While (some of) the country wrests with election drama, our local results were official on election night and our new Fab Five Commission starts its term this Tuesday with the swearing-in of three commissioners (two new: Art Gonzalez and Judi Hamelburg; and one incumbent: me) followed by our first official meeting. The agenda is up (link below), and I’d like to say a few things about the election and provide a preview of the meeting, which will include a few important and other oddly interesting items. (Spoiler Alert: This might be my last post on Nextdoor and this blog if one of my fellow commissioners has his way.) At the end, please read my “call to action” to all residents.
Since the election, the current commission has held four meetings on timely topics that included the hiring of a village manager who starts on December 1. During that flurry of activity and since, I’ve had time to reflect on the election results, and I want to let you know that I heard this village loud and clear during the campaign and in the overwhelming victory you handed me. Not only did I get about 50% more votes than either of the other two fine folks who also got elected, but based on what I’ve been told I also got more votes than any commission ever, or at least since our election cycle was changed to coincide with regular elections. The results were shocking to me, and I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that I was humbled to the point of tears on election night when my husband, Dan, and I sat on the sofa in our jammies and stared at my vote count on my phone. If that sounds akin to claims about inauguration crowd sizes, rest assured I don’t take the results as a "Mac Mandate." While BP voted me into my first full term by a landslide margin (must have been those flowers, Dan’s idea!), I don’t see a lovefest for me when I look at the numbers. Rather, I see a mandate about how residents expect commissioners to function: demonstrating passion for the position, being highly prepared and productive, and engaging with residents—actively reaching out to them rather than passively waiting for an email. I believe that’s how all elected officials should function anywhere but particularly here in our village of ¾ square mile with only 3,300 residents who entrust the commission with their collective quality of life and financial investment (the largest investment for many). Here’s how I know the election results are a numerical representation of those expectations rather than of me personally. Because I listened to you. I listened while serving a fill-in term that started in January and even more so while campaigning the past few months. We walked dogs together, and we met at the Plant Swap. We chatted on front porches and in front yards, and you kept me company while I pulled weeds in my front butterfly garden. We power-walked in the morning together and strolled after dinner. We emailed and texted and blogged and Whats App’d and sent messages through Nextdoor after you read my door hanger. I met your kids (one of whom seriously grilled me on hot topics) and snitched plant clippings from your yards. Those meetings weren’t all sunshine and rainbows, I can assure you! You challenged me on my current positions and read me the riot act about things this village hasn’t even touched. You pushed back on my personal style and told me to stop trying so damned hard. Some of you even told me you agree with me on basically nothing but would hold your nose and vote for me because of my passion for BP, our “Oasis in the Heart of Miami,” and for the high level of productivity that I demonstrate and expect from the full commission. So, BP, I heard you—loud and clear. You didn’t vote for me nearly as much as you voted for the potential of our village and for a passionate and productive commission to head us there. That’s what I promised in January for my first little fill-in term, and that’s what I promise again for the next four years. Please hold me to it. Hold the entire commission to that. Which leads me to the agenda for our first meeting on Tuesday after Art, Judi and I get sworn into office and take our seats on the commission alongside Dan and Ginny. Each new commission of five electeds has one opportunity to wipe the slate clean of past patterns and set its own fresh tone. Soon enough, we’ll be wrangling over issues and figuring out ways to compromise. But on Tuesday, I’m asking this new group to agree to a Statement of Principles, my agenda item #13a, in the interest of community-building for residents. These are non-binding and completely unenforceable, but a group of smart, caring commissioners should certainly be able to agree on overriding principles to guide us in our work. I’ll let you read my complete item if you like, but here are the main points: 1. We promise to actively engage with residents. 