"The Devil You Know is Better Than the Devil You Don't."

Elections are essentially a version of what people call a "zero sum game."  A vote for one person is a vote not given to his or her opponent.  A vote for implies a vote against, and voting has the simultaneous result of creating both.  Someone's victory means someone else's loss.

Sometimes, voters are very clear about whom, and what, they want.  They may not have to think for one second about the vote they want to make.  It's as if one candidate was for them all good, and the other all bad.  And if the preferred candidate has any imperfections, or the candidate not preferred has any remotely redeeming qualities, it doesn't matter.  The imperfections of one and the slightly redeeming qualities of the other are extremely minor overall in the eyes of the voter.  The preference is stark, and overpowering.  Sometimes.

But sometimes, the consideration is not as stark.  Sometimes, each candidate has noteworthy captivating qualities, and each has noteworthy flaws.  It can be hard to decide.  Or at other times, both candidates seem very flawed, and the voter will "hold [his/her] nose, and vote for..."

In 2016, we had the following situation: The incumbent (I), whom a number of voters no longer favored, was running for re-election.  Also running were Tracy Truppman, Jenny Johnson-Sardella, Will Tudor, and Dan Samaria.  The incumbent, to the extent that a number of us no longer favored him, was the devil we knew.  And he was such a devil to some of us that we chose the devils we didn't know instead.  If we knew anything about Dan Samaria, because he's around and active, then we chose the devils about whom we knew the very least.

This is certainly a strategy, as long as voters "know what they don't know."  And sometimes, these strategies work out well.  The problem after 2016 was that voters, including some of those who very actively promoted the unknown devils, soon enough figured out what they somehow had managed not to know at the outset.  And they weren't happy about it.  A number of them were very vocal, and publicly so, about how disappointed they were in the new devils.  They went so far as to say they made a mistake, and they regretted the confidence they had and the support they gave.

But they never said if in retrospect, they would conclude that the devil they knew would have been better than the devils they hadn't known.  And this is important.  On the one hand, they might say that the devil they knew was so terrible that it didn't matter who replaced him, or how bad and disappointing those people turned out to be.  In effect, the voters might say that they were in a no win situation, that they were somehow victims of inadequate choice (even though they themselves could have been choices, if they had chosen to run), that as bad as the devils they didn't know turned out to be, they were better than the known devil, and that they were comparatively innocent.

On the other hand, they might look back on 2016, realize they made a mistake, and try to figure out how they made the mistake.  They might wonder what they overlooked, and if there were any clues, or even advice given to them, that they ignored.  If they think they made a mistake, then by definition (the definition of a "mistake"), they would not like to make it again.  And they might have an opportunity either to make another mistake, or avoid one, in about three months from now.

I have no idea who is going to run for Commission on November 3.  Ginny O'Halpin and Dan Samaria will not, because they will be half way through active terms.  Their seats are not available for voters' consideration unless either or both of them resign.  I strongly suspect -- because she publicly said so -- that Roxy Ross is not running for re-election.  She has given no indication that she might change her mind.  Mac Kennedy might or might not run for re-election.  He hasn't said, and I don't know.  Frankly, I hope he does.  But as far as I know, this is undecided.  I have no idea what Will Tudor is doing on the Commission, especially now that his original patrons have quit, and I don't know what he was ever doing on the Commission.  He has contributed nothing, and his only apparent accomplishment is personal, and has nothing to do with the Village: he has stalled off having to follow the Village's Codes.  Because I have no idea what Will is doing on the Commission, or what he was ever doing there, but he ran twice, then I have no idea if he plans to run again.  I hope not, because the Village of Biscayne Park Commission exists to benefit the Village of Biscayne Park, not to benefit Will Tudor, but I really don't know.

I have heard other very weird rumblings, but they are not public, and I have not heard them from the subjects of them.  Another person who comes to mind is Rafael Ciordia, whom the voters rejected as an unknown possible devil.  But they had other choices then, and their other choices were Ginny O'Halpin and Mac Kennedy, both of whom won.  To the extent that Rafael's handicap included that he was not known, he has done nothing to remedy that deficiency.  I advised him, during his campaign and after he lost, to join a board, and create a Village profile for himself, but he did not take my advice.  So, for the same reason he ran before, he might run again.  He remains an unknown devil.  But if only three people run, and he's one of them, then he'll win.

We have to be very careful whom we elect, especially now.  We have created for ourselves very substantial problems because of the decision we made in 2016, and it turns out the decision we made several months ago hasn't helped us.  We've gone from self-focused, autocratic, and vengeful to incompetent.  We seem to reject anyone who would get us going in a better direction.  Unless it would be fair to say that we did not realize Ginny was incompetent, and that Dan would lose his adaptive focus.  And it might be fair to say that.  Hey, we're entitled to guess wrong.  As long as we try to have as much information as is possible for us to get, then we're doing the best we can.

So, let's wish ourselves luck in November, with whoever comes forward to run, and, as the sergeant from Hill Street Blues used to say, "let's be careful out there."

Ah, Art... This Is Why It's Sometimes Hard To Do More Than Connect Dots.

Art,

Early Monday morning, I sent e-mails to Ginny O'Halpin and Dan Samaria.  I titled each one "I Have a Question."

Ginny,

When you proposed to elevate Roseann to interim manager, your theory was that it is the normal protocol here to elevate the Village clerk whenever we need an interim manager.

But when we were ready to consider replacing Krishan as manager, you said you had taken it upon yourself to approach David Hernandez, who was at the time the director of public works, and who was not the Village clerk, to act as interim manager.

So, very recently, you said you think it's our protocol to elevate the Village clerk, but just a few months ago, you apparently had no idea of such a theory, and from then until very, very recently, you stood very firmly behind David, and refused either to question his performance, or begin the process of replacing him with a properly vetted manager.

My question to you is where you got the idea, apparently all of a sudden, that our protocol is to elevate the Village clerk to interim manager, when you apparently never before thought this, and consistently stood behind your original choice, which you now say you think was wrong?  Did someone tell you this (that the protocol is to elevate the Village clerk)?  Who told it to you?  What inquiry did you do to confirm if it was true?  Is there someone on whom you rely for "institutional knowledge" about the Village, since you were never particularly actively involved (you don't come to Commission meetings. etc)?  Who is that?

Fred

And...

Dan,

It is well known among some of us -- and we appreciate it, and congratulate you for it -- that you relied somewhat heavily on certain long time Village residents for insight, guidance, and "institutional knowledge" during your first two years on the Commission.  And I will tell you as an aside that this reliance of yours resulted in very many excellent contributions on your part.

The people on whom you relied most heavily were the Rosses and the Andersons.

But in recent months, you have stopped consulting any of them.  (As an aside, the quality of your contributions has deteriorated dramatically.)

