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.