2. We promise to do our homework and bring fresh ideas to the commission. 3. We promise to act independently rather than “politically” in little factions. In contrast, you’ll also see item #11c (an actual “resolution,” which becomes binding after a commission vote) from Commissioner Dan Samaria with a title about “meeting procedures.” His explanation doesn’t have anything to do with commission meetings (perhaps that’s an error he’ll correct before the meeting), but he is asking the commission to discuss how I personally engage with residents on Nextdoor (and presumable on this blog and elsewhere). I’m not clear, based on Dan’s limited explanation, why he sees that as a problem or how a “resolution” to control my social media posts would even be legal (free speech and all that), but he does take specific umbrage at my reports on Nextdoor. (Dan’s certainly able to engage here if he chooses. I think he has a membership, and I think Ginny does too. I see Art and Judi on here rather frequently, which I hope doesn’t change.) In that resolution, Dan also wants to prevent commissioners from speaking to the attorney directly, which is provided for in our Charter. Part of our job IS to engage with the attorney outside of meetings to help us perform better at the meetings. I honestly don’t know what that’s all about, but I’m sure Dan will explain. I only hope this proposed resolution doesn’t introduce turmoil into a new commission before we even charge out of the gate. At this juncture with a new commission and a new manager all starting at the same time, we are primed for success. My unifying “Statement of Principles” falls farther down the agenda after Dan’s resolution. Finally, here’s a call to action to all residents before the meeting at 7p Tuesday. In addition to some “real” business (manager contract, FDOT/6th, FAA and those damned planes) and some soft stuff (new and improved holiday decorating contest!), this new commission will be tasked with selecting a mayor from among this group. The five new commissioners alone vote for a mayor. In addition to being a fully contributing commissioner, the mayor signs stuff and has some ceremonial duties—but s/he does run the commission meetings (hopefully in a fluid fashion) and has a responsibility to manage conversations and draw out the best from each commissioner, thereby setting the tone and regulating the productivity of the commission. The mayor does not relinquish commissioner responsibilities. Here in BP, residents don’t select the mayor directly, but you certainly have a voice in that important matter. Unfortunately, public comment falls on the agenda AFTER the mayoral selection, but you can communicate with commissioners prior to the meeting to share your opinions on who you think should helm the group for the next two years and why. I’ve listed our email addresses below. I, for one, look forward to hearing your opinion. I’m also available by phone today and Monday evening (305.213.5139), and I’ll be whacking at some gardens if you want to stop by and chat today. (To those who think the commissioner with the most votes “should” be mayor, please understand that’s not how things are decided per our Charter. While my election margin is significant, I’m not “owed” anything other than one of the five seats on the commission for the next four years. I will very passionately serve as mayor if the commission selects me, but let’s not fall back on tradition to fill that important role. I don’t play the “that’s how we’ve always done it” game.) Again, thanks, neighbors, for your votes of confidence for my passion and productivity as commissioner in BP. I see nothing but potential here in our “Oasis in the Heart of Miami,” and I promise to remain engaged with you in the coming years as we work as a community to achieve our potential. I look forward to working alongside Art, Dan, Ginny, and Judi and to help our new manager, Mario, execute our collective plan for success. Cheers to all the change in BP and nationwide! PS: On election day, I passed out packets of milkweed seeds to folks at the polls. Milkweed is so easy to grow (“weed”), and it attracts butterflies to your yard and provides a nursery for caterpillars, thereby promoting an ongoing circle of butterfly life! I have a whole bunch left over. Hit me up—I’m happy to share. Mac. Commissioner email addresses*, (alpha by first name): Art Gonzalez: usaart@yahoo.com Dan Samaria: dsamaria@biscayneparkfl.gov Ginny O’Halpin: vohalpin@biscayneparkfl.gov Judi Hamelburg: judisue@bellsouth.net MacDonald Kennedy: mkennedy@biscayneparkfl.gov *(Not sure if Art/Judi’s village emails are activated so I listed the emails from their online election paperwork.) https://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/index.asp?SEC=A482E78D-C7CA-4E86-BD0D-AA20BD7CDAEB&DE=606C5A23-53CC-492D-A9AE-C96D452B9AB3&Type=B_EV
Mac,
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome.
