I got my water bill today. It's for the April through June quarter.
Disclaimers: I live alone. I don't have a pool. I don't water the "grass." (I don't have any.) I bathe every day, sometimes more than once a day, but I use a cut-off valve when I don't need the water actively running. I do my own laundry in a front load washing machine.
My usage was 5000 gallons. I'm not sure if it was less, but I think they have a minimum charge for 5000 gallons. Unless they did away with that in exchange for the meter fee, but it doesn't say there was a meter fee.
My last quarter bill, under the old billing system, was a total of $72.26. This quarter, under what I think is the new system, it is $61.87. The "water charge" is $42.85. The County adds a "Service Fee" (not sure what service the County renders) of $4.02. CNM applies a surcharge of 25% for "delivering" water outside North Miami, so that was an additional $10.71. We, VBP, add a utility tax of 10%, which was $4.29. These charges are all per quarter.
So the total for me is about $20.62 per month. In other parts of the country, people pay water bills of $100 per month.
So that's it, ladies and gentlemen. Drink up.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
RFD (Request for Data)
An interesting question has been posed to me, regarding the post entitled "Send in the Clowns."
I am asked for a graph of attendance at Commission meetings, to illustrate any change in it over the past few years.
This is difficult to produce, impossible, really, since we don't keep attendance.
What I can say is that when I started to come to Commission meetings, in 2005, the room was very full. After Steve Bernard was appointed, then elected, it is my impression that attendance began to deteriorate. And I'm not the only one who noticed. Steve also started to complain about it, though he thought the association, and the cause, were elsewhere. Now, even Bryan Cooper is complaining about poor attendance. And I completely agree with Bryan. Attendance at Commission meetings is terrible.
What's curious is that attendance should have increased beginning in December, when the good guys took the majority, at least according to Steve's theory of why attendance deteriorated in the first place. And Steve, if you read this blog, I'm most interested in your thoughts. Is there some factor you didn't mention or think of? Were you actually wrong about your explanation of poor attendance? What do you now think is the explanation for the poor attendance?
So since we don't keep attendance, no one can provide data as to what the attendance was or is. But does anyone have any impressions as to whether it seems about as it always was, or it decreased at some point, or increased at some point? Steve, Bryan, and I think it dropped off dramatically and disturbingly. What have you noticed?
I'm just asking, because someone asked me. Please use the "Comment" opportunity immediately below, at the end of this particular post, to register your impressions or observations.
Thanks.
I am asked for a graph of attendance at Commission meetings, to illustrate any change in it over the past few years.
This is difficult to produce, impossible, really, since we don't keep attendance.
What I can say is that when I started to come to Commission meetings, in 2005, the room was very full. After Steve Bernard was appointed, then elected, it is my impression that attendance began to deteriorate. And I'm not the only one who noticed. Steve also started to complain about it, though he thought the association, and the cause, were elsewhere. Now, even Bryan Cooper is complaining about poor attendance. And I completely agree with Bryan. Attendance at Commission meetings is terrible.
What's curious is that attendance should have increased beginning in December, when the good guys took the majority, at least according to Steve's theory of why attendance deteriorated in the first place. And Steve, if you read this blog, I'm most interested in your thoughts. Is there some factor you didn't mention or think of? Were you actually wrong about your explanation of poor attendance? What do you now think is the explanation for the poor attendance?
So since we don't keep attendance, no one can provide data as to what the attendance was or is. But does anyone have any impressions as to whether it seems about as it always was, or it decreased at some point, or increased at some point? Steve, Bryan, and I think it dropped off dramatically and disturbingly. What have you noticed?
I'm just asking, because someone asked me. Please use the "Comment" opportunity immediately below, at the end of this particular post, to register your impressions or observations.
Thanks.
Sure, But Grover Norquist is Honest.
To be sure, the dog is loyal. But why, on that account, should we take him as an example? He is loyal to man, not to other dogs. -Karl Kraus, writer (1874-1936)
Our Tea Party friends are asked to sign a "pledge," in exchange for support, when they run. They must pledge not, under any circumstances, to approve a tax increase. No matter what the fiscal realities, nor forseen or unforseen developments, they must not approve a tax increase, of any kind, in any guise, or for any reason. And the evil genius of this crime against the government and the people is Grover Norquist. As fiscal discussions play out, and the occasional Tea Party member begins to show signs of straying, Norquist is right there to call him or her to task, and threaten defeat, if not practically assassination. Norquist will do this publicly. You might hear him on someone's radio show. Even NPR. And if he doesn't deliver the ultimatum in person, Bill O'Reilly or someone else will. This is all, frankly, above board. It may be ridiculous, it may be sabotaging, it may represent a fundamental threat to the concept of devotion to one's voting constituents, but it's in the open. As some of us in BP like to say, it's in the Sunshine. Tea Party politicians have a constituent, and it isn't the people who voted for them, or the citizenry of the country. It is Grover Norquist.
And Norquist has a theory, which he will articulate. Ask him, and he'll be happy to tell you. He doesn't like or trust government, and he would like it shrunken to a size small enough that it can be drowned in the bathtub. I'm quoting him here. That's his theory, and if you want his help, you'll adhere to it. And if you do adhere to it, like people who accept favors from the Mafia, you will quickly learn that your loyalties are to him, not to the people who live in your district.
It's mind-numbingly common for politicians to claim to represent "the people" and to claim to have solicited, cared about, and acted on the will of the people. They might be lying, but that's what they ALWAYS say. This declaration is a feature of political pronouncements here in BP as well. In last night's Commission meeting, Jacobs invoked "public input" once or twice, depending on how you count it, and Cooper invoked it four times. Ross mentioned it once. Anderson is usually good for a reference like that, but it didn't happen to happen last night.
What did happen last night was a vote to place a matter on the general ballot in November, for the purpose of soliciting the voice of the people through a referendum. Yup, the voice of the people, in regards to the possibility of a specific Charter change. Pretty garden variety voice-of-the-people stuff. An obvious 5-0, right? Ask Grover Norquist if there's anything bigger than the voice of the people.
