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?

Heads up.

Well, this is most perplexing.  I have continued to receive requests to remove the "Heads up" post.  The basis is always the same, with one exception.  Everyone who asked me to remove it cited concerns that I was being divisive or inflammatory. Only one person asked me to remove it on the basis that the assertion wasn't true, and that person had no direct reason to know.  No one who is in a position to know has said anything about the post.  What's curious about this is that anyone could say anything he or she wants.  Anyone could assert the rumor wasn't correct, even if it was.  And I haven't even gotten that.

So, as far as I can tell, the rumor is correct.  I believe this to be the case, and I have no reason nor even meaningful suggestion to believe otherwise.  On the other hand, I have no reason to be divisive or inflammatory, and if reasonable people experience the post, or me, that way, then I will conclude the posting made its point, and there is no reason to belabor it.  So I have removed it.

Saw it. Don't completely believe it. Certainly don't get it.

Imagine the final convergence of two great forces.  Or are we about to view the collision of forces?  Let's imagine, at least for purpose of discussion, that Steve Bernard had a theory, and a vision, and he stood for what he tells us incessantly he stands for. And let's summarize that that theory, and that vision, is that the people count, they are the primary entities in our neighborhood, and that the goal of government, here or anywhere, is to see to it that those people are heard, respected, and taken into highest consideration.  I think it's not too far to go to say that Steve feels, or says, the people, when they make their feelings known, should be obeyed.  Government is there to effect the will of the people.  Not the other way around.

So last night, on the Commission agenda, as on the Commission agendas for each of the past very many months, was an item about a change in our Code regarding fences.  This item has been on the Commission's agenda for months for two reasons.  One is that whenever it is actually considered, which it has been from time to time, the Commission sends it back to the Code Review Committee, who are no doubt sick to death dealing with it, to refine it.  Further and repeatedly.  The other reason this item has not been resolved is that the Commission most often does not, in fact, take it up, because the Commission gets bogged down in other nonsense.  We saw a typical, if somewhat bizarre, example last night.  One of the Commission's favorite time wasters is fussing about the minutes.  The Commission ALWAYS wastes inordinate time with this pathetic and frustrating exercise, where that very Steve Bernard will introduce proposed correction after proposed correction, none of which are adopted, and it seems his primary purpose in proposing them (this is essentially what he says) is to draw attention to what he likes to portray as the ethical flaws, and abuse of power, of three of his colleagues.  Last night, same thing.  What made it more bizarre last night was that one of the enemies of the people wasn't there, so every proposal was "defeated" by a mind-numbingly recurrent 2-2 tie.  Furthermore, Steve told us in advance that he wasn't running for re-election next month, and he might not be attending any more Commission meetings at all.  So what was his point?  But whatever it was, it cost us about an hour.

So thanks to Steve, in part, this fence issue has dragged on interminably.  This delay has tested the patience of residents who simply want fences, and it has all but unnerved the CRC, which has recrafted the fence ordinance who knows how many times, often because Steve 1) doesn't like the language, and 2) insists the people must be best represented by the Code.  The CRC, of course, is the people.  It includes members some of whom were appointed by Steve.

Last night.  Drum roll.  Final revision submitted.  CRC Chair personally there to shepherd the presentation.  It don't get better, or more comprehensive, than this in terms of hearing the voice of the people.

Force number two.  As I said, Steve announced at the outset of the meeting that we wouldn't have him to kick around any more.  (Sorry, Dick; Sorry, Pat; Sorry, Checkers)  This was the finale.  The swan song.  The culmination of his opportunity, and his career, as a Commissioner whose one and only stated goal was to elevate the people and their voices.

So in theory (beginning to look like one of Einstein's, where up may be down, and down may be up), Steve thanks the CRC, and the Commission, and the Attorney, and the impatient residents, and he reassures everyone that it was necessary to protract this fence ordinance business, so that the best voice of the people would be developed and heard.  In theory, he votes proudly, perhaps even gloating, to pass this final revision of the fence Code.  Ta-Da!  Sort of a crowning achievement.

