Elaine Rinaldi's Got a Great Afternoon Planned For You! If You Think You Have Something Better to Do This Coming Sunday, November 6, Let Me Suggest You Don't.

 

Orchestra Miami celebrates a Miami Musical Legend

Discover Miami Through Music: The Miami Woman’s Club

As the only major metropolitan city founded by a woman, Miami is not lacking for strong female figures. Orchestra Miami’s next concert will honor an important female-run organization which laid the groundwork for many of the City’s important civic and social development, as well as a pioneering musician who composed hundreds of pieces, including operas, ballets, vocal works, chamber music and piano pieces. Discover Miami Through Music brings a special concert to the newly-renovated Miami Woman’s Club on Biscayne Bay, where we will celebrate and discover the music of one of Miami’s musical pioneers, composer Mana-Zucca.

On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4 PM, Orchestra Miami will celebrate the legacy of Mana-Zucca, a legend in Miami’s music circles and a pioneering composer. Prior to moving to Miami, Mana-Zucca was a celebrated concert pianist and singer who performed leading roles in musical comedies. After her move to Miami, she became a prolific composer, composing over 400 works, and holding weekly musicales in her home "Mazica Hall”. She was also the teacher of Miami born concert pianist and pioneer Ruth Greenfield, whom Orchestra Miami will honor at the concert.

The Miami Woman’s Club was founded as The Married Ladies' Afternoon Club in 1900, just four years after Miami was incorporated. With help from oil-and-railroad magnate Henry Flagler, it quickly became "the intellectual powerhouse behind Miami," says historian Paul George. It has been indispensable in the social and educational development of our city, and has maintained an impressive record of service to South Florida. The Miami Woman’s Club established the City’s first library and is credited with founding the present public library system. The Miami Woman’s Club also founded the Travelers Aid Society, organized the Dade County Blood Bank and began the City Curb Market. Members pushed for public parks when developers threatened to devour the city and advocated for schools when education was a low priority. Their newly renovated home was designed in 1925 by August Geiger, one of the most prominent American architects in South Florida at the time, and had its grand opening in 1926 as the Flagler Memorial Library and Women’s Club. The building was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1974.

Born Gizella Zuccamanof (later Zuccaman) on Christmas Day, 1891 to Polish immigrants, Mana-Zucca changed her name to simplify her stage life. She was a piano prodigy, composer, actress, and one of the most recognizable faces from numerous ad campaigns. According to Florida International University, which is the holder of her archives, Mana-Zucca was one of the most photographed women of her time. When she was eight, Mana-Zucca made her debut with the New York Symphony Orchestra (the former rival to the New York Philharmonic), playing Beethoven’s first piano concerto. In 1914, she made her stage debut with a soprano role in Franz Lehár’s The Count of Luxembourg. She studied piano under Ferruccio Busoni, Leopold Godowsky, and Alexander Lambert, and composition under Hermann Spielter.

When she was a teenager, she and her sister Beatrice sailed across the Atlantic and eventually settled in Berlin, where her performances were very popular. She teamed up with Spanish violinist Juan Manon, eventually signing a contract to play sixty concerts with him over a three-year period in Germany and Russia. After her stint in Europe, Mana-Zucca returned to the United States, eloping with Irwin M. Cassel. The couple split time between her home in New York City and his in Miami, Florida. After the birth of their first and only child in 1926, they put down permanent roots in Miami. In the 1930s and '40s, Mana-Zucca reigned as Miami's grand dame of music. She and her husband hosted musical luminaries at Saturday Musicales in Mazica Hall, their stately stucco home on 17th Street near Biscayne Bay.

“I remember going to her house as a child to perform for Mana-Zucca” said Orchestra Miami’s Artistic Director Elaine Rinaldi. “We were assigned several of her piano pieces to perform in the annual Guild music exams. It was a real honor to be asked to go to her house to perform.” Rinaldi said that she also remembers taking her Guild auditions at the Miami Woman’s Club. She added, “Bringing Mana-Zucca’s rarely performed music to the Miami Woman’s Club really feels like coming home”.

