Tuesday, February 11, 2020
Where Are You, John Hornbuckle?
The good old days (I moved here in 2005) keep getting better and better. Commission meetings were tight. They lasted two hours, unless they were so complicated that they lasted 2 1/2 hours. Progress was-- I really can't think of a better way to put this-- crisp. I myself couldn't figure out how they did it. Many or most votes were unanimous. I wondered if there was some "shady" communication going on, to explain how everyone got on the same page with very little discussion. And no manager to help them all come to see things the same way.
And then, we crashed. Steve Bernard assumed he was going to be anointed, but when he wasn't, and Roxy Ross became mayor instead, Steve went on an endless undermining rampage against Roxy. One casualty of his and Bryan Cooper's incessant sniping and destabilizing was that meetings became battlegrounds, and they took a really long time. Steve would monopolize, he and Bryan would form a tag team against Roxy, and we established a limit of four hours for Commission meetings. Even at that, we sometimes had to add time. And we never recovered. Noah Jacobs and his crew bumbled around, fending off correction from Roxy and Bob Anderson, and the advice of our then manager, Ana Garcia, and meetings continued to take four hours. After that, we had an adaptive majority, but the meetings didn't get any shorter. Then, Tracy Truppman promised to streamline meetings. Her version of streamlining them was that they still took four hours, and we had increasing numbers of extra meetings, because we could no longer get business done even in four hours once a month. And now, we're done with Betsy Wise, Jenny Johnson-Sardella, and Tracy Truppman, and even the last of the Mohicans, Will Tudor, didn't show up tonight. It was Ginny O'Halpin, Dan Samaria, and Mac Kennedy. And a really short agenda. One week after the last meeting. Just a bit of clean-up.
Those who commented publicly asked the Commission not to accept the Charter Review Committee's suggestions, and to do away with the magistrate method of Code Compliance. We want our Code Compliance Board back, and we'd like the same people who resigned to come right back. Both of those were easy, because Dan Samaria had already spoken against both of them, and Ginny and Mac had also panned them during their campaigns. We also had to register formal acceptance of John Herin (Fox Rotschild) as our interim attorney, and David Hernandez as our interim manager. This stuff is like "Consent Agenda" material. Yeah, yeah, yeah, 3-0. Ditto regarding ratifying the plan for an April 14 special election to fill Tracy Truppman's seat. Bang. Cha-ching. Whatever. Matters like this shouldn't awaken anyone.
There are two questions about this meeting, setting aside Ginny O'Haplin's continuing efforts to get control of the gavel. (Tonight, it was mostly John Herin who provided guidance. As Chuck Ross said, Ginny will get it.) One question is how it possibly took 2 1/2 hours. If there was really more than an hour's worth of material there, then there certainly wasn't more than 1 1/2 hour's worth. The second question is what happened to Mac Kennedy. Mac was suddenly equivocal, inclusive of what he always said he would exclude, and in no hurry. He was in a big hurry last week, but tonight, he slowed down the action. For example, despite his previous unequivocal rejection of the so-called Charter Review Committee's product, tonight, he praised them for "doing what the Village asked them to do." It was Dan Samaria who said a version of what I was thinking: they didn't do what the Village asked of them. They did what Tracy Truppman and one of her lieutenants, Judith Gersten, told them to do. And if Mac had only been being diplomatic, it would have been classy, or strategic, of him. But Mac seemed genuinely prepared to consider the canned nonsense the Committee transmitted. Village residents also asked the Commission to switch from Board members approved by consensus to Board members nominated by each Commissioner, as it used to be. Roxy Ross said she was on the Commission when the current change was made, but she doesn't remember why we did it, and she thinks it was a mistake. Mac wasn't so sure. He wanted to take more time (months) to think about it.
So, we'll see how our Commission evolves. Last week, they knew what they wanted, and they pursued it ruthlessly. This week, not so much. Among other things, Mac doesn't do second banana, and Dan seemed to be feeling he was being trampled by someone other than Tracy and her dwindling posse. There was one bit of good news, though. Will Tudor didn't come. Maybe that's it for him. He was a lot happier when he could elbow others out of the way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not exactly.
ReplyDeleteMac is a commissioner now, and he wants more residents involved ... and he wants residents to be respected when they do serve, so more will want to serve. (Mac promised to "hug" residents in, if you recall campaign promises.) Regardless of what anyone might think about the Charter Review Advisory Board, how it was formed and why, how it was guided and the recommendations it made to the commission ... seven residents did give their time and attention when asked by this community. They did their job, and they deserve their recommendations to be considered, seriously. Jumping to first person now: I want to make sure that happens. That's the LEAST they (or any village volunteers) deserve, and as a commissioner I want to make sure that happens now and with all boards in the future, at least while I serve. That's just the right thing to do by all residents. We have time to consider their suggestions, so I'm not going to casually throw out their work. I don't know what I'll learn if I don't ask questions and elicit opinions. I'm a commissioner now, (Did I say that before?), so my responsibilities have changed. Those opinions from residents will be diverse and will likely not align with the opinions of everyone.
Regarding the suggestions to change how we appoint board members, listen to what I said last night. My main intent was getting the proposed change pushed through as quickly as possible (removing the requirement for former members to sit out one year), and I said the other recommendations by residents made sense, even if at cross-purposes to one another. Considering them all last night, however, would have added to the 2-1/2 hour meeting and likely slowed down what we really needed to do, which was get to the second reading of that ordinance on March 3 and fix that loophole so we can reseat the Code Compliance Board. We can address the rest later. David Raymond brought up an interesting point about when the other changes would be most appropriately rolled out, which might not be until after the November election when we will get as many as three new commissioners.