You will recall that I said it wasn't completely clear whether we were about to witness a convergence, or a collision.  And if you have any sense at all, you will not read further without donning a crash helmet.

Steve's reception of the new Code was as follows: He felt it didn't really represent the real wishes of the people.  He did not make clear what those real wishes really are, and how he knows.  Maybe it was that standard large collection of mysterious e-mails, sent by anonymous residents, and only to him.  Further, in that we are about to have an election, and at least one Commissioner will be different than the current roster (someone will take over Steve's vacant seat), he somehow decided that the current Commission should not feel authorized to make decisions regarding the fence Code.  He seems to have felt that if even one member of the current Commission is a lame duck, which he is, then the Commission is disqualified from making important decisions.  (He did not, however, recommend cancelling or quickly adjourning the meeting.  Line of thinking unknown.  Possibly not rational anyway.)  And we must remember that it was this lame duck, irrelevant, disqualified Commission that 1) kept sending the iterations of the proposed Code back to the CRC, and that 2) was too irresponsible and ignoring of the needs of the residents to address the reviewed Code in a timely way.  Buck stops where?

So Steve's suggestion, with which my one-time friend Roxy Ross agreed (I'm scolding you, Rox; you're a bad, bad girl.  Mayor, indeed!), was to delay consideration of the Code and let the real representatives of the residents, the next Commission, whoever they are, deal with it.  Would you believe me if I told you there were residents who were dying to get permission to put up fences, and at least two representatives of the CRC, in attendance last night, and none of them was very pleased at this gross abdication of responsibility?  And if you think that Steve seems to be at war with himself, I think you're right.

I give myself the task of trying to explain this behavior.  I won't saying making sense of it, because I don't think there is any sense to it.  But here goes.  And this is all speculation.  1) Maybe Steve is just blindly obstructive, or sabotaging.  Anything to interfere with progress and/or equanimity.  2) Steve is angry at everyone over whatever made him to decide not to run for re-election, so he's punishing everyone.  3) With all his bluster and portrayal of broad knowledge, if not expertise, Steve doesn't trust himself and is really afraid to make decisions, and it's easier for him to interfere with them than to take real leadership in one.  4) Steve sees a no-win situation here, where no matter what, someone will be disappointed, or angry, and he wants someone else, not himself, to take responsibility for it.  5) Steve doesn't really like fences here.  He's sort of said that, and he sort of said it last night.  But the new Code was about allowing them.  So Steve caught himself with his own pants down, and really isn't that interested in what the people want anyway, if it conflicts with what he wants, so he just wanted to run away from the whole matter.  Other than that, I think I'm outta material.

Now Rox.  What's got inta ya, girl, as Frank Zappa said.  I only have three theories, not having spoken with her about it.  1) She was tired of the monotonous 2-2 votes, of which this would surely have been yet another, so why bother?  2) She was tired of fighting with Steve, which is what occupies most of her time, Anderson's time, Childress' time, Ana's time, Maria Camara's time, Charlie Smith's time, and all the rest of our time, and again concluded, why bother?  3) Rox calculated (she said so last night) that if she agreed to set it aside until next month, there would be a one month delay in dealing with it.  (Groan.)  But if it got voted down (2-2 is defeat), there would be a three month delay in being able to reintroduce it.  (Hysterical shrieking!)  So better to delay.  And anyway, there was always 1).

What an unsatisfying evening.  And an affront to everyone who lives here.

Bah! Humbug!