The November 6^th program includes many rarely-performed gems, including the Tocccata for Vioin & Piano, Sonata for Cello & Piano, Op. 223, Hakinoh for Violin & Piano, Op. 186, Ballade et Caprice for Cello & Piano, Op. 28, Fisherman's Wharf for Violin & Piano, Op 228, Trio for Violin, Cello & Piano, Op.40, Rachem for Voice & Piano and her most famous composition, I Love Life, which was widely recorded.

The performers include Orchestra Miami principal Cellist Aaron Merritt, Violinist Karen Lord-Powell, baritone Philip Kalmanovitch, and Orchestra Miami's Artistic Director Elaine Rinaldi on the piano. Tickets are priced at just $30 General Admission for Adults, $25 for Seniors over 65 and $5 for Students with ID. The Miami Woman's Club has valet parking only available for $20; metered street parking may be found along Bayshore Drive, or park in the Omni Garage on NE 15 Street. For more information, please visit www.OrchestraMiami.org or call (305) 274-2103.

What: Discover Miami Through Music: The Music of Mana-Zucca at the Miami Woman’s Club  

When: Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:00 PM

Where: The Miami Woman’s Club, 1737 North Bayshore Drive, Miami, FL 33128

How Much: Tickets are $30, $25 for Seniors (65 & up) and $5 for Students with ID, General Admission Seating

 

#####

About Orchestra Miami

Founded in 2006 by Artistic Director Elaine Rinaldi, Orchestra Miami is celebrating 16 seasons of bringing affordable concerts of quality symphonic music to all people in Miami-Dade County. Orchestra Miami’s mission is to provide people with opportunities to experience art, build community and educate through music. Orchestra Miami’s signature programs include its “Beethoven on the Beach” free outdoor concerts, its “Discover Miami Through Music” series, its many collaborations with the Miami Dade County Public Schools and its Family Fun Concert Series. Orchestra Miami consists of a select group of professional musicians, all permanent residents of South Florida, whose collective body is unparalleled in terms of excellence and experience. Led by Founder and Artistic Director Elaine Rinaldi, Orchestra Miami continues to exceed expectations in terms of programming and artistic quality. Please support our mission by making your donation today at www.OrchestraMiami.org.

 

Maybe It's an Occupational Hazard. I Really Don't Want to Have to Change My Mind.

As a frame of reference, I went to college.  And medical school.  And spent six years studying psychiatry.  And have been in practice for about 40 years.  I think of things as being exacting, and taking a long time to learn correctly.  There's a lot of distraction, and chaff you have to learn to separate from the wheat.  You have to know that, and you have to know how to do it.  It's not easy.

Even the innovators, like, in the case of my specialty, Freud, don't just wake up one day with unexpected insights.  Freud was a medical doctor, he specialized in neurology, he learned hypnosis, and his clinical experiences led him to understand things in the way we came to call psychoanalysis.  No one today would say Freud was right, or that they agree with him, about every insight he eventually developed.  But he did the best he could, given a considerable foundation of learning and experience.

It might always have been somewhat true, but it became caricaturish with Donald Trump: all anyone needed was an opinion, and it could, and in Trump's case, generally was, based on nothing.  Well, nothing but self-interest.  And Trump hasn't protected that very well, either.  With the bankruptcies, the failed marriages, the offspring you wouldn't be proud to call your own, and the current legal troubles...  Frankly, it's amazing he gets any reaction at all except people laughing at him.  But this is what can happen when you try to function based on nothing.  And there's an audience, and sycophants, for it.

At the same time, we had a version of the same thing here in BP: people who ran for office, didn't know anything, and didn't want anything, except their own X number of minutes of fame (to paraphrase Andy Warhol).  And their tiny burg version of power.  Then, we were so desperate to escape the destruction that we elected someone we would not normally have elected: Dan Samaria.  Because he wasn't one of "them."  Later than that, we elected someone who should never have run, nor been elected: Ginny O'Halpin.  And later that that, we elected someone we already escaped electing in the past: Judi Hamelburg.  We elected Art Gonzalez, because he's a nice guy, and he talks the right game, even though he never showed us anything, and didn't even campaign.  We were just so relieved to be rid of "them," that we elected anyone at all in their place.  And even if today we tell ourselves that Commissioners like these are better than "they" were, they're still pretty bad.