So no, the voice of the people was not sought unanimously. The vote was 3-2. Two Commissioners did not want or need to know what the residents of BP thought. One of those two Commissioners had paid ephemeral, if repeated, lip service to the idea of public input four times last night, and the other invoked it once or twice. This is the lip service, the blah, blah, blah. But when push comes to shove, these two Commissioners apparently answer to a "higher authority." The problem is, we aren't told who or what that higher authority is. No one is as honest and self-respecting as Grover Norquist, to come forward and say "In this town, Commissioners don't do what you think is best for you. They do what I think is best for you. Or what I think is best for me."
If I had a choice, I'd rather deal with Grover Norquist. At least I'd know who the enemy of the people is. It's easier to deal with an enemy who wears a different uniform. When they infiltrate, and camouflage themselves to look like us, it's harder for some people to know they're the enemy.
Our Tea Party friends are asked to sign a "pledge," in exchange for support, when they run. They must pledge not, under any circumstances, to approve a tax increase. No matter what the fiscal realities, nor forseen or unforseen developments, they must not approve a tax increase, of any kind, in any guise, or for any reason. And the evil genius of this crime against the government and the people is Grover Norquist. As fiscal discussions play out, and the occasional Tea Party member begins to show signs of straying, Norquist is right there to call him or her to task, and threaten defeat, if not practically assassination. Norquist will do this publicly. You might hear him on someone's radio show. Even NPR. And if he doesn't deliver the ultimatum in person, Bill O'Reilly or someone else will. This is all, frankly, above board. It may be ridiculous, it may be sabotaging, it may represent a fundamental threat to the concept of devotion to one's voting constituents, but it's in the open. As some of us in BP like to say, it's in the Sunshine. Tea Party politicians have a constituent, and it isn't the people who voted for them, or the citizenry of the country. It is Grover Norquist.
And Norquist has a theory, which he will articulate. Ask him, and he'll be happy to tell you. He doesn't like or trust government, and he would like it shrunken to a size small enough that it can be drowned in the bathtub. I'm quoting him here. That's his theory, and if you want his help, you'll adhere to it. And if you do adhere to it, like people who accept favors from the Mafia, you will quickly learn that your loyalties are to him, not to the people who live in your district.
It's mind-numbingly common for politicians to claim to represent "the people" and to claim to have solicited, cared about, and acted on the will of the people. They might be lying, but that's what they ALWAYS say. This declaration is a feature of political pronouncements here in BP as well. In last night's Commission meeting, Jacobs invoked "public input" once or twice, depending on how you count it, and Cooper invoked it four times. Ross mentioned it once. Anderson is usually good for a reference like that, but it didn't happen to happen last night.
What did happen last night was a vote to place a matter on the general ballot in November, for the purpose of soliciting the voice of the people through a referendum. Yup, the voice of the people, in regards to the possibility of a specific Charter change. Pretty garden variety voice-of-the-people stuff. An obvious 5-0, right? Ask Grover Norquist if there's anything bigger than the voice of the people.
So no, the voice of the people was not sought unanimously. The vote was 3-2. Two Commissioners did not want or need to know what the residents of BP thought. One of those two Commissioners had paid ephemeral, if repeated, lip service to the idea of public input four times last night, and the other invoked it once or twice. This is the lip service, the blah, blah, blah. But when push comes to shove, these two Commissioners apparently answer to a "higher authority." The problem is, we aren't told who or what that higher authority is. No one is as honest and self-respecting as Grover Norquist, to come forward and say "In this town, Commissioners don't do what you think is best for you. They do what I think is best for you. Or what I think is best for me."
If I had a choice, I'd rather deal with Grover Norquist. At least I'd know who the enemy of the people is. It's easier to deal with an enemy who wears a different uniform. When they infiltrate, and camouflage themselves to look like us, it's harder for some people to know they're the enemy.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
"Send in the Clowns"
Is this what they mean when they talk about something going from bad to worse?
For the past few years, we've been hearing about the embarrassingly diminishing attendance at Commission meetings. It was Steve Bernard who introduced the idea. Not only did he point it out repeatedly (as if it wasn't painfully obvious), but he explained the cause. According to Steve, it was all because of the crushing and suppressing majority on the last Commission. Not only did they dishearten him and Bryan Cooper, they also caused the residents who used to come to meetings to lose heart and give up in frustration. Why bother to come to meetings? The brutes were only going to ignore the public and have their own way. And there were enough 3-2 votes to prove Steve's point. But then...
In December, 2011, a month to remember, Steve succeeded in getting a new majority seated. He sacrificed himself, but he added two protegees to Bryan Cooper, and it was a new majority and a new day. Finally, the people were honestly and lovingly represented, and were more than welcome to venture out of their homes, to the Commission chamber. I don't know if it was supposed to be joyous, or perhaps solemn like the pilgrimages made by Jews and others to visit the old concentration camps in Poland and Germany. But one thing was for sure. There was no longer anything to fear. The beast was killed, and the public could rejoice.
Tonight, there were two meetings. A workshop on renovation of the log cabin started at 6:30, and a special Commission meeting started at 8. There were perhaps 8 people at the workshop. Noah seems to treat workshops as his personal tutorials, and this one was no exception. At about 7:40, he remembered that the few of us were there, and he thought perhaps he might as well invite some comment. He correctly pointed out that the Commission had monopolized the meeting. Some workshop.
At the 8:00 meeting, two more people showed up. I didn't recognize them. Cooper twice commented on the low attendance at the two meetings. But he also recalled a charrette about something about "five years ago," and his memory was that it was well-attended.
So I think I lost the thread of what was supposed to be going on. According to Steve's logic, the people stay away while the brutes are there, then come back when they're defeated. What Steve didn't factor in, though, is that it was shortly after he was elected that attendance dropped off. It was disturbingly low, and now that Steve's majority is in charge, it's even lower. I don't think that's what was supposed to happen.
