I've listened carefully to the recording of Fence Workshop Chapter 2A. Chapter 1 occurred in July, 2011. That's the public workshop that was not attended by the three people who suddenly decided we should have a public workshop. Chapter 2A occurred on Saturday, January 21, 2012. It apparently wasn't enough, and Chapter 2B occurred on Monday, January 23, 2012. That one, by the way, was attended by only one of the people who insisted we needed this workshop, now series of workshops. The other two were missing in action, though one said she was busy with her day job. Evidently, they didn't think a workshop was important in July, thought it was critical on 1/21/12, and thought it was unnecessary on 1/23/12. We have no information as to how they make their decisions.
As for the content, it was pretty much all over the place. Some people wanted the big picture, some wanted to pore over spurious hypotheticals and definitions, like of the word "yard," and some just wanted the Ordinance passed. One clear casualty of the workshop enterprise was the remarkable amount of time spent by the Code Review Committee. It was given little or no consideration and respect. The people who wanted these last workshops did not attend the CRC meetings, and they acted not only as if these meetings had not occurred, but as if it was perfectly OK to ignore them, and the time spent by the volunteers who made commitments to them. It's a funny thing that Noah ran on a platform that included his wish for more public involvement in local government, involvement that he has thus far quite consistently ignored. Roxy pointed out that CRC members have even stopped attending CRC meetings, because they grew tired of the pointless labor.
Barbara Watts spoke as if her decision about the Ordinance might rest on her grudging willingness to "compromise" with one resident, or her concern that her next door neighbor might be mad at her. There seemed to be no big picture. The real big picture, of course, was the very many hours of work and devotion of the CRC, whose meetings were open to the public, but this was essentially ignored. Gary Kuhl tried to remind the workshop that this wasn't about a personal opinion, certainly not the personal opinion of one or another Commissioner, but that it was about the work the CRC had done, and their efforts to arrive at consensus and a broad view of the neighborhood. He tried to remind the workshop that those who now suddenly had opinions had not ever attended any of the real working groups and meetings. He seemed to be talking to himself.
Gary had it occasionally within his grasp. He pointed out from time to time that approaching the Ordinance as the workshop attendees were could and would take an unmanageable amount of time, and the enterprise should be suspended. Even Noah Jacobs ethereally had it. He said that perhaps this workshop was not the place for this, and that the Commission had decisions to make, and perhaps it was not necessary (was perhaps disrespectful?) to waste the public's time fleshing this out this way. But his purchase was only ethereal. It quickly evaporated.
The voice of greatest and most salient reason was Barbara Kuhl's. She sensed something. She felt a pulse beneath the skin and the fat. She asked the Commission, by e-mail and at Chapter 2B, to reveal and perhaps elaborate what were their leanings about the Ordinance. Of course, they never did. But hers was the most important point. What were these workshops about? Why the peculiar attendance? What did the questions mean? Was all of this just maneuvering intending to serve some other and underlying goal? For example, during Chapter 2A, Steve Bernard suggested that the new Ordinance would frustrate both people who wanted fences and people who didn't. So what was left was to scrap the whole reconfiguration, and keep the original Ordinance. Was that it? He also said that he "personally" doesn't favor front yard fences. So that could have been it. Barbara asked, in her gentle but direct way, and she did not get an answer.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Well Shut My Mouth.
"We grow tyrannical fighting tyranny." E. B. White
It appears I lost a confrontation today with his Imperial Majesty, Noah Jacobs. The setting of my unceremonious defeat was the Fence Ordinance workshop.
It's hard to believe what a very short time ago it was that Noah introduced himself to the Village, raging, sputtering, and stomping around, until Roxy had to try to deflect or redirect him. His response was to accuse her, which he did repeatedly, of brutally suppressing him, which he generalized to what he wanted to portray as her tendency to suppress the general public. In fact, Noah ran on this platform. He claimed to want the public heard and respected, not muzzled, and certainly not by a brutish and self-possessed Mayor.
Fast forward just a few quick months, and Noah is not only elected to the Commission, but he and two of his colleagues elect him Mayor. Since he has no relevant experience and no knowledge of the Village and its procedures, no one can fault him for being a bit tight. After all, he has no idea what he's doing, and he relies completely on the Manager, the Village Attorney, and even the past Mayor to guide him through meetings. He didn't begin to know the first thing about the Fence Ordinance, having failed completely to familiarize himself with it in any way, and presumably it seemed like a great convenience to him to deflect having to vote on it for a while. Thus, public workshop #2.
The workshop started with Noah's launching into asking questions about the Ordinance. He needed Gage Hartung and Dan Keys to explain it to him. Sometimes his colleagues, mainly Bob Anderson, would have to tell him what our Ordinance is. Sometimes, even the Village Attorney had to explain to him about these kinds of Ordinances in general. The problem with the tutorial he scheduled for himself is that he had convened the Commission, some of the Village staff, the Village Attorney, and several residents to keep him company while he asked Gage and Dan, and anyone else who would read him the Ordinance, to tell him what he never bothered to find out or ask about before. It was beginning to be a bit odd sitting there listening to this. Some of us were commenting to each other about it.
So, I asked for a chance to speak. Noah, who presumably intended to be slightly inclusive, told us that we could have three minutes to say what we had to say. I reminded Noah that he had not made any of the routine efforts to find out about the Ordinance (didn't come to Commission meetings, didn't go to any of the Code Review meetings, didn't familiarize himself with the Attorney's contributions, and didn't attend the other public workshop), and I wanted to know if Noah's asking people to explain the Ordinance to him was what this workshop was really about. That's certainly what it was about so far.
Well, I really didn't get out many sentences before Noah started cutting me off. He finally declared that I was only allowed to ask questions, not make comments. He hadn't established this scheme with his colleagues, and he didn't ask for any consensus; he just seemed to make it up on the spot.
So, I left. I've attended meetings chaired by John Hornbuckle and by Roxy Ross. I've seen each of them challenged, either by residents who were going on and on about something, or even by residents complaining personally about them. And I've seen each of them try to respond to or redirect those residents, generally as respectfully as possible. But I've never seen anything like this. This is a Chair who ignores his colleagues, acts as brutish as possible, and completely suppresses speakers. This was E. B. White's worst nightmare. Tyrannical, indeed. And I understand part of Noah's problem. He has placed himself at a huge disadvantage. He has almost no experience seeing how a Mayor acts, and his most direct experience involved a Mayor having to deal with him, when he was quite out of control. So not much chance for real perspective and insight there.
It appears I lost a confrontation today with his Imperial Majesty, Noah Jacobs. The setting of my unceremonious defeat was the Fence Ordinance workshop.
It's hard to believe what a very short time ago it was that Noah introduced himself to the Village, raging, sputtering, and stomping around, until Roxy had to try to deflect or redirect him. His response was to accuse her, which he did repeatedly, of brutally suppressing him, which he generalized to what he wanted to portray as her tendency to suppress the general public. In fact, Noah ran on this platform. He claimed to want the public heard and respected, not muzzled, and certainly not by a brutish and self-possessed Mayor.
Fast forward just a few quick months, and Noah is not only elected to the Commission, but he and two of his colleagues elect him Mayor. Since he has no relevant experience and no knowledge of the Village and its procedures, no one can fault him for being a bit tight. After all, he has no idea what he's doing, and he relies completely on the Manager, the Village Attorney, and even the past Mayor to guide him through meetings. He didn't begin to know the first thing about the Fence Ordinance, having failed completely to familiarize himself with it in any way, and presumably it seemed like a great convenience to him to deflect having to vote on it for a while. Thus, public workshop #2.
The workshop started with Noah's launching into asking questions about the Ordinance. He needed Gage Hartung and Dan Keys to explain it to him. Sometimes his colleagues, mainly Bob Anderson, would have to tell him what our Ordinance is. Sometimes, even the Village Attorney had to explain to him about these kinds of Ordinances in general. The problem with the tutorial he scheduled for himself is that he had convened the Commission, some of the Village staff, the Village Attorney, and several residents to keep him company while he asked Gage and Dan, and anyone else who would read him the Ordinance, to tell him what he never bothered to find out or ask about before. It was beginning to be a bit odd sitting there listening to this. Some of us were commenting to each other about it.
So, I asked for a chance to speak. Noah, who presumably intended to be slightly inclusive, told us that we could have three minutes to say what we had to say. I reminded Noah that he had not made any of the routine efforts to find out about the Ordinance (didn't come to Commission meetings, didn't go to any of the Code Review meetings, didn't familiarize himself with the Attorney's contributions, and didn't attend the other public workshop), and I wanted to know if Noah's asking people to explain the Ordinance to him was what this workshop was really about. That's certainly what it was about so far.
Well, I really didn't get out many sentences before Noah started cutting me off. He finally declared that I was only allowed to ask questions, not make comments. He hadn't established this scheme with his colleagues, and he didn't ask for any consensus; he just seemed to make it up on the spot.
So, I left. I've attended meetings chaired by John Hornbuckle and by Roxy Ross. I've seen each of them challenged, either by residents who were going on and on about something, or even by residents complaining personally about them. And I've seen each of them try to respond to or redirect those residents, generally as respectfully as possible. But I've never seen anything like this. This is a Chair who ignores his colleagues, acts as brutish as possible, and completely suppresses speakers. This was E. B. White's worst nightmare. Tyrannical, indeed. And I understand part of Noah's problem. He has placed himself at a huge disadvantage. He has almost no experience seeing how a Mayor acts, and his most direct experience involved a Mayor having to deal with him, when he was quite out of control. So not much chance for real perspective and insight there.
Friday, January 13, 2012
It's a Weird, Weird, Weird, Weird World
It was creepy. Sort of post-apocalyptic, in a way. When the Morlocks sounded that siren, and the Eloy got all stupid and hypnotized, walking like zombies to their deaths, at least there was a method. At least it was about something. Not this time. Just quirky, and inchoate. There were bits of something that looked like functioning, but they sort of didn't go anywhere. Watts seemed to speak against something, then voted for it. Cooper spoke definitively against something, then voted for it with everyone else. I'm not describing this so you can see it. Maybe because it was just that disorganized. Chickens don't really run around once their heads are removed. They can't, without their heads. They just sort of thrash around. Well, it was like that.
How can I tell this story? At the beginning, Jacobs suggested the Pledge of Allegiance. But he didn't lead it. It seemed he couldn't remember how. Ana Garcia led it. Then Noah just stood there. We all did. No one knew what he wanted to do. He didn't seem to know either. So we all eventually sat down. Then Noah sat down. He paused, then mentioned a long-time resident who had recently died. Oh, yeah, that's why he was standing. But he forgot. And he got her name wrong, seeming to confuse it with a similar-sounding name of another resident in attendance (not dead).