So we've now lowered our standards, and we've decided to settle for anyone who's not too provocative.  We don't care what they know (if anything), what they've accomplished for the Village (if anything), and we don't even ask them what their vision is.  (The only one whose vision we know is Dan Samaria, whose vision is to cripple the Village more than it already is, by lowering the millage.  Please say we've awakened from the stupor of electing Dan Samaria.)

As I said previously, I watched the Meet the Candidates event (since they've given me no other opportunity to meet them).  Jonathan Groth comes the closest, given our choice, and the others are distant.  Since I think it would be tragic to re-elect the incumbents, and there are four other choices, my task was to find a way to eliminate one.  I can only vote for three of the four, so I had to choose one who was an even worse bet than the other three.  I chose Veronica Olivera, because she's only been here three years, and has not participated in anything.  I have friends, so I don't value her as what she calls a "community friend."

But I've been thinking about it, since I really don't know anything worth knowing about any of the other three.  Mac Kennedy says he prefers Jonathan Groth and "the two Veronicas."  I was out walking with Mac yesterday, and I have to admit there were very few signs (even) for Mario Carozzi.  At least Veronica Olivera is bothering to put out signs advertising her candidacy.

So since I have no reason to vote for any of them, except, by comparison, Jonathan, I was thinking maybe I should change my mind, and take Mac's advice.  It's not because I think Veronica O would make a better Commissioner than would any of the rest.  I have no idea how any of them would function on the Commission.  (From what I saw in the Meet the Candidates event, all of them would talk a lot, and say as little as possible, which has become de rigueur for BP Commissioners, ever since the end of the Commissions of which John Hornbuckle was the mayor.)  It's because I'm starting to think that maybe Veronica O has a better chance to displace the incumbents than does Mario, and displacing them is my primary interest.

Dan Samaria has a lot of signs out, but they tend to be on the property lines, essentially between properties, as if Dan just put them there, and didn't ask anyone.  And Judi has disturbingly more signs than I would have expected, but I'm hoping the people who hosted her signs just didn't want to say no to her, but certainly wouldn't actually vote for her, having seen what their last vote for her wrought.

We shall see.

Michael Moore's Question Remains Unanswered.

If you haven't seen Moore's now somewhat old movie "Bowling for Columbine," you should.  In many respects, it's a fairly typical Michael Moore movie, with way too much of Michael Moore narrating -- it's his way of telling the story, he probably likes to hear himself talk, and maybe he'd rather get the narrator's fee than pay it to someone else -- and it's typically left wing, if you like or don't like that kind of slant.  It starts out focusing on the mass murder at Columbine High School in Colorado.  Gun violence is the central theme of this documentary.  And Moore as usual takes his time dragging his viewers through this vile massacre.

But at the end, Moore interviews Charlton Heston, who was at the time either the president of the NRA or its celebrity spokesperson.  Heston was a gun enthusiast, who famously, in that movie, said that someone would have to "pry [his] guns out of [his] cold, dead hands."  But Moore wasn't trying to portray Heston as an unconcerned idiot.  Heston simply was one.  Rather, Moore had a question he wanted to explore with Heston.  He noted that the rate of gun ownership in Canada is about the same as the rate of gun ownership in this country, but the rate of gun violence in this country is far higher than it is in Canada.  He wanted any insights Heston had as to why that would be.  Heston had no answer, and the question was left hanging.

Now, there's this article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-bans-all-handgun-sales-in-latest-gun-control-move/ar-AA13eVbg?cvid=24456c2ea0c845c0b92bd1d52632fbcb.   When Canadians have a gun murder rate of 0.73 people per 100K, they think they have a very big problem.  First, they ban assault weapons, and later, when the murder rate gets higher, they ban handgun sales.  In this country, when at the same time, we have a gun murder rate of 5.9 people per 100K, we act like there's no problem.  Or that we must need more guns.

So the question remains.  To put it in a certain way, what on earth is wrong with us?  That was essentially Michael Moore's question.  If anyone has an answer, this would be a good time to share it.