And Noah, who campaigned in part on the strength of complaints about our immediate past brutalizing Mayor, has been remarkably suppressing on his own. He has dismissed both residents and other Commissioners. The fact is, the immediate past Mayor was frankly quite accommodating, and Noah is suffocating, in that hand around your throat kind of way.
And both Noah and Bryan, who suggested that they were champions of the voice of the people, have invariably suppressed and ignored that voice. Why just tonight, there was a vote to elevate the voice of the residents, by placing a referendum on the November general election ballot. Noah and Bryan were the only two to vote against hearing that voice.
So where is the promised crowd of Village residents? In fact, where is Steve Bernard? If I can't have my neighbors back, at least I'd like to hear an explanation.
For the past few years, we've been hearing about the embarrassingly diminishing attendance at Commission meetings. It was Steve Bernard who introduced the idea. Not only did he point it out repeatedly (as if it wasn't painfully obvious), but he explained the cause. According to Steve, it was all because of the crushing and suppressing majority on the last Commission. Not only did they dishearten him and Bryan Cooper, they also caused the residents who used to come to meetings to lose heart and give up in frustration. Why bother to come to meetings? The brutes were only going to ignore the public and have their own way. And there were enough 3-2 votes to prove Steve's point. But then...
In December, 2011, a month to remember, Steve succeeded in getting a new majority seated. He sacrificed himself, but he added two protegees to Bryan Cooper, and it was a new majority and a new day. Finally, the people were honestly and lovingly represented, and were more than welcome to venture out of their homes, to the Commission chamber. I don't know if it was supposed to be joyous, or perhaps solemn like the pilgrimages made by Jews and others to visit the old concentration camps in Poland and Germany. But one thing was for sure. There was no longer anything to fear. The beast was killed, and the public could rejoice.
Tonight, there were two meetings. A workshop on renovation of the log cabin started at 6:30, and a special Commission meeting started at 8. There were perhaps 8 people at the workshop. Noah seems to treat workshops as his personal tutorials, and this one was no exception. At about 7:40, he remembered that the few of us were there, and he thought perhaps he might as well invite some comment. He correctly pointed out that the Commission had monopolized the meeting. Some workshop.
At the 8:00 meeting, two more people showed up. I didn't recognize them. Cooper twice commented on the low attendance at the two meetings. But he also recalled a charrette about something about "five years ago," and his memory was that it was well-attended.
So I think I lost the thread of what was supposed to be going on. According to Steve's logic, the people stay away while the brutes are there, then come back when they're defeated. What Steve didn't factor in, though, is that it was shortly after he was elected that attendance dropped off. It was disturbingly low, and now that Steve's majority is in charge, it's even lower. I don't think that's what was supposed to happen.
And Noah, who campaigned in part on the strength of complaints about our immediate past brutalizing Mayor, has been remarkably suppressing on his own. He has dismissed both residents and other Commissioners. The fact is, the immediate past Mayor was frankly quite accommodating, and Noah is suffocating, in that hand around your throat kind of way.
And both Noah and Bryan, who suggested that they were champions of the voice of the people, have invariably suppressed and ignored that voice. Why just tonight, there was a vote to elevate the voice of the residents, by placing a referendum on the November general election ballot. Noah and Bryan were the only two to vote against hearing that voice.
So where is the promised crowd of Village residents? In fact, where is Steve Bernard? If I can't have my neighbors back, at least I'd like to hear an explanation.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Sniff, sniff. Hmm.
I received a somewhat convoluted e-mail yesterday. It was sent to me by a resident, who seems to have gotten it from Steve Bernard, who appears to have forwarded the original e-mail, which was from Noah Jacobs, except Steve added his own little pitch, which was for readers to contact Noah if they had anything to say about the matter at hand. Noah appeared to be taking some sort of poll regarding satisfaction, or not, with our water. He appears to be dissatisfied with his.
So the first curiosity is the circuitous route this communication took. Why didn't Noah simply send his request for feedback to everyone whose e-mail address he has? He has mine. If he wanted more addresses, why didn't he just ask Steve for his list? If Steve refused to give it to him (is Steve by any chance controlling what Noah knows?), why didn't he, Steve, simply forward without comment? And why didn't Steve include me? He has my address, too. All, as I say, curious.
Noah's problem: It appears Noah doesn't like the water that comes out of his tap. He referenced the taste, the smell, and the color. He didn't say he called a plumber, to see if there is a problem with his pipes. No, he solicited possible similar complaints from his neighbors. He seemed to say people had come to him with complaints. Or Steve said they came to him. She's my sister and my daughter. This part is much more murky than the water. And frankly, it smells worse.
Being a neighbor and all, and setting aside completely my feelings of offense and neglect that Noah didn't ask me for feedback, I cheerfully and generously gave him some. I'm just that type of guy. I told him I had no problem with my water, none of my friends complain about theirs, I have a purification system anyway, as many people do, and I was especially happy that our water is so cheap. (It is. Even Noah agreed to that.) And I offered that he could come over any time, for a glass of water. He's welcome to check it out.
Do not accuse Noah of not being sharp as a tack. He is. He immediately pointed out the great expense I had gone to to purify my water (great "personal" expense of time and money, he informed me), and further (Aha, Jonas, you conniving and hypocritical rascal), he nailed me on the ultimate discrepancy: if I'm satisfied with the water, why did I expend my considerable financial resources (well, that's how he made it sound) to purify it? I'm telling you, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of Jacobs' kitchen.
What could I say? He had me. I tried to tell him that I did not spend much money on my system, I never said or implied I spent a lot on it, I used a system that was more comprehensive than was necessary (I got a deal on it), there are even cheaper systems at Home Depot, and many people just put a filter on the tap. People do that all over the country. But no, Noah had satisfied himself that he had caught me, and no more interaction was necessary. So I didn't hear back. I picture him blowing the lingering smoke off the end of the barrel of his gun, and twirling it back into the holster. And I imagine a call to his sponsor, saying something like "I think I got him, Sheriff."