The minutes. Passed without amendment again. Two months in a row. If you don't come to meetings, you have no idea what this used to look like. Up to an hour spent struggling over those minutes, and how tragically faulty they were. How much was missing, how utterly wrong they were. And how nefarious were the omissions and distortions and anyone who didn't confront them. How vilely served the public were, now and in perpetuity. So for the second month running, not one amendment was considered necessary. Minutes complete and accurate. Same meetings, same minutes, same Clerk. I asked her last month if she had done something different. "No."
Then, Noah gave the gavel to Barbara. There was something he wanted to talk about, and he wanted some sort of action taken. Maybe. It was never clear. We'll come to Barbara and the gavel in a bit. So what he wants to talk about is how to redesign the minutes. The group starts on some sort of discussion, which was circular and vague, until Roxy reminds them of two things. One is that this matter was not part of the announced Agenda, which means they shouldn't be introducing it in stealth fashion. Why Roxy has to tell this to the arbiters of openness, transparency, and anti-secrecy, is not clear. But they go on discussing it anyway. (Think chicken sans head.) The other thing is that Noah's main proposal, that when the public speak, their topic of conversation should be noted in the minutes, is already in the standing Ordinance. Noah couldn't get this. Roxy read it to him, but he still didn't see it. He thought his reference and that in the Ordinance were somehow different, in some way, even though they were essentially identical. Roxy tried to point that out to him, but he insisted there was some sort of difference. So they went on like this for a while, until they finally voted not to continue the discussion. (Although the chicken is writhing and convulsing, it will eventually stop, due to loss of blood, if for no other reason.)
So Barbara and the gavel. No idea what to do with it. None. She giggled a bit, but had to be directed by the Attorney to ask for seconds, ask for a vote, whatever. She even said she didn't want the responsibility. Poor Barbara. She said she never wanted even to run, but run she did. Who knows if she wanted to win, but that happened, too. And now, having told people after the election that she didn't want to be Mayor, she winds up with that wooden hammer-like contraption. Well, only five more months to go, and she won't be Vice Mayor any more. Presumably, she hopes Noah won't feel inspired to make motions too often. And I have to say, I like Barbara. She's a very nice person. Just out of her element, as she herself notes. Do you know that she learned there were free Miami City Ballet tickets routinely available, and she called and snagged us about 30 of them? True. She will receive them, pass them along to Maria Camara, and anyone who wants to go is welcome to a ticket. So call Maria if you want to go. 305-899-8000.
Cooper had inspiration, too. He had this idea that he should be able to "direct" the Manager, or the Attorney, or someone, to craft Agenda items for him. He should just tell them sort of what he has in mind, and they should "handle it." And he shouldn't have to provide any back-up, either. This discussion took a lot longer than you might think. I don't know if Ana really didn't fully understand it, which is what she said, or she just couldn't believe it. Everyone seemed to try to tell Bryan it doesn't work this way. But he wants it to. Bryan is on strike against the Village, and won't come to any Village events. Even now that he talks as if he owned two other votes, the majority, and the Mayor, he won't come. And he's missed more meetings than any other Commissioner in the past two years. And now, he doesn't want to have to submit his own Agenda items. He wants someone else to do it. It's really not at all clear what he thinks his job actually is. The only responsibilities he accepts are smirking, blaming, and trying to order people around.
There were a few other topics of discussion. The log cabin, for example. It's in terrible need of major renovation. The Commission could only agree to look further on condition we get grants to fix it. The log cabin was described as a local, State, and maybe even national treasure, but we should only fix it if we can use someone else's money. And there was a good deal of scrutiny, much more than you might have imagined interested anyone, of mutual cooperation agreements with other municipalities and their police departments. Mitch Glansberg, Bob Anderson, and Ana Garcia tried to explain how standard and helpful they are, but some were just more skeptical than that. And again, the Commission could only accept these agreements after they were abundantly reassured that we only take from other municipalites: we are not called upon to give them anything or do anything for them. Hell of a social philosophy we have working here.
Bernard left a little before the end. Had enough? One of my friends says his wife probably texted him, and told him the party was over. Gaspar stayed through most of it. That's a first. He and Steve were in heavy consultation throughout. I guess we'll see how they decide to have Gaspar handle this in Gaspar's next column. Funny thing about Gaspar and his columns. He always says, as if it's a good thing for a reporter/"Correspondent", that he never talks to anyone. This is how he used to explain why he refused to talk to Ross, Anderson, and Childress, whom he never tired of trashing. But it seems he makes an exception for one of the two people, apart from himself, that he likes. Probably just a coincidence.
As Charlie Smith was leaving (no, not the Finance Director; the other Charlie Smith) he did that thing where you brush one index finger over the other in scolding. Come on, you know what I'm talking about. Remember elementary school? Anyway, he did it to me. So I figured he wanted to tell me something. I went with him to the lobby. He tells me I'm "mean-spirited." I gave a hard time to the new Commissioners, he says.
"I'm 'mean-spirited?,'" I ask.
"Yes."
"What about Steve and Bryan? Are they mean-spirited?"
"They mean well."
"They do?"
"Yes."
Oh.
How can I tell this story? At the beginning, Jacobs suggested the Pledge of Allegiance. But he didn't lead it. It seemed he couldn't remember how. Ana Garcia led it. Then Noah just stood there. We all did. No one knew what he wanted to do. He didn't seem to know either. So we all eventually sat down. Then Noah sat down. He paused, then mentioned a long-time resident who had recently died. Oh, yeah, that's why he was standing. But he forgot. And he got her name wrong, seeming to confuse it with a similar-sounding name of another resident in attendance (not dead).
The minutes. Passed without amendment again. Two months in a row. If you don't come to meetings, you have no idea what this used to look like. Up to an hour spent struggling over those minutes, and how tragically faulty they were. How much was missing, how utterly wrong they were. And how nefarious were the omissions and distortions and anyone who didn't confront them. How vilely served the public were, now and in perpetuity. So for the second month running, not one amendment was considered necessary. Minutes complete and accurate. Same meetings, same minutes, same Clerk. I asked her last month if she had done something different. "No."
Then, Noah gave the gavel to Barbara. There was something he wanted to talk about, and he wanted some sort of action taken. Maybe. It was never clear. We'll come to Barbara and the gavel in a bit. So what he wants to talk about is how to redesign the minutes. The group starts on some sort of discussion, which was circular and vague, until Roxy reminds them of two things. One is that this matter was not part of the announced Agenda, which means they shouldn't be introducing it in stealth fashion. Why Roxy has to tell this to the arbiters of openness, transparency, and anti-secrecy, is not clear. But they go on discussing it anyway. (Think chicken sans head.) The other thing is that Noah's main proposal, that when the public speak, their topic of conversation should be noted in the minutes, is already in the standing Ordinance. Noah couldn't get this. Roxy read it to him, but he still didn't see it. He thought his reference and that in the Ordinance were somehow different, in some way, even though they were essentially identical. Roxy tried to point that out to him, but he insisted there was some sort of difference. So they went on like this for a while, until they finally voted not to continue the discussion. (Although the chicken is writhing and convulsing, it will eventually stop, due to loss of blood, if for no other reason.)
So Barbara and the gavel. No idea what to do with it. None. She giggled a bit, but had to be directed by the Attorney to ask for seconds, ask for a vote, whatever. She even said she didn't want the responsibility. Poor Barbara. She said she never wanted even to run, but run she did. Who knows if she wanted to win, but that happened, too. And now, having told people after the election that she didn't want to be Mayor, she winds up with that wooden hammer-like contraption. Well, only five more months to go, and she won't be Vice Mayor any more. Presumably, she hopes Noah won't feel inspired to make motions too often. And I have to say, I like Barbara. She's a very nice person. Just out of her element, as she herself notes. Do you know that she learned there were free Miami City Ballet tickets routinely available, and she called and snagged us about 30 of them? True. She will receive them, pass them along to Maria Camara, and anyone who wants to go is welcome to a ticket. So call Maria if you want to go. 305-899-8000.
Cooper had inspiration, too. He had this idea that he should be able to "direct" the Manager, or the Attorney, or someone, to craft Agenda items for him. He should just tell them sort of what he has in mind, and they should "handle it." And he shouldn't have to provide any back-up, either. This discussion took a lot longer than you might think. I don't know if Ana really didn't fully understand it, which is what she said, or she just couldn't believe it. Everyone seemed to try to tell Bryan it doesn't work this way. But he wants it to. Bryan is on strike against the Village, and won't come to any Village events. Even now that he talks as if he owned two other votes, the majority, and the Mayor, he won't come. And he's missed more meetings than any other Commissioner in the past two years. And now, he doesn't want to have to submit his own Agenda items. He wants someone else to do it. It's really not at all clear what he thinks his job actually is. The only responsibilities he accepts are smirking, blaming, and trying to order people around.
There were a few other topics of discussion. The log cabin, for example. It's in terrible need of major renovation. The Commission could only agree to look further on condition we get grants to fix it. The log cabin was described as a local, State, and maybe even national treasure, but we should only fix it if we can use someone else's money. And there was a good deal of scrutiny, much more than you might have imagined interested anyone, of mutual cooperation agreements with other municipalities and their police departments. Mitch Glansberg, Bob Anderson, and Ana Garcia tried to explain how standard and helpful they are, but some were just more skeptical than that. And again, the Commission could only accept these agreements after they were abundantly reassured that we only take from other municipalites: we are not called upon to give them anything or do anything for them. Hell of a social philosophy we have working here.
Bernard left a little before the end. Had enough? One of my friends says his wife probably texted him, and told him the party was over. Gaspar stayed through most of it. That's a first. He and Steve were in heavy consultation throughout. I guess we'll see how they decide to have Gaspar handle this in Gaspar's next column. Funny thing about Gaspar and his columns. He always says, as if it's a good thing for a reporter/"Correspondent", that he never talks to anyone. This is how he used to explain why he refused to talk to Ross, Anderson, and Childress, whom he never tired of trashing. But it seems he makes an exception for one of the two people, apart from himself, that he likes. Probably just a coincidence.
As Charlie Smith was leaving (no, not the Finance Director; the other Charlie Smith) he did that thing where you brush one index finger over the other in scolding. Come on, you know what I'm talking about. Remember elementary school? Anyway, he did it to me. So I figured he wanted to tell me something. I went with him to the lobby. He tells me I'm "mean-spirited." I gave a hard time to the new Commissioners, he says.
"I'm 'mean-spirited?,'" I ask.
"Yes."
"What about Steve and Bryan? Are they mean-spirited?"
"They mean well."
"They do?"
"Yes."