My question is, since you felt a need to consult with a collection of people (Rosses and Andersons, at least) before, and you don't consult with them now, is there someone else with whom you now consult?  Is there someone else on whom you rely for perspective and knowledge?  Who is that person, or those people?

Fred

It's now been a whole day, and I haven't gotten a response of any kind from either Ginny or Dan.  The questions I asked are very easy and straightforward, and neither Ginny nor Dan would have to think hard, or ask anyone else, to know the answers.  You and I have read enough news articles to know there are some people who decline to answer questions from journalists, for example.  In a different kind of setting, there are the people who "take the 5th [Amendment]."  And everyone has a pretty clear sense of what this kind of evasiveness means.

I would much prefer that everyone who knows something say what they know.  And they have their reasons for not doing so.  I would like it if the people who told me what I reported would come forward and say they know it, and how they know it.  But I don't out people if they say they don't want to be outed.  As one of the newspapers under attack for producing "fake news" said, sources are anonymous to the reader, but they're not anonymous to the person who wrote the article.  I do the best I can to check for consistency, and I don't say things on the strength of one potentially unreliable report.

If you still want to dismiss what I say as just a collection of dots I have tortured to connect, you can.

Chief Cook (Will Not Wash Bottles)

This is coming into increasingly clear focus.  More people than I thought appear to know about it.

The Village is currently being run by Milt Hunter.  Milt's mechanism is that he has seduced Ginny O'Halpin, whom he encouraged to run for Commission, and Dan Samaria, whose main advisors used to be the Rosses and the Andersons, to imagine that he's a knowledgeable authority, and to do whatever he says.  Ginny never had any other source of mentoring, and Dan has disengaged from the people who were really knowledgeable, and who really cared.  I don't know if Milt has also seduced Will, or if Will's easy, because he couldn't care less anyway, and he's still under Tracy Truppman's "Roxy Ross is a criminal" thrall, so he just goes along.  But that's how Milt does it.

He gets the Commission to vote any way he wants them to, and from what I've heard at Commission meetings, it appears he doesn't explain to them his reasoning.  Either that, or Ginny and Dan don't understand, or they don't remember.  They just remember what Milt told them to do.  And they do it.  If Milt tells them to elevate and retain David Hernandez, and keep him in an interim position indefinitely, that's what happens.  If David quits, and Milt tells them to substitute Roseann Prado, she's in.

The question anyone might ask is why Milt does this.  And there are few reasons.  First, Milt has always believed, and communicated, that he considers himself a genius who is the only one who knows the real right way to do things.  Have you ever seen his blog?  Every post ends with his little slogan: "Standing Watch."  Like he thinks he's the National Guard, or some kind of savior or something.  I know what you're thinking: am I talking about Milt, or about Tracy Truppman?  It turns out it doesn't matter.  It's the same pathology.  That's probably why Milt, who worked so hard to get Tracy elected, wound up enraged at her.  He was jealous, and resentful.  She had the power he wanted.  Ginny and Dan do what Milt tells them.  Tracy didn't.  I guess she wasn't grateful and beholden to Milt for the help he gave her to get her elected.  He probably thinks he got scammed.  The result is slightly different, though, because Milt only doesn't know what he's doing.  With Tracy, there was an added component of vengeance and destructiveness.  In any event, one person I know summed Milt up this way: "Milt hates anyone who doesn't genuflect at his altar; anyone who doesn't follow the gospel according to Milt."  It's probably just a coincidence that it sounds so religious.

But it goes further.  Milt's crusade is not only to create the Village According to Milt Hunter.  It's also to exact revenge on a couple of people.  It used to be just one: Roxy Ross.  Why does Milt hate Roxy Ross?  Who knows?  I would consider the possibility that Milt knows, but he might not.  I can't imagine he would hate Roxy because she's vastly smarter than he is, and she genuinely cares, and she commits and takes responsibility.  Oh.  I answered my own question sort of thing.  Now, it's also Mac Kennedy, because Mac is functional and goal-directed, he's smart, he's ambitious for the Village, he's hard-working, and he's capable.  And perhaps worst of all, Mac disagrees with what Milt tells his puppets to do.  So maybe I'm not entirely right about Milt.  Maybe there is a small component of vengeance in him, too.

Coming back the pathetic comedy of David Hernandez and now Roseann Prado, it turns out there's a method to this madness.  The goal, as I understand it, is to stretch out the search for a permanent manager until after November, because Roxy Ross won't be a Commissioner any more after November.  The idea is that Milt doesn't want Roxy to have anything to say about a new manager, and no influence over the process.  But really, Milt doesn't have to worry.  His two stooges, and Will Tudor, who's along for the ride, just outvote Roxy, and Mac, anyway.  It's true there was a slip-up, though.  Somehow, the search process began this past week.  There was agreement to post an ad.  Interim manager Roseann, of course, got some things wrong, but these errors were picked up by the Commissioners who were paying attention (no, not Ginny, Dan, or Will), so it's possible the ad will be correct.  And if it is, we'll get some applicants.  Although Roseann is very busy with her three jobs, so she might forget to call publications, to get the ad placed.  But just as with the attempt to hire a permanent Village attorney, Dan Samaria might once again claim there aren't enough applicants, and we should wait longer, like until November.  At least he'll do that if Milt orders him to.  So Milt might get his wish anyway.

It's a weird thing about some people.  In BP, it could be Steve Bernard, or Noah Jacobs, or Tracy Truppman, or Milt Hunter.  But some people are just willing to create a lot of misery and actual destruction, just to be in charge of something, or to draw attention to themselves, or to spite someone.  And we pay for it.

The Adults in the Room

We had two meetings beginning late Thursday afternoon.  The first was supposed to last 1/2 hour, and its purpose was to hire Paul Winkeljohn, who is our finance director, as our interim manager.

The three new amigos couldn't bring themselves to agree to pay Paul the minimum that he already said was required by his employer, and they couldn't agree to allow him to hire and fire Village employees, which is of course an important part of the manager's job.

Paul already said the stated salary was the requirement.  It was foolish to try to haggle.  Besides, the haggling was nonsensical.  It did not take into account any actual consideration about anything.  Dan Samaria thought $1000 a week would be appropriate for a "part time manager," (as if there was any such thing as a part time manager), and Will Tudor thought $1800 a week felt right to him, whatever an amount of money feeling right to Will meant.  It was already established that the former interim manager made more than Paul's company required -- and the amigos had agreed to it, although they clearly had no idea what they had agreed to.  Also, the numbers fantasized by the amigos were not connected to the budget...or to anything.  They were just empty numbers.  Although Ginny O'Halpin eventually slipped, and revealed her strategy: she still wants to hire Village clerk Roseann Prado, who appears to have no relevant skills, and who is said already to require the back-up of the police chief, (so Ginny supported any proposal Paul Winkeljohn's company would not accept).  So even the person who suggested her -- Ginny O'Halpin -- knows Roseann can't do this job.