The dirty words used to be making Biscayne Park "A Better Place to Be."  Tonight, we heard about the "Love Fest" held for our Manager.  The term was mentioned by four people, three of them sarcastically and derogatorily, and the fourth referring to the phrase uttered by the other three.  A "Love Fest" is where people present themselves at the special session to consider the Manager's performance and her contract, and they like her.  A lot.  Non-Commissioner residents like her a lot.  Three of five Commissioners like her a lot.  Her coworkers and subordinates like her a lot.  Even the people who were critical of her in any way talked about how likeable and effective she is, but the fact that that is what was said repeatedly rubbed some the wrong way.  So saying you like the Manager and think she does a great job, and saying this in the context of a meeting in which receiving and evaluating feedback about the Manager is the point of the meeting, is a "Love Fest."

But here's the problem.  Every non-Commissioner resident who spoke spoke positively about the Manager.  Even those who had any criticism spoke positively.  And the two Commissioners who were negative about the Manager are negative about everything.  So it seems the conclusion really is that our Manager is that good.  So if she's really that good, and if almost everyone with anything to say says she's that good, then why is telling like it apparently is a "Love Fest?"

Calling tonight's meeting a "Love Fest," or criticizing the Mayor for her ambition to make the Park "A Better Place to Be," isn't an assessment.  It's a posture.  It's a ploy.  It's being a misanthrope.  Pure and simple.  It's what some people do: they make it their business to complain and find fault.  There might be fault to find (as the Manager said, no one is perfect), or there might not, but the self-appointed task for some people is just to grouse.  If there's something to grouse about, they're all over it.  If there isn't, they grouse about nothing.  But they don't say it's about nothing.  Wouldn't they look foolish if they said they were whining because they like to whine.  Or because they're just unhappy and poorly adjusted people.  They twist and distort a matter until they've wrung from it something they think they can portray as a problem worthy of complaint.  Or accusation.  That's become a pretty consistent offering from some people around here.

One Commissioner accused the Manager of not meeting her responsibilities to the neighborhood.  But that Commissioner never comes to any Village events except Commission meetings (of which he misses more than any other Commissioner).  It may be that he doesn't think coming to Village events is his responsibility, but I don't know anyone who agrees with him.  He has also never turned in his Manager evaluation from a year ago.  When he was confronted about that tonight, he said he had completed it, but not submitted it, and that he had "legal advice" that he should not submit the evaluation.  His angle was that he considered the Manager under some kind of investigation, and that somehow that meant he shouldn't turn in the evaluation he claims he did and which was due a year ago.  And tonight, he was one of two Commissioners who advocated strongly that Manager evaluations should be required to be in writing.  You can see how twisted this is.  It's actually tortured.  And it's all about whining and complaining and accusing and being dissatisfied.  But there's no real content.  What is presented as content is ethereal.  All it really is is bad attitude disguised as righteous scrutiny.  Nasty, nasty stuff.  Divisive, ill-tempered, and hypocritical.

And for the record, I completely agree with both Commissioners (Bernard and Cooper) who said they thought evaluations should be written, not just verbal.  But they're both such miserable people that by the time they get done taking swipes at everyone, any feeling of accord with them is gone for me.

So that was our gathering for tonight.  I'm happy to report, though, that when all was said and done, those of us who were in love were still in love.  The "Fest" wasn't spoiled.  The Mayor remarked at the amazing resilience of the Manager.  It came through again, and it buoyed all of us.  She really is a gem.

Dumbing Down

It's Wednesday morning, October 12, and I have to confess I'm writing this under the influence.  Last night, I watched not more than about 5-6 minutes of the lastest Republican debate.  I didn't watch long, but the toxin was strong.  (BTW, I'm not really sure how this was configured as a debate.  The one debating opponent of all the Repbulican participants, Barack Obama, wasn't included.  Sort of a straw man debate, I guess.  That may be part of the toxicity.)  Anyway, the debate happened to be among Republicans, but it wouldn't have mattered if it had been a Democrat debate.  The problem would have been the same.  It's several people working hard never to give serious consideration to anything, avoiding serious questions, and spouting slogans which were intended to earn the applause of the audience.  Which they did, from time to time.  It's an empty, foolish, insubstantial undertaking, and it leaves the viewer wondering which of these mindless and apparently fearful losers will be the party's nominee for President of the United States.

