Wednesday, May 20, 2020
A Day of Losses
Tuesday, May 19, 2020, was a very sad day for me. For many months, I have planned a trip to Massachusetts. My daughter, son-in-law, and two grandchildren live there, and my grandson's third birthday is May 25. My daughter has been leaning on me to come up for a visit, and my plan was to leave here on Wednesday, May 20th, and return Wednesday, the 27th. I would have a week with my family, and I would attend my grandson's birthday party.
Then, the coronavirus hit. I decided to wait and watch. I was starting to lose my nerve more or less big time by this past Sunday, and I called my daughter to tell her that. She wouldn't hear of my not coming, and she told me in her way that I should man up, and get on that plane. But by Monday, she called me to tell me that if I really felt very uneasy about traveling, I could postpone, and she wouldn't be mad at me. So I took the rest of the day to consider that, and on Tuesday, I pulled the trigger. I called JetBlue, and told them I couldn't bring myself to take the trip. They were 100% understanding, and they refunded my points and the tax I paid. And I'm back on the prowl for another time to go up north. My daughter loosely suggested "a month or two," and she specifically requested a certain week in December as well.
So that, and a couple of other annoyances, fucked up my Tuesday. (Although I did see five patients by phone or FaceTime, so that was good.) And then, we had our charming Commission meeting. A torture session hurts less, and it doesn't take as long.
Just when the meeting ended, I got an e-mail from Roxy Ross. She said she disappointed herself, and she specified that she "lost [her] SHIT!" I said I hadn't noticed, and I thought she was only very appropriately assertive, and she "told (moronic) people what they needed to hear." But of course, they weren't listening. That's what moronic people do, or don't do. They don't listen to smart people. That's either a reflection of being moronic, or it's how they got to be moronic.
I suffered losses yesterday (and today, and the coming week). Roxy Ross felt as though she "lost" something. The Village lost massively. From what I could read between lines, it sounded to me like the Andersons, and David Raymond, and Chuck Ross lost. Or they felt at a loss. Will Tudor lost. He now has to create that "approved parking surface" he's been on such a crusade not to have to install. Even though it's in the Village Code, about which he very clearly doesn't care. And if he doesn't finally do it, he'll get a citation, and he'll lose money.
The only two people who didn't lose yesterday were John Herin, our attorney, who basked in 5 1/2 hours on the clock, and David Hernandez, who was not held to account for his inadequacies.
I hope the two of them are happy enough to buoy the rest of us. They'll have to be pretty ecstatic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You know what's weird, now that I think about it? I spent more time in one meeting, that accomplished very nearly nothing, than I did with five psychotherapy patients, in total aggregate, and that accomplished a great deal. Something is terribly wrong with that.
ReplyDeleteWhat didnt David accomplish? as far as him not being there, you are familiar with HIPPA?
ReplyDeleteIf you'll read the post with the title starting with "The Peter Principle," you'll see part of what David didn't accomplish. David also figured out how to make himself a youtube star, but he couldn't figure out, or wasn't interested in, how to get ZOOM meetings going. And I'll remind you that all of our surrounding municipalities figured that out at least a month before we did.
DeleteFurther, I have concern about something else David didn't accomplish. It truly does appear he's positioning himself to continue to be the Village manager, either by staying on as the indefinite interim manager, or by applying for the permanent position (if he's qualified, and I have no idea if he is, or he isn't). So, to the extent that he himself, as the "manager," isn't encouraging the Commissioners to begin the search for a permanent manager, if he wants that job himself, then he's not doing his job. If you would argue that the Commission should easily figure that out without David telling them, I agree with you. But still, he's the "manager," so he should be urging them.
First of all, it's HIPAA. Second, what's HIPAA got to do with David's not having been there? All that was said about it was that he's been working hard lately. Are you adding that you believe he's not well? That could be a very good reason for his absence, especially if he's in the hospital. But he's welcome to tell us that. Is he unconscious, and the hospital can't tell us that, for HIPAA reasons? How do you know about it?
He is working with the county regarding the CITT that he had nothing to do with. He is also trying to see where we stand on the FEMA reimbursement. We are getting somewhere with the county because of his personal contacts, so if the village hires a new manager he would no longer be our point person and the new manager would face a learning curve. The search before the elections and a new commission, in my opinion would not make any sense. If he see things the same way, he is doing a good job by not starting the search.
ReplyDeleteYou don't want him to take the test as you put and just replace him.
As far as him not being at the meeting, I am sure the commissioners know but they cannot say. You as a health professional also know that and should not push it.
If you think David is in any sense working on the CITT problem, then you did not read the "Peter Principle" post. What David managed to do is get an extension of the deadline to May 31, which is a week and a half from now, and without Chuck Ross' help (and it's too bad David declined help from two other Village residents, and then told Chuck he didn't want his help any more, even though the job was not complete, and David already admitted he couldn't do it himself), David would be sitting at his desk, sucking his thumb, and wondering what to do. I don't know who his contacts are, but there is no way he could manage to string out this extension so that it's indefinite, which is what he would need, since he claimed he could not find any documentation, and it was clear he never looked for any.
ReplyDeleteWe need to search for a permanent manager, because we don't have one. The need to find one starts the day we no longer have one, whether the lack of one is due to firing, resignation, or death. It is not a matter of convenience. We are about to have general elections in November. Would you suggest we suspend them, and just let all current elected officials remain in office, because it's no longer convenient to go to the polls, and the coronavirus is creating a mess?
I don't know what the Commissioners know. I am on very close terms with two of them, and neither of them told me anything, even in confidence. If there's something you think should be said, then say it. "The interim manager is sick, or not feeling well, or whatever" would have been a perfectly good explanation. It is not revealing, and it protects any privacy David might like to have. (Except all Commissioners should be told what the issue is, and I've already told you that appears not to be the case.) So I think your hypothetical proposal ("HIPAA," "[I] as a professional" and other suggestive references) doesn't really add much. What "Harvey" are you? Harvey Bilt? Whoever you are, how do you know what no one else seems to know? And I'm not asking what you know. I'm asking how you know it.
By the way, whatever you believe or know David's health-related problems to be, if they prevent him from attending a very important Village meeting at a very sensitive time, is there any chance they would interfere with his being able to execute other requirements of the position of even interim manager? Something interfered with his being able to go through a bunch of boxes of records, and identify boxes that were very clearly marked with exactly what he would have wanted to access. As I said in the "Peter Principle" post, Ginny grabbed the first person she could, and we impulsively promoted him to interim manager without properly vetting him. You seem to be suggesting we might have overlooked an important problem. That's understandable, if we were in too much of a hurry, and his "issues" are not to be held against him, as long as he can do the job. But if he can't, which seems to be the case, what's your argument for why we shouldn't be forging ahead, maybe even quickly, to find and engage the right, and properly credentialed and experienced, person?
The election is 6 months away. No point in starting the search around the holidays. That pushes it til at least January. By the time the process plays out and someone is hired we will be over one year without a permanent manager. That makes exactly no sense and reminds me of the same kind of skewed logic that Mitch McConnell used in denying Pres. Obama his right to appoint Antonin Scalia's replacement "because there was an election coming up." What else - 6 months out - should this commission not do because there's an election in November? And why should this be punted over to the new commission when in fact it is the responsibility of this commission to finish what they started??
ReplyDeleteWhat's conspicuous here is that this Commission just agreed to the process to name a non-interim attorney, but could only think of excuses not to do exactly the same thing about a non-interim manager. There's some hypocrisy going on here. Rox pointed that out, but these Commissioners/losers wouldn't admit the discrepancy.
Delete