Which led to some discussion as to whether it would make more sense if the police chief became the interim manager.  This would require the police chief to resign from being the police chief, so he could be the interim manager instead.  He said he's not going to do it, because he has more than enough to do as the police chief, who is also trying to manage the code function, and deal with the coronavirus.

Roseann then chimed in, and she made a very interesting comment.  She said she's already been doing the job of the manager, and she only complained that she's not been recognized for it.  She then clarified that she was doing the job of manager both while David Hernandez was the interim manager, and while Krishan Manners was manager.  This revelation was frankly a real head-scratcher.  Roxy Ross then asked Roseann what were her relevant credentials, and Roseann deflected, saying she doesn't want the job of manager, but was only offering to help out temporarily.

One of the bases of Will Tudor's resistance to hiring Paul Winkeljohn, and giving him the natural and essential power to hire and fire was that the position for which Paul was applying was only interim.  Will didn't "feel comfortable" (again) giving that much power to an interim manager.  In fact, when the matter was brought to light, Will acknowledged that David Hernandez had hired and fired people, and now Will claims he didn't approve.  This is a bit hard to believe since Will was one of the people who refused to find a permanent manager to take over for the interim David, and he never made one complaint about anything David did.

After 75 minutes of this horribly mangled and tortured, and completely nonsensical, 30 minute meeting, I had my next appointment (with someone who actually wanted something), and I had to leave the meeting.  The three amigos didn't listen to Paul Winkeljohn, they seemed unable to think intelligently through any of the issues, and they outvoted Roxy Ross and Mac Kennedy.  There were more children than adults in this room, and they had the run of things.

The next meeting, which promised to be as pathetic as the first one, was about the upcoming taxation rate.  The proposed millage is still 9.7, as it has been for years, despite that the millage in itself has no meaning, and I have no idea who prepared this budget.  It's unimaginable to me it was David Hernandez.  Maybe Roseann Prado will say it was one of the managerial tasks she undertook for the various headless chickens.  Or maybe the amigos simply carried over last year's budget to this year, since they have no idea how to consider a budget.  And I wouldn't even try to guess how long this meeting lasted.

The Gift That Keeps on Taking.

The trauma of Truppman just won't quit.  This afternoon and evening, there was a "virtual" presentation and feedback session regarding plans for 6th Avenue.  FDOT was approached by some Commissioners and the Village manager in 2018, and they were asked to add sidewalks and other renovations to this avenue.  I doubt anyone needs me to do the arithmetic that calculates who were the Commissioners and the manager in 2018.  There was only one Commissioner and no manager during that year.  It was all Tracy Truppman.  One Village resident referred indirectly to Tracy, and used the word "rogue."

FDOT got on the case, in whatever is their way of considering renovations, and they have now submitted a proposal.  The proposal is to add sidewalks, create drainage, and add lighting.  The Village can choose to upgrade the lighting, and if that decision was made, the Village would pay the difference.  That difference was estimated to be about $400K.

In the meantime, various Village residents, especially residents who live on 6th Avenue, came up with their own plan.  They want to reduce 6th Avenue from four lanes to two, and add a bike lane.

FDOT made clear that none of this was going to happen.  What they didn't elaborate was that NE 6th Avenue is a state road -- it's SR 915 -- and it extends for 5.6 miles, from 186th St in North Miami Beach to about 88th St in Miami, where it merges with Biscayne Boulevard.  SR 915 is consistently a four lane road, and no one is going to convert it to a two lane road for the half mile in question.

But before I discuss this matter further, it's important to note not only that there are various practical reasons not to make the proposed and imagined changes, but more importantly, this whole scheme was hatched by one person: Tracy Truppman.  Tracy and almost all of her stooges have resigned, the so-called "manager" has been fired, and his replacement has also resigned.  The reason for all of this is that Village residents mutinied against a Commission and management that was grossly autocratic, and completely detached from what anyone in the Village wanted, as evidenced by things like secretly approaching FDOT (no open Commission discussion, and no workshops) to renovate 6th Avenue.  Without the tyranny of Tracy Truppman, which we rejected and overthrew, there is no 6th Avenue renovation scheme.

Probably no one ever had any idea about anything, and at least some people didn't like it.  A group of 6th Avenue Village residents formed, and they almost all loved the idea that the state wasn't offering (reducing from four lanes to two, widening the two remaining lanes, and adding a bike lane).  What became clear was they all bought properties on 6th Avenue, but they don't like living on 6th Avenue.  Too much traffic, too much speeding, too many accidents, not enough lighting,.  So, why did they buy...?   Well, we're not going to answer that question.  I'm reminded, though, of some mischief former Village resident Steve Bernard made several years back.  When some Village residents who lived very near the public works yard complained about their neighbor (the Village's public works facility, and the broken down garbage trucks, and whatever else), Steve dismissed their complaints saying they knew that facility was there when they bought their properties, and there was no reason they should be complaining.  But it wasn't long after that that Steve, who lived directly across the street from the basketball courts at the park, started complaining about the activity at the courts, wanted the baskets removed, and wanted a cul-de-sac built in front of his house, to end traffic (except his own).  And now, the people who bought properties on 6th Avenue want 6th Avenue reconstructed, so it isn't the same kind of street.  They want it to function like our interior streets, even though they didn't buy properties on those interior streets, and they likely paid less per sq ft for the properties they did buy, because they were on a busy street.  Which they now don't want to be a busy street any more.  Like the people who bought properties very close to the public works facility didn't want the public works facility to be like it was, and Steve Bernard bought a property next to the park and basketball court, which he no longer wanted to be the basketball court.  Where were all these insights when decisions were made about which property to buy?

The fact, as the state representatives made clear, is that the state is not going to change the character of SR 915 for the half mile that it runs through BP.  They're not going to reduce the number of lanes, widen those lanes, add crossing relief, narrow or widen the medians (both were suggested this afternoon/evening) or anything that changes the character of that piece of that road, or the experience of driving on it.  Nor should they.  It's a uniform state road for its 5.6 mile existence.  When we lowered the speed limit from 30 to 25 in the Village, that reduction applied to every street, except SR 915.  The limit there is still 30, and the only thing that changes that, which occurs in North Miami, is a school district, which results in a reduction to 15 mph for certain hours on school days.  There's traffic control on SR 915, at whatever points the state thinks it's needed.  They know what the accident pattern is.

There are many people who, when they want to buy a home for themselves, are very deliberate and insistent on not buying a home on a busy street.  And they won't have any trouble explaining why.  They'd rather pay more to be on a quiet street.  Or even more to be on a cul-de-sac.  Or even more than that to live in a gated community.  These are the choices we all make.  And people who decide they made the wrong choice move.