Oh.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Taxation Without Representation
The Village and its residents are represented by five Commissioners. They are elected at large. This means that everyone in the Village can vote for any Commission candidate, and any elected Commissioner represents everyone in the Village. A Commissioner may imagine, or wish, that he or she had a limited constituency within the Village, but the fact is each Commissioner represents all of us equally. Commissioners are paid by all of us. The Mayor is paid $4000 per year, and the other four Commissioners are paid $2000 per year each. The job description is the same for each Commissioner other than the Mayor.
Bryan Cooper has been a Commissioner for two years. As it happens, he received more votes than any other candidate when he was elected. So to think of Orwell, if all Commissioners are equal, but some are more equal than others, it could be argued that Cooper's representation of his neighbors is more pervasive than that of his colleagues. And as a frame of reference, not only did Cooper receive more votes than his rivals two years ago, he also received more votes than any of the winners this year. He must feel some attachment to his position. He cashed all his checks.
During his tenure thus far on the Commission, Cooper has made himself conspicuous. He has generally been more argumentative, with his colleagues and with his constituents, than any other Commissioner. It's true that Bernard wasted more time, and was more eloquent and verbose in his complaints, but Cooper was more likely to be the lone Commissioner out when votes were 4-1. Cooper was also more combative with the Commission and the neighborhood. He tended to blame and accuse on a more or less regular basis, and he has been prone to wanting investigations of the behavior of others. On one occasion, he demanded an investigation of the Manager, didn't mind spending $5000 on this investigation, and when the investigation concluded that he was the problem, he wanted the report vacated. He has since suggested another investigation of the Manager. So he wastes Village money on empty campaigns. He also takes leading responsibility for extra legal consultation for the Village, so he has handed us inflated legal fees.
Cooper also not infrequently warns the Village that its postures and procedures could result in its being sued. The Village has not been sued in the past two years, and since Cooper is the only person who keeps talking about it, one wonders whether he is trying to tell us that he is planning, or ready, to sue the Village for something or other.
Commissioners are expected generally to represent the Village in various ways. The most obvious of these is attendance at Commission meetings. From the date Cooper became a Commissioner, there have been many regular Commission meetings, and a few special Commission meetings. Ross missed one meeting. Anderson missed one. Childress missed two. Bernard missed three. Cooper missed five meetings outright. He left another less than half way through the meeting, and that meeting ended an hour earlier than most. He attended two other meetings by telephone, at his insistence, and was hard to include because of the connection. He "attended" one of these early Commission meetings from another country, and he then proceeded to disrupt the meeting, because he would not control a loudly barking dog in the room with him.
Within those meetings, a level of decorum and propriety is generally expected. This is not specifically elaborated in the Charter, but most normal adults would presume it. Cooper is quite regularly argumentative and rude in his dealings with his colleagues, overtalking, interrupting, provoking, and sometimes threatening. In his dealings with the public, he is likewise argumentative. He tends to be the only Commissioner who requests opportunities to debate his neighbors. In the last Commission meeting, he refused to answer a direct and simple question from one speaker, simply staring at her instead, and conspicuously ignored another, who pleaded with him to stop texting and pay attention to her while she was addressing the Commission. He eventually alleged that his activities with his cell phone represented doing "research," and he still refused to do the speaker the courtesy of suspending whatever it was he was doing, so he could even appear to care what she was saying.
Elected officials in the Park are generally expected to appear at public functions. Cooper is deliberate and methodical about absenting himself from them. A year or two ago, a visioning meeting was arranged for the Commission, largely to address problems caused or materially contributed to by Cooper. He was the only Commissioner who did not attend. Later, when the meeting was reported by the mediator hired to conduct it, Cooper asked if he could "vote" on a decision made by attendees. He clearly had not the slightest comprehension of group process, and failed completely to recognize that the purpose of the meeting was an exercise in collaboration, not a specific vote. Because of his persistent complaints that the Village, and the Commission, and the managerial staff, do not do as he personally would like them to, he has declared a strike against the Village and its residents, and he refuses to attend any community events. At former Mayor Ross' recent "State of the Village Address," a large series of slides was displayed, showing a number of community get-togethers of various kinds and for various purposes. Cooper was included in two photographs, and those two were taken at Commission meetings. He has been asked many times, most recently by his colleague Anderson, to attend Village functions, and it appears he simply refuses.
Since the inception of our Manager form of management in the Village, Commissioners are liberated from managing departments themselves, but they are now charged with submitting, in writing or verbally, evaluations of the Manager's performance. There has even been some debate and significant disagreement about how these evaluations should be presented, with Cooper insisting the evaluations should be in writing. During his two years in office so far, he has been responsible for two yearly evaluations. He has submitted neither of them. He alleges "legal advice" not to submit the evaluations that are his responsibility (he doesn't reveal who the attorney supposedly is), but this has not kept him from routinely criticizing the Manager on the record and at Commission meetings, including a range of formal accusations.
So we have a problem. We have a Commissioner who accepts our trust and our money, and the responsibility to represent us, and costs us considerably more than his salary, but who returns almost nothing. And what he does return is mostly disruptive and undermining to the Village. He does not appear to "represent" the Village and its residents in any way. It's not even clear he represents himself. For two years, he and Bernard wasted a great deal of meeting time, every month, insisting that meeting minutes, which they portrayed as incomplete, faulty, and frankly illegal, be corrected with various amendments and inclusions. At the meeting this week, Cooper joined the others in passing six sets of minutes, with no corrections whatsoever. And these minutes represented meetings of the same Commission, and were prepared by the same Clerk, as all the minutes that were so invariably considered faulty. It appears Cooper's greatest devotion in the Village is to struggle, find fault, blame, and disrupt. And waste residents' money.
Bryan Cooper has been a Commissioner for two years. As it happens, he received more votes than any other candidate when he was elected. So to think of Orwell, if all Commissioners are equal, but some are more equal than others, it could be argued that Cooper's representation of his neighbors is more pervasive than that of his colleagues. And as a frame of reference, not only did Cooper receive more votes than his rivals two years ago, he also received more votes than any of the winners this year. He must feel some attachment to his position. He cashed all his checks.
During his tenure thus far on the Commission, Cooper has made himself conspicuous. He has generally been more argumentative, with his colleagues and with his constituents, than any other Commissioner. It's true that Bernard wasted more time, and was more eloquent and verbose in his complaints, but Cooper was more likely to be the lone Commissioner out when votes were 4-1. Cooper was also more combative with the Commission and the neighborhood. He tended to blame and accuse on a more or less regular basis, and he has been prone to wanting investigations of the behavior of others. On one occasion, he demanded an investigation of the Manager, didn't mind spending $5000 on this investigation, and when the investigation concluded that he was the problem, he wanted the report vacated. He has since suggested another investigation of the Manager. So he wastes Village money on empty campaigns. He also takes leading responsibility for extra legal consultation for the Village, so he has handed us inflated legal fees.
Cooper also not infrequently warns the Village that its postures and procedures could result in its being sued. The Village has not been sued in the past two years, and since Cooper is the only person who keeps talking about it, one wonders whether he is trying to tell us that he is planning, or ready, to sue the Village for something or other.
Commissioners are expected generally to represent the Village in various ways. The most obvious of these is attendance at Commission meetings. From the date Cooper became a Commissioner, there have been many regular Commission meetings, and a few special Commission meetings. Ross missed one meeting. Anderson missed one. Childress missed two. Bernard missed three. Cooper missed five meetings outright. He left another less than half way through the meeting, and that meeting ended an hour earlier than most. He attended two other meetings by telephone, at his insistence, and was hard to include because of the connection. He "attended" one of these early Commission meetings from another country, and he then proceeded to disrupt the meeting, because he would not control a loudly barking dog in the room with him.
Within those meetings, a level of decorum and propriety is generally expected. This is not specifically elaborated in the Charter, but most normal adults would presume it. Cooper is quite regularly argumentative and rude in his dealings with his colleagues, overtalking, interrupting, provoking, and sometimes threatening. In his dealings with the public, he is likewise argumentative. He tends to be the only Commissioner who requests opportunities to debate his neighbors. In the last Commission meeting, he refused to answer a direct and simple question from one speaker, simply staring at her instead, and conspicuously ignored another, who pleaded with him to stop texting and pay attention to her while she was addressing the Commission. He eventually alleged that his activities with his cell phone represented doing "research," and he still refused to do the speaker the courtesy of suspending whatever it was he was doing, so he could even appear to care what she was saying.
Elected officials in the Park are generally expected to appear at public functions. Cooper is deliberate and methodical about absenting himself from them. A year or two ago, a visioning meeting was arranged for the Commission, largely to address problems caused or materially contributed to by Cooper. He was the only Commissioner who did not attend. Later, when the meeting was reported by the mediator hired to conduct it, Cooper asked if he could "vote" on a decision made by attendees. He clearly had not the slightest comprehension of group process, and failed completely to recognize that the purpose of the meeting was an exercise in collaboration, not a specific vote. Because of his persistent complaints that the Village, and the Commission, and the managerial staff, do not do as he personally would like them to, he has declared a strike against the Village and its residents, and he refuses to attend any community events. At former Mayor Ross' recent "State of the Village Address," a large series of slides was displayed, showing a number of community get-togethers of various kinds and for various purposes. Cooper was included in two photographs, and those two were taken at Commission meetings. He has been asked many times, most recently by his colleague Anderson, to attend Village functions, and it appears he simply refuses.
Since the inception of our Manager form of management in the Village, Commissioners are liberated from managing departments themselves, but they are now charged with submitting, in writing or verbally, evaluations of the Manager's performance. There has even been some debate and significant disagreement about how these evaluations should be presented, with Cooper insisting the evaluations should be in writing. During his two years in office so far, he has been responsible for two yearly evaluations. He has submitted neither of them. He alleges "legal advice" not to submit the evaluations that are his responsibility (he doesn't reveal who the attorney supposedly is), but this has not kept him from routinely criticizing the Manager on the record and at Commission meetings, including a range of formal accusations.
So we have a problem. We have a Commissioner who accepts our trust and our money, and the responsibility to represent us, and costs us considerably more than his salary, but who returns almost nothing. And what he does return is mostly disruptive and undermining to the Village. He does not appear to "represent" the Village and its residents in any way. It's not even clear he represents himself. For two years, he and Bernard wasted a great deal of meeting time, every month, insisting that meeting minutes, which they portrayed as incomplete, faulty, and frankly illegal, be corrected with various amendments and inclusions. At the meeting this week, Cooper joined the others in passing six sets of minutes, with no corrections whatsoever. And these minutes represented meetings of the same Commission, and were prepared by the same Clerk, as all the minutes that were so invariably considered faulty. It appears Cooper's greatest devotion in the Village is to struggle, find fault, blame, and disrupt. And waste residents' money.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
You Call It.