THAT'S Interesting!

This blog, like any blogpost blog, has "followers."  For quite some time, I've had 38 followers.

I don't actually know what it means to follow this blog.  One "follower" asked me many months ago to remove her from the new post circulation.  She must have disagreed with me or been mad at me about something.  But she's still one of the followers.  Maybe she forgot that she chose to follow this blog, and she also forgot to remove herself  when she got mad at me.  Since she asked me to remove her from the new post announcement circulation, and I did, and she hasn't written to me to complain about continuing to get announcements, I guess "followers" don't automatically get these announcements.  I had an old friend with whom I don't speak any more, and in happier days, she listed herself as a "follower."  I used to inform her of new posts, too.  But I haven't spoken to her for a year, she knows I'm furious with her and want nothing further to do with her, but she's still listed as a "follower," too.  Presumably as a gesture of support, my daughter is a follower.  She never reads this blog.  I have one "follower" who moved away from the Village several years ago.  He probably didn't remember he's a "follower," and he's still there.  I don't even know who some of the "followers," like "BA," are.  I'd be surprised if it was Bob Anderson.  Maybe I was just padding the followership, but I'm a "follower" of this blog.

But I just noticed today that I now have 39 "followers."  I was curious who's the new "follower."  It turns out it's Veronica Olivera.

I don't know Veronica Olivera.  I've never met nor spoken to her.  (I've now been home for about 20 days, and still, not one candidate has knocked on my door, nor left a flyer.)  I have no idea how Veronica Olivera even knew this blog exists.

I have nothing bad to say about Veronica Olivera, although I gave my reasons why given a choice, and a limit, I wouldn't vote for her to be a Commissioner at this point.  If she's truly interested in the Village, I'd love to see her get herself on a board.  She's sort of like Rafael Ciordia that way, except that when he ran, he'd been a Village resident considerably longer than Veronica has.

When candidates were more mainstream in the Village, or even, frankly, accessible, I used to ask them to accept guest authorship, so they could use this blog to tell us whatever they thought we should know about them.  I even did that when I was running, and they were my competition.  It was rare any of them accepted my offer, but I made it.  I'd make that offer to the current crew, but I don't know how to reach half of them.  Veronica Olivera is one of the candidates I don't know how to reach.

So, it's an interesting curiosity that she somehow found this blog, in which I suggested we elect candidates other than her, and she still chose to follow it.  But she hasn't chosen to campaign, even as limitedly as introducing herself to me.

People not infrequently get a little freaked out when I tell them I'm a psychiatrist.  They think I'm analyzing them, or can read their minds.  I'm not, and I can't.  As I always say, I don't know what people think or feel.  I only know what they say and do.  Or, in a case like this, what they don't say and don't do.

So, Veronica's out there somewhere, presumably being someone's spouse, taking care of her children, being a "community friend," and running for Commission.  And now, she's following this blog.  What that's all about beats me.  She ought to come by and meet me.  Maybe I can tell her things she doesn't know.  For all I know, she might wind up with a seat on the BP Commission.  What's she going to do then, unless she just follows whatever is Mac Kennedy's lead?  And if that's all she's going to do, then we don't need her on the Commission.  We have incumbents who won't do any more than that.

Student Loans

So you borrow money to buy something for which you can't afford to pay when you want it.  It's your house, a car, or maybe college tuition and expenses.  (You're a late teenager or early 20-something, you're not working, or not making a lot of money, and you just can't afford all the costs.)  And for whatever it's worth, you get accepted at, and want to attend, a university that's not state funded, or you're not an in-state student, so you have to pay the higher rate.  The deal is that you borrow the money from someone -- the government, a private lender, or someone -- and you agree to pay it back, with interest.

In general, this is a very normal transaction: you borrowed money, you knew how much you borrowed, you knew what was the interest rate, and you agreed to repay the loan.  There's a kind of relief valve, too.  If you borrowed money you eventually found you couldn't repay, you can declare bankruptcy, so your debts are cleared.  And you suffer the consequences of having declared bankruptcy.  There are consequences.  No one will give you a loan, or even issue to you a credit card, for X number of years.