Nancy Davis, a 6th Avenue resident, told a shocking story.  On two occasions, a car has driven onto her property, and on one of those occasions, the car drove into the structure of her house.  From across the street!  And crossed a median!  No sidewalks or bike paths are going to stop that.  All they'll do is provide room for pedestrians and bicyclists who will get killed.

We live in a funky municipality.  It doesn't have all the bells and whistles other municipalities have.  There are almost no sidewalks, and the lighting is bad.  The streets are narrow.  The houses are somewhat close together.  That's why we pay less than the same property would cost in Miami Shores.  We can't remake SR 915.  It is what it is.  We can patrol it, and give out speeding tickets.  And we do.

If you have an opinion on this matter, feel free to call the moderator of today's session.  (He invited contact.)  His name is Rodolfo Roman, and his phone number is 786-519-7160.  He told this to us a few times.  And his e-mail address is roman@iscprgroup.com.  But he's not going to change anything.  It seemed that the flexibility was that if we wanted, for example, better lighting, but no sidewalks, we could have the state spend the money on the better lights, and not spend on sidewalks.  Or, one of the state people said, in response to a question, if we decide we don't want them to do anything, they won't.  I will say that with conditions changing, it does seem like a good idea to improve drainage, which was part of what the state was offering to do.

Are You Younger Than 65, and Not Busy on November 3?

November 3 is election day this year.  Do yourself a favor, and get a mail-in ballot.  Anyone can, and you don't need a reason.

Do you want to know if the coronavirus will have receded by November 3?  Me, too.  No one knows.  I've had two trips planned to go visit my family in Massachusetts, and I've canceled both of them.  I canceled each trip the day before I was supposed to leave.  It's too crazy, and there's no way to tell if much of anything is safe to do.   So, standing in line with your neighbors, waiting to get into the polling place?  Yeah, maybe.  Or maybe not.

But the plan at this point is that the polls will be "open" for anyone who wants to brave them.

You've voted at the polls.  You've seen the people who register you, and hand you a ballot, and escort you to the machine where you have your ballot processed.  They're not kids, right?  They're more like grandparents.

And grandparents have issues.  Either they have "comorbidities," like high blood pressure, diabetes, or pulmonary disease, or they're just "old."  By "old," we appear to mean over 65.  That population is not recommended to be out in public, exposed to all comers.  So it's unlikely they'll be helping this year.

Instead, the solicitation is for younger people to man the polls.  Even teenagers, or 20-somethings, or older can man them.  They pay you to do it.  How much?  I have no idea.  But if the coronavirus hasn't finished tormenting us, then it's very possible that a lot of people aren't working their normal day jobs, and whatever it pays might be good enough for a day.

If you might be feeling generous, or bored, or patriotic, or whatever it takes to get people to help on election day, you can explore the option.  You go to www.powerthepolls.org/TDS, and you'll find out what the deal is.

Whatever you do, though, please vote.  If you're satisfied with what we've been living through for the past 3 1/2+ years, vote for Donald Trump.  You know, your taxes might have been lower, and you might have experienced less regulation, so what's the problem?  If it hasn't been your cup of tea, your best other option is Joe Biden.  If you can't bear either of them, vote for the Libertarian candidate, or the Green Party candidate, or apparently Kanye West.  Although I think Kanye West's candidacy is a scam, and it's intended to draw off some black voters, so West's preferred candidate, Donald Trump, will have a better chance.  West is thinking that Trump hasn't sabotaged himself quite enough yet, and taking a few voters away from Biden might give Trump another "victory."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If Trump wins again, and if my mother dies, I can't live with people who want this kind of country, and I'm out of here.  I'm planning to move to Jamaica. 

They Should Have Listened to Michael Jordan.

Possible G.O.A.T. (Greatest Of All Time) basketball player Michael Jordan has in retirement gotten into the sneaker business.  When he was asked why he doesn't lend his very powerful voice to Democratic issues, particularly issues about race, he famously and strategically responded "Republicans buy sneakers, too."

A friend told me yesterday about something she saw on Twitter.  A Washington Post article today confirmed it: Winn-Dixie supermarkets are more or less unique in the industry for not requiring shoppers/patrons to wear masks, and they "allow," but do not require, store personnel to wear masks.

I don't do Twitter, but my friend sent me the WaPo article.  Winn-Dixie has about 500 stores in the southeast, which they apparently consider Trump country, and they have decided to placate their primitive redneck customers by not requiring them to engage in communist behaviors, like taking public health precautions such as wearing a face mask in a pandemic.

One quote in the article says "Some customers have taken to social media praising the supermarket chain for 'offering adults (sic) a place to shop without wearing a mask! This is America!  We should have freedom.'"  (Note my "'Live Free or Die' (?)" post a few days ago.)

Another part of the WaPo article includes the opinion of Phil Lempert, editor of supermarketguru.com, who said that the no-mask (required) decision "is a dog whistle of sorts, meant to align with the values and political stance of their customers."  Lempert then went on to say "It's a cheap shot for the chain to get some publicity.  It's one of the stupidest moves I've ever seen a grocery store do.  They are going to be out there by themselves as all other major retailers require masks."

Before I go on, I have to confess that I did not want to rely solely on what my friend told me yesterday.  I don't remember if she said where she heard this, but I thought I should "fact-check" it.  So I called Winn-Dixie to ask if it was true that shoppers are not required to wear masks in the store, and if store personnel are not required to wear them.  I don't know who was the person who answered the phone, but she told me it was not true.  I reported this back to my friend, and she then sent me the WaPo article.  Yeah, it is true.

The other thing my friend "learned" from Twitter yesterday, and which was not addressed in the WaPo article, was that Winn-Dixie had all Goya products on sale.  For the uninitiated, if there are any such people, Donald Trump and his daughter, Ivanka, have been hawking Goya products.  The CEO of Goya is a big Trump supporter.  It's people scratching each other's backs.

To paraphrase Michael Jordan, Democrats buy groceries, too.  And on the surface, it's a stupid idea to alienate those Democrats (or anyone else who cares about his/her own health or the health of others), let alone jeopardize the health of Republican shoppers and Winn-Dixie employees.  But Winn-Dixie is in an uncomfortable position.  Either they require masks, or they don't.  If they don't, they'll alienate anyone who is worried about contracting the coronavirus (which it's hard to imagine doesn't actually include everyone).  If they do require masks, they'll offend the primitive rednecks upon whom they tell themselves they rely for business.  But the "good" news for Winn-Dixie is that they can't lose, if they require masks.  The rednecks can be offended, but there's no other grocery store that won't also require them to wear masks.  So it's not a real, practical, concrete loss to Winn-Dixie, if they require masks.  It's just a lost opportunity to "sound" the dog whistle.  Which is evidently important to them.