In the Residents' Bill of Rights in our Charter, the following statement occurs:
(7) No Unreasonable Postponements. No matter, once having been placed on a formal agenda by the Village, shall be postponed to another date except for good cause shown.
If the fence Ordinance has been worked on by the Code Review Committee for over two years, has come before the Commission several times during the past 1-2 years, has been sent back for reworking after reworking, keeps coming back to the Commission, has been the topic of a workshop, and a lame duck Commissioner with the last Commission considered himself not authorized, by virtue of his self-imposed lame duck status, to rule on it, would a further delay of two months now be considered an "unreasonable postponement?" Does the buck ever stop anywhere? And would it matter if the reason for the postponement was that one Commissioner wanted more information, having failed to come to any meetings of the Code Review Committee, or the workshop? How much more, and what more, does he want? In fact, it seems he didn't know there had been a workshop. Workshops, by the way, are not free. We pay staff and our attorney to attend them.
Or suppose another Commissioner wanted a postponement, because he was newly elected, hadn't bothered to research the matter before the meeting (or during his campaign, or at any other prior time), and felt that the over 2 years of Code Review attention, 1-2 years of Commission attention, and workshop, was too much of a rush job. He wanted us to take it slow. I tried to tell him before he got elected that he wasn't ready for this job, and that in BP, slow usually means never, but he disagreed with me. So why is he now proving me right? Is "don't know the first thing about it, and couldn't be bothered to find out" a pretty "good cause" for postponement? This, by the way, is the same person who was evidently so oblivious to what was going on in the Village, that he just found out about the FPL hardening project the day the concrete pole was erected in his yard. People talking about it for months? Nope, unaware. Three wood stakes in his yard for two months? No, some guy said something about buried lines. Two announcements mailed in advance by FPL? Nope, didn't notice. And this is the Commissioner (our Mayor?) who now says the fence issue has been sprung on him too suddenly.
And suppose a third Commissioner simply went along with the other two, because she didn't have the wherewithal to take an independent stand? And presumably also hadn't done enough homework to have formed an opinion before the meeting. Do these sound like compelling enough reasons for further pussy-footing? There is of course the possibility that a "higher power" directed all three to delay, because he himself didn't want the fence Ordinance, but we won't even go there.
And add to that that many residents came to the Commission meeting to plead with the new Commission to vote for, or at least on, the fence Ordinance already, as a number of residents were being hung up waiting for a ruling.
"Unreasonable postponement?" Or maybe careful and due diligence? You make the call. And after you've made a call, contact all of our Commissioners, and let them know what you think. Either scold them or thank them for the delay. And if you think they did the wrong thing, let them know they committed a Charter violation, and violated your rights as a resident.
(7) No Unreasonable Postponements. No matter, once having been placed on a formal agenda by the Village, shall be postponed to another date except for good cause shown.
If the fence Ordinance has been worked on by the Code Review Committee for over two years, has come before the Commission several times during the past 1-2 years, has been sent back for reworking after reworking, keeps coming back to the Commission, has been the topic of a workshop, and a lame duck Commissioner with the last Commission considered himself not authorized, by virtue of his self-imposed lame duck status, to rule on it, would a further delay of two months now be considered an "unreasonable postponement?" Does the buck ever stop anywhere? And would it matter if the reason for the postponement was that one Commissioner wanted more information, having failed to come to any meetings of the Code Review Committee, or the workshop? How much more, and what more, does he want? In fact, it seems he didn't know there had been a workshop. Workshops, by the way, are not free. We pay staff and our attorney to attend them.
Or suppose another Commissioner wanted a postponement, because he was newly elected, hadn't bothered to research the matter before the meeting (or during his campaign, or at any other prior time), and felt that the over 2 years of Code Review attention, 1-2 years of Commission attention, and workshop, was too much of a rush job. He wanted us to take it slow. I tried to tell him before he got elected that he wasn't ready for this job, and that in BP, slow usually means never, but he disagreed with me. So why is he now proving me right? Is "don't know the first thing about it, and couldn't be bothered to find out" a pretty "good cause" for postponement? This, by the way, is the same person who was evidently so oblivious to what was going on in the Village, that he just found out about the FPL hardening project the day the concrete pole was erected in his yard. People talking about it for months? Nope, unaware. Three wood stakes in his yard for two months? No, some guy said something about buried lines. Two announcements mailed in advance by FPL? Nope, didn't notice. And this is the Commissioner (our Mayor?) who now says the fence issue has been sprung on him too suddenly.
And suppose a third Commissioner simply went along with the other two, because she didn't have the wherewithal to take an independent stand? And presumably also hadn't done enough homework to have formed an opinion before the meeting. Do these sound like compelling enough reasons for further pussy-footing? There is of course the possibility that a "higher power" directed all three to delay, because he himself didn't want the fence Ordinance, but we won't even go there.
And add to that that many residents came to the Commission meeting to plead with the new Commission to vote for, or at least on, the fence Ordinance already, as a number of residents were being hung up waiting for a ruling.
"Unreasonable postponement?" Or maybe careful and due diligence? You make the call. And after you've made a call, contact all of our Commissioners, and let them know what you think. Either scold them or thank them for the delay. And if you think they did the wrong thing, let them know they committed a Charter violation, and violated your rights as a resident.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
How Can I Put This?
So we got to see our new Commission in action tonight. It's a little hard to describe. Perhaps the beginning would be a good place to begin. The new Commission met one of its first and most important goals: it unceremoniously, in mindless bloc, dumped the Mayor. It then replaced her with the new Commissioner who has no experience with the Village and its functioning, had already said he would now, having become a Commissioner, have to find out about the issues, and was the low vote-getter in last week's election.
It then went on to consider the business of the meeting. An important issue was the new fence Ordinance. The mindless bloc, having heard from resident after resident that they wanted the Ordinance passed tonight, deferred the matter for a couple more months. This bloc is the people who complained so much that the Commission doesn't listen to the residents. And they deferred it allegedly to receive more resident input, which was exactly the thing they ignored tonight. They wanted, for example, a workshop. What they really had to want is another workshop, since we've already had one. But they had no way of knowing that, since none of the bloc attended it. Cooper, when he was outed for not having attended the workshop, couldn't bring himself to acknowledge the fact. It's been a while since I've seen anyone look that foolish. Neither he nor his new colleagues has ever attended any meeting where the fence Ordinance has been discussed and reworked. The fact is, it wasn't clear what they wanted, except somehow to run and hide from the fence Ordinance. They never said what their real problem was. Cooper used the word "smokescreen," which is probably right. The interesting question is, what's behind the screen of smoke?
This new Commission also passed a Consent Agenda, which included six sets of minutes from prior meetings. Cooper always joined Bernard in making the old Commission waste lots of time going over the minutes, insisting on change and addition after change and addition. This time, they simply passed all the minutes with no scrutiny at all. They gave no reason for their grossly inconsistent approach to what they usually like to portray as a huge problem that needs abundant correction. And the funny thing is, Bernard and Cooper used to complain that they, and the residents, were being steamrolled in suppression of accuracy of the minutes, because they got outvoted by the brute majority. Now, they had the majority, in Cooper, Watts, and Jacobs, the latter two being new Commissioners who ran on Bernard- and Cooper-inspired campaigns of openness, honesty, transparency, and accountability. This was it. The big opportunity to demand and enforce complete and accurate minutes. It appears none of them really cared one bit about the minutes, or openness, honesty, transparency, or accountability. These theories were merely excuses to whine and accuse.
One thing the new Commission did is demonstrate repeatedly that the new Commissioners don't know or understand the issues, and stumbled around trying to figure out what they were doing. They seemed never to figure it out. Watts made a motion that she then wanted to vote against, which she isn't allowed to do, so she wound up being the only person to vote for it. Jacobs gave a clear and careful explanation, in support of Cooper, as to why it was wrong for elected officials to carry "police-style badges," then voted in favor of keeping the tradition. (It might have occurred to him that he was going to get one, too, and his would be that super nifty one that said "Mayor.") Cooper was taken to task by a resident over texting while the resident was speaking, but he first ignored the resident's repeated complaint of disrespect, then claimed to be doing "research." (He was texting with Bernard, who stayed to monitor, if not perhaps supervise, the proceedings.) In any event, it appears our new Mayor didn't think it was his job to ask Cooper to put his toys away, or maybe he didn't disagree that residents should be treated so disrespectfully. And again, you really had to be there, to watch Cooper completely ignore a resident who was pleading with him to show some courtesy and pay attention. This scene ran a close second to Cooper's being confronted for not having come to the workshop just like the one he now claims he wants, and simply staring dumbly at the resident who was confronting him. These are what Jon Stewart calls "Moments of Zen."
Fortunately, the new Commission had Ross, who was remarkably gracious, and the Village attorney to tell them what to do, since they very clearly had no idea. Not only do they not have any grasp of the issues, but they also have no understanding of the rules for meetings.
No doubt they will improve some. The Manager has offered to help them, and so has the Village attorney. It appears Roxy Ross will fill many gaping holes in the capacity of her new colleagues.
In reality, the meeting was pretty pathetic. At the end, Bernard commented about how courageous it was that the Commission heard such strong and impassioned urgings for action from so many residents in attendance, but it was able to ignore all of them and defer the fence issue to February. Bernard, Cooper, and the new Commissioners are the people who made such a fuss, and so much campaign hay, over the idea that the residents were to be heard, respected, and obeyed. Bernard used to complain so bitterly that the majority of the Commission turned a deaf ear to residents. Tonight, he praised his puppets for doing exactly that. It did look a little less like puppetry tonight. It looked more like someone operating a radio controlled vehicle, Bernard sitting there, texting away, while his proteges lurched first one way, then another. Well, maybe next time. Maybe next time the residents' wishes can be taken remotely into account. Maybe next time, the residents won't have to be insulted by Cooper's incessant texting, or playing Tetris, or whatever he was doing, while they're speaking to him. Yeah, maybe next time.
Correction: One of my correspondents says Cooper was not playing Tetris. She said she could tell by his expression, and how entranced he was by his cell phone game, that he was playing Sim City. My mistake. Sorry.
It then went on to consider the business of the meeting. An important issue was the new fence Ordinance. The mindless bloc, having heard from resident after resident that they wanted the Ordinance passed tonight, deferred the matter for a couple more months. This bloc is the people who complained so much that the Commission doesn't listen to the residents. And they deferred it allegedly to receive more resident input, which was exactly the thing they ignored tonight. They wanted, for example, a workshop. What they really had to want is another workshop, since we've already had one. But they had no way of knowing that, since none of the bloc attended it. Cooper, when he was outed for not having attended the workshop, couldn't bring himself to acknowledge the fact. It's been a while since I've seen anyone look that foolish. Neither he nor his new colleagues has ever attended any meeting where the fence Ordinance has been discussed and reworked. The fact is, it wasn't clear what they wanted, except somehow to run and hide from the fence Ordinance. They never said what their real problem was. Cooper used the word "smokescreen," which is probably right. The interesting question is, what's behind the screen of smoke?