Which brings me to the overarching curiosity. No one in Biscayne Park ever heard of Noah Jacobs until Steve Bernard propped him up with a speech and a list of complaints, and trotted him out to a Commission meeting, to articulate Steve's usual laundry list of complaints. Then, Steve got Noah elected, and Steve's other protegees elected Noah Mayor. Noah has dutifully parroted each of Steve's pet gripes, even about things Noah clearly doesn't understand, and requiring Steve to suggest specific phrases Noah should use. Now, Noah seems to be trying to scare up a complaint about the water, another Bernard theme, and Bernard seems to be shepherding it, at least. So is all of this remarkably coincidental, or should we be asking the implied question, Mayor "Jacobs?"
So the first curiosity is the circuitous route this communication took. Why didn't Noah simply send his request for feedback to everyone whose e-mail address he has? He has mine. If he wanted more addresses, why didn't he just ask Steve for his list? If Steve refused to give it to him (is Steve by any chance controlling what Noah knows?), why didn't he, Steve, simply forward without comment? And why didn't Steve include me? He has my address, too. All, as I say, curious.
Noah's problem: It appears Noah doesn't like the water that comes out of his tap. He referenced the taste, the smell, and the color. He didn't say he called a plumber, to see if there is a problem with his pipes. No, he solicited possible similar complaints from his neighbors. He seemed to say people had come to him with complaints. Or Steve said they came to him. She's my sister and my daughter. This part is much more murky than the water. And frankly, it smells worse.
Being a neighbor and all, and setting aside completely my feelings of offense and neglect that Noah didn't ask me for feedback, I cheerfully and generously gave him some. I'm just that type of guy. I told him I had no problem with my water, none of my friends complain about theirs, I have a purification system anyway, as many people do, and I was especially happy that our water is so cheap. (It is. Even Noah agreed to that.) And I offered that he could come over any time, for a glass of water. He's welcome to check it out.
Do not accuse Noah of not being sharp as a tack. He is. He immediately pointed out the great expense I had gone to to purify my water (great "personal" expense of time and money, he informed me), and further (Aha, Jonas, you conniving and hypocritical rascal), he nailed me on the ultimate discrepancy: if I'm satisfied with the water, why did I expend my considerable financial resources (well, that's how he made it sound) to purify it? I'm telling you, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of Jacobs' kitchen.
What could I say? He had me. I tried to tell him that I did not spend much money on my system, I never said or implied I spent a lot on it, I used a system that was more comprehensive than was necessary (I got a deal on it), there are even cheaper systems at Home Depot, and many people just put a filter on the tap. People do that all over the country. But no, Noah had satisfied himself that he had caught me, and no more interaction was necessary. So I didn't hear back. I picture him blowing the lingering smoke off the end of the barrel of his gun, and twirling it back into the holster. And I imagine a call to his sponsor, saying something like "I think I got him, Sheriff."
Which brings me to the overarching curiosity. No one in Biscayne Park ever heard of Noah Jacobs until Steve Bernard propped him up with a speech and a list of complaints, and trotted him out to a Commission meeting, to articulate Steve's usual laundry list of complaints. Then, Steve got Noah elected, and Steve's other protegees elected Noah Mayor. Noah has dutifully parroted each of Steve's pet gripes, even about things Noah clearly doesn't understand, and requiring Steve to suggest specific phrases Noah should use. Now, Noah seems to be trying to scare up a complaint about the water, another Bernard theme, and Bernard seems to be shepherding it, at least. So is all of this remarkably coincidental, or should we be asking the implied question, Mayor "Jacobs?"
Thursday, July 12, 2012
The Berkshire Eagle, Pittsfield, Mass, Wed, 7/11/12
"City Shifts $770K to Cover Deficits" By Dick Lindsay
"The City Council on Tuesday night agreed to shift more than $770K of surplus funds to cover other departments that ended fiscal 2012 in the red.
"The Council, with little discussion, unanimously approved Mayor Daniel Bianchi's request to transfer $773,066.94 from several city accounts and departments to the police, fire, and personnel departments, which incurred a spending deficit in fiscal 2012...
"The Police Department recorded the largest deficit at $455K, erased by using a surplus from the city's health insurance account, [the City Treasurer and Finance Director said]...
"[The police Chief] attributed the shortfall to several factors, including officer pay raises negotiated after fiscal 2012 began, overtime incurred by several major criminal investigations, and a high number of officers on disability leave.
"As for the Fire Department, the Council tapped into the city's workers compensation fund to cover its $270,128.28 deficit. [The Fire Chief] said retroactive pay raises for firefighters led to the shorfall.
"While City Councilor-at-large Barry Clairmont supported the measure, he is worried the public safety service may run out of money again when the current fiscal year ends... 'I thought all along the Fire Department budget was too low to begin with when we had our [fiscal 2013] debate last month.'
"Finally, the Council approved using $110,938.66 from the City's contingency fund to balance the personnel budget.
"Meanwhile, the Maintenance Department didn't have a deficit as previously reported. Three maintenance accounts finished a total of $66,437.85 in the hole, but the department overall had enough unspent money in its utilities account to cover the shorfall, city officials said. The Council also approved the intradepartment transfer.
"[The Public Utilities Commissioner] said higher-than-anticipated gasoline and diesel prices the past 12 months necessitated the shift in funds within the maintenance budget."
Sounds fairly simple. This is what happens when everyone is working toward the same goal: successful management of the municipality. And this is also what happens when everyone understands the dynamics of municipal accounting.
"The City Council on Tuesday night agreed to shift more than $770K of surplus funds to cover other departments that ended fiscal 2012 in the red.
"The Council, with little discussion, unanimously approved Mayor Daniel Bianchi's request to transfer $773,066.94 from several city accounts and departments to the police, fire, and personnel departments, which incurred a spending deficit in fiscal 2012...
