"A Walk in the Park"

So, once again, we're getting ready to hire a (real) manager.  It will be our sixth time since 2006.  The non-Commissioner resident committee has been seated, it's had its organizational meeting, and the first meeting at which applications (25, as of last week) will be discussed will be on Friday, September 11, at 6:30 PM.  As far as I know, this is a public meeting, and anyone can watch and listen with Zoom.

For a brief recap (see, I didn't say recapitulation, because I'm keeping this brief), our first manager was a place-holder, while we got our sea legs, manager-wise.  He was not great, and not terrible, and we didn't know how to use a manager.  We figured it out.  Our next three managers were excellent.  The next was a disaster, because he was a ghost manager, and it was really Tracy Truppman, who knew nothing about municipal management, who was running the Village.  Between managers, we had interim managers, as we do now, and two were perfectly adequate (the company we hired between manager #1 and manager #2, and later, Maria Camara twice).  The rest have been terrible.

One subject that has been discussed is manager compensation.  Some of us tell ourselves we have to pay more than we do, if we want top flight management.  And I suggest we stop the conversation for a few minutes, and think about that.  Do we want top flight management?  Do we need top flight management?

In my opinion, managing Biscayne Park, Florida, is a relatively easy gig.  A theory I have propounded before, and to which I continue to adhere, is that managing Biscayne Park is something a minimally trained municipal manager (I've conceptualized it as someone who just graduated from municipal management school, if there is such a thing) could do.  Or, as has happened to us most of the time, it's something a talented and ambitious person with related municipal management skills could do to strengthen a resume, and to show what s/he's got, on the way to that big job s/he has her/his eye on.  The one that pays the much bigger bucks than we do.  Or than we really could.  We give them (the kid out of school, or the person who was never before a full manager) a chance, they give us great service that they can parlay into something better for themselves, and everyone's happy.  And then, we find the next kid, or the next person who has something to prove.

We're sort of a one zone operation.  We're all residential, except our municipal buildings (log cabin, public works building, administration building, and recreation property) and the church.   The church almost gave up the ghost several years ago, but it got itself resurrected.  (Hmm, maybe I'm missing something here.)  But all the rest is 1200 houses, the vast majority of which are single-family.  Some of the people who live in those houses also work in their houses (I do), but there really isn't a commercial component per se.  And there are the municipal properties.  And a bunch of medians.

The work of a manager is mostly paperwork, and keeping everything functioning.  We don't really have big ambitions.  We came close twice, when we wanted to annex some nearby unincorporated county.  But we failed, first because one Commission refused to apply, and then because the next Commission did apply, but the county refused to consider our application.  I guess outsourcing the rest of sanitation (we had already outsourced recycling years before) was a kind of ambition.  It was our then manager's idea, it seemed to many of us like a very good idea, and we did it.  It helped us in several ways, and made some of us unhappy.  But we never undid it.  And we could have.  We could have the ambition of improving our medians, but we have persistently not entertained that possible ambition.

Managing here is relatively easy, especially if the Commission, and the manager, don't want to change anything.  It's been done very well three times for the salary that some of us say can't attract a good manager.  So, the theory is that we can't do something, and the reality is that we have done it repeatedly.

We don't have to pay a lot.  We don't have to have "champagne taste on a beer budget."  And if we try to do that, all we'll do is pay more for what we already have, which will deprive us of money we could spend on things we don't have, like nice medians, better drainage, streets in good repair, better lighting, solar panels, and more public art.

So I say let's ratchet ourselves down a bit, and function like the modest community we are.  It's just not that complicated.

Well, "BrambleWitch," It's Like This.

And for a frame of reference, 1) it's not "my" blog.  I started it, but it's everyone's blog.  2) "BrambleWitch" told us a month or so ago that she believes everyone knows who she really is, and she signed one comment Nancy.

"BrambleWitch"/Nancy sent me an e-mail today.  She wanted to know what my platform is, and she had some specific questions.  I wrote back to tell her that she was more than entitled to know what my platform is, and what I think about Village matters, since I am, you know, running for Commission.  And I added that anyone else should know that about me, too, and that she and everyone else should want to know that about all Commission candidates.  I asked "BrambleWitch"/Nancy if she wanted a private response to a private e-mail, or if I could transfer her e-mail to this blog, and answer openly.  She permitted the latter.

So I'm reprinting the e-mail here, I will respond to it, and I hope the other candidates will do the same.  "BrambleWitch"/Nancy will wind up with three of us, and she'll need to know which three she wants to wind up with.

Hi Fred,

I saw on your blog that you are running for Commissioner and read your summary of what you stand for and what you were involved in during that time.

I am interested in knowing a little more of your thoughts because (just like in the national election) this vote is important to the Village.  In your summary you stated that you wanted progress for Biscayne Park.  I would like to know from you what that actually means.  I think we all want progress for Biscayne Park, but I am sure that what I consider progress is different from what you or Mac might say.  By asking that question, I want to know if your vision of progress includes the “look” of the Village.