Lastly, it's not that Mac doesn't "do second banana." It's that I try to be prepared for meetings, to come with my thoughts in order, to listen to residents, our advisers (attorney, staff, etc.) and the other commissioners. Then, I engage at a high level. I also want to ensure, to the best of my ability, that t's are crossed and i's are dotted as we move along. (For example, we were about to accept the new magistrate ordinance with just a few words deleted instead of fully reverting back to the former ordinance with the necessary improvements ... that's a big "woops" that we would have regretted later.) That's the "passion" aspect of what I promised when I ran. That's how I'm wired and that won't change, so get used to the mellifluous tones of my voice and my attention to detail. As a resident, I wanted that from commissioners (engagement) and was disappointed that they failed to deliver. Now, I intend to deliver even when other commissioners don't attend or contribute fully.
Glad you came, Fred. Keep keeping us on our toes.
Mac,
DeleteI urged you to run, I campaigned for you, I voted for you, and I celebrated your victory. I consider myself 100% right, and I'm proud and more than satisfied with the outcome. And that includes what happens at meetings. It's unimaginable to me that I will ever agree with every position you take, or every word you utter, and that is perfectly in keeping with my complete satisfaction with your position as a BP Commissioner, and as my elected representative. Thank you for all of it already.
I've said this to you before, and I'll say it again. The so-called Charter Review Committee absolutely was not asked "by this community" to review the Charter. It was told by Tracy Truppman and Judith Gersten to rubber stamp what Tracy wanted, and that's what it did. I sat and watched them do it (while they vigorously boxed out anyone, like Roxy Ross, who was not on board), and you watched them, too. If you want to be diplomatic, that's fine. But don't be confused. The process was corrupt, and so was the outcome. Do it again. Choose the right people. If they come to the same conclusions, then have appropriate confidence in them.
It was not clear to me why we could not simply add a clause to the Ordinance, further changing how board members are chosen. If it's true we couldn't simply do that, and keep the Ordinance preserved and ready for second reading in March, then I agree with you.
Ginny is your/our mayor. She's your/our mayor, because you elected her. I don't fail to recognize the evidence that she's a neophyte in some ways. She mostly has John Herin to help her, since David Hernandez is not experienced enough. If you want to help her, you should try to be a bit gentler. Use some of that diplomacy you want to use with the so-called Charter Review Committee. Your style is to tend to fill in a bit too quickly and definitively. And I'm not saying you're wrong about the need. It's a style thing, and from the cheap seats, it looks like you're impatient and even in competition with Ginny. Remember "Saturday Night Fever," and the line about John Travolta's character, "he's taking over?" It looks like that.
I'm probably as hard-wired as you are, so yes, you can count on me to be there, and to shoot my mouth off later in this blog. (Which you're more than welcome to do, too.) In addition, and curiously, the great Erik Bojnansky from the Biscayne Times was there. I don't know if you know this, but John Ise, who used to write about MSV, VBP, El Portal, and this little area, resigned, and the BT publisher, Jim Mullin, asked me to take John's column. I had my first entry in February, and the second will be in March. I spoke to Jim about what he wanted me to talk about, and if he wanted me to talk about our little goings on here in BP. He reads this blog, and he said there was already enough of BP politics being bandied about in the world. He wanted me to find something else to talk about. So I was really very surprised to have gotten an e-mail from Erik Bojnansky, who's an amazing writer, yesterday afternoon, letting me know he was coming to our meeting. It seemed like locking the barn door after the horse already ran away. But he was there. I guess we'll all see what, if anything, Erik does with this. But you can still count on me, right here.
Fred
The current way of selecting board members - by majority vote of the commission - is the way the selection process was handled prior to around 2010. On or about that point it morphed to individual appointments. It went back to majority vote because certain commissioners - Bryan Cooper for one - would either take months to come up with an appointee or would have a revolving door of appointees. This of course made it difficult to keep boards filled and to have a quorum. Majority vote appointments resulted in a terrific and much qualified person - Nicole Susi - being kept off the foundation. Individual appointments resulted in the abomination called the Charter Review Committee. There is no guaranteed solution when we have one or more rogue commission members.
ReplyDeleteFred - I believe the ordinance governing how board members are appointed is a separate one from the magistrate/code board ordinance hence would have to be changed on its own.
Janey,
DeleteI knew nothing about Village government when I moved here (July, 2005). But I found out there was such a thing, and I started attending meetings, which I have continued to do faithfully. At the end of 2005, we had the first election in which I voted, and one of the winners was Kelly Mallette. I didn't know Kelly, but I liked what I came to know when she was campaigning, and I voted for her. I don't remember having any further visibility to her than that, but for some reason, when she had to make board appointments, she asked me to agree to be on P&Z. I was concerned about it, and I told her so, because I was a newcomer, and I didn't know anything about our Codes, but she succeeded in getting me to agree to join, and to learn. Which I did. So back then, my impression was that individual Commissioners made individual appointments. If you're saying that as a technicality, which I no longer remember, a consensus of the Commission had to ratify the nominations of the individual Commissioners, that may be so. As I say, I don't remember any requirement beyond Kelly's appointing me.
I understand what you're saying about having to consider the two board issues separately. I didn't pick that up at the meeting. I thought the suggestion was to add a clause covering one issue to the Ordinance covering the other.
Fred
Fred I stand corrected. Individual appointments go back further than I remembered. It was the change to majority that happened around 2010. Either way can work but only if we have knowledgeable and engaged commission members because as we saw with the Charter Review committee individual appointments just stacked the deck in Tracy's favor but majority vote enabled her to keep Nicole off the foundation.
ReplyDelete