This new Commission also passed a Consent Agenda, which included six sets of minutes from prior meetings. Cooper always joined Bernard in making the old Commission waste lots of time going over the minutes, insisting on change and addition after change and addition. This time, they simply passed all the minutes with no scrutiny at all. They gave no reason for their grossly inconsistent approach to what they usually like to portray as a huge problem that needs abundant correction. And the funny thing is, Bernard and Cooper used to complain that they, and the residents, were being steamrolled in suppression of accuracy of the minutes, because they got outvoted by the brute majority. Now, they had the majority, in Cooper, Watts, and Jacobs, the latter two being new Commissioners who ran on Bernard- and Cooper-inspired campaigns of openness, honesty, transparency, and accountability. This was it. The big opportunity to demand and enforce complete and accurate minutes. It appears none of them really cared one bit about the minutes, or openness, honesty, transparency, or accountability. These theories were merely excuses to whine and accuse.
One thing the new Commission did is demonstrate repeatedly that the new Commissioners don't know or understand the issues, and stumbled around trying to figure out what they were doing. They seemed never to figure it out. Watts made a motion that she then wanted to vote against, which she isn't allowed to do, so she wound up being the only person to vote for it. Jacobs gave a clear and careful explanation, in support of Cooper, as to why it was wrong for elected officials to carry "police-style badges," then voted in favor of keeping the tradition. (It might have occurred to him that he was going to get one, too, and his would be that super nifty one that said "Mayor.") Cooper was taken to task by a resident over texting while the resident was speaking, but he first ignored the resident's repeated complaint of disrespect, then claimed to be doing "research." (He was texting with Bernard, who stayed to monitor, if not perhaps supervise, the proceedings.) In any event, it appears our new Mayor didn't think it was his job to ask Cooper to put his toys away, or maybe he didn't disagree that residents should be treated so disrespectfully. And again, you really had to be there, to watch Cooper completely ignore a resident who was pleading with him to show some courtesy and pay attention. This scene ran a close second to Cooper's being confronted for not having come to the workshop just like the one he now claims he wants, and simply staring dumbly at the resident who was confronting him. These are what Jon Stewart calls "Moments of Zen."
Fortunately, the new Commission had Ross, who was remarkably gracious, and the Village attorney to tell them what to do, since they very clearly had no idea. Not only do they not have any grasp of the issues, but they also have no understanding of the rules for meetings.
No doubt they will improve some. The Manager has offered to help them, and so has the Village attorney. It appears Roxy Ross will fill many gaping holes in the capacity of her new colleagues.
In reality, the meeting was pretty pathetic. At the end, Bernard commented about how courageous it was that the Commission heard such strong and impassioned urgings for action from so many residents in attendance, but it was able to ignore all of them and defer the fence issue to February. Bernard, Cooper, and the new Commissioners are the people who made such a fuss, and so much campaign hay, over the idea that the residents were to be heard, respected, and obeyed. Bernard used to complain so bitterly that the majority of the Commission turned a deaf ear to residents. Tonight, he praised his puppets for doing exactly that. It did look a little less like puppetry tonight. It looked more like someone operating a radio controlled vehicle, Bernard sitting there, texting away, while his proteges lurched first one way, then another. Well, maybe next time. Maybe next time the residents' wishes can be taken remotely into account. Maybe next time, the residents won't have to be insulted by Cooper's incessant texting, or playing Tetris, or whatever he was doing, while they're speaking to him. Yeah, maybe next time.
Correction: One of my correspondents says Cooper was not playing Tetris. She said she could tell by his expression, and how entranced he was by his cell phone game, that he was playing Sim City. My mistake. Sorry.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
What a shame.
The Village had an election last week. Frankly, by all estimations, the race was pretty hotly contested. There were two fairly clearly identifiable factions, and each faction considered the other threatening and destructive.
I sent out daily e-mails for almost a week before the election, urging people to vote. And urging recipients to urge their contacts to vote. Steve Bernard personally provided signs posted in various easy-to-see places also urging people to vote.
Voter turnout was meager. It was less than it had been two years ago. Less than 600 people voted, and there are about 1900 registered voters in the Park. I'm saying turnout was meager, but it wouldn't be wrong to say it was a disgrace. And frankly embarrassing.
We live in a small neighborhood, and many people know each other on a personal level. There was every reason to take an interest. Few people did. Voting is easy. There's a central and easily accessible place where we all vote, and it's open all day, from 7 AM to 7 PM. Anyone who couldn't be available to come out, or couldn't be bothered, could have sent in an absentee ballot. About 50 people did. That's part of the less that 600 total voters.
There are things that can be done. The obvious one is to move our Village voting, which occurs in December of odd numbered years, to the general election, which occurs in November of even numbered years. Because there are more issues on the ballot, people are more interested, or motivated, and we would get more voters. There is a small movement against this, but it doesn't make any democratic sense. And by the way, it costs us several thousand dollars to run our little non-productive elections. Considering the turnout, it's a waste of good money. We would save a lot of money if we hooked on to the general elections, as most municipalities do.
Another thing we could do is reward people for voting, or find a way to punish them if they don't. This is a little tricky, and since the most attention-grabbing reward is money, we would disadvantage ourselves fiscally if we paid people to vote. But we could do it.
The real problem, though, is that we as a Village have failed to inspire people to vote. It's not clear to me how we do that, and we seem to do it repeatedly. Do we offer uninspiring candidates, so no one has passion for any of them? Maybe. The high vote-getter this year got about 320 of the under 600 votes, and those less-than-600 represent less than 1/3 of registered voters. So at best, there's very little energy, even for the biggest of the winners. Interestingly, the big winner this time doesn't yet appear to be complaining about the lack of respect. Neither did the big winner two years ago. Neither did the big winner two years before that. Perhaps winning relatively big creates a kind of conflict of interest. Like it's hard to get Congress to make rules against PACs and lobbyists. Do we expect them to bite the hand that fed them? When you're winning, it's hard to get distracted by things like democracy and caring about the unknown will of the sizable majority.
(As a follow-up to the paragraph immediately above, the Miami Herald Neighbors section today had an article about last week's election and results. The high vote-getter said she was "gratified that many people" voted for her. So unfortunately, my apprehension was confirmed. She was so happy about her big victory that she missed the community failure and the insult to her. Expectations even among candidates are pretty unambitious. All very pitiful and pathetic.)
There are some in our neighborhood who have portrayed that there are momentous issues to consider, that it's vitally important who is elected, and that the balance of the life of the neighborhood depends on voter turnout. Even if the crises and crusades are invented, it certainly sounds like something that would move people to vote. Apparently not.
The other side, in contrast to the crusaders, says things are going fine, and there isn't much really to complain about or stress over. So under the threat of a possible new majority that talks as if it wanted to undo the good that has been done, and threaten our positive adjustment, that side should have been motivated to come out, to preserve their happy home from anarchists and saboteurs. Nope. They weren't there either.
So the bottom line is that hardly anyone votes. Does hardly anyone give a damn what happens to Biscayne Park? They're registered here. This is their home. Really? Couldn't care less? It's a damn shame.
And to add true insult to injury, even the few people who vote don't come to Commission meetings. So the electors of the winners don't know what they wrought, and those who failed to get their candidates elected don't know what they overlooked and missed out on.
I sent out daily e-mails for almost a week before the election, urging people to vote. And urging recipients to urge their contacts to vote. Steve Bernard personally provided signs posted in various easy-to-see places also urging people to vote.
Voter turnout was meager. It was less than it had been two years ago. Less than 600 people voted, and there are about 1900 registered voters in the Park. I'm saying turnout was meager, but it wouldn't be wrong to say it was a disgrace. And frankly embarrassing.
We live in a small neighborhood, and many people know each other on a personal level. There was every reason to take an interest. Few people did. Voting is easy. There's a central and easily accessible place where we all vote, and it's open all day, from 7 AM to 7 PM. Anyone who couldn't be available to come out, or couldn't be bothered, could have sent in an absentee ballot. About 50 people did. That's part of the less that 600 total voters.
There are things that can be done. The obvious one is to move our Village voting, which occurs in December of odd numbered years, to the general election, which occurs in November of even numbered years. Because there are more issues on the ballot, people are more interested, or motivated, and we would get more voters. There is a small movement against this, but it doesn't make any democratic sense. And by the way, it costs us several thousand dollars to run our little non-productive elections. Considering the turnout, it's a waste of good money. We would save a lot of money if we hooked on to the general elections, as most municipalities do.
Another thing we could do is reward people for voting, or find a way to punish them if they don't. This is a little tricky, and since the most attention-grabbing reward is money, we would disadvantage ourselves fiscally if we paid people to vote. But we could do it.
The real problem, though, is that we as a Village have failed to inspire people to vote. It's not clear to me how we do that, and we seem to do it repeatedly. Do we offer uninspiring candidates, so no one has passion for any of them? Maybe. The high vote-getter this year got about 320 of the under 600 votes, and those less-than-600 represent less than 1/3 of registered voters. So at best, there's very little energy, even for the biggest of the winners. Interestingly, the big winner this time doesn't yet appear to be complaining about the lack of respect. Neither did the big winner two years ago. Neither did the big winner two years before that. Perhaps winning relatively big creates a kind of conflict of interest. Like it's hard to get Congress to make rules against PACs and lobbyists. Do we expect them to bite the hand that fed them? When you're winning, it's hard to get distracted by things like democracy and caring about the unknown will of the sizable majority.
(As a follow-up to the paragraph immediately above, the Miami Herald Neighbors section today had an article about last week's election and results. The high vote-getter said she was "gratified that many people" voted for her. So unfortunately, my apprehension was confirmed. She was so happy about her big victory that she missed the community failure and the insult to her. Expectations even among candidates are pretty unambitious. All very pitiful and pathetic.)
There are some in our neighborhood who have portrayed that there are momentous issues to consider, that it's vitally important who is elected, and that the balance of the life of the neighborhood depends on voter turnout. Even if the crises and crusades are invented, it certainly sounds like something that would move people to vote. Apparently not.
The other side, in contrast to the crusaders, says things are going fine, and there isn't much really to complain about or stress over. So under the threat of a possible new majority that talks as if it wanted to undo the good that has been done, and threaten our positive adjustment, that side should have been motivated to come out, to preserve their happy home from anarchists and saboteurs. Nope. They weren't there either.