I am also interested in your opinion of the FDOT 6th Avenue project.   I believe that 6th avenue is in a unique position as the “main” street in a small town.  I would like to know what you think would be the best decision for Biscayne Park/6th avenue in possibly going forward with the FDOT project.  Would you agree with going forward as already proposed?  Are you interested at all in the 2 lane scenario?  What should 6th avenue look and function like?  What should Biscayne Park look and function like?

Thanks,
Nancy


Nancy,

Thanks for taking an interest.  And I agree with you that what I might want might be different from what someone else might want, even if we both/all refer to "progress."

I listed a number of things in my comment to "Noah."  Some of what I said had a great deal to do with the look of the Village.  I made one comment to "Noah," then realized I should clarify something, so I made a second comment, and I waited to see if "Noah," or "sezzle," would want to discuss further.  Neither appears to have wanted that.  But I did realize I forgot to mention one other specific thing, which has to do with drainage.  Several parts of the Village have drainage problems, and there are a few clusters of Village residents who always bring that to all of our attention.  I do think we should improve drainage -- it's already a problem, and that problem will get worse with a rising water table and gradual encroachment from the ocean and the bay -- and that issue segues into your other questions about 6th Avenue.  By the way, improving drainage is a big and expensive project, and the Village could not possibly do it itself.  This will require state or federal funding.

Anyway, yes, 6th Avenue is "unique" in the Village.  It's not unique in CNMB, CNM, unincorporated county, MSV, and Miami.  In those places, it's just another four lane street.  But here, it's our one and only four lane street.  And it's that way because it's a state road here, north of here, and south of here.  It's a kind of thoroughfare, and it runs through VBP.  You live on 6th Avenue.  Probably all of us drive on it.  We rely on it, because it is what it is.  And the people who come from north of here, and want to get south of here, or vice versa, similarly rely on it, because it is what it is.  (Clearly, I'm telegraphing where I'm going with this.)

So, in answer to your question of what I think would be the best decision regarding 6th Avenue, if it were up to me, which it isn't (it's up to all of us, and the state), I think it should continue to be a four lane road.  That's what it was made to be, for a reason, and that's what it is.  It's what it was when all of us decided to live in BP, and when some of us decided to live on 6th Avenue.  It has the advantages and the disadvantages of four lane roads (where the speed limit is 30, in spite of our wish that all BP streets could have speed limits of 25; and all the rest of them do).  So, no, I'm not personally interested in the two-lane scenario.  BP has nothing but two-lane streets, except 6th Avenue.  Anyone who wants/wanted to live on a two-lane street had lots of choices.

On the other hand, I also wouldn't personally agree with going forward with every facet of the proposed design.  Better lighting and better drainage are great.  I personally am all in on those.  But there is no demonstrated or even imagined need for sidewalks on 6th Avenue in BP.  No one walks on 6th Avenue, anyone who wanted to could walk on the swales, and sidewalks would cut too deeply into the fronts of these properties, even if anyone would use them, which no one will.  But better lighting and better drainage?  Yes!

Any other questions or delving?

Fred

Been There, Done That. Willing to Go Back There, and Do That, Again.

I suppose technically, I ran for Commission in 2013 and 2016.  But I wasn't running for so much as I was running against in those years.  In 2013, Noah Jacobs, and the possibility of Bryan Cooper, had to be displaced, and I ran, hoping to defeat either or both of them.  Bryan didn't run, and Noah lost.  For me, the problem was solved.  The fact is, I came in third, and only a very few votes better than Harvey Bilt, who I thought at the time would have made a good Commissioner.  But I didn't choose to decline my third place victory, so that Harvey could be elected.  I served my three years.  (We had also attached ourselves to the general election, so all Commissioners got an extra year, so we could synchronize.)  I thought we made some important elements of progress for the Village, I was satisfied, and I did not feel a need to run again.  And I said so.  Repeatedly.  And publicly.  Until near the end of the qualifying period, when I saw who was running, and who I thought would most likely win.

So I changed my mind, and I ran again in 2016.  My sole intention was to try to prevent an automatic majority/slate of Tracy Truppman, Jenny Johnson-Sardella, and Will Tudor from being elected.  I didn't work hard enough in that campaign, and I didn't win.  And the Village began to unravel, fast.  First, it was Tracy/Jenny/Will, then it was Tracy/Jenny/Will/Harvey, then it was Tracy/Jenny/Will/Betsy Wise.  It was relentless and destructive.  Harvey served a short term, Betsy, Jenny, and Tracy eventually quit, and only Will remains from that debacle.  It's a complete mystery what Will is doing there.

After the abdications, we were still stuck with Will, but now, we also had Dan Samaria, who had already been there since 2018 (and who had actually been doing a good job, and who should have been an asset), and we had Ginny O'Halpin, Mac Kennedy, and Roxy Ross.  If Dan had not inexplicably gone to some other dimension, and if Ginny had turned out to be competent, we would have had an adaptive Commission.  But that's not what happened.  Dan and Ginny somehow got seduced or hypnotized or something, and the two of them teamed up with Will to keep the Commission maladaptive and nonfunctional.