In 2006, someone sent me the following quote: 

"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)


Much more recently, I stumbled across this quote:

“Palin’s supporters identify with her: she represents the erasure of any distinction between the governing and the governed.” New Yorker, 12/7/09


You can see the theme is the same. 

In its meeting last week, our Commission had an opportunity and a responsibility.  It squandered one, and abdicated the other.  The subject was trees.  A couple of weeks before, arborists (2) from the County had come to talk to us.  They warned about the Australian pines along Griffing Boulevard, and they pointed out the trees were at the end of their lives.  They pointed to signs of death at the tops of the trees, and they suggested the trees should be felled and replaced by other trees.  They suggested oaks, but agreed the County would install whatever we wanted.  So the Commission agreed (3-2, as it agrees to most things), and the trees were taken down.

The problem is that some Griffing residents particularly liked the trees, or they were used to them, and they were sorry to see them go.  Although some of the stumps were all but hollow, demonstrating how right the County arborists had been, some were not yet hollowed by insidious death, and the mourning residents latched onto pictures of those vital-looking stumps, to suggest the trees had been needlessly killed.  Did I say "mourning" and "killed?"  Indeed I did.  Well, it's not so much that I said it.  The unhappy residents themselves said it.  One talked about how the trees had been "murdered" and "killed."  Another talked about how not only she and her husband had been bereft by the loss of the trees, but that even the household pets had been disoriented, off their feed, and otherwise undone by the disappearance of these dear botanical friends.  Two residents, having apparently given up on wishing the trees qua trees were still there, complained that the large stumps should have been left standing, so they could lovingly have been converted into wood sculpture, as is done "in Europe" (photographic show-and-tell included).

Some people are willing to spend heroically to try to salvage ailing pets that are really at the ends of their lives.  Some can't bring themselves to turn off life supports when family members are brain dead and vegetative.  And evidently, some people just can't let go of dead or dying trees.  And this is with apparent complete suspension of recognition that if the trees are that badly off, it may be likely that they will either drop large branches, or fall over altogether, placing property and life at risk.

So this is what confronted the Commission last week.  Now let's remember the Mencken and New Yorker quotes, and the political debate.  These provide a critical frame of reference.  The debates demonstrated that apart from the self-serving effect of pandering, the contestants had an underlying fear of the audience (local and TV).  Contestants could not speak candidly, honestly, and with regard to the question at hand, because they were afraid the audience wouldn't approve.  "Audience," of course, equals potential voters.  So if contestants were afraid of the audience, and Mencken and the New Yorker tell us there is decreasing difference between candidates and the general public, then we should understand that candidates are also afraid of themselves.  Not only can they not be assertive because they fear the public, they can't be assertive because they are, in some sense, the general public, and they know they don't know what they're doing.  And they certainly know the general public doesn't know what it's doing.  Otherwise, they wouldn't jerk the public around as they do.  And if we further understand what Mencken tells us, we have to assume that at some level, the general public, who are not running for office, because they know they don't have the skills and knowledge, are afraid of themselves and their elected officials, as exemplified by the effigies of themselves they just elected.  Or are now considering electing.  In other words, they're in conflict.  They say they don't want a class different from themselves governing, but they know they themselves are not up to the responsibility, and neither are their equals whom they propose to elect.

So back to the Commission and last week.  The Commission had, in theory, a job to do.  It had to sympathize with the complaining public who mourned the loss of their dead trees.  It had to express understanding of the natural and near universal reflex gut reaction.   And it had to reassure the public that the decision was a correct one, that prevented future problems and would provide a better environment for Griffing Boulevard.  It had to remind residents that this project cost the County money, and the County would not have spent that money unless there was a reason to.  And if the County had money it had to spend somewhere, why there?  Why those trees, with the stigmata of impending death on them?  It had to remind residents that two County arborists agreed the trees were not salvageable.  It had to help residents move on.