"The Police Department recorded the largest deficit at $455K, erased by using a surplus from the city's health insurance account, [the City Treasurer and Finance Director said]...
"[The police Chief] attributed the shortfall to several factors, including officer pay raises negotiated after fiscal 2012 began, overtime incurred by several major criminal investigations, and a high number of officers on disability leave.
"As for the Fire Department, the Council tapped into the city's workers compensation fund to cover its $270,128.28 deficit. [The Fire Chief] said retroactive pay raises for firefighters led to the shorfall.
"While City Councilor-at-large Barry Clairmont supported the measure, he is worried the public safety service may run out of money again when the current fiscal year ends... 'I thought all along the Fire Department budget was too low to begin with when we had our [fiscal 2013] debate last month.'
"Finally, the Council approved using $110,938.66 from the City's contingency fund to balance the personnel budget.
"Meanwhile, the Maintenance Department didn't have a deficit as previously reported. Three maintenance accounts finished a total of $66,437.85 in the hole, but the department overall had enough unspent money in its utilities account to cover the shorfall, city officials said. The Council also approved the intradepartment transfer.
"[The Public Utilities Commissioner] said higher-than-anticipated gasoline and diesel prices the past 12 months necessitated the shift in funds within the maintenance budget."
Sounds fairly simple. This is what happens when everyone is working toward the same goal: successful management of the municipality. And this is also what happens when everyone understands the dynamics of municipal accounting.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Existential Crisis?
Last night, the Foundation had its meeting. It was sort of a special meeting. We had not been making a great success of our one task, raising money, and we had thought of ideas to help ourselves be more effective. Our new idea was to tap "Ambassadors." These would be residents with special devotion to the Village, who might have been around longer than some, who "knew" people, and who might have special effectiveness in whipping up donations. It's not clear how many such people we identified and invited, but it might have been around 10-15. We asked for RSVPs. We mostly didn't get any, most of those who did respond said they didn't want to be Ambassadors, and two people showed up.
So the big question is, what's wrong? The idea for a Foundation came before we were seated as Trustees. The inaugural, and statutory, Trustees were the Commission. They had about two, maybe three, Foundation meetings, which occurred immediately before Commission meetings, and the content of those Foundation meetings was to schedule the next meeting. There was no agenda, no effort, and no result. It was soon enough acknowledged that the Commissioners were either too busy or not interested enough to concern themselves with the Foundation, which was intended to receive tax-deductible contributions. So the Foundation Charter was changed so that the Trustees would no longer be the Commissioners. Interested Village residents were named. There were five of us, four men and one woman. The woman dropped out-- family responsibilities-- and was replaced by another woman. She has recently dropped out, too. Interestingly, one of her most salient pieces of parting advice was that we need more women on the Foundation.
So back to our task: raising money. We have three identified ways to do it. One is to raise money from Village residents, another is to find other donors/contributors/sponsors, and the the third is to operate fund-raising events. I have to be candid here. The idea of raising money from Village residents was my idea. I concocted a scheme of trying to get each household to donate $20 per year. My thinking was that who more than Village residents would take an interest in the Village, and whose responsibility was it more than our own to support and enhance ourselves? Anything that benefits the Village benefits us, its residents, homeowners, stakeholders. If we could have gotten that $20 bill from most households, it would have brought a very nice piece of change into the Foundation, and allowed us to do some nice, if comparatively modest, projects. I want to admit the failure of this plan. Way too many people could think of reasons not to donate $20 to the Foundation, or had better uses for the money, or needed to discuss it with their spouses, or said they couldn't afford it. We couldn't even get those who should be our most devoted residents to donate. Of five Commissioners, two donated $20, one donated $2, and two refused to donate. Clearly, I was barking up the wrong tree with this scheme.
We have approached some other potential contributors, too. We run "Food and Tunes," and we have tried to solicit sponsors. The sponsor of our first F&T was a bank. (If you want to open a bank account, consider City National Bank. Its closest branch is at the corner of Biscayne and 135th, in the strip mall at the southwest corner. They are a "local bank," they are nice people, and you should say you're a BP resident. They don't give out toasters any more, but they'll treat you well. And they tell me they have money to loan and an intent to get it out into the world, if you need something.) The sponsor of a later F&T was one of our residents, one of your neighbors. We've tried other likely sponsors, but we haven't succeeded, yet. This was actually one of the intentions of the Ambassador program. We hoped that some of our Ambassadors would have ins with possible donors outside the Park. But we would have had to have Ambassadors to actualize that potential. We're still hoping that this path will not ultimately be a dead end.
Food and Tunes is a minor series of events for us. It's not a real fund-raiser, in that it doesn't raise real funds, but it's fun, and it gets our name out there. What we hoped for was something with a bit more punch and splash. We're trying to plan a "gala," probably for October. If we can charge enough, but not so much as to inhibit attendees, and get sponsors, we may be able to have a nice and productive event. Let's hope so. Well, at least I hope so. We've also consider "events" like a road race or golf tournament or something. These things may well come to pass.
One thing we realized we needed was help, in the form of ideas, time, and legwork. We need people with creativity and organizational skills. So we're also open to forming committees to take up projects. Steve Taylor is a busy attorney. I'm a psychiatrist. Supreme Dorvil is a medical/podiatric student who just told me last night he has sworn off fun until he finishes studying so he can pass his Boards. Victor Romano is a professor at Barry. So we're all interested, but this isn't exactly far up any of our streets, and we realized we needed a kind of knowledge and experience base, and maybe energy for this, that we might not have on our own.
We hit upon one other idea at our desperation meeting last night. We've tried to get Village residents interested, at least interested enough to donate $20 a year, but it may be that they just didn't take it personally enough. Until recently, we didn't even have a flagship project to try to promote. (Now we do. It's resurfacing the tot lot.) But we thought maybe the projects don't have to be ours. Maybe they can be yours. Or anyone's. So we're planning to promote and "sponsor" your project. You tell us what you'd like to see happen, we'll approve it and get behind it, we'll give it Foundation imprimatur, and we'll help you promote it and hold the money. Maybe there will be two or three such projects. Maybe there will be 10. We'll circulate a list, and your neighbors can check off the ones they like, and tell us how much money they want to donate to which projects. I'll give you some examples. Chuck Ross wants to raise money for bonuses for our employees. I want to raise money for public art. Gage Hartung would like to install a vita course. See what I mean?