This coming November, three terms will end, as three terms end every time we have an election.  Will Tudor's term will end, and Mac Kennedy's and Roxy Ross' fill-in terms will end.  And for a while, no one was talking openly about running.  But Art Gonzalez declared an interest, then registered his candidacy, and I have every confidence Mac Kennedy will run for re-election.  That's two.  We need three.

At the beginning of the last week of qualifying, someone told me Judi Hamelburg might decide to run.  The same person told me I should run.  (I never knew this, but apparently, Judi ran for Commission more than 15 years ago, but she didn't win.)  We don't see much of Judi, and when we do, she either talks superfluously, or she quickly works any discussion about anything around to her own personal experience, as if everything was somehow always all about her.  She was also a prominent member of the "Anyone but Fred" crusade in 2016, so she's part of what brought us Tracy, Jenny, and Will.  And I've never heard that she regretted her posture.  So I had my concerns about Judi.  But if she was seriously planning to run, and if she could make herself a creditable Commissioner, then I was prepared to support her.  As with Noah and Bryan, and with Tracy, Jenny, and Will, my main interest was to interrupt a maladaptive dynamic for the Village.  Today, that maladaptive dynamic relies on Ginny and Dan, who have no way to think through issues, and who appear to take direction from Milt Hunter, and Will Tudor, who is grossly uninterested in the Village, and who seems to derive a weird satisfaction from helping the Village flounder.  All of that goes away if Mac gets re-elected, Art gets elected, and one other adaptive person gets on the Commission.  If Judi can be that third adaptive person, great.

So, on Monday, August 17, I sent Judi an e-mail.  I told her I wanted to talk to her about something, and I gave her my phone number.  Judi never responded to the e-mail, and she didn't call me.   This was not a good omen, if my wish was to be reassured that Judi could be adaptive.

On Tuesday, August 18, I picked up a candidate packet.  On Wednesday, I opened a candidate bank account.  And I still didn't hear from Judi.

On Thursday, August 20, William Abreu filed candidacy.  I have no idea who William Abreu is.  I'm told he's Brazilian, very young (possibly under 30), and that he lives off 11th Pl.  The idea that totally uninitiated people can govern an area and constituency seems to be infectious.

Late in the day on Friday, August 21, Will Tudor submitted paperwork to run, again.  It's completely unknown what this is about for Will, but "he's ba-ack."  Or he just won't leave.

So now, we have six candidates for the three seats.  Of those six, two will get four year terms, and the third will get a two year term.

Here's my suggestion.  Mac Kennedy has been an excellent Commissioner, and you should vote for him.  Art Gonzalez has been a dedicated and interested neighbor with very good organizational experience, and you should vote for him, too.

I am steady, goal-oriented, and I have always been good for my motto: "For the Best We Can Be."  I provide stability, no nonsense, and I act as a kind of ballast.  I prevent the ship from getting out of control or tipping over.  I suggest you vote for me.

I cannot suggest you vote for Judi Hamelburg, because she has not shown the kind of even-temperedness and devotion to the Village (that part of it that is outside herself) that is necessary for proper Commission functioning.

I cannot suggest you vote for William Abreu, because I know nothing about him, and he has given no one any reason to assume he is interested in or knowledgeable about the Village.  If he has something to tell us that we don't know, he has some time to do it.

I strongly suggest you not vote for Will Tudor, because he has enabled every bad thing that has happened to the Village since the end of 2016, and he is plainly not interested.

Our Fearless Budgeteers.

Tonight was the second/follow-up budget workshop.  It started with Ginny O'Halpin's proposal (it sounded impulsive and without foundation, as do most of Ginny's contributions) to raise the police chief's salary.  There was mention of a collection of previous salary increases given by David Hernandez.  Which was preceded by salary increases inexplicably given by Tracy Truppman.  Mac Kennedy calculated that the total of the recent and proposed raises for the chief would come to about 21%.

And this is on the basis of nothing, except a separate theory of expectable 5% raises for all Village employees.  The only other theory as to why the police chief should get an exceptional raise is that he's doing part of the manager's job, by taking charge of the Code compliance department.  (Yes, the immediately preceding interim manager also got an inordinately high salary.  This was presumably on the basis of his doing two jobs -- public works director and interim manager -- except it's not entirely clear he was doing either job, at least not well, and he jumped ship with zero notice.  Between recent former Commissioners and the recent interim manager, jumping ship with no notice is becoming a thing around here.)

We also did not change the rate at which we tax ourselves, sticking to a millage that is not rational, because it is not attached to an unchanging property value.  Nor is it connected to Village expenses.  Property values not uncommonly increase, but sometimes, they don't.  Sometimes, they decrease.  Costs more or less always increase.  It's like walking into a restaurant and proposing to spend on your meal 10% of however much money you have in your wallet, without knowing how much you have in your wallet, or how much the meals cost.