Poor Dan Samaria. He doesn't seem to know in what direction to say his pledge of allegiance, or with whom he should do battle. He seems now to have aligned himself with the ghosts of Tracy Truppman, Jenny Johnson-Sardella, and Will Tudor, who, with Betsy Wise and some special assistants, tried hard to get him thrown out the Village (and finished the process of getting him thrown out of his house), and he now wants (in their honor) meeting protocol. As if the Village never before had meeting protocol. And now he doesn't want individual Commissioners communicating separartely with the Village attorney, a practice Tracy Truppman used liberally when she was trying to disappear him. Does he think he can punish her now?
The fact is, and always has been (we'll come to that shortly), that each of the five Commissioners does not normally, and should not, communicate with the Village attorney. "Talk is [not] cheap," and having the same conversation five times is expensive. It also allows for a given Commissioner to massage a certain conversation out of the Village attorney, or remember it in a way the attorney may not remember it. What works best is if matters are discussed openly among the Commission in its meetings, and then, the attorney is asked for the relevant angle or advice. Or five Commissioners all have the same question or concern conveyed to the manager, and the manager has one conversation to ask the question of the attorney.
As for your other reminder, and it's certainly not at all the first time you've said it, that the fact of precedent doesn't have to imply that a practice can't be changed, of course you're right about that. But you should take it as a message that over time, and maybe over a long period of time, successions of groups of Commissioners have done things a certain way. At the very least, you should wonder why that appears always to have worked, and what stopped anyone from doing it any other way. No offense, but if you don't do that, you might be overlooking something. Do you want to find out what your mistake was after you already made it? And a mistake that successions of other people could have told you to be careful not to make?
So, thank you again for being the part of the Village you've been since you and Dan moved here. Thanks for filling in since January. Thanks for the great job you tried to do. Thanks for your big victory two weeks ago. Thanks for what I have every confidence will be the great job you'll try to do for the next four years. And that depends on whether or not you get enough support from your colleagues. If you don't, it will have been our failure not to have given you better colleagues.
Fred
I never said I wouldn't consider how things were done before. But, I don't fall into patterns "just because." Any group can point to things they did wrong for a long time, too ... or at least didn't do as well as they might have.
ReplyDeleteFred, maybe I missed your point
ReplyDeleteamongst your eloquence, but in my opinion, if a commissioner wants or needs to speak to the attorney, then he or she must have the right to do so. As I understand it, the contract with the attorney is a flat fee inclusive of communication with the members of the commission, so thanks to that intelligent recently made change, we should not see the huge charges we saw in the past. The attorney access privilege should not be abused, but sometimes you need to find out if what you are proposing (let’s say a crazy proposal that tries to muzzle the primary social network communication of any given commissioner in violation of their constitutional rights) is legal, before you propose it. To limit attorney communication solely to between the manager and the attorney, would circumvent the partial intent of the Charter to provide for a separation of powers between the manager and the commission.
I think that that for four out of the five opportunities that I had to to vote for a mayor as a member of the commission, the choice was crystal clear. It is just as clear to me that Mac would make a great mayor based on, but not solely based on his hard work, preparation and actual engagement with the residents. The commission as a whole should
recognize this and I hope that they do for the good of the Village.
Oh, Dan. I didn't produce any eloquence. I just gave my opinion.
DeleteI'm aware that our current/new lawyers said they would provide service on a flat fee, but I wouldn't trust that to hold up.
The fact is that I have no problem with some of our past, and current, Commissioners checking in with the attorney. Whatever time Roxy Ross spent talking directly to the attorney was time very well spent. But I have a huge problem with it if it's Steve Bernard, or Tracy Truppman. Someone needs to control this.