There is a movement now to excuse college loans, at least the ones that have not already been repaid.  In a very superficial way, it sounds noble and accommodating, but this movement has problems.  (And in full disclosure, let me reveal that I never had college loans.  My parents were able to pay for me and my siblings to attend college and graduate schools.  But I'm most certainly not unaware of the issue, and the problem.  As a frame of reference, I attended Tufts University, which is a private university, from 1968 to 1972.  For at least one of those years, Tufts had the highest tuition in the country!  It was $3000 per year.  I know that was over 50 years ago, but today, you'd be hard pressed to find a state university or college that wasn't more expensive than that.)

Here are the problems:  For one thing, if it's a problem, some loans have already been fully repaid, at whatever stress to the borrower.  For another, many loans have been partially repaid, and no one is talking about reimbursing anyone for payments they made in full or in part.  And some graduates have had success in their careers and in life, and don't need to have their loans excused.   They can afford to repay the loans, and they will, and they should.  But the debt relief scheme, as I've read about it, is not intended to be means-tested.    There's also this problem: in this country, a college education is considered so advantageous that it almost separates one class from another to have gone to college, or not to have gone.  So there's pressure to attend college, even for people who technically don't need to have done so.  And perhaps partially in that connection, one report I heard is that a great deal of unrepaid college debt is owed by people who never finished college.  There was no clarification as to why they didn't finish, or if, in reality, they really perhaps shouldn't even have gone, except they felt pressure to do something that maybe they weren't fit to do, or maybe they didn't have to do.  (All the more reason to take a loan, if attending college isn't frankly of value or meaning to you, so you're really perhaps not that motivated anyway, except you just feel pressed to do it.)

But the biggest problem with excusing college loans is that, just as with American "health care," it offers an answer to the wrong question.  The question we ask about either education or "health care" is how, or who's going, to pay for it.  The question we ought to ask about either, which some expert I heard on the radio acknowledged about education, is why it's so expensive.  That's precisely the problem about American "health care," and it's the question almost no one tries to answer, and certainly not to confront.  To make matters worse, we don't get our exorbitant money's worth out of either education or "health care" in this country.  The reasons are the same regarding both failed efforts.

The government is failing to recognize and address what creates proper education and valuable health care.  (It's most certainly also true that way too many people are simply focused on money, and how much -- of other people's money -- they can get.)  We can talk about American "health care" some other time.  But regarding education, we don't foster families and early childhood in a way that will produce receptive and successful students.  Instead of concentrating on early childhood, preschool, ABCs, and STEM, some state governments corrupt education by trying to rewrite American history, and fighting against what they imagine they understand "Critical Race Theory" to be, or, in our state for example, proscribing the saying of "gay."  These kinds of faulty and corrupting government influences are not what anyone needs education systems to do.  Education is supposed to provide certain facts, teach creative thinking, advocate for team work, and foster other interests and talents (band/orchestra, sports, drama, languages, debate, leadership opportunities, etc).  In the old, old days, the boys took shop, and the girls took home economics.  That's anachronistic and sexist now, but it did provide other areas of proficiency some people valued.

We still overspend on education, and we spend the least where we ought to spend the most: on the teachers.  The highest paid person on many college campuses is the head football coach.  And that coach coaches students who are there on academic scholarships (you and I pay for them to be there), take fluff courses, and frankly, don't need to be in college to achieve their ambitions (most of whom won't achieve their ambitions anyway, so they'll have attended college for no reason, and gotten a scholarship they won't have to repay to do it).  The current president of the U of F is resigning/retiring, and he'll be replaced by Sen Ben Sasse (R) of Nebraska, who thinks the U of F needs to be "more conservative."  So college education in this state, like other education here, needs to be politicized?

Once we make a critical examination of where all the money goes, and stop the meaningless excesses (of education or "health care"), we can lower costs, and either the government can pay, as they do with earlier education here, or is done in most or all civilized countries, since all education is in the public interest, or costs can be low enough not to be such an ongoing burden to students, and graduates.