The underlying theory, of course, is that all of this has been taken into account by whoever put together the budget, which would normally be the manager.  But we haven't had competent management in BP since early in 2017.  So who knows who put this together.  From the presentation, it sounded like it was our finance director, Paul Winkeljohn.  He's the person we just rejected to be our interim manager.  We need him to be our manager, but we don't want him to be our manager.  Well, a majority of our Commission, or whoever does their thinking for them, doesn't want Paul to be our manager.  We did keep talking about the decisions our next fully credentialed and vetted manager would do, except "we've" worked hard not to have a fully credentialed and vetted manager.  So "we" (the Commission) are struggling to make the decisions a manager should be making, like whether or not we should have an assistant to the clerk, which we might need a lot less if we had a competent and efficient clerk.  But we got our clerk the same way we got our last permanent manager, which was from a mayor who didn't want anyone to be competent, because she wanted mindless underlings.

Another of Ginny's half-cocked and preconceived ideas was apparently her conclusion that we stop funding our lobbyist.  We've had this conversation before, and it seemed that everyone agreed to continue to hire Dave Caserta.  But apparently, someone told Ginny that we didn't really agree.  Ginny called upon her Commission colleagues to agree with her.  She telegraphed her "thinking" that we probably won't be getting state or federal (this has nothing to do with federal) money anyway, for reasons Ginny didn't specify.  Dan Samaria quickly picked up Ginny's message, and he parroted it.  "Unless I'm wrong," Dan qualified.  Well, that covers all the bases.  But Ginny's effort fell apart anyway, because 1) Will Tudor didn't agree, and 2) we have an ongoing contract with Dave Caserta, and it extends for two more years.  Apparently, someone misinformed Ginny.

The other problem with which our Commission struggled is the fact that they have no overriding vision.  Until the siege of Tracy Truppman, BP Commissions had "visioning sessions" at the beginning of each new Commission.  The idea was to form overall themes, or ambitions, for how each Commission would like to handle governing the Village.  A Commission could devote itself to cutting taxes, or improving the recreation facility, or whatever it wanted to do.  This kind of aim makes a lot of difference when the Commissioners have to confront a proposed budget, which either will or won't advance the Commission's vision.  Or, to approach it the other way around, whoever makes the budget can create one with a view toward whatever the Commission intended.  Which no one knows if the Commission never articulates or even forms intentions.  We're left with comments like some tonight, where one or another Commissioner might mention lowering taxes.  And another Commissioner might talk about taking proper care of Village employees.

Feeling around in the dark.  When there are no objects to feel.

Mac Kennedy introduced the small gesture of the Commission's no longer getting a stipend.  Dan Samaria argued that being a Commissioner was to him like a job.  I hope he gets paid a lot more for his day job than he gets from the Village.  Roxy Ross suggested a kind of compromise, where perhaps the Village will reimburse Commissioners for their municipal representative educational activities instead of paying them a stipend.  Ginny snapped back that in his 20 years, Bob Anderson never proposed to eliminate his stipend.  And Roxy Ross didn't propose to eliminate hers.  Ginny was wrong on both counts.  Bob was in fact part of Commissions that lowered their stipends.  The last time was in 2006.  And Roxy just proposed to handle the availability of Village fiscal support for Commissioners as reimbursement, only on condition that Commissioners actually take advantage of learning activities.

It's too bad a three hour meeting feels efficient.  But by comparison...  And with heavy guidance from Paul Winkeljohn, Roxy Ross, Mac Kennedy, and Chuck Ross.

The Road Continues Just as Long and Just as Winding.

Problems were widespread tonight.  They began with the interim manager and whoever else put together the agenda, and established the meeting times.  The first of two meetings was to start at 6:30.  The agenda, aside from inexplicably starting a few minutes late, calling the role, listening to Dan Samaria perform his version of a military/patriotic pledge of allegiance, and trying to figure out why no one could understand Mac Kennedy, included public comment (Ginny kept looking for more), four resolutions, old business (the insignificant matter of searching for an attorney), and various reports.  And then, we added more old business (WastePro, the amicus brief, FDOT, and supposed manager recruitment).  The amount of time allotted for this agenda, which took 3 1/4 hours, was 30 minutes.  Dan Samaria said about one item that this was the first time he was ever able to look at a document, and understand it.  Dan didn't say what he did to help himself this time.  Dan offered another insight for consideration tonight.  Dan was, you know, reading Business Insider today, as he presumably does every day (Business Insider describes itself as a "fast-growing business site with deep financial, media, tech, and other industry verticals" -- certainly sounds like Dan's kind of concern; I assume most one-man exterminators follow Business Insider), and he ran across an article about a suit from a former attorney with Fox Rothchild against the firm, about some unspecified issue that had nothing to do with Fox Rothchild's representation of the Village.  Dan never explained why he thought this was important for the Village to know, but it ate more time.