I still think they should smarten up, and grow up, and listen to Michael Jordan.

A "Hostile Work Environment"

My mistake.  I was told this past Thursday's Commission meeting lasted 3 1/2 hours.  The video is out, and the meeting only lasted 3:06.

I'm not going to pretend I wasted three hours and six minutes of my life listening to the video of this meeting.  As I already said, two people told me about it, and both made it clear there was a great deal of wasted time.

I do want to address a show that was staged by David Hernandez, Ginny O'Halpin, and Roseann Prado.  The show started with Ginny's noting that it was her understanding that Roseann wanted to read a letter "into the record," proceeded to Roseann's reading of that letter (from David Hernandez), and then moved to David's in person expansion of the same material that was in the letter.  If David was present to speak, and the meeting was recorded, then it's not clear what was the purpose of the letter.  Or vice versa.

The letter began by registering David's complaint that he resigned, because a "hostile work environment" had been created for him, and he seemed to allege it adversely affected his "health."  Both the letter and David's immediately succeeding verbal explanation centered mostly on criticism of Roxy Ross, who David complained spoke very frequently to him, and wanted to know details about what David was doing with respect to various issues, but also included Chuck Ross, who David complained called David's prior employer to "get dirt" on David, and Mac Kennedy, who was said to have written "11,000" e-mails to David in five months, and even me, regarding this blog.  One of David's very specific complaints was that some unnamed Commissioner called him at 7:30 AM, which reportedly led David's alleged "girlfriend" to accuse him of "cheating on" her with the Village.  David lauded Ginny, Will Tudor, and Dan Samaria, who he said were supportive of him.  Ginny followed David's verbal screed by thanking him, and concluded that "due to litigation, there will be no discussion on this matter."  Ginny then recognized Dan, who complained or criticized that "some people have created a toxic work environment, so bad that people would leave."  Ginny did not interrupt Dan from doing precisely what she just said would not be permitted.  Dan specified that we have now lost "two city managers."  Anyone who didn't know the issues might assume that Dan regretted the loss of Krishan Manners, whose "loss" Dan fully supported, and whom Dan is suing for abusing Dan.  I don't know if Dan knows what planet he's on, but I don't.  And Dan's speech was read from a piece of paper, because clearly either Dan or someone else wrote it out in advance.  This was all carefully choreographed.

To be fair to Ginny, unless it's just evidence that she is unable to run a meeting even according to her own rules, she did allow Roxy Ross to present some responses to David.  Roxy challenged that some of David's assertions were "figments," and she offered proof.  Where David claimed Roxy spoke to him every day, Roxy said there were days and sometimes even weeks that she did not speak to him.  She also properly pointed out that speaking to the manager is the job of Commissioners, and particularly in their roles as elected and paid representatives of Village residents, who are their constituents.  The Village manager is not a Commissioner's constituent.  S/he is a Commissioner's employee.  The Commissioner is the manager's boss.

Ginny also allowed Mac to defend himself.  Among other things, Mac pointed out that phone calls that occurred at unusual hours between him and David were initiated by David, not by Mac.  I can only assume that Mac was right, since David also called me at very peculiar hours.  Last week, he called me twice between 10:30 and 11:00 PM -- I did not answer the phone -- and when I asked Commissioners to have a word with him about his telephone habits, he later wrote to me to claim that he was calling to ask me about my solar panels, because he was thinking that solar panels on the recreation building would be a good idea.

Having declared that there would be "no discussion" regarding David's letter and speech, then entertaining discussion from Dan Samaria, Roxy Ross, and Mac Kennedy, Ginny then asked Will Tudor if he had any comments to make.  (Keystone Kops?)  No, he did not.

Then, Ginny proposed to address our new need for an interim manager, and she suggested that it was already established protocol in the Village to elevate the Village clerk if we needed an interim manager.  In fact, we've done that twice, when the clerk was Maria Camara.  So Ginny naturally suggested we elevate Roseann Prado, whom she first referred to as Maria.  What Ginny may not know is that the next to last time we needed an interim manager, we reached out to Krishan Manners, and the last time we needed one, it was Ginny herself who found and recommended David Hernandez.  So, elevating the Village clerk is not a reliable precedent, and we've used it half the time, when the clerk happened to be an extremely capable Village resident.  Ginny also proposed to designate Luis Cabrera as an assistant to the interim manager.  Presumably, if Ginny thought her proposed choice of an interim manager needed an assistant, then she was saying something about her own judgment about the real capability of the interim manager she proposed.

The meeting then moved in a very tortured way to the agenda, which Ginny had been working to defer.  Since the first agenda item was Roxy's, and it was about a proper search for a permanent manager, which is something Ginny had persistently resisted doing, it seems almost inescapable that Ginny was specifically resisting Roxy.  At a time that we might theoretically want the smartest, most level-headed person we could find, with a depth of real "institutional knowledge," Ginny was working to deflect exactly that.

It was at that point, which was after about a half hour, that I stopped watching this tragedy.  If you want to see it, it's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ0GUZHLklg

Since David Hernandez took the added trouble to complain about me and this blog, I will say that I have pointed out his failures, missteps, and shortcomings, all of which were patently evident, and more than that, even if he had been doing a wonderful job, I have urged the Commission to begin the necessary and urgent search for a permanent manager.  This is what we always do in this circumstance.  It is what we must do in this circumstance.  Even if a majority of the Commission thought the world of David, and decided, in the context of a proper search, to hire him as permanent manager, which I pointed out to them was their prerogative, they had to do the proper search.  I make no apologies and no excuses for the positions I took.  And I took them publicly, including in this blog, where anyone, including David or any Commissioner, could respond any way they wanted to.

Dr Hook and the Medicine Show Were Intoxicated. I Was Just Busy.

The Dr Hook and the Medicine Show song was "I Got Stoned, and I Missed It."  For me, it was just long prearranged commitments.

I found out about yesterday's Commission meeting the day before.  I couldn't tune in.  I've heard summaries from two people.  If anyone wants to use this blog to recapitulate the meeting, please feel free.  If you're not already a guest author, let me know, and I'll see that you become one.  Then, you can publish whatever you like.

"Live Free Or Die" (?)

The title of this post is the slogan of New Hampshire.  It's on all their auto license tags.  It's clearly a matter of pride, and independence.

The United States -- "America" -- is like that. The esprit, or even ethos, of the country is thought of as being built on a powerful urge for independence.  Either we're so comparatively close to our own independence revolution that the exuberance hasn't subsided, or many of us have simply decided that we don't want to get over it.  Besides, we've made a career of being independent, and ambitious.  We've even jettisoned our spirit of connection or commitment or certainly obligation to other people.  We're the greatest, most powerful, most productive country.  We feel like we're on a winning horse, and many of us don't want to dismount.