So the bottom line is that hardly anyone votes. Does hardly anyone give a damn what happens to Biscayne Park? They're registered here. This is their home. Really? Couldn't care less? It's a damn shame.
And to add true insult to injury, even the few people who vote don't come to Commission meetings. So the electors of the winners don't know what they wrought, and those who failed to get their candidates elected don't know what they overlooked and missed out on.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Now What?
The results are in. Our new Commissioners are Barbara Watts and Noah Jacobs. Bob Anderson was re-elected.
Watts and Jacobs ran on a platform that was indistinguishable from the ongoing complaints of Steve Bernard, supported by Bryan Cooper. Watts has adequate familiarity with the Village and its government, though she has said repeatedly she didn't want to be a Commissioner, and she told one person she ran only because she couldn't find anyone else to run. Jacobs has no relevant experience in the Village whatsoever, and he has no identifiable connection to or knowledge of how the Village and its government operate. Both Watts and Jacobs ran on a platform that centered on complaints about FPL (the Franchise Agreement and the grid hardening project), and there is nothing that can be done about any of this. A side issue for Watts and Jacobs was to clean house, to eliminate incumbents. Since both Watts and Jacobs were elected, they have displaced as many incumbents as the two of them could. The only thing they could have done more was to get Dorvil elected, to try to displace Anderson, but apparently this was not their agenda. For one thing, there were 219 undervotes, which are people who voted for less than three candidates. So assuming there was a movement to get Watts and Jacobs elected, and that movement encouraged interested participants to vote only for the two of them, any mastermind of such a movement shot himself in the foot by preventing Dorvil from getting elected. For another thing, though, Jacobs came in third. So if Dorvil had been elected, he would have knocked out Jacobs, and left Anderson in place.
But the issue is, what do the apparent spawn of Steve Bernard plan to do now? The have railed mercilessly and incessantly about the FPL Franchise Agreement, but it is untouchable for the next 28 1/2 years. So apart from punishing one Commissioner who voted for it, Childress, they cannot accomplish anything. It's an empty issue. They have also whined lately about the hardening project, and the concrete poles, but there is nothing they can do about that, either. Nor would they want to if they could. FPL are not going to change the concrete poles for wood ones. And if they agreed to, they would point out that every concrete pole would have to replaced by 3-4 wood poles (they call it "hardening" for a reason; it's not just a simple replacement of one wood pole with another), and no one, not even the complainers, would want that.
So what will this new majority do? Most assuredly, they will want the verbatim minutes they have been pleading for. They will learn that those minutes will cost $1500-$2000 per meeting, a fact they have carefully avoided acknowledging, and since they also want revenues low, it is not clear how they will pay for those minutes. Presumably, next year, they will want to vacate the utility user fees against which they also rail, and this move will knock hell out of the Village revenues, making it even more impossible to pay for the minutes they claim they want. And to get funding for those minutes, they will have to ignore the fact that almost no one except Bernard and Cooper want them. This will be tricky, since Bernard and Cooper, and now Watts and Jacobs, claim the will of the people is important to them. They will somehow have to convince people that they should pay money they don't want to pay to get something they don't want to have. Or perhaps they will just insist on paying the money and getting the minutes no matter what anyone wants.
Also presumably, they will want the lines painted on the streets, a favored refrain for two years now. They will ignore the fact that the streets are too narrow, and no one has advised the Village to paint these lines, and they will paint them anyway. So we drive on streets that are barely wide enough for a car, and now they have a phony bike/pedestrian path suggested on them. Then what?
Bernard and Cooper have been fussing and fuming about the Manager, whom they would very much like to kick out. The new majority might make such a move. They will be met with massive resistance. Let's suppose they power past the resistance, and get rid of the Manager anyway. So we get a new Manager. Our Charter requires us to have one. And let's suppose we underpay the new Manager, and make his or her life miserable as the old minority worked extremely hard to make our current Manager's life miserable. So as often as it can happen in two years, we go through a succession of short-term Managers. And let's imagine that the new majority forget their interest in hearing and obeying the voice of the people, and they lose us Managers and equanimity. Then what?
The old minority, now the new majority, actively complain about failures of "transparency." They have never made clear what they meant, and most or all of the assaults on transparency came from the old minority anyway, so it's not clear how they convert this into policy. And if Bernard was instrumental in getting Cooper to run and getting him elected, and if he was also instrumental in getting Watts and Jacobs to run, and getting them elected, and if he and Cooper were active in campaigning for Watts and Jacobs, what is the chance that Cooper, Watts, Jacobs, and Bernard are not extremely active in colluding outside the "Sunshine?" My best guess is that it's unimaginable. So much for "transparency."
So it will be interesting to see what Cooper, Watts, and Jacobs will do with the opportunity they have just succeeded in arranging for themselves. And I hope more residents will come to Commission meetings. If the new majority are both wrong and blind, and they begin a series of acts that are destructive to the Village, someone will need to be there to confront them. And besides, you would think people would be pleased to come to meetings. After all, they elected these people. Don't they want to come to bask in the experience they have created for themselves and the rest of us? Maybe the rest of us would like them there, so we can thank them for providing the new, open, honest, careful, fiscally responsible Commission they gave us. That was the deal, right? Open, honest, careful, and fiscally responsible. I can hardly wait.
Watts and Jacobs ran on a platform that was indistinguishable from the ongoing complaints of Steve Bernard, supported by Bryan Cooper. Watts has adequate familiarity with the Village and its government, though she has said repeatedly she didn't want to be a Commissioner, and she told one person she ran only because she couldn't find anyone else to run. Jacobs has no relevant experience in the Village whatsoever, and he has no identifiable connection to or knowledge of how the Village and its government operate. Both Watts and Jacobs ran on a platform that centered on complaints about FPL (the Franchise Agreement and the grid hardening project), and there is nothing that can be done about any of this. A side issue for Watts and Jacobs was to clean house, to eliminate incumbents. Since both Watts and Jacobs were elected, they have displaced as many incumbents as the two of them could. The only thing they could have done more was to get Dorvil elected, to try to displace Anderson, but apparently this was not their agenda. For one thing, there were 219 undervotes, which are people who voted for less than three candidates. So assuming there was a movement to get Watts and Jacobs elected, and that movement encouraged interested participants to vote only for the two of them, any mastermind of such a movement shot himself in the foot by preventing Dorvil from getting elected. For another thing, though, Jacobs came in third. So if Dorvil had been elected, he would have knocked out Jacobs, and left Anderson in place.
But the issue is, what do the apparent spawn of Steve Bernard plan to do now? The have railed mercilessly and incessantly about the FPL Franchise Agreement, but it is untouchable for the next 28 1/2 years. So apart from punishing one Commissioner who voted for it, Childress, they cannot accomplish anything. It's an empty issue. They have also whined lately about the hardening project, and the concrete poles, but there is nothing they can do about that, either. Nor would they want to if they could. FPL are not going to change the concrete poles for wood ones. And if they agreed to, they would point out that every concrete pole would have to replaced by 3-4 wood poles (they call it "hardening" for a reason; it's not just a simple replacement of one wood pole with another), and no one, not even the complainers, would want that.
So what will this new majority do? Most assuredly, they will want the verbatim minutes they have been pleading for. They will learn that those minutes will cost $1500-$2000 per meeting, a fact they have carefully avoided acknowledging, and since they also want revenues low, it is not clear how they will pay for those minutes. Presumably, next year, they will want to vacate the utility user fees against which they also rail, and this move will knock hell out of the Village revenues, making it even more impossible to pay for the minutes they claim they want. And to get funding for those minutes, they will have to ignore the fact that almost no one except Bernard and Cooper want them. This will be tricky, since Bernard and Cooper, and now Watts and Jacobs, claim the will of the people is important to them. They will somehow have to convince people that they should pay money they don't want to pay to get something they don't want to have. Or perhaps they will just insist on paying the money and getting the minutes no matter what anyone wants.
Also presumably, they will want the lines painted on the streets, a favored refrain for two years now. They will ignore the fact that the streets are too narrow, and no one has advised the Village to paint these lines, and they will paint them anyway. So we drive on streets that are barely wide enough for a car, and now they have a phony bike/pedestrian path suggested on them. Then what?
Bernard and Cooper have been fussing and fuming about the Manager, whom they would very much like to kick out. The new majority might make such a move. They will be met with massive resistance. Let's suppose they power past the resistance, and get rid of the Manager anyway. So we get a new Manager. Our Charter requires us to have one. And let's suppose we underpay the new Manager, and make his or her life miserable as the old minority worked extremely hard to make our current Manager's life miserable. So as often as it can happen in two years, we go through a succession of short-term Managers. And let's imagine that the new majority forget their interest in hearing and obeying the voice of the people, and they lose us Managers and equanimity. Then what?
The old minority, now the new majority, actively complain about failures of "transparency." They have never made clear what they meant, and most or all of the assaults on transparency came from the old minority anyway, so it's not clear how they convert this into policy. And if Bernard was instrumental in getting Cooper to run and getting him elected, and if he was also instrumental in getting Watts and Jacobs to run, and getting them elected, and if he and Cooper were active in campaigning for Watts and Jacobs, what is the chance that Cooper, Watts, Jacobs, and Bernard are not extremely active in colluding outside the "Sunshine?" My best guess is that it's unimaginable. So much for "transparency."
So it will be interesting to see what Cooper, Watts, and Jacobs will do with the opportunity they have just succeeded in arranging for themselves. And I hope more residents will come to Commission meetings. If the new majority are both wrong and blind, and they begin a series of acts that are destructive to the Village, someone will need to be there to confront them. And besides, you would think people would be pleased to come to meetings. After all, they elected these people. Don't they want to come to bask in the experience they have created for themselves and the rest of us? Maybe the rest of us would like them there, so we can thank them for providing the new, open, honest, careful, fiscally responsible Commission they gave us. That was the deal, right? Open, honest, careful, and fiscally responsible. I can hardly wait.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Really?
Last night, there was a special Commission meeting. There was only one agenda item, which was consideration of five adjustments to the budget. Yes, the budget. This is the thing, apart from FPL, that has gotten so much attention, especially from two Commissioners and a few allegedly interested parties, for its extreme importance to the Village, and its susceptibility to nefarious manipulation. Threats of rolling heads, including of the Manager and finance staff, have been made over this budget. Two residents are running for Commission in part based on complaints of secrecy, "fuzzy math," and mischief made over this budget. Did I give the impression this matter is considered by some to be earth-shaking? Good.
Let's say it how it was: this was a shockingly poorly attended meeting. Fewer non-Commissioner residents were there than are usually at Commission meetings. Meetings where the agendas are not as important to the functioning of the Village are better attended than this one was. One of the two primary plaintiff Commissioners was not there. He said in advance he wasn't coming to any more Commission meetings. The other four Commissioners were there. Most of the Village meeting regulars weren't there. Of the three residents running for Commission as non-incumbents, only one was there. The two who have been campaigning on platforms against secrecy, against "fuzzy math," and in support of the Commission's hearing and endorsing the voice of the residents, weren't there. That's a level of interest in the Village? And we're talking about people who are running for Commission.