Regarding the brief discussion of the manager search (22 applicants so far), it is worth noting that neither Ginny O'Halpin nor Will Tudor has any idea what it's like when the Village has a good manager.  Dan Samaria is adrift, but he tends to cling on to Ginny and Will.  So the decision may well be made by people who don't know what they're looking for, or how to find it, and who don't listen to people who know much better and have a purposeful and adaptive focus.  Then, we have the problem of Roseann Prado, Village clerk and interim Village manager, who "feel[s] uncomfortable" seeing if applicants have the minimum requirements that the Commission sets.  Roseann gave no insight as to why she would feel uncomfortable determining if an applicant has a college degree, speaks English, has worked in municipal services for at least five years, or whatever minimum requirements we would set.

FDOT has stopped the 6th Avenue/SR 915 project for now, awaiting consensus from us.  It's been a while since anyone here bothered asking us for consensuses, so it was nice to know we generally matter.

We're pursuing things with WastePro.

The second meeting was scheduled to start at 7:00.  Maybe on some planet, but not this one.  This was the second budget workshop.  This particular group of Commissioners -- at least a majority of them -- couldn't get through this in three months, let alone a couple of hours.  The reason is that they have no idea what they're doing, or what any of this is about.  So this meeting began at 9:55, and lasted until...

During the break, our finance director, Paul Winkeljohn, said that we shouldn't attempt more than a cursory overview at this time of day, because "budget meetings that start at 10:00 don't get much of use done."  By 10:30, I agreed Paul was right.  It's hard to maintain attention for that many hours, especially without the benefit of backup.

As an aside, it was frankly remarkable listening to Paul Winkeljohn present material.  He's clearly knowledgeable, efficient, and goal-oriented.  It continues to be a complete mystery how the majority of the current Commission chose Roseann Prado for interim manager, instead of choosing Paul.  It reminded me exactly of the line about "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." 

I Was Right. Sort Of. Up to a Point. Under Present Conditions.

Some of us have been talking about a possible 6th Avenue...adjustment.  That adjustment can include a few things.  Sixth Avenue is a state road, and it's state road 915.  No change of any kind can be made without the state's full backing, and it is only the state that can perform any work done.  I think maybe the one exception is watering the plants in the median.  We can do that.  But we can't choose, acquire, or install any plants.  Or do anything else at all.  Although we did do one thing several years ago.  It was back in Ana Garcia's time, and she exchanged some old and deteriorating benches for new, modern, and nice ones.  One or two of the new benches are on 6th Avenue.  I don't know if she had to ask the state for permission to do this, or if she just did it.

Anyway, some of our neighbors who live on 6th Avenue had their own ideas about what adjustments they would like.  One preference they communicated, as if they were a unified and possibly even unanimous group, was that they would like 6th Avenue to be a two-lane road, instead of a four-lane road, in BP.  Sixth Avenue (SR 915) is a 5.6 mile road, running from 186th St to about 88th St, and all of it is consistently four lanes (two lanes in each direction).  Some of our neighbors would like about 1/2 mile of that 5.6 mile road -- the 1/2 mile that runs through BP -- to be reduced to two lanes.

Essentially all of our neighbors' concern was what could be summarized as what they experience as a traffic hazard.  It is noteworthy that several years ago (maybe about 2007), the Village lowered the speed limit, which was 30 MPH on all Village roads, to 25 MPH.  That reduction took effect on every road in BP, except 6th Avenue/SR 915.  The state would not allow a reduction in the speed limit on that piece of that road from 30, which it is for the whole 5.6 miles, to 25, for the 1/2 mile in BP.  We asked.  The answer was no.

A couple of weeks or so ago, there was a virtual workshop with state planners regarding the state's plan.  And for a brief recapitulation of what this is all about, as the story goes, it was Harvey Bilt, when he was on the Commission, who took it upon himself to approach the state to request "improvements" to 6th Avenue in BP.  "Improvements" considered included sidewalks, better lighting, and better drainage.  It's a bit bizarre to imagine that Harvey would have reached out entirely independently (since Tracy Truppman was the wholly autocratic dictator of the Village then), and based on no Commission discussion, the state agreed to do an expensive study simply on the strength of one person's/Commissioner's request.  But that's the story we're told, and presumably asked to believe.

Well, as the story further goes, the state did in fact do a study, and it agreed to install sidewalks and improve lighting.  And improve drainage.  Since this was all secretive, it's not possible to know how much of this Harvey/Tracy requested, and how much was the state's idea.  The study reportedly cost the state of Florida $580K.  Right.  I don't get it, either.  At the virtual workshop, we were told a few things.  The state agreed to install sidewalks, although they learned there was essentially no foot traffic.  And they agreed to a certain level of lighting improvement, but they were willing to make an even better improvement, if we would pay the $400K difference.  And they would improve drainage.  Or, we had two options.  One was to decline part of the offer, and ask that the money the state was prepared to spend be used on some other part of the offer.  For example, we could decide we didn't need the sidewalks after all, but we would like the Cadillac-level lighting instead.  So we could get no sidewalks, but best lighting, and not have to spend our own $400K.  The other option was to ask the state to cancel the project altogether.