As for who should be the mayor, I evaluate it backwards: who shouldn't be the mayor. Ginny has proven she shouldn't. Dan Samaria seems like an obvious choice not to be the mayor. I think someone will need to control Judi's output, so I don't see her controlling anything. I really don't know Art's functioning in a work group well enough to know, which may be the strongest indicator about Art. He might make a great mayor, but I'd like to see him work a bit before I think I would know that. Mac has made and will continue to make a great Commissioner, and if he can rein himself in, which he mostly doesn't do, then he's the guy.
Fred, you can’t provide access for one commissioner and not the others. We have the opportunity every 2 or 4 years to control commission members that don’t control themselves. I actually hope that commissioners take advantage of attorney access. It’s a great opportunity to learn.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you can't control them all is why I say none of them should have individual access to the lawyer. I would much rather deprive Roxy Ross of access than to permit it to Tracy Truppman. Tracy did a lot of damage around here, and her unrestricted access to Rebecca Rodriguez is what allowed her to do it.
DeleteThere's no reason all Commissioners can't learn together -- and we can learn with them -- during Commission meetings.
Deprive one of needed legal advice and guidance because others use the service too much
ReplyDelete(in your opinion)? I don’t think so. The alleged excessive use is the price of doing good government.
I never suggested depriving anyone of anything. I suggested controlling access so that it is shared and understood by everyone. At our times, especially the recent ones, of "alleged" excessive use resulted in horrible government, not good government.
DeleteI don’t have a copy of our charter under my nose at this moment, but it reads as something along the lines of “the attorney serves the village officers.” That would include the commissioners. It does not say the commission as a body… It speaks of officers separately as individuals. During my short term as Commissioner I have worked with three different village attorneys, all of whom made it abundantly clear to me that I can and should be communicating with them directly outside of meetings, particularly in preparation for those meetings. In my ridiculously silly little orientation as a new commissioner under our former manager (“Here’s a binder, good luck!”), I was told that the only two people I should be talking to directly outside of meetings are the manager and the attorney. The topic really isn’t up for debate. Its provided for in our charter.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is no law against a Commissioner's, or each and every Commissioner's, spending all day, every day, on the phone with the Village lawyer. We can have another Tracy Truppman, or two of them, or five of them. And there's no lawyer in the world who won't encourage that kind of use of attorney time (and billable hours).
DeleteThe questions are whether or not this is necessary, whether or not it's efficient, and, as Dan suggests, whether or not it leads to what he calls "good government."
Here you go:
ReplyDeleteSection 3.02. - Village Attorney
blah blah blah .... "The attorney shall act as the legal advisor to, and attorney and counselor for, the Village and all of its officers in matters relating to their official duties...." more blah blah blah.
So, "the Village" means admin and the Commission as a body (during public meetings), while "officers," I have been told, means the individual commissioners in terms of official village business only. In the Charter, the only place I see the word "officer" used to describe anyone is in the section about the manager. But I have been told by a former manager (when he was still manager) and by all three law firms representing the village that "officers" includes the individual commissioners outside of public meetings. The attorneys have all made it abundantly clear that commissioners ARE to work with them directly for village business. (That would only make sense if you wanted any checks/balances between the manager and commission, particularly considering if any of them were going "rogue," which we've experienced.) Now, once we have a "real" manager in place, the commissioners will have someone else to lean on. The current commission hasn't had that since February. Today, we are paying the attorney a flat fee, but he does get copied on a crazy number of emails that seem to have nothing to do with his work. Those don't come from me, but I'm a cc on many of them, too, and I wonder why his inbox is being filled with them for no apparent reason. Hopefully, that will also stop when our manager starts on December 1.
As I said, yes, any lawyer in the world will encourage as much contact as anyone wants. "Feel 'free.'" "Call me for anything." "And that goes for all of you."
