave, with clearly specified cause, and he has an opportunity to challenge this removal from active duty.  The Commissioners who voted to place him on leave think he did something terribly wrong.  They have provided a two week period for Krishan to make his case, and persuade them that he did nothing wrong.  If he does that, then the administrative leave will end, and Krishan will return to being the Village's manager.  If he fails to do it, or if he agrees with the accusations, then two weeks after the end of his two week opportunity, his employment will be terminated.  But the terse and mysterious petition statement-- that Krishan should be reinstated as Village manager-- provides no indication that signatories know why Krishan's status has changed.  Intended recipients of this petition-- presumably the Commission-- can only guess that signatories asked, or what they might possibly have been told.

Then, there are the signatories.  Not all of them actually "signed" their names.  We would only be assuming if we thought that all of them were fully aware and in agreement that their names were even there.  At least some of the signatories informally canvassed (not by me) have no idea why Krishan's employment status has changed in any way at all.  They just think, or have just been told, that Krishan is a "nice guy."  I agree.  Krishan is a nice guy.  And this "nice guy" was said to have...?  And a "nice guy" couldn't possibly...?

It's sad, and frustrating, to see some of our neighbors behave this way, and it does not lead to confidence in them.   Having "been there" in 2014, I'm very suspicious of the petition sponsors.  I see the meaningless and misleading petition statement.  And I see the pairs of names written with the same hand.  Having heard of at least one signatory's explanation for why she signed, I see the absent understanding of the issues, with her presumably not having been told any more.  I'm disappointed in signatories, too, for accepting such a grossly incomplete explanation for such a dramatic move on the part of the Commission: removing the Village manager from active duty!  You'd think there must be quite a story to tell, and quite an explanation, even if it's incorrect.  If you're going to sign a petition like that, wouldn't you want to know what the Commission thinks the manager did, and why they think so, and how we know he didn't really do that at all?  None of that is part of this petition.  And any signatories queried are not providing any depth of investigation, insight, or even interest.  If this is just a popularity survey, then I agree that Krishan has charmed many more people than he's offended.  If it's anything other than that, then the petition is a mystery, and the signatories are completely in the dark.