During this virtual workshop, a few BP residents introduced a request the state never offered, and that was to reduce the caliber of the road (from four lanes to two).  I very distinctly heard the state people repeatedly say that this was out of the question.  And I reiterated that recollection in public comment during the Commission meeting two days ago.  Two of our neighbors, one of whom lives on 6th Avenue, and who was the informal spokesman of the 6th Avenue group, very directly disagreed with me, and said the state did not say that reducing from four lanes to two was out of the question.  The moderator of the workshop also virtually attended our Commission meeting, and spoke, but he never corrected me.  Another of the state people did say something about possibly reconsidering the proposal, if we wanted a reduction in the number of lanes.

So today, I called the moderator.  He had repeatedly invited anyone with questions to call him.  I recapitulated what the issue was, what I very clearly remembered, and what some of our neighbors understood to have been the state's flexibility.  He told me that I was right -- that the state said that in accordance with the study already done, there is no possibility that lane reductions can happen.  The opportunity, though, is that we can request a new study, which will take a few years to get done, and as a result of that study, it is possible the state might be willing to reduce the number of lanes.  Or maybe they won't be willing to do that.  It depends on the study, and on how consistent the state wants to be about the caliber of that particular state road.

The Long and Winding...Tortuous...Meandering...Aimless...Um...The August 4 Commission Meeting

Let me say that there was, in fact, an agenda.  I'm probably in denial, but some people knew better than I did.  Some people said this would be a long meeting.  The agenda didn't suggest that this would happen.  But it did.

For example, the first topic that got a good deal of discussion was Ginny O'Halpin's (or whoever controls Ginny) suggestion that we run meetings according to Robert's Rules of Order.  We sort of already do, and it's the mayor's decision anyway, and this required no discussion.  But it got way too much, followed by a vote.  Dan Samaria clarified and expanded that not only does he think we should use Robert's Rules, but we should even use Robert's Rules of Order.  And then, things got worse.

The entire Consent Agenda was pulled, because every item was wrong.  The Village clerk, who is now the interim manager, cannot properly do the job of Village clerk.

A number of Village residents commented on the first Resolution, which was about the 6th Avenue redesign.  Everyone agreed, even though residents said they disagreed with each other.  Everyone favored some improvement, and everyone wanted further exploration, mostly by workshop.  Will Tudor, who participated in this discussion, at one point said we needed resident workshops.  But he couldn't stop himself from having the Commission discussion everyone agreed we were not ready to have.  Will made one other interesting comment.  He agreed that this process had been mishandled from the start, and was not discussed among residents at large, or by the Commission.  You could almost forget that Will was there, and was part of the Commission that did not ask for public discussion, and enabled the "rogue" Commissioners who started this up without anyone's consent.  Will was then inexplicably ultimately the only "no" vote to delay, seeking more input.  That ended the first two hours.

Then...there was a discussion about whether or not the interim manager can hire and fire people.  This matter was not on the agenda.  What was most interesting is that Dan Samaria and Will Tudor, both of whom were firm that the interim manager should not have the power to hire and fire, also stood in the way of the Village's finding a proper permanent manager.  So these two Commissioners worked to handicap the Village with a manager who was not vetted, did not have the proper qualifications, could not even satisfactorily do her original job, and was not allowed to exercise the duties of the manager.  If Dan and Will could possibly have found more ways to sabotage the Village, it's not clear what they would have been.

And then, they voted, not on the issue they discussed, but on the issue that was on the agenda.  Which had already been agreed to at the last meeting.

The matter of whether or not to pay police officers a 1% increase for duties related to the coronavirus, apart from the fact that it was never defined, was made for people who love to listen to themselves talk.  For 30 minutes.  Without a vote, because no one could actually make any sense of it.  It was delayed.  (Wasn't there a movie about "The Gang That Couldn't Do Anything?"  Or something like that.)

Commissioners then offered their choices for committee members to choose a new manager.  Ginny impulsively appointed Milt Hunter.  No surprise there.  Milt appointed himself.  Mac Kennedy appointed someone unknown to most of us, Roxy Ross appointed Dan Keys, and Dan Samaria appointed Linda Dillon.  Will Tudor didn't get around to picking anyone, but he blamed his neighbors for running meetings that were allegedly intolerable to the people he claims he approached, and who he claims declined.  And that ended the third hour.

As valuable as Mac Kennedy is as a Commissioner, it took him way too long to explain why we should continue ZOOM access to Commission meetings.  And to imagine the caveats.  Listening to Dan Samaria and Ginny O'Halpin talking like computer experts was a bit disorienting.  As Mac correctly pointed out, "this is pretty easy stuff; let's move on."  Which they finally ran out of excuses not to do.