DeleteYou want "checks and balances" against whom? A "rogue" manager, or a rogue Commissioner? When a Commissioner/mayor goes rogue, and his or her colleagues don't intervene, and neither does the Village attorney, and the only Commissioner to complain is singled out for extrusion, then there are no checks and balances. The theoretical protection -- thinking back not more than several months or a year ago -- is a proper attorney. And a proper manager. If you accomplish hirings like that, then all five of you, or even any of you, don't have to be in private contact with the attorney. And if you don't accomplish hirings like that, then private contact is toxic and corrosive. And very expensive.
I appreciate anything Rox ever did, or any conversation with an attorney she ever had, because I know it was in the interest of the Village. I trust her. But when Tracy was cooking up this scheme to get Samaria thrown off the Commission, and consulting Rebecca about how to accomplish this, and how they would rope Krishan in as the name on the piece of paper, wouldn't you prefer that conversation had occurred in public, in front of all of us? Maybe it's because my personal politics are liberal, but when I see a big problem, I would rather make a rule to stop or prevent it, instead of assuming it will just sort of work its way out, given enough time and re-equilibrating. And shrugging my shoulders, and saying "hey, shit happens, and it's all in the service of liberty." No, I'd rather that problem not happen again. "Fool me once..." kind of thing.
Fred, Fred, Fred, so, in your world, Rox as a new commissioner (I think actually Mayor), would not have had the growing experience afforded by the contact she had with the attorney at the time. Bad government. So, you think that any commissioner with nefarious intent would not continue in their ways if deprived of access to the attorney by a resolution? An attorney in cahoots with such nefariousness would likely provide the advice for free if it meant that he or she would otherwise remain as the attorney.
ReplyDeleteJust give this up Fred. You are wrong. I know you don’t like to hear that, but you are wrong. It’s not the first time either!
Dan,
DeleteThere are a few ways to respond to you. Let me begin by saying we were introduced to a new problem we had never before had, one we hadn't anticipated, and we have to figure out what to do about it. We could ignore it, and hope it doesn't happen again. Or we could say, as it seems you're saying, that the good (of new Commissioner/Mayor Rox having a growth experience, which I assume you're also saying she couldn't reasonably have gotten any other way) outweighs the bad. My scales don't show that, but it seems that at least rhetorically, yours do. The point is that I would be willing to sacrifice the good it did Rox, and the rest of us, to prevent the bad it did to all of us later.
Of course someone with nefarious intent can find ways to make mischief, and do damage. So we should just let them have at it, because they'll do something one way or another anyway?
I wonder if you adopt the same philosophy about all kinds of problems. Let's take, for example, traffic control. People speed, and run signs and lights, and drink, etc, anyway. So why legislate against this kind behavior? Why bother with signs and lights? And we have an issue right now that might allow you to take this approach. As you must know, we have neighbors who live on 6th Avenue, and have discovered problems, and now want the rules changed to address those problems. Are you laissez-faire about that, too?
Finally, Dan, are you really telling me I'm wrong? Don't you think I'm very well aware of how wrong I am? And, by extension, how right you are? My barometer for detecting when I'm wrong is when I don't agree with you. So thanks, again, and as always, for setting me straight. You know it isn't easy for me, and I'll probably need ongoing reminders from you. But be patient with me.
Fred
Fred, in your traffic analogy, the more correct comparison to the proposed attorney situation would be to outlaw driving because people speed.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking of you and your argument, Dan. I thought your philosophy was not to make rules for people, so they could do whatever they want. They can learn from it. And besides, maybe it's all for the good.
DeleteI apologize if I misunderstood you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe revolving doors of Biscayne Park until this commission is totally dismantled by the governor this is only gonna get worse this new manager will probably only last between 120 days maximum before he quits or gets fired Biscayne Park residents need to group together and dismantle the entire commission all of them including the mayor the governor needs to step in and clean this up it’s only getting worse !!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteWe’re exchanging the rosses for the Kennedys it’s a sad day Biscayne Park residence What a waste of Biscayne Park funds with this new crew It only gets worse going on six years now I’ve been watching Year after year it gets worse and worse
ReplyDelete