No non-Commission resident had any advance comments about the budget. The other main plaintiff Commissioner about alleged legislative and managerial mischief had several questions. Every one was answered directly, completely, and in detail. Nobody else had much. There was no i left undotted or t left uncrossed by the Manager, the Finance Director, the Police Chief, and the Finance clerk regarding this budget.
A vote was taken. The budget, with amendments, passed 3-1. The Commissioner who demanded answers, and got them, voted against the budget anyway. Not that his vote mattered. Not that it ever matters. He is an inveterate nay-sayer. He's a misanthrope. He's a hopeless and lost curmudgeon. And he brings nothing to the table. He has completely marginalized himself, and made himself meaningless and irrelevant. Last night was no exception. There is no pleasing him, any more than his absent lame duck partner can be pleased, because neither of them wants anything. "The answer is no: what's the question?" This is pure and self-contained obstructiveness and negativity. We saw exactly the same thing at the last Commission meeting about the budget (See my "Bada-Bing.")
Well, we're down one saboteur. We can only hope that if one or both of his preferred replacements wins election, they don't pick up in the same miserable, blind, negativistic place where he left off.
What a sad, sad career.
Let's say it how it was: this was a shockingly poorly attended meeting. Fewer non-Commissioner residents were there than are usually at Commission meetings. Meetings where the agendas are not as important to the functioning of the Village are better attended than this one was. One of the two primary plaintiff Commissioners was not there. He said in advance he wasn't coming to any more Commission meetings. The other four Commissioners were there. Most of the Village meeting regulars weren't there. Of the three residents running for Commission as non-incumbents, only one was there. The two who have been campaigning on platforms against secrecy, against "fuzzy math," and in support of the Commission's hearing and endorsing the voice of the residents, weren't there. That's a level of interest in the Village? And we're talking about people who are running for Commission.
No non-Commission resident had any advance comments about the budget. The other main plaintiff Commissioner about alleged legislative and managerial mischief had several questions. Every one was answered directly, completely, and in detail. Nobody else had much. There was no i left undotted or t left uncrossed by the Manager, the Finance Director, the Police Chief, and the Finance clerk regarding this budget.
A vote was taken. The budget, with amendments, passed 3-1. The Commissioner who demanded answers, and got them, voted against the budget anyway. Not that his vote mattered. Not that it ever matters. He is an inveterate nay-sayer. He's a misanthrope. He's a hopeless and lost curmudgeon. And he brings nothing to the table. He has completely marginalized himself, and made himself meaningless and irrelevant. Last night was no exception. There is no pleasing him, any more than his absent lame duck partner can be pleased, because neither of them wants anything. "The answer is no: what's the question?" This is pure and self-contained obstructiveness and negativity. We saw exactly the same thing at the last Commission meeting about the budget (See my "Bada-Bing.")
Well, we're down one saboteur. We can only hope that if one or both of his preferred replacements wins election, they don't pick up in the same miserable, blind, negativistic place where he left off.
What a sad, sad career.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Boss
I've begun to wonder. I thought I should check myself. Perhaps I've made a huge mistake.
There has been fairly incessant rumbling about what the residents of the Park want. The rumbling has come from Bernard and Cooper, and a few of their followers. A consistent drone has focused on FPL, whether we should have signed the Franchise Agreement with them, and whether we should have allowed them to replace the old wood poles with concrete ones. And the refrain is always that the residents of the Park didn't want the Agreement, or didn't want the concrete poles. The most recent examples of this argument were published in the Herald's Soapbox section a few days ago, and were represented by letters from Carmen De Bernardi and Bryan Cooper. So I've begun, as I say, to wonder. Whether I've fallen into a trap and been unfair, to Bernard, Cooper, De Bernardi, Watts, Jacobs, and some of the others.
In my partial defense, I have been lulled by the fact of so many misstatements. Some are distortions, some manipulations, and some outright dissembling. Because these clinkers are so common, I have allowed myself to disqualify whole positions. But have I, perhaps, thrown out an embryo with the contents of a septic tank?
The arguments tend to suggest two things. One is that the majority of the Commission, the steamrolling brutes, have been mindless and unfair (sometimes accused of being criminal) in taking the positions they have. And for all intents and purposes, we're talking about FPL here. Yes, it's true the FPL decision was made a year and a half ago, and is untouchable for the next 28 1/2 years, but the minority still invokes it as its primary example of the problem of which they complain. So as irrelevant and foolish as it is to waste one more instant on it, it's all they got, and we have to talk about it. The other thrust is that the people, usually framed as something related to a majority, want something, but their wishes are ignored. The demonstration of this theme is that "many residents have sent e-mails, or called" or whatever, making their feelings and wishes known. Again, this position was cited in the Herald Soapbox.
Before I go on, I want to be clear about something. I am not discussing whether the Agreement with FPL was the best idea for us, or whether we had any real say about the new poles. Many people, in the Park and in other municipalities, felt the Agreement was a good idea. But it's certainly debatable, as are most things. And many of us, even those whose houses are now graced with the new concrete poles, like mine, are either not complaining or are happy about the new poles. And no one argues that hardening shouldn't have happened, or wasn't going to happen. There has been a bit of mischief, in terms of saying things that are in no way true, by some who want to argue about the project and what it really was, and this is a distraction. The fact is, we could have replaced the old wood poles with concrete ones, at about one new pole to one old pole, or we could have requested replacement with new wood poles. Had we succeeded in obtaining the latter, assuming anyone wanted wood instead of concrete poles, we would be talking about 3-4 new wood poles for every old one (not three to two), the new wood poles would have been made available by cutting down lots of trees somewhere, and the wood poles would come treated with creosote and a collection of other rot-retarding chemicals, which leach into the ground. So it may be a bit less clear than some portray as to which kind of pole is more "environmental." But still, these are all matters fair for debate.
What I want to discuss is the question of what the people want, and how anyone knows. There are two primary self-appointed messengers of the people's will. They are Commissioners Bernard and Cooper. Cooper complains theoretically about the Village's failure to hear the people, and Bernard is specific and demonstrative. Bernard typically relies on two things to transmit the thoughts and will of other people. One is communications from them to him. These communications are most often alleged to be by e-mail. Sometimes, he will say he has received e-mail from some roughly calculated number of people. When he claims e-mail contact, he will sometimes wave a sheaf of papers, which he says are the printed e-mails. (And there is nothing "transparent" about a sheaf of papers containing who knows what writing, waved about, then hustled out of the Commission room without anyone's having seen them.) He almost never names any of the senders, and he occasionally says something which he portrays as a quote. On at least one inspection, the quote turned out to be a few words lifted completely out of context, and concluding exactly the opposite of what the e-mailer said. What he has never ever done is presented these alleged e-mails to his colleagues, or turned them in to the Village Clerk, so they could be made part of the public record. And apparently, he does not ask correspondents to send the same e-mails to the other Commissioners. Even Bernard's faithful ally, Cooper, does not apparently receive these e-mails. Stacks of reported signed petitions are equally mysterious.
Bernard's other source of information about what other people think is conversations he reports having had with them. I'm not talking here so much about "the people," or residents at large, but consultants and other specialists. On many occasions, these people, who tend to be under contract employment to the Village, will have articulated a position, including various "facts," to the general Commission and the Manager. But Bernard will report having had with them private conversations in which they reportedly gave him very different "facts," and very different, often diametrically opposed, conclusions and recommendations. It's never clear what to do with these massive discrepancies.
Cooper's approach manifests much less finesse, and is best characterized as essentially referencing Bernard and saying "yeah, what he said." What Cooper adds is results of internet or other researches, which at best reveal conclusions that are idiosyncratic, and at worst completely disrespect information clearly presented by others. His droning about a walking/bicycle path painted on the streets, mentioned in his letter to Soapbox, is a perfect example. He completely ignores a determination that the streets are too narrow, and that no knowledgable person ever recommended such a thing. Apart from just saying it, it's not clear Cooper has any idea what people think or want, or how he would possibly know.
The reason to look carefully at Bernard and Cooper is that they each and together present an alleged mandate from the residents, and if these Commissioners could be trusted, the opinions of so many residents should be given substantial weight. Not necessarily controlling weight, but at least substantial weight.
So thus far, a good opportunity to trust them is mitigated by their presenting arguments that rest on patently untrue assertions, and the fact that the messages they claim to transmit from the public at large cannot be confirmed. There is no way to tell whether the sheaf of papers Bernard waves around is printed e-mails from resident correspondents, or jokes people sent him. Assuming they are printed e-mails at all.
The other source of perspective on Bernard and Cooper, and to what extent they do or don't represent and transmit the voice of the people, is a look at their recent backgrounds in the Village. Bernard was a well-respected resident of the Park, and he was held in such high esteem that he was made Chairman of the Charter Review Committee, then later appointed unanimously by four sitting Commissioners to fill the spot of the fifth Commissioner, who had just died. At moments like those, it would have been easy to conclude that Bernard was an agreed representative of community sentiments. And the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee were accepted both by the then Commission and by the public at large. Further, Bernard ran for an elected seat when his appointment ended, and he won it. Again, good reason for confidence in his representing or reflecting something of his neighbors. But once attaining a Commission seat, Bernard has made himself increasingly marginal. He quickly alienated three of the four Commissioners who appointed him, and eventually alienated the fourth. Many votes at the end of the last Commission were 4-1. On the next Commission, the current one, Cooper joined Bernard, and the two of them represent an almost invariable 3-2 minority, about almost any topic. On the other side, there is a growing population of Village residents who say they respected and trusted Bernard at one time, but no longer. So it's no longer clear Bernard represents the voice of anyone except himself, Cooper, and a few residents who will sometimes come forward to echo Bernard's sentiments.
Cooper, for his part, had briefly been active in the Village before his election, having served on one Board (Parks and Parkways) and a related ad hoc committee. What is notable is that he didn't get along with anyone in either group, and he was most often outvoted or marginalized. Presumably, when he campaigned for his current Commission seat, he presented himself adequately well in people's homes, and he most likely did not tell them he was an outcast on the two groups where he served. So it is not really clear that he is a reliable reporter when it comes to the thoughts, or the will, of the people.