Dan Samaria introduced an item that he intended to focus and shorten meetings.  It's too bad it took so much time to discuss, and was apparently never intended to be resolved.  As Roxy Ross concluded, it was a complete waste of 25 minutes.

Village attorney John Herin arranged a settlement with Tracy Truppman's lawyers, Rebecca Rodriguez and Gray Robinson.  The final payment will be less than 50% of what was billed.  End of hour four.

John found a number of other things to present in his attorney's report.  Tick, tick, tick.  Cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching.  None of it had a clear endpoint.

The rest of the crumbs used up the half hour extension.  And that extension, plus the other four hours, used me up.

Some Say You Get What You Pay For.

Two of our neighbors, in unconnected conversations with me (and one of them made the initial assertion during public comment in a Commission meeting), said the same thing: we can't expect a quality manager for the amount we pay.  One of our neighbors cited as proof that we have had "five managers/interim managers...in just [the past] five years."  Well, that was a manipulation in that five years ago, our manager was Heidi Siegel.  When she resigned, we briefly had Maria Camara as interim manager, followed promptly by Sharon Ragoonan.  So that's three, and it's because Heidi had lost the support of a majority of the Commission, which had nothing to do with the amount of compensation.  A short interim stint was necessary, and it was properly followed by Sharon, who would be our manager today if it were not for Tracy Truppman.  Tracy pushed Sharon out, and then hired Krishan Manners, who was hired because he would not be a good manager, and he was properly dismissed once Tracy was gone.  So none of this was a reflection of what we pay managers.  In fact, Sharon took a considerable salary reduction from her prior job to be our manager.  And Krishan was handed an unexplained bonus (of our money) by Tracy.

I'm not saying we don't pay low on the scale of municipal managers.  We do.  We're a tiny municipality with very limited resources, and we don't pay much for anything.  If anyone wants to argue that we have no business being an independent municipality, then that's a separate argument.  And it's been made, most prominently in the past several years by then Commissioner Bryan Cooper.  But since we haven't agreed with Bryan that we should fold up, and donate ourselves to the County, North Miami, or, according to the quirks of Bryan's fantasy life, Miami Shores, then we still have to do the best we can with what we have.  One of the things we do is find a way to get what we want, like a manager, without paying top dollar.  Or even the common going rate.

We haven't had professional management for very long.  Say what you want about the wisdom, or lack of it, of our way of managing ourselves, but before 2006, each department was "managed" by a Commissioner, who did not necessarily know anything about managing anything.  They were elected, because they charmed their neighbors, not because they were in any sense vetted to have proper managerial qualifications.  Or even abilities.  Is this why Ana Garcia's first task was to lop off large amounts of fat from our public works department, and why the log cabin had to be extensively, and expensively, renovated after many decades of deterioration due to being ignored?  Is it why our version of in-house sanitation services -- apart from recycling, which we had already outsourced to MSV -- included underpaying workers, who were inexplicably devoted to working for us, and ownership of three garbage trucks, one or two of which didn't work, and all of which leaked pools of foul-smelling domestic excrement in the streets?  More than likely so.

We needed professional help, and we all realized it.  A Charter Review Committee recommended that we transition to professional management, the then Commission endorsed the suggestion, and this Charter change was approved by Village voters in 2005.  Our first "search" began promptly.

Since we never before had a manager, and we frankly didn't know the first thing about how to work with one, or even how to find one, someone, presumably on the then Commission, made some calls.  Merritt Stierheim recommended his old friend, Frank Spence, who was then retired, as someone who could get us started.  Frank was never going to do any more than get us started.  Not only was he retired, but he lived up in Palm Beach County, he was busy looking after his very elderly and infirm mother, and he was waiting for her to die, so he could go join his ex-wife and his children in the Pacific northwest.  But he agreed to help us get things going.  I don't know whether it was Frank or someone else (Commissioners, possibly) who chose a salary number.  But we swallowed hard, and agreed to pay it.

Frank wasn't here long, as he promised he wouldn't be, and when he resigned, then Village clerk Maria Camara stepped into the interim responsibility while we found someone else.  We chose whatever qualifications we thought would be about right, and we offered about the same salary we paid Frank.  That was good enough for Ana Garcia, and a number of other applicants.  Ana impressed us all, and we hired her.

Now, about that salary.  We knew it was low.  We weren't kidding ourselves.  It attracted Frank Spence to do us a favor, and that favor would be short term.  Our expectation after Frank was that we would get either someone just coming out of municipal manager school, and needing a first job, or someone with good skills, but who had never before been a full municipal manager.  Their first such job would be with us, and we would be a stepping stone for them.  If we chose properly, we would get a talented person with something to prove, and they would get an important resume entry.  Which they would then parlay into a higher paying job.  They'd stay with us for X number of years.  And setting aside the nonsense Ana put up with from Steve Bernard, Bryan Cooper, Noah Jacobs, and Barbara Watts, which might have been reason enough to leave BP, that's exactly what happened.  Ana took a job paying twice as much just up the road in CNMB.  She helped us a lot when she was here, and her having been here helped her.