Mac Kennedy Doesn't Understand That the "Problem" is the Solution. And Then, There's All That Song and Dance.

Last night, Mac sent out an e-mail.  I'm sure his circulation is more extensive than mine is, so I have no doubt you've seen it.  He calls his e-mail "BP Election: Mac's Endorsements."

Mac has no trouble explaining why the incumbents should not be re-elected, and I completely agree with him.  He says more than once that he's "pulling no punches."

Mac wants "three fresh voices" to join him and Art Gonzalez.  Mac is diplomatic here, and he doesn't bother to mention that Art has no more meaning on the Commission than do the one Commissioner who isn't running for re-election, or the two incumbents for whom he hopes we don't vote.  And Mac is stuck with Art for two more years, so what's the point in complaining?  He can't do anything about the seat Art keeps somewhat warm.

Mac says he's "tired of pulling [his] own weight and that of three [it's four] other Commissioners  who either can't or won't contribute."

He wants "young, strong backs on the team," because although Mac at 61 is one of the youngest of the current Commissioners, if he gets his way, he'll be the oldest (most senior, if you will).

Mac goes on to say "we now have a highly competent manager who cares but who needs to be held accountable, and we have many projects in the works."

I'm not publishing this post simply to republish what Mac sent, and what you've probably already seen.  I want us to pay attention to what Mac is saying, and what we should take it to mean.  And I won't pull punches, either.  Oh, wait a minute.  I never pull punches.  Well, I still won't.

As far as I know, Mac recruited all of the current candidates, except maybe Jonathan Groth.  Or maybe Mac recruited him, too.  So it could be imagined that Mac isn't looking for "fresh voices" at all.  He's looking for people he can more effectively lead.  I have said before, and I will say again, Mac is doing a wonderful job for the Village, and on the Commission.  Without him, we would continue to flounder.  But Mac doesn't truck other voices.  I like Mac.  I consider him my friend.  I've lived here considerably longer than Mac has, and I, like Mac, was a Commissioner for three years.  Do you want to know if Mac listens to what I tell him?  He's sure there's a right way, and he knows what it is, and he has little patience for people who see things differently.

And if Mac thinks the manager needs to be "held accountable," why doesn't he hold him accountable?

But that's not what I mostly wanted to address about Mac's e-blast.  Mac thinks BP is in line for a "much-needed kick in the ass," and he particularly notes that our "Oasis in the Heart of Miami," as Mac likes to call us, is dominated or overwhelmed by much larger and better-endowed municipalities: "NoMi, the Shores, and elsewhere."  And that's just the point.  We're not NoMi, the Shores, or elsewhere.  We never will be.  We don't have to be.  We all moved here because we're not NoMi, the Shores, or elsewhere.  We're BP.  That's not a problem.  It's an asset.  That's why we all chose it.  Sure, we have to do something about drainage and the streets, and if the current manager really is working on that, then good.  That's what he should be doing.  But in the meantime, we're a quiet little burg, with one main street, and too much speeding and too many accidents, and a history of "Don't Even Think About Speeding" signs, which we thought maybe we didn't need any more, and we have to celebrate and protect what we have.  Nobody has medians the way we do.  And we leave them fallow and awful-looking.  We're our own worst enemy.  We tried for a short time to class ourselves up with public art (three Village-owned sculptures, and a mural), and we could do more of that.

Do you know the broken window theory of municipal management, and crime reduction?  I think this came from Detroit.  Someone realized that while buildings and other functions were deteriorating, it was the eventual appearance of broken windows here and there that opened the floodgates for crime.  Once people saw that level of disregard, and lack of self-respect and maintenance, they came to feel that the city was in open season.  Likewise, we can talk all we want about the Codes we (and our manager) don't enforce, and even 6th Avenue that we don't patrol, but when people see how little we care about ourselves, as evidenced by our medians, they get the message.  Speed limits?  Yeah, so?  Look what kind of a dump these people are content to live in.  Once we get more serious about our greatest asset (and apply for grants to redirect water, and improve drainage, and fix the streets), people with more ambition for their living spaces will want to live here, and the whole tenor of the place will improve.