The problem is that we can't see past our own exuberance, or self-inflation.  Nothing, except our own fierce independence, should apply to us.  For the past 3+ years, we've been living a caricature of that philosophy.  It's "America first," and we resign from clubs that include other countries, especially if we have to care what they think, or even more so if they could possibly outvote us about something.

So, how does a country like ours handle something like a worldwide epidemic?  It's not like we can go beat someone up over it, although it's true that gun sales dramatically increased during this pandemic.  Find someone to blame?  Sure!  It's the specialty of our current "leadership."  But then what?

So, we're left with a problem.  The coronavirus doesn't care about politics, and economies, and individual people.  It's a very primitive beast, and it just infects anyone who comes into contact with it.  The only thing anyone can do is don't contract it, and if they do, then don't expose anyone else to it.

And there are available, theoretical, mechanisms to avoid contracting this communicable disease, and to avoid or at least minimize the chance of passing it along to someone else.  And those mechanisms rely on restraint.  People who have come to expect not to be restrained, or not to restrain themselves, may have a problem with this approach.  Some people in this country have antipathy toward "government," because part of what it does is take and restrain, which people who don't like to be restrained resent.  (Curiously, and somewhat unnervingly, there are people who sort of recognize that part of what the government also does is give, but they don't want it to take what it then gives...back.  The best immediate example of this is the people who like getting stimulus checks from the government, but they don't like the idea of paying taxes.)

At the moment, we are at an apex of feelings of independence -- or a nadir of feelings of responsibility to others -- and this leads some of us to resist or criticize the idea of anyone restricting our prerogatives.  The silly caricature is those of us who engage in denial, and want to claim that the current pandemic is either a hoax, exaggerated, or not worthy of our concession, because it's someone else's fault.  But there are more subtle styles of resistance, too.  There's changing the focus, so that some of us propose to reframe the pandemic as an economic problem, because it has economic consequences (we're very proud of our economy), and it allows us to deflect the advice we get (or what we might unhappily experience as the rank that is pulled) from doctors.  Some of us don't like being told what to do, or what we should do, or what's best, for ourselves or even for anyone else.  That's how independent we are.

I should add that I don't know how the general public in other countries behaves, but in this country, it is very common that "patients" arm themselves in advance with whatever they can find online about medical matters.  They protect themselves from the feared superior expertise of doctors.  (If doctors didn't have superior expertise about medical matters, they wouldn't have any value at all.)

What we're left with is a current federal government -- the caricaturish one -- that offers no support, no common sense, no accession to proper experts, and no leadership in a time of crisis.  In some states, like ours, the state government is not one bit better than the federal government.  The only thing that could possibly be worse is a state like Georgia, where the governor has issued an edict that local municipalities cannot require citizens of those localities to wear face masks, even though the wearing of them is the minimal protection anyone can provide.  The governor of Georgia demands that no one can restrain Georgia citizens from jeopardizing themselves and everyone else.  That's how independent we are.

New Hampshire was close when they adopted the slogan "Live Free Or Die."  What they might more properly have said was "Live Free AND Die."  Or "Live Free, THEREFORE Die."

Amazingly, This Is One of My Great Dilemmas.

For the record, because news happens, Dan Keys appears to have succeeded in not participating in a conversation in a way that makes him fully accountable, and when he has everyone's attention.  I suppose there's a message in there somewhere.  Anyway...

The competing theories are "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar," and "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."  I prefer the flies with honey approach, because it's more in my nature, but I absolutely admit that the squeaky wheels often seem more effective.  So, whether or not I like it, I sometimes squeak.  As much as I wish it weren't so, it works.  And as if to make the squeaky wheel approach more palatable, there's also "you have to be cruel to be kind."  That one can be even tougher, because if you want to be kind to someone, then it's hard to be cruel to them.

Anyway, today's news is that David Hernandez has resigned his employment with the Village, effective today.  I'm not at all the only person who put pressure on this situation, but I am without question one of them.

I found out about David's resignation from one of the Commissioners, but David Raymond soon sent out a mass e-mail to announce the same thing.  So, it's common knowledge.

David R pointed out something that bears our attention.  He said that David H's resignation was in some way regrettable, because David H was in fact (as best I know, anyway) a good public works director.  There were two problems.  One was the Peter Principle, and the other was a Commission that refused to do its job.  And that job did not in any way have to be personal to or about David H.  He was impulsively appointed as an interim manager, which always meant before, and should have meant now, that we immediately had to search for a permanent manager, and a majority of the Commission simply refused to do it.  The closest thing I got to an explanation came from Dan Samaria, who said he thought David H was doing a good job.  But I told Dan it wasn't about whether or not David was doing a good job.  It was about the fact that David was our INTERIM manager, and that meant we had to replace him.  Or promote him to permanent manager, if Dan and the rest of that particular majority liked him so much.  But they didn't do either.  They just ignored the matter, "kicked [that particular] can down the road," and refused to function.  And two participants in that majority (Dan and Ginny) will still be in office for two more years this coming November.  When did they think they would deal with this problem?  Never?

I don't know if David H was a good public works director.  I've heard several people, including David R, say he was, and some told stories that raised questions.  But if David H was a good public works director, and since he was willing to do us an INTERIM favor, then I'm sorry we treated him as we did.  We set him up, and we didn't act when he clearly either needed help, or was not performing as the job required.  The majority of the current Commission placed him in the line of fire, did not provide what David needed (which was to be replaced ASAP), and they owe him an apology.

In Defense of Ed Burke. Almost Like Herding Cats.

Three posts ago, I was talking about memorials of various kinds.  I opened with the list of memorials in BP, and I then moved to national memorials.

The issue about the national memorials was that I thought the disputed ones should in fact be eliminated.  They are memorials to people who advocated to preserve the worst behavior in the history of civilization, who wanted to destroy the United States as it then was, by having about half of it secede, and who lost a very destructive war over this.  What, exactly, are we celebrating by having these heroic statues?

Regarding the BP ones, I said two things.  One was that I didn't approve of personal memorials in this neighborhood at all, and the other was that former BP resident/Commissioner/mayor Ed Burke, whose memorial is in some respects the most prominent, was not necessarily an entirely positive influence in BP.  I also pointed out, because I know it to be true, and because I anticipated some blowback, that Dan Keys considers Burke to have been a treasured "mentor" (that's Dan's word for it) to Dan.

The blowback didn't take terribly long to begin, and it sputtered along for a few days.  And leaked into an unrelated comment thread under some other post.  At first, Dan just categorically upheld Burke, and the mystique Dan sustains about him, but he did not express disagreement with any of the particulars I listed.  At one point, I wrote to Dan in a blog comment that it seemed he agreed with everything I said, but he just didn't like the implication.  He didn't respond to that.