So then, it was back to Maria Camara briefly, and onto Heidi Siegel.  Now, it's critically important to restate that we advertised for this position.  We advertised what the job was, what credentials we wanted, and what the salary offer was.  And we got plenty of responses, a good number of them from very impressive-looking applicants.  We worked to reduce the number of applicants to three finalists, and we worked harder to choose one of the three.  Heidi was just like Ana, in that she had worked in various levels of municipal management for a good amount of time, but she had never been a full municipal manager.  That designation is important on a CV.  It's "worth money" to get a job that results in that title.  The person who takes a job like that is trying to go places.  They want that job, and they want to do well there.  Heidi said to us in a public interview of finalists, in response to a direct question on the matter, that she expected to be here for "five or six years."  She knew what Ana knew, and what many applicants like that knew.  This wasn't a forever job.  But it was a good job, and it was a great opportunity.  And we knew that, too.

Heidi was very unfairly blamed for various problems -- mostly cost overruns -- involved with the log cabin renovation and the administration building construction.  She wasn't wrong.  David Coviello, Roxy Ross, and I stood by her through what some Commission meeting attendees experienced as an attempted lynching.  But Heidi lost the devotion of one of us over something unrelated, and when she realized that, she resigned.  So up stepped Maria Camara again.

And again, we advertised, just as we always had.  We said what we wanted, and what we would pay.  And we had lots of applicants.  Sharon Ragoonan was just like Ana and Heidi, in that she'd had loads of great experience, but she'd never been a full manager before.  She took a pay cut to get that opportunity with us.  Had Tracy Truppman not ruined our system, we would have continued along the road to success.  It's not every municipality's style of success, but it's been very successful for us.

So, back to our two neighbors who said we don't pay enough.  One of them quoted a suggestion that we should be paying over twice what we pay.  There are various reasons we can't do that, at least not without a very considerable increase in the level at which we tax ourselves (an increase to which we have persistently been unwilling to commit, for any purposes at all), but this neighbor privately offered me a different scheme.  "A good manager will bring in more than enough money from grants and other leveraged sources to compensate for what we pay them, plus!"  This proposal places the imagined highly paid manager in a position to spend some proportion of his or her time looking for support for his or her own salary.  I'm reminded of the Congresspeople who spend shocking amounts of time on the phone, looking for donors for their next campaign.  This, instead of doing what the voters pay them to do.  A version of this scheme happened at an organization on whose board I sit.  Except it was the other way around.  The founder of the organization got a grant that would specifically pay for a certain kind of help, and the helper engaged was a public relations and fund-raising person.  It's been recent, and we're all under the burden of the coronavirus, and the organization cannot function normally anyway, because it's a performing arts organization, but this new employee has done nothing (yet) that the founder hadn't already been doing.  It's just that he doesn't cost the organization anything, because the grant pays him.  So the point is, I'm not sure this idea from our neighbor is a useful one for us.  And this neighbor is using as a model the neighbor's experience with vastly larger and more complex organizations than is BP.

The other neighbor took a different view of the situation: "I am really disappointed in the state of things in BP, and I have been for a long time...I feel that the promise of professional management that was made to the voters who upheld the Charter change so many years ago has been broken.  We really have not had professional management in quite some time.  I don't think we'll get it, either...Not with the salary we pay."  This is a curious statement, particularly with the reference to our not having had professional management "in quite some time."  This suggests that in our neighbor's memory and experience of it, there was a time that the neighbor felt we did have professional management.  At least so that it satisfied this neighbor.  The neighbor did not specify which of our professional managers was considered satisfactory.  Also, there's the final reference to salary.  But since we've paid essentially the same salary to all of our managers, then salary was apparently not the determining factor to who was considered satisfactory.  We've paid the most to our worst managers (Krishan Manners and David Hernandez).  We have some flexibility.

The theory, then, from at least two of our neighbors, is that we can't have good management unless we pay much more than we do.  But it's not true.  Not only is the theory wrong, but it's not even our actual experience.  We've had very good management (Ana, Heidi, and at least the promise of Sharon).  And lots of choice.  It's just that we can't expect anyone to stay for decades.  We trade longevity, or perhaps, as some might look at it, stability, for much lower cost.  But the same neighbor who said a higher paid manager could scare up his own salary also complained that without that kind of basis for stability, we would continue to suffer burnout, among all of our staff.  Except we never have.  No one has ever left here because of burnout, unless Ana Garcia secretly did.  But that was our fault for mistreating her, not because we didn't pay her enough.  We do fine, when we have adaptive Commissions.  For the past three and a half years, we've had breathtakingly maladaptive Commissions.  We still do, but that can change.  In November.