But the Commission didn't do that.  It didn't do any of it.  Parts of the Commission fanned primitive flames, encouraging residents to feel somehow mistreated by the County.  That part of the Commission enabled and nourished feelings that the County, its arborists, and even the Village, by agreeing to this battery, were enemies of the public.  That part of the Commission cultivated the plaintiffs' feelings of loss, and it never confronted words like "murdered" and "killed" as they apply to taking down dead or near dead trees.  And that part of the Commission whipped up or proposed to legitimize enough primitive fear and anger in some residents that it succeeded in getting one other member of the Commission to agree to spend up to $5000, next time we have to replace dead trees, to hire a "second" (third, in this case) opinion arborist to check to see if the dead or dying trees are really dead or dying.  So the Village, which is operating on something akin to a shoestring, which will now see even lower revenues, which just voted in a mindless, self-destructive, and public-pandering gesture, to lower property taxes, and which already agreed last year to flush $5000 down the toilet because one Commissioner was feeling angry and spiteful, has now agreed (different 3-2 this time) to completely waste up to $5000 next time we need dead trees replaced.  And all of this is a collusion between residents who nurture their primitive impulses, and three Commissioners who are afraid of those residents, and may be nurturing their own primitive and self-serving impusles.

Mencken could really not have said it better.

WTF. The BC Show is at it again.

Unnecessary investigation:  $5000, No problem
Attorneys fees:  $165 an hour for countless unnecessary hours, No problem
Second opinion (well, third) to cut down dead trees:  Up to $5000, No problem

Overdue evaluation of Manager:  $900, instead of $75,  Unimaginable!  What a waste of money!  Would rather delay the overdue than to "waste" $825!  (Having just complained about an overdue auditor's report)

Sanity between two Commissioners: Would be Priceless, but not available.

Just a Curiosity

On the radio this morning, there was a story about a Republican US Congressman whose district includes Joplin, Missouri..  He reportedly aligns himself with the "Tea Party."  The story was about what amounts to hypocrisy.   Joplin was heavily damaged by tornados this year, and the Congressman eagerly accepted, in fact sought, whatever help FEMA could give.  There were even reportedly supportive and heartfelt appearances in the area by Obama and Nancy Pelosi.  Some people in Joplin didn't want the help.  They are far right-wingers, and they reportedly wanted only to help themselves, with no contribution from the Federal government, for which they apparently have disdain.  But the Congressman was more than happy to accept help from FEMA, even though his usual public statements were in the direction of limiting the Federal government and FEMA.

I remember a TV show Michael Moore did about 15 years ago.  It was called "TV Nation," and it was a somewhat provocative investigation show, more or less like his movies.  In one episode, he tracked down Newt Gingrich, to ask him about a sizable Federal expenditure in Gingrich's district.  The expenditure was to construct a large pond or lake, to enhance a private high end housing development.  Gingrich essentially ran away and refused to talk to Moore.

For years, Joe Lieberman called himself a Democrat.  I could never figure out why.   Eventually, he gave it up, and he now calls himself a Republican.  Makes complete sense to me.  Every one of his policies was, as I recall, in line with Republicans.  He really was one.  Now, he admits it.  It's better that way.

So every once in a while, you find someone like that.  Someone who declares him or herself a member of one party, but whose heart is very clearly with the other party.  For example, you might find someone who will, at any moment of any day, say he is a Democrat, and support and vote for Democrats, but who has allergy-level, and certainly Republican-level, mistrust of and disdain for government, and who will react even to the mention of taxes as if they were someone's attempt to swindle him out of his money.  Or as if taxation was more or less like the government's commission of armed robbery.  Such people are sometimes preoccupied with crime and "aliens," and they seem to want to live in a fortress.