Perhaps it's a matter of laziness for me.  And I've been spoiled.  For years, I would get an e-mail from blogspot to let me know there was a new comment, and to which post the comment applied.  But those e-mails mysteriously stopped.  The laziness is that as new posts are created, and new conversations occur, I don't patrol the old posts in a continuing way, to see if there are new comments to which blogspot has stopped alerting me.  I was just browsing this morning, when I happened to look back a post or two, and it seemed to me the number of comments listed was not the same as I thought I remembered.  So I looked to see if I misremembered the number of comments, or, alternatively, if some had been added, and I just didn't know about them.

Yup, it was the latter.  Dan Keys is still going on about how perfectly reasonable Burke was, and how unreasonable I am.  Dan, by the way, has some unexplained antipathy toward me, and he appears unable to stop challenging and criticizing everything I say.

But the point is that it seemed to me that Dan was essentially burying his defense of Burke, by entering comments when it was unlikely anyone would ever know about them.  So no one would challenge them.  For example, in the "Goodbye, Columbus" post, which was where I talked about memorials, and about Burke, Janey Anderson said that my recapitulation about Burke was just how she remembered it, too.  Dan might not know that I am no longer alerted to new comments.  (Or he might not know I ever was.)  But he could certainly assume that Janey wouldn't know about new comments of his.  So I thought, frankly, that what Dan was doing was sneaky and lacking an element of courage, or at least confidence.

So here's today's post.  I would like to treat the comment section as Dan's opportunity to defend and uphold Burke any way he likes.  He can dominate the comment section, and show me, and Janey, and anyone else who may not be enamored of Burke, how wrong we are.

Dan, you're up.

"Gotcha!"

I used this word in Tuesday night's post about the Commission meeting, because it was a word Mac Kennedy used for the foolish antics used by Ginny O'Halpin against Roxy Ross.  And it's probably worth telling a bit more of a story about this interchange.

As a frame of reference, it was in the last Commission meeting, or the one before that, that Roxy thought it was necessary to point out that David Hernandez was supporting the idea of a contract extension for police chief Luis Cabrera, but it was Luis who originally recommended that David apply for a job with the Village, when we decided to reinstate the position of public works manager.  Roxy thought this might represent a basis for some conflict of interest, so to speak, because David was now advocating, if you look at it in a certain way, to repay the person who got him this job, which turned out to be a lot more job than David applied for (and a lot more money), and Roxy referred to this connection between David and Luis as the "elephant in the room."

So, this past Tuesday night, when we were supposedly going to talk about our search for a new permanent attorney, for which we advertised, and for which there were by then four applicants, one of whom was our current interim attorney, Ginny stopped the conversation.  She had some very important questions to ask.  Her questions were structured more like an interrogation than just getting information or clarifying things, and I'm sure this was part of the reason for Mac's characterization: an attempt to say "gotcha!"  And curiously, and presumably symbolically, at the end of her interrogation, Ginny summarized that she was just addressing "the elephant in the room."

Ginny wanted to know if Roxy ever before worked with John Herin outside the Village, and further, if she ever called him for informal advice.

On the one hand, part of this is old news.  When we hired John originally, Roxy spoke positively about him, and she said she had known him for some time, and that they had worked, although entirely separately, at the same law firm X number of years back.  I don't remember if she said his value was proven to her by her possibly having consulted him informally about a thing or two over the years.  She might have said that.

But on the other hand, I know Ginny, a little bit.  Many of us know her, a little bit.  She was always a pleasant and friendly enough person, with a kind of charm, or perhaps cuteness, to her.  But apart from the fact that she is our neighbor, she was never involved in the Village.  She does not come to meetings (and certainly not to a certain meeting maybe a couple of years ago, where Roxy would have said she knew John Herin and could recommend him with confidence).  So the question becomes, how would Ginny even have known about this past connection between Roxy and John?  Who would have primed her with this question?

Not only was this question unimportant at the time it was asked, but it was, as Mac characterized it, aggressive.  It was asked as if the answer would in some way be compromising to Roxy, or to John.  But the reason the question was unimportant at the time it was asked is that we weren't talking about John, or Fox Rothchild, or any of the applicants.  We were supposedly only talking about the fact that we had four applicants, and we were discussing the possibility of arranging to interview them.  And even that was aborted, because Dan Samaria figured a way out of avoiding making even that decision.  And Ginny jumped at the chance to dodge taking responsibility to complete a task.  And Will Tudor realized this was mental heavy lifting he could get out of doing.  So we never discussed any of it.  We'll just readvertise, and see if we can get more applicants.

This nonsense about Roxy and John was misplaced.  But it was on a piece of paper in front of Ginny, and she couldn't restrain herself from trying to "get" Roxy with it.

Clearly, Ginny was trying to give Roxy her comeuppance, for Roxy's having pointed out something a month before about David Hernandez, whose position cannot be other than an embarrassment to Ginny.  And if, somehow, Ginny's not embarrassed, she's at least downwind of a lot of criticism for her failure to start, and to have started months ago, a proper manager search.  Even if David applies, which he might.  And even if Ginny et al decide to hire him for the permanent position, which they might.  And which they can.  I've even told them that.  I've told them that if they're satisfied with David, then do the proper search, and hire David.  At least it then becomes legitimate.  It isn't legitimate now.

But there's still that other question: who put poor Ginny up to this?   Who gave her the toy gun, and told her to try to scare Roxy with it?  I can only assume it's some subversive person who has decided s/he is mad at Roxy for some reason.  And of course, someone with a lot of influence over poor Ginny.

Is This Really How I Spent More Than Four and a Half Hours Tonight?

Tonight's Commission meeting got off to a 20 minute late start.  Most Commissioners were there, and it was never clear what the delay was about.

I don't know what the "technical" problem was, but it was often difficult to hear what various speakers were saying, because it sounded like someone had a radio blaring throughout.  Mac Kennedy eventually said he thought it was coming from his phone, but he didn't know what to do about it.  Later, he said it wasn't coming from him, and Roxy Ross said she thought it was interference from the Administration building.  It stopped after a couple hours or so.

Ginny O'Halpin seems to know progressively less about how to run a meeting.  Discussions about most things are aimless and unfocused.

The "final" auditor's report left more questions than answers.

A discussion about whistleblower protection was endless and without substance.  And Sally Heyman, who I presume got as sick of the conversation as I did, wound up recommending that the matter be deferred, "if you doubt your ability to do it."  Evidently, they did.  They voted it down.