What's interesting is the power Bernard once had, and some of which he still retains. As the dust settles, it is dubious that that power is his ability to transmit, or know, or perhaps even care about, the thoughts, feelings, and voices of the people. His power is to whip up a form of activity among some of his neighbors. Even as he has lost increasing numbers of them, those who are devoted can be counted on to ask "how high" when Bernard tells them to jump. He very effectively gets them to the polls. He has now stimulated two of his followers to run for Commissioner. One of them says repeatedly she didn't, or perhaps doesn't, want to run. The other has lived in the Park for an unspecified, but apparently not very long, time, had been invisible until two months ago, when Bernard suckered him into coming to a Commission meeting to complain both about FPL and the Commission. He has never had any activity of any kind in the Village, and has never even voted in the Village. Not for a Village election or even a general election. So this Commission candidate would normally appear pretty improbable. But Bernard is a hard and tireless worker, and his devotees do what he tells them. As unlikely as one of Bernard's candidates appears, and as reluctant as the other is, I wouldn't bet against him. I've seen him in action, and I know what he can do. I've seen him make a foolish and unbelievably protracted crusade over the planting of one tree, and although he failed to get that one tree planted in two and a half years, and he engendered lots and lots of resentment and frustration from many of us, he never lost the devotion of some of his followers over it. To this day, they think the saboteur of the tree was someone else. It wasn't easy to get the Village to decline a new and free tree, but Bernard was provocative, stubborn, offensive, and off-putting enough to get it to happen, and some of his followers still think the culprit was what he likes to portray as the evil ruling triumvirate on the Commission. He probably blames the Manager as well. As I recall, he even blames me, although the reasoning is hopelessly tenuous. And when the County recently expeditiously planted a few blocks of new trees, Bernard complained about that, too, and got his followers completely undone over it. (See "Dumbing Down" in this blog.)
So when Bernard and Cooper talk, and tell us what should happen about something, because they have inside information as to what our neighbors really think and want, should we believe them?
There has been fairly incessant rumbling about what the residents of the Park want. The rumbling has come from Bernard and Cooper, and a few of their followers. A consistent drone has focused on FPL, whether we should have signed the Franchise Agreement with them, and whether we should have allowed them to replace the old wood poles with concrete ones. And the refrain is always that the residents of the Park didn't want the Agreement, or didn't want the concrete poles. The most recent examples of this argument were published in the Herald's Soapbox section a few days ago, and were represented by letters from Carmen De Bernardi and Bryan Cooper. So I've begun, as I say, to wonder. Whether I've fallen into a trap and been unfair, to Bernard, Cooper, De Bernardi, Watts, Jacobs, and some of the others.
In my partial defense, I have been lulled by the fact of so many misstatements. Some are distortions, some manipulations, and some outright dissembling. Because these clinkers are so common, I have allowed myself to disqualify whole positions. But have I, perhaps, thrown out an embryo with the contents of a septic tank?
The arguments tend to suggest two things. One is that the majority of the Commission, the steamrolling brutes, have been mindless and unfair (sometimes accused of being criminal) in taking the positions they have. And for all intents and purposes, we're talking about FPL here. Yes, it's true the FPL decision was made a year and a half ago, and is untouchable for the next 28 1/2 years, but the minority still invokes it as its primary example of the problem of which they complain. So as irrelevant and foolish as it is to waste one more instant on it, it's all they got, and we have to talk about it. The other thrust is that the people, usually framed as something related to a majority, want something, but their wishes are ignored. The demonstration of this theme is that "many residents have sent e-mails, or called" or whatever, making their feelings and wishes known. Again, this position was cited in the Herald Soapbox.
Before I go on, I want to be clear about something. I am not discussing whether the Agreement with FPL was the best idea for us, or whether we had any real say about the new poles. Many people, in the Park and in other municipalities, felt the Agreement was a good idea. But it's certainly debatable, as are most things. And many of us, even those whose houses are now graced with the new concrete poles, like mine, are either not complaining or are happy about the new poles. And no one argues that hardening shouldn't have happened, or wasn't going to happen. There has been a bit of mischief, in terms of saying things that are in no way true, by some who want to argue about the project and what it really was, and this is a distraction. The fact is, we could have replaced the old wood poles with concrete ones, at about one new pole to one old pole, or we could have requested replacement with new wood poles. Had we succeeded in obtaining the latter, assuming anyone wanted wood instead of concrete poles, we would be talking about 3-4 new wood poles for every old one (not three to two), the new wood poles would have been made available by cutting down lots of trees somewhere, and the wood poles would come treated with creosote and a collection of other rot-retarding chemicals, which leach into the ground. So it may be a bit less clear than some portray as to which kind of pole is more "environmental." But still, these are all matters fair for debate.
What I want to discuss is the question of what the people want, and how anyone knows. There are two primary self-appointed messengers of the people's will. They are Commissioners Bernard and Cooper. Cooper complains theoretically about the Village's failure to hear the people, and Bernard is specific and demonstrative. Bernard typically relies on two things to transmit the thoughts and will of other people. One is communications from them to him. These communications are most often alleged to be by e-mail. Sometimes, he will say he has received e-mail from some roughly calculated number of people. When he claims e-mail contact, he will sometimes wave a sheaf of papers, which he says are the printed e-mails. (And there is nothing "transparent" about a sheaf of papers containing who knows what writing, waved about, then hustled out of the Commission room without anyone's having seen them.) He almost never names any of the senders, and he occasionally says something which he portrays as a quote. On at least one inspection, the quote turned out to be a few words lifted completely out of context, and concluding exactly the opposite of what the e-mailer said. What he has never ever done is presented these alleged e-mails to his colleagues, or turned them in to the Village Clerk, so they could be made part of the public record. And apparently, he does not ask correspondents to send the same e-mails to the other Commissioners. Even Bernard's faithful ally, Cooper, does not apparently receive these e-mails. Stacks of reported signed petitions are equally mysterious.
Bernard's other source of information about what other people think is conversations he reports having had with them. I'm not talking here so much about "the people," or residents at large, but consultants and other specialists. On many occasions, these people, who tend to be under contract employment to the Village, will have articulated a position, including various "facts," to the general Commission and the Manager. But Bernard will report having had with them private conversations in which they reportedly gave him very different "facts," and very different, often diametrically opposed, conclusions and recommendations. It's never clear what to do with these massive discrepancies.
Cooper's approach manifests much less finesse, and is best characterized as essentially referencing Bernard and saying "yeah, what he said." What Cooper adds is results of internet or other researches, which at best reveal conclusions that are idiosyncratic, and at worst completely disrespect information clearly presented by others. His droning about a walking/bicycle path painted on the streets, mentioned in his letter to Soapbox, is a perfect example. He completely ignores a determination that the streets are too narrow, and that no knowledgable person ever recommended such a thing. Apart from just saying it, it's not clear Cooper has any idea what people think or want, or how he would possibly know.
The reason to look carefully at Bernard and Cooper is that they each and together present an alleged mandate from the residents, and if these Commissioners could be trusted, the opinions of so many residents should be given substantial weight. Not necessarily controlling weight, but at least substantial weight.
So thus far, a good opportunity to trust them is mitigated by their presenting arguments that rest on patently untrue assertions, and the fact that the messages they claim to transmit from the public at large cannot be confirmed. There is no way to tell whether the sheaf of papers Bernard waves around is printed e-mails from resident correspondents, or jokes people sent him. Assuming they are printed e-mails at all.
The other source of perspective on Bernard and Cooper, and to what extent they do or don't represent and transmit the voice of the people, is a look at their recent backgrounds in the Village. Bernard was a well-respected resident of the Park, and he was held in such high esteem that he was made Chairman of the Charter Review Committee, then later appointed unanimously by four sitting Commissioners to fill the spot of the fifth Commissioner, who had just died. At moments like those, it would have been easy to conclude that Bernard was an agreed representative of community sentiments. And the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee were accepted both by the then Commission and by the public at large. Further, Bernard ran for an elected seat when his appointment ended, and he won it. Again, good reason for confidence in his representing or reflecting something of his neighbors. But once attaining a Commission seat, Bernard has made himself increasingly marginal. He quickly alienated three of the four Commissioners who appointed him, and eventually alienated the fourth. Many votes at the end of the last Commission were 4-1. On the next Commission, the current one, Cooper joined Bernard, and the two of them represent an almost invariable 3-2 minority, about almost any topic. On the other side, there is a growing population of Village residents who say they respected and trusted Bernard at one time, but no longer. So it's no longer clear Bernard represents the voice of anyone except himself, Cooper, and a few residents who will sometimes come forward to echo Bernard's sentiments.
Cooper, for his part, had briefly been active in the Village before his election, having served on one Board (Parks and Parkways) and a related ad hoc committee. What is notable is that he didn't get along with anyone in either group, and he was most often outvoted or marginalized. Presumably, when he campaigned for his current Commission seat, he presented himself adequately well in people's homes, and he most likely did not tell them he was an outcast on the two groups where he served. So it is not really clear that he is a reliable reporter when it comes to the thoughts, or the will, of the people.
What's interesting is the power Bernard once had, and some of which he still retains. As the dust settles, it is dubious that that power is his ability to transmit, or know, or perhaps even care about, the thoughts, feelings, and voices of the people. His power is to whip up a form of activity among some of his neighbors. Even as he has lost increasing numbers of them, those who are devoted can be counted on to ask "how high" when Bernard tells them to jump. He very effectively gets them to the polls. He has now stimulated two of his followers to run for Commissioner. One of them says repeatedly she didn't, or perhaps doesn't, want to run. The other has lived in the Park for an unspecified, but apparently not very long, time, had been invisible until two months ago, when Bernard suckered him into coming to a Commission meeting to complain both about FPL and the Commission. He has never had any activity of any kind in the Village, and has never even voted in the Village. Not for a Village election or even a general election. So this Commission candidate would normally appear pretty improbable. But Bernard is a hard and tireless worker, and his devotees do what he tells them. As unlikely as one of Bernard's candidates appears, and as reluctant as the other is, I wouldn't bet against him. I've seen him in action, and I know what he can do. I've seen him make a foolish and unbelievably protracted crusade over the planting of one tree, and although he failed to get that one tree planted in two and a half years, and he engendered lots and lots of resentment and frustration from many of us, he never lost the devotion of some of his followers over it. To this day, they think the saboteur of the tree was someone else. It wasn't easy to get the Village to decline a new and free tree, but Bernard was provocative, stubborn, offensive, and off-putting enough to get it to happen, and some of his followers still think the culprit was what he likes to portray as the evil ruling triumvirate on the Commission. He probably blames the Manager as well. As I recall, he even blames me, although the reasoning is hopelessly tenuous. And when the County recently expeditiously planted a few blocks of new trees, Bernard complained about that, too, and got his followers completely undone over it. (See "Dumbing Down" in this blog.)
So when Bernard and Cooper talk, and tell us what should happen about something, because they have inside information as to what our neighbors really think and want, should we believe them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)