As for Mac's "Endorsements," he sort of didn't make any.  He hopes you won't vote for the incumbents -- people of rock solid proven disinterest and inability -- but there are four other candidates, and he likes them all.  He placed one at the top (and I agree with him about Jonathan Groth), but he left all three of the others sounding like equal recommendations.  But we're only going to get three Commissioners on November 8 -- three new ones, I hope -- so we can't agree to elect four.  There's no such thing as an alternate.  If it's true, as I think it is, that Mac recruited all of these people, then maybe he thinks he can't have recruited someone, then direct us away from voting for them.  But that has to be Mac's problem, not our problem.  Do you want to know if I told Mac many times to recruit or promote only three people, and not four or more?

So Mac's e-blast is a little unhelpful, or at least incomplete.  He said he wasn't going to pull any punches, and then, he pulled punches.  He thinks the manager needs to be held to account, but he won't hold him to account.  He's promoted more candidates than we're allowed to elect, and his "Endorsement" doesn't narrow the field.  You've got your own work cut out for you.  You yourselves can't hold the manager to account, and you have a Commission that won't do it, either.  You're going to have to figure out for which three candidates to vote.  Even if you take Mac's and my advice, and don't vote for the incumbents, you're going to have to set aside one of the other four people.  As of today, October 17, 15 days after I got back to town, I have still not had a visit from even one of these candidates, nor found even so much as a door tag flyer from any of them.  So they're not campaigning.  Even the candidates aren't helping us.

I HATE Tech!!! Among Other Things, It Cost Me the October 8 Meet the Candidates Event in Person.

 To make a very long story short, I was on the phone off and on, and all day October 8, with T-Mobile.  And things are still not settled correctly.  But I did just now finish watching the event on youtube.

youtube listed this as a 2 1/2 hour event.  The first half hour was meaningless milling around, finally ending in introductions at about 29 minutes.  At that point, candidates gave their introductory comments.

Veronica Amsler has been here for some number of years, was working, then decided to become a stay-at-home mother.  Mario Carrozzi does some unclear job which involves corporate work and teams, and he mentioned curiosity, "ideation" (unclear what that meant), and leadership.  Jonathan Groth is a lawyer and currently a Trustee on the BP Foundation.  Judi Hamelburg mentioned her ambitions.  Veronica Olivera has been here three years and considers herself a "community friend."  That seems to mean she has come to know some people.  Dan Samaria said he got elected in 2018 and has met all of his goals.  He did not specify what they were.

Each candidate was asked in turn what made him or her best suited (from the field) to be a Commissioner.  The six answers to this question were a snooze fest, with non-specific and rambling answers, and did not separate the candidate speaking from anyone else.

Each candidate was then asked what were his or her three most prominent issues regarding the Village (what needed attention most).  Veronica Amsler was unfocused.  Mario Carrozzi, Jonathan Groth, and Veronica Olivera mentioned 6th Avenue.  Some offered more unspecified and unfocused ideas.  No one kept to three areas.  They mentioned drainage and other themes.  Judi Hamelburg mentioned water, too, and getting Village reliance on septic tanks converted to public sewage.  Dan Samaria wants to lower taxes.

Candidates were asked what the Village should do to address climate change.  This is a frankly bizarre question, and it has no meaningful possible answers.  Some candidates mentioned one or another form of diversion of flood water.  Interestingly, in Mario Carrozzi's rambling non-answer, he mentioned the "double-edged sword of the homestead exemption."  This was not relevant to the question at hand, and Mario said he looked forward to being glad in coming decades that his tax increases would be limited, but he did seem to recognize the problem.  Dan Samaria said he is "not the greatest person on the environment," and he later, in response to something else, said he was "not a Code person."  As a side issue, it was baffling what someone who lives in a "Tree City USA" which is a "bird sanctuary," and who is "not a Code person," is doing on the Village Commission, or why such a person would want much of anything to do with the Village, let alone trying to get re-elected.

Regarding what the dynamic between the Village Commission and a Village manager should be, Mario Carrozzi had a clear and correct understanding.  Everyone else rambled.  Judi Hamelburg, for reasons only Judi would know, commented that a millage of 9.5 was not going to get things done.  But Judi later said that almost all Commission votes during the past two years have been unanimous, so it's unclear why she voted for a millage she considers inadequate.