As I say, it's a curious thing.  Tip O'Neill was prophetically right.  All politics really are local.  The guy from Missouri and Newt Gingrich can complain all they want about Federal expenditures and even waste, but when it's for their own enrichment, they get much more flexible.  They get "generous with other people's money."  And others can say what they want about the importance of the role of government in supporting the public and infrastructure, but when it's their money that has to pay for it, they're not so sure it's necessary, or at least that there must be some other way to pay for it.  Or some "grant" or other source that will pay, because they want to keep their money.  It seems they're generous, too, but only if the money is someone else's.

The fact is, of course, that most people who call themselves adherents of one party or another are essentially honest about it.  They declare a party affiliation, because they agree with the philosophies and positions of that party.  But some people are either confused or hypocrites.  For whatever reasons, they claim affiliation with one major party, but their real personal instincts and ethics are much better aligned with the other party.  Too bad they either don't get it, or they're not honest enough to call themselves what they are.

Gimme a Break!

What an awful hearing I'm slogging through today.  The attorney is the most miserable I ever have to deal with.  He's in Queens, New York.  I probably shouldn't say his name.  I've dealt with him on many occasions, and he is essentially a terrorist when it comes to hearings.  I've seen him bring hearings and judges to their knees.  He's doing it again.  How he thinks this serves his clients' interests is beyond me.  I can imagine that a judge might be tempted to find against his client, just because they can't stand him. 

He constantly interrupts those testifying, the judges, and the experts.  He is rude and hostile, and he challenges everything.  Everything!  He accuses judges and medical experts of being biased.  He even writes about this, and his flailings can be found on line.  He raises his voice during hearings, talks over people, and seems devoted to derailing the hearings.  It is not infrequent that judges will tell him he has to control himself, or they will suspend and have to reschedule the hearings.  Hearings with him take significantly longer than with other attorneys, because he won't stay on track and/or shut up.  Attorneys in New York are peculiarly uninhibited and combative, but this guy takes the cake.

Today, he stopped a hearing for a while, asserting that perhaps the recording might not be working.  While this was being investigated, he took another swipe at the judge, noting that he recalled another time the recording failed "conveniently" at a time the judge "wanted the case to go away."  As it turns out, the recording was working fine.  It appears he invented his concern, to keep the hearing off balance.  And never mind the vile accusation of the judge.

He's also an avid letter-writer to higher authorities.  He has turned in judges for accusations of bias, and he once wrote to a judge to request that the judge surrender me to the Attorney General's Office for criminal investigation, based on his conclusion that I lied about something.  Five of the judges in that office are being sued for bias. It appears this attorney is behind it. 

This attorney is clearly a very disturbed person.  He is belligerent, uncivilized, and seems to me to be almost paranoid.  He is completely unmanageable in a hearing.  And the funny thing is I met him once.  I went to NY to do hearings, and he was one of the attorneys.  He dresses well and looks normal.  Apparently, he's very intelligent.  He got his BS in Psychology from UVA, Magna Cum Laude, and his law degree from Penn.  If he didn't open his mouth, you'd never know how grossly dysfunctional he is.

I know, this blog is supposed to be about BP, and I'm ventilating about a problem hearing in NY.  What's the hearing got to do with BP?  Yes, I suppose you're right.  This hearing is just a real and crushing drag.  I'm stuck in the middle of it, and it's on my mind.


PS: The hearing is over.  Hearings take anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour, with the occasional hearing taking an hour and a half.  This one took just under four hours.  What a waste of time and life.  Though I'm sure the attorney would say he was only pursuing adequate advocacy for his client.  He has not the slightest sense of proportion, and not much reality-testing, either.

What? We're Not Good Enough?

I wasn't expecting to submit a travelogue, but maybe it's not a bad idea.  My most recent trip was to Kansas City and San Diego.  Before that, it was Massachusetts, mostly the Berkshire towns in western Massachusetts.  Last year, I was in Asheville NC.  So what do all these places have in common?  And why am I wasting your time telling you about them?  They all have public art programs, mainly public sculpture.  I bring them up, because they're sort of informal, as these things go.  Boston has public sculpture.  So does NYC.  In fact, so does Miami Beach.  And San Francisco.  But these are more upscale programs, in a way.  Lots of money spent, for juried or commissioned pieces. 