Remember, we now have on open spot on the Foundation Board. We were thinking to tap H Weitz, who is your neighbor who lives on Griffing at about 119th or 120th. He's a very good guy, and he would be great on the Foundation. Of course, he is a...um...he, and we were thinking of a...um...she, but let us know what you think. Any appointment has to be approved by the Commission, so we're only talking here. No deal is done.
PS: Come on, be a sport. Cough up $20. Give it to Taylor, me, Supreme, Victor, or bring it to Village Hall and tell Maria Camara or Ana Garcia it's for the Foundation. And bring another $20 from your neighbor. It's your neighborhood, and your Foundation.
So the big question is, what's wrong? The idea for a Foundation came before we were seated as Trustees. The inaugural, and statutory, Trustees were the Commission. They had about two, maybe three, Foundation meetings, which occurred immediately before Commission meetings, and the content of those Foundation meetings was to schedule the next meeting. There was no agenda, no effort, and no result. It was soon enough acknowledged that the Commissioners were either too busy or not interested enough to concern themselves with the Foundation, which was intended to receive tax-deductible contributions. So the Foundation Charter was changed so that the Trustees would no longer be the Commissioners. Interested Village residents were named. There were five of us, four men and one woman. The woman dropped out-- family responsibilities-- and was replaced by another woman. She has recently dropped out, too. Interestingly, one of her most salient pieces of parting advice was that we need more women on the Foundation.
So back to our task: raising money. We have three identified ways to do it. One is to raise money from Village residents, another is to find other donors/contributors/sponsors, and the the third is to operate fund-raising events. I have to be candid here. The idea of raising money from Village residents was my idea. I concocted a scheme of trying to get each household to donate $20 per year. My thinking was that who more than Village residents would take an interest in the Village, and whose responsibility was it more than our own to support and enhance ourselves? Anything that benefits the Village benefits us, its residents, homeowners, stakeholders. If we could have gotten that $20 bill from most households, it would have brought a very nice piece of change into the Foundation, and allowed us to do some nice, if comparatively modest, projects. I want to admit the failure of this plan. Way too many people could think of reasons not to donate $20 to the Foundation, or had better uses for the money, or needed to discuss it with their spouses, or said they couldn't afford it. We couldn't even get those who should be our most devoted residents to donate. Of five Commissioners, two donated $20, one donated $2, and two refused to donate. Clearly, I was barking up the wrong tree with this scheme.
We have approached some other potential contributors, too. We run "Food and Tunes," and we have tried to solicit sponsors. The sponsor of our first F&T was a bank. (If you want to open a bank account, consider City National Bank. Its closest branch is at the corner of Biscayne and 135th, in the strip mall at the southwest corner. They are a "local bank," they are nice people, and you should say you're a BP resident. They don't give out toasters any more, but they'll treat you well. And they tell me they have money to loan and an intent to get it out into the world, if you need something.) The sponsor of a later F&T was one of our residents, one of your neighbors. We've tried other likely sponsors, but we haven't succeeded, yet. This was actually one of the intentions of the Ambassador program. We hoped that some of our Ambassadors would have ins with possible donors outside the Park. But we would have had to have Ambassadors to actualize that potential. We're still hoping that this path will not ultimately be a dead end.
Food and Tunes is a minor series of events for us. It's not a real fund-raiser, in that it doesn't raise real funds, but it's fun, and it gets our name out there. What we hoped for was something with a bit more punch and splash. We're trying to plan a "gala," probably for October. If we can charge enough, but not so much as to inhibit attendees, and get sponsors, we may be able to have a nice and productive event. Let's hope so. Well, at least I hope so. We've also consider "events" like a road race or golf tournament or something. These things may well come to pass.
One thing we realized we needed was help, in the form of ideas, time, and legwork. We need people with creativity and organizational skills. So we're also open to forming committees to take up projects. Steve Taylor is a busy attorney. I'm a psychiatrist. Supreme Dorvil is a medical/podiatric student who just told me last night he has sworn off fun until he finishes studying so he can pass his Boards. Victor Romano is a professor at Barry. So we're all interested, but this isn't exactly far up any of our streets, and we realized we needed a kind of knowledge and experience base, and maybe energy for this, that we might not have on our own.
We hit upon one other idea at our desperation meeting last night. We've tried to get Village residents interested, at least interested enough to donate $20 a year, but it may be that they just didn't take it personally enough. Until recently, we didn't even have a flagship project to try to promote. (Now we do. It's resurfacing the tot lot.) But we thought maybe the projects don't have to be ours. Maybe they can be yours. Or anyone's. So we're planning to promote and "sponsor" your project. You tell us what you'd like to see happen, we'll approve it and get behind it, we'll give it Foundation imprimatur, and we'll help you promote it and hold the money. Maybe there will be two or three such projects. Maybe there will be 10. We'll circulate a list, and your neighbors can check off the ones they like, and tell us how much money they want to donate to which projects. I'll give you some examples. Chuck Ross wants to raise money for bonuses for our employees. I want to raise money for public art. Gage Hartung would like to install a vita course. See what I mean?
Remember, we now have on open spot on the Foundation Board. We were thinking to tap H Weitz, who is your neighbor who lives on Griffing at about 119th or 120th. He's a very good guy, and he would be great on the Foundation. Of course, he is a...um...he, and we were thinking of a...um...she, but let us know what you think. Any appointment has to be approved by the Commission, so we're only talking here. No deal is done.