There was irregular and glancing mention of the medians, especially regarding the generally meaningless question of whether or not anything should be done about lawn services that block the streets, and make too much noise.

One question that was startling in an otherwise harmless way came from someone in the audience, and it was whether lighting in the Village should be more or less than it is, or the same as it is.  And the questioner specified a request for "no double-talk."  Jonathan Groth sort of said there should be more lighting, but most of his response was the proscribed double-talk.  Veronica Olivera began her response by recalling the proscription against double-talk, then proceeded to deliver all double-talk.  All other candidates offered nothing but double-talk.  Of interest, I think it was Veronica Amsler who said something about not tolerating four-hour Commission meetings (in response to another question), then gave us an example of how they get that way.  People ramble, and just like to hear themselves talk.  Even when they're asked a very specific question, and asked for one or two word answers (more, less, the same), they can't force themselves to do it.

The final question was about how candidates imagined engaging with residents.  Veronica Amsler produced prattle, then mentioned that Nextdoor would be something to monitor.  Mario Carrozzi mentioned "data," "digital," and Nextdoor.  Jonathan Groth used words like "platform," "venue," and the Village website.  But he also mentioned face time with Village residents.  Judi Hamelburg, who was the only candidate who was not at this event in person, said she expected to interact at Village events, and rely on Nextdoor.  Veronica Olivera mentioned the recreation center, Village events, and thought a suggestion box would be a good way for Village residents who are not Commissioners to communicate with Village residents who are Commissioners.  (Of note, I was away all summer, and I returned very early in the morning, October 2 -- eight days ago.  None of these people who want to interact with their imagined constituents have come to my house in the past week, nor left a flyer.)  Dan Samaria thought the Village e-blast would be a good way to communicate.  He then blamed Village residents for not being willing to share their e-mail addresses.

In closing statements, Dan Samaria said he needs to correct his heretofore failure to respond to Village residents.  (So, apparently, it wouldn't matter if Dan did have residents' e-mail addresses.)  He's been a Commissioner for four years, and it's only now that it occurs to him to correct his failings.  Veronica Olivera said she thought the six candidates were all similar and on the same page.  She did not say what page she thinks that is.  Judi Hamelburg rambled for a while, finally ending sort of where she began: at the start, she recalled how the Village mistreated her, and now, she wants to help others who are treated poorly by the Village.  Jonathan Groth's and Veronica Amsler's closing statements were appreciative and not further enlightening.  Mario Carrozzi noted there were 40 chairs in the room, but 1000 houses, which led him to conclude we need better communication.

The most essential goal is not to re-elect the two incumbents: Samaria and Hamelburg.  You can guess about the others, but those two have provided proven inertia, lack of ideas, and tendency to use their Commission time criticizing other Commissioners.  And as much as several candidates noted the things we can't do, for budgetary reasons, Samaria is still talking about wishing he could get the millage lower.  We live in a unique community where we rely only on ourselves, and there are no commercial pockets to pick.  Anyone who wants to live somewhere where the residents don't have to do the heavy fiscal lifting should move.

Of the others, they are in many respects mostly still pigs in pokes.  Jonathan Groth is the safest bet.  Veronica Amsler and Mario Carrozzi showed what could be interpreted as the next best possibilities.  Veronica Olivera seems to be a very nice person, but she's way too green for this.  And none of those four, except Jonathan Groth, has bothered to do the kind of volunteer work (boards) that would give a better insight into how the Village runs, what are its problems, why we haven't solved them, and how to try another approach.  It was noteworthy that one question was where the candidates expected to get the 20 hours per week someone estimated it would take to function as a Commissioner.  They all had answers.  So, if they can find 20 hours a week, why haven't they, except Jonathan, bothered to find three hours a month?

The whole thing was pretty disappointing.  We've had two very bad patches in the 17 years I've been here.  They were the Jacobs years and the Truppman years.  If the next 2-4 years aren't too bad, it will only be if we get lucky.