Public comment occurred out of order.  Various Village residents are increasingly frustrated that the Commission refuses to replace the INTERIM manager with a PERMANENT manager.  It might be worth mentioning that not only is the INTERIM manager not doing a number of parts of his job (a few of them were rehashed during tonight's meeting), but he did not attend tonight's meeting.  This is the second meeting he's missed, without reported explanation, out of the past three.

Lots of people are increasingly dissatisfied with WastePro.  We would have asked our INTERIM manager more about this problem, and what he's doing to solicit possible replacements, but he wasn't there.  So we just complained, and circumlocuted.

The supposed discussion of meeting rules and procedures was a complete mystery.  It was never clear what was the purpose of the resolution, or the discussion, and most of the references were fanciful.  This was really not about anything.  And it never went anywhere.

As the meeting deteriorated into squabbles among Commissioners, this discord, or, as Mac Kennedy called it, a game of "gotcha," infected an otherwise uncomplicated discussion of moving forward with attorney recruitment.  Dan Samaria's gambit was to reopen the advertisement for another month.  Dan was concerned that we had "only" four applicants, one of whom is our current interim attorney, and whom we already hired once before, until he disagreed with Tracy Truppman about something, so she fired him.  But Dan wanted more time.  Ginny O'Halpin, who appears to be becoming increasingly hostile, agreed that we should delay.  Will Tudor, who likes to present himself as even-tempered and level-headed, but is angry and biting, also agreed to the delay.  So, whew, we get a reprieve from having to make a decision.

Then, there was more discussion regarding the rogue INTERIM manager, who is thumbing his nose at everyone.  As Roxy Ross pointed out, he doesn't take direction from some Commissioners, most Commissioners, or even all Commissioners.  He relies on the support of three Commissioners who are terrified to have to replace him, as they have to do anyway.  He just does, or doesn't do, whatever he wants.

Frankly, I lost track of the rest of the meeting.  The meeting time was extended twice, my phone was running out of power, and all that seemed to be going on was chit-chat.  So I allowed myself to get distracted.  Why do I think I didn't miss much?

"Good-bye, Columbus"

Here in BP, we have a few historical markers.  I'm talking about identifiers that contain the names of people who were considered to have been important to the Village.

The most prominent of these markers is the conspicuous (enough) sign at the northwest corner of our recreation facility and park, and which indicates the name of the installation: Ed Burke Park.  Ed Burke was a long-time BP resident who was mayor for a stretch of time.  Burke is known (to me) for a few things.  First, that the recreation area is named for him.  Second, that he was mayor for a while.  (And Dan Keys thinks Burke was a wonderful mentor to him.)  Third, I'm told that he ran such authoritative Commission meetings that Village residents didn't bother to come to them.  They just knew that "Mayor Burke" would handle things.  (This is something I was told.  If it's not correct, someone should say so.)  Fourth, that Burke was sort of a one-man Village government, and he would hand out permits informally to people he was satisfied to please.  I'm told (again, please correct me, if this is not true) that it was Burke, more than anyone, who accounts for the existence of front yard walls and other fixtures which are not permitted by our codes.  But, between one thing and another, someone some time decided to name our recreation facility for him.

The other markers are on buildings.  They're at the front door of the recreation center, the east door of the renovated log cabin, and the front/east door of the administration building.  These brass wall markers include the names of whoever was on the Commission when the projects were done.  In full disclosure, as they say, I take this somewhat personally.  My name is on the plaques on the log cabin and the administration building.  Those two projects happened at the same time, and I was on the Commission then.  For what it's worth, I approved of both projects, and I objected to my name being on a plaque.  I thought the projects were worthy and properly done (and necessary).  A majority of the Commission thought that.  But not all Commissioners thought it.  But all five names are there.  By looking at the plaques, you couldn't distinguish a driving force from someone whose single-minded intent was to obstruct.  They're just all there, together, the same.

I voted with the majority to accomplish these projects.  But I didn't pay for them myself.  I was the same as any other BP resident.  And these projects weren't about me.  They were about the Village.  So I asked that my name not be on a plaque.  But the then manager told me there was no way to exclude my name.  I forgot if she said the plaques already existed by the time I requested not to have my name included, of if she gave me some other explanation.  But the answer was no.

In my opinion, no one's name should be given to the recreation facility, or molded into a plaque on a building here.  We don't have to "honor" anyone like that.  If I thought we should, I would think we should honor Roxy and Chuck Ross, who have given an unbelievable amount of themselves, and their time, and their exceptional expertise, and their money, to make the Village better.  I wasn't here in the Mayor Richard Ederr years, but from what I hear, maybe I would think someone should honor him that way.  But really, I think it would be best if we didn't honor anyone.   The Village is not a tribute to certain individuals.  It's a tribute to the residents and taxpayers.  I don't even approve of "Griffing Boulevard."  Arthur Griffing was a real estate speculator.  He made plenty of money by buying and selling BP land.  His name doesn't need to be on our one named street.

Which brings me to the main point of this post.  Right now in this country, there's a debate, or a battle, about memorialized people.  The big commotion is about memorialized people who mistreated other people, or who fought for the system that mistreated other people.  There's been now ongoing sturm und drang about southern/Confederate monuments, and now, the argument is about people like Christopher Columbus.  Advocates of keeping these memorials spin them so that the argument is that they're historically important.  The proposal is that we should own, if not frankly treasure, our history.  And we should do it by keeping statuary.  We should of course keep in mind that the argument is not about photographs of historical figures.  It's about honorary statues.  And names on various things.

We're not the only ones who have some theoretically embarrassing memorials.  When the Soviet Union dissolved, statues of Lenin and Stalin were destroyed.  And few people -- and no Americans -- complained about the disrespect for history.  The same was true after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.  Statues were torn down, and people -- and Americans -- rejoiced.  "Mr Gorbachev," Ronald Reagen challenged, "tear down that [Berlin] wall."  And down it came.  Yay.  A piece of it is on the downtown Miami MDC campus.  One of the third rails of American politics is the prohibition against saying anything positive about Fidel Castro, no matter what he did to help some disadvantaged Cubans.   I don't know if there were ever statues of Hitler, but if there were, there aren't any more.  (Crickets)

I doubt many Russians wish they had the Soviet Union back.  Interestingly, many Iraqis said that Iraq under Hussein was much more orderly and safer before he was overthrown (and not by them).  I don't know if anyone regrets the loss of those statues.  I haven't heard of anyone in the world who wishes the Berlin wall was still there.  The difference here is that we're genuinely not at all on the same page about the Civil War.  There are many Americans who still feel they lost something, and they resent the loss.  For them, Robert E. Lee was and still is a true hero.  And they persist in being racist.  But they're wrong.  And they lost.  And the memorials have to go away.

And I still want my name removed from any plaques in BP.  (Actually, I want the plaques removed.)