PS: Come on, be a sport. Cough up $20. Give it to Taylor, me, Supreme, Victor, or bring it to Village Hall and tell Maria Camara or Ana Garcia it's for the Foundation. And bring another $20 from your neighbor. It's your neighborhood, and your Foundation.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Letter Sent to Commissioner Dr Cooper
Bryan,
I'm at a bit of a loss. You seemed devoted to talking about censorship, which I guess is like suppression, but I'm not sure what you meant by it. One example I think you gave was of the withdrawal of Commissioner columns from the newsletter. I guess you mean you felt censored. I assume you are aware that no other Commissioner had any opportunity you didn't have. So do you think you were all censored, or do you think it was just you? You will note, of course, that in the last two editions of the newsletter, you had more words than any other Commissioner. You had twice as many as the second wordiest in the last edition where Commissioner comments were included. I can't imagine that seems like censorship to you. I think you should see your raging around, saying things that aren't true (as Roxy detailed for you), and gobbling up inches of column-length as your problem, not a reflection of someone else's bad attitude.
During the meeting tonight, Noah took a couple of opportunities to suppress me, but he did not suppress you, even when you were talking about me. Do you think I was censored? You didn't argue with Noah. I asked you if you wanted a conversation with me, you said no, and as soon as I was no longer entitled to speak, you started in on me. What you did, in effect, was to collude with Noah to censor me.
The Biscayne Times, which you referenced, has published columns from Gaspar, in which he has done nothing but criticize me, usually making things up, and it once published a long letter of Bernard's, and that letter was about nothing in the world other than trashing me personally. I wrote in rebuttal, of course, and the publisher insisted I severely shorten my response before he would publish it. The Bernard letter he published was over 700 words. Mullin limited me to about half of that. Do you think I was censored or suppressed? Will Mullin be hearing from you to criticize him for the way he treated me by censoring me? I am rarely given an opportunity to challenge Gaspar when he writes to criticize me, even though his criticisms are factually distorted at best, and often simply wrong. But apart from this month, my letters are rarely printed. Would you count this as censorship or suppression? Will Mullin be hearing from you about that, too?
So I'm just confused about your perseveration regarding "censorship." It's just not clear to me who you think is being censored.
I welcome your reply.
Fred
PS: So you've gone after Ana, Michael Arciola, Maria, Roxy, Bob, Al, some of us non-Commissioner residents of the Park, and now you're planning to go after the Foundation? What's with you? It seems like a mindless reflex you have, just to accuse people of things. Chuck says you're an anarchist. I think he's right, but I think of you more as a terrorist. Why do you want to go after the Foundation? It's a civic pride and community enrichment organization. You don't even contribute to it. Instead of running the Foundation down, you should be ashamed of yourself. You're a Commissioner. You should be the first one to support the Village and its Foundation.
I'm at a bit of a loss. You seemed devoted to talking about censorship, which I guess is like suppression, but I'm not sure what you meant by it. One example I think you gave was of the withdrawal of Commissioner columns from the newsletter. I guess you mean you felt censored. I assume you are aware that no other Commissioner had any opportunity you didn't have. So do you think you were all censored, or do you think it was just you? You will note, of course, that in the last two editions of the newsletter, you had more words than any other Commissioner. You had twice as many as the second wordiest in the last edition where Commissioner comments were included. I can't imagine that seems like censorship to you. I think you should see your raging around, saying things that aren't true (as Roxy detailed for you), and gobbling up inches of column-length as your problem, not a reflection of someone else's bad attitude.
During the meeting tonight, Noah took a couple of opportunities to suppress me, but he did not suppress you, even when you were talking about me. Do you think I was censored? You didn't argue with Noah. I asked you if you wanted a conversation with me, you said no, and as soon as I was no longer entitled to speak, you started in on me. What you did, in effect, was to collude with Noah to censor me.
The Biscayne Times, which you referenced, has published columns from Gaspar, in which he has done nothing but criticize me, usually making things up, and it once published a long letter of Bernard's, and that letter was about nothing in the world other than trashing me personally. I wrote in rebuttal, of course, and the publisher insisted I severely shorten my response before he would publish it. The Bernard letter he published was over 700 words. Mullin limited me to about half of that. Do you think I was censored or suppressed? Will Mullin be hearing from you to criticize him for the way he treated me by censoring me? I am rarely given an opportunity to challenge Gaspar when he writes to criticize me, even though his criticisms are factually distorted at best, and often simply wrong. But apart from this month, my letters are rarely printed. Would you count this as censorship or suppression? Will Mullin be hearing from you about that, too?
So I'm just confused about your perseveration regarding "censorship." It's just not clear to me who you think is being censored.
I welcome your reply.
Fred
PS: So you've gone after Ana, Michael Arciola, Maria, Roxy, Bob, Al, some of us non-Commissioner residents of the Park, and now you're planning to go after the Foundation? What's with you? It seems like a mindless reflex you have, just to accuse people of things. Chuck says you're an anarchist. I think he's right, but I think of you more as a terrorist. Why do you want to go after the Foundation? It's a civic pride and community enrichment organization. You don't even contribute to it. Instead of running the Foundation down, you should be ashamed of yourself. You're a Commissioner. You should be the first one to support the Village and its Foundation.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
"Life Boat"
It's driving me crazy. I can't find this story. I was in junior high school when I read the short story, which I thought I remembered was O'Henry's, about a group of people in a life boat. The captain is keeping everyone from mutinying in this life boat, by holding them at gunpoint. He gets increasingly sleepy, and the passengers are waiting to pounce as soon as he falls asleep and drops the gun. He finally does, there is a melee, and one of the other passengers gets the gun and holds it on the rest, making them continue rowing toward safety. Somebody needed to take charge and do the right thing. Somebody needed to provide the sobriety and goal-directedness of the captain.
His Honor our Mayor, apparently having freed himself from some of the mind-numbing influence of his mentor, has been able to begin to act sensibly. He's not all the way there, but he's approaching usable common sense and perspective. He showed brief flashes of decency and grace. It was nice to see.
We had an odd Commission tonight. Barbara Watts had said she wouldn't be there, and Bob Anderson had a family emergency. So it was just the three: His Honor, Commissioner (now Vice Mayor) Ross, and the terrorist/anarchist Commissioner Dr Bryan Cooper. In case anyone ever thought he wasn't a lost cause, he really won't let you forget it. Sometimes, you just have to shake your head in disbelief, or wonder, or amusement. There's always, always someone for him to accuse or criticize or suspect.
There were fewer 2-1's than I expected, and they didn't always go the way I imagined they might. Here's where His Honor's awakening began to show. He doesn't fully get why Roxy Ross is the most remarkable of representatives, and of people, but he's starting at least to feel some sort of connection. He's starting to sense something. He seemed to listen, and he could detect some of her brilliance, level-headedness, gracefulness, and true dedication to this Village. Barbara Watts figured it out some time ago. His Honor is getting a scent.
In a perfect world, Mayor Jacobs steps down from his office, hands the gavel to Roxy Ross, and she is confirmed, 4-1, as our Mayor once again. For as long as she cares to stay. In a perfect world. Which this one isn't.
His Honor our Mayor, apparently having freed himself from some of the mind-numbing influence of his mentor, has been able to begin to act sensibly. He's not all the way there, but he's approaching usable common sense and perspective. He showed brief flashes of decency and grace. It was nice to see.
We had an odd Commission tonight. Barbara Watts had said she wouldn't be there, and Bob Anderson had a family emergency. So it was just the three: His Honor, Commissioner (now Vice Mayor) Ross, and the terrorist/anarchist Commissioner Dr Bryan Cooper. In case anyone ever thought he wasn't a lost cause, he really won't let you forget it. Sometimes, you just have to shake your head in disbelief, or wonder, or amusement. There's always, always someone for him to accuse or criticize or suspect.
There were fewer 2-1's than I expected, and they didn't always go the way I imagined they might. Here's where His Honor's awakening began to show. He doesn't fully get why Roxy Ross is the most remarkable of representatives, and of people, but he's starting at least to feel some sort of connection. He's starting to sense something. He seemed to listen, and he could detect some of her brilliance, level-headedness, gracefulness, and true dedication to this Village. Barbara Watts figured it out some time ago. His Honor is getting a scent.
In a perfect world, Mayor Jacobs steps down from his office, hands the gavel to Roxy Ross, and she is confirmed, 4-1, as our Mayor once again. For as long as she cares to stay. In a perfect world. Which this one isn't.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Result is O-fficial.
The Foundation has worked to find an accessible, but satisfying, goal for its fund-raising. Our theory is that our neighbors would sooner and more enthusiastically contribute to their Foundation, which is really only themselves, if they had in mind a clear picture of how the money would be spent. "What are you planning to do with the money?" is a very frequent question when we solicit donations. So we have a loose list of ideas and theories as to how money would be spent, and we recite them to people. They're usually vague and hypothetical, and often enough, they can be grand schemes. So we applied ourselves to getting real about a goal.
Some of our goals are too small to be captivating. They can require as little as a few hundred dollars. Sometimes, we thought of projects that really cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. None of these satisfied those we solicited, and none of them really satisfied us. And sometimes, we tried to attach ourselves to accessible projects, just because they were accessible, not because they were such good ideas.
We relied primarily on others to suggest projects. We had no special way to come up with ideas ourselves, unless it was some idiosyncratic idea, like my public art obsession. But we would hear, either individually or in the context of a Foundation meeting, about others' ideas or others' wishes. And our job was to react to an idea, and experience interpersonal resonance to it.
The winning idea was the following: The park has a tot lot (it sort of has two of them), and the surface of that lot is mulch. Mixed into the mulch is (reportedly) excrement from pets or wild animals, and there is a sprinkling of cigarette butts. There seemed to be pretty good agreement that this surface needed to be replaced. Not with new mulch, which would suffer the same fate as the old mulch, but with something else.
We decided resurfacing the tot lot was just the project for us. It's not a small cost, and it's a stretch at about $30,000, but we felt it would be a wonderful improvement for the neighborhood, and it's something that wasn't exactly a pie in the sky financially. Not easy, but not impossible.
So thanks for your participation ($20 per household per year) if you've been a contributing neighbor, and welcome aboard if you haven't yet. For a project of this financial magnitude, we'll have to extend ourselves, and we will look for outside sponsors as well. But remember, the Foundation is you. It's ourselves. And its fruits are for our enrichment. So give us your best consideration. It's consideration you're really giving yourself.
Some of our goals are too small to be captivating. They can require as little as a few hundred dollars. Sometimes, we thought of projects that really cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. None of these satisfied those we solicited, and none of them really satisfied us. And sometimes, we tried to attach ourselves to accessible projects, just because they were accessible, not because they were such good ideas.
We relied primarily on others to suggest projects. We had no special way to come up with ideas ourselves, unless it was some idiosyncratic idea, like my public art obsession. But we would hear, either individually or in the context of a Foundation meeting, about others' ideas or others' wishes. And our job was to react to an idea, and experience interpersonal resonance to it.
The winning idea was the following: The park has a tot lot (it sort of has two of them), and the surface of that lot is mulch. Mixed into the mulch is (reportedly) excrement from pets or wild animals, and there is a sprinkling of cigarette butts. There seemed to be pretty good agreement that this surface needed to be replaced. Not with new mulch, which would suffer the same fate as the old mulch, but with something else.
We decided resurfacing the tot lot was just the project for us. It's not a small cost, and it's a stretch at about $30,000, but we felt it would be a wonderful improvement for the neighborhood, and it's something that wasn't exactly a pie in the sky financially. Not easy, but not impossible.
So thanks for your participation ($20 per household per year) if you've been a contributing neighbor, and welcome aboard if you haven't yet. For a project of this financial magnitude, we'll have to extend ourselves, and we will look for outside sponsors as well. But remember, the Foundation is you. It's ourselves. And its fruits are for our enrichment. So give us your best consideration. It's consideration you're really giving yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)