Kansas City has loads of public sculpture.  It's really quite surprising, and it exists throughout the city and even in neighboring municipalities.  Much of it was donated by private wealthy people.  The bigger and better pieces are wonderful.  But there are also very many pieces which are frankly modest in themselves.  Some of them are not much different from some of the garden statuary you can find at various locations in Miami.  But given a bit of care about placement and surrounding shrubbery, even these pieces look impressive.  Not always for what they are per se, but for the fact that they're there.  They're like the difference between a blank wall in your home and a wall with a picture on it.  Do you have any pictures on your walls at home?  Did you pay thousands or many thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for them at a prestigious art gallery or a high end auction?  No?  Oh, they're just pictures you happen to like, maybe even inexpensive reproductions or posters, and you like a bit of decor in your home?  Right, some public art is just like that.  There's lots like that in KC and environs.  And bigger and more impressive pieces, too.  I'm told KC has the second most fountains of any city in the world.  Rome has more.  Almost everywhere you look, there's something interesting.  And beautiful.  And the people of KC like it that way.

San Diego has less, but it's effective.  There's one strip of sculptures along the wharf.  No high art at all, but each piece interesting.  And the aggregate is even better than the interesting pieces.  Other pieces are scattered at various places in the city.  There doesn't seem to be a concerted and pervasive plan, like there is in KC, but they certainly make their point.

Asheville is quite interesting.  It's a relatively small and funky venue, and you sort of stumble onto things.  The public outdoor sculpture in Asheville is distinctly funky.  It's humorous and often unexpected.  There's a real sense of playfulness about Asheville's sculpture.  And there's more of it than you would think there would be in a town like that.

Pittsfield, Massachusetts, is a depressed city.  They lost a huge employer in General Electric, and they never quite recovered.  They seem to be working on it.  They like their summer outdoor festivals, and they have overflow from the toney Berkshire crowd, but Pittsfield itself is distinctly blue collar, at best.  High unemployment.  So what on earth are they doing with so many pieces of outdoor public sculpture?  Again, no high art.  Just weird, sometimes funky, curious stuff, and it isn't all the same from one year to the next.  You really want to drive through the center of downtown, just to see what they have this year.  And you can't fully believe they take themselves that seriously.  Or have quite that much pride.  But apparently, they do.

And these are not the only places you find public art.  We have some here.  You know those huge fiberglass chickens that are painted in various ways?  There's at least one on SW 8th Street.  And other places.  What, that's not public art?  Says who?  Of course it is.  In the Berkshire towns, it's cows like that.  And someplace else, I saw the same phenomenon, only sheep.  OK, so it's not "high art."  And your point is?  It's diversity.  It's intrigue.  It's a kind of drama.  Or it's cute, or funny, or charming.  And it's interesting and engaging.  It makes you want to look around, maybe wonder what's down the next street.  It makes you think about the people.  They like themselves, and the place they live.  They have a special pride.  They want life in their lives.

Now I couldn't prove this, it's just my impression, but it seems to me art like this adds real value to a place, too.  Would I say to you that it specifically increases "property values?"  No, I couldn't do that.  I don't know if it does, or if anyone tried to study the question.  But I will tell you that my reaction to the areas that want to feature public art is that they seem to have a special "value."

Right now, we in BP are sort of suffering a bit.  Some of it is our own fault, and some isn't.  The part that's not our fault is the foreclosures and bank-owned properties.  No one even cuts the grass, and these properties are hurting.  My own sense, and listening to what others say at Commission meetings and elsewhere, is that they're hurting all of us.  What is our own fault is decrepit lawns, paint and other maintenance that isn't done, and miserable medians.  I was on Planning and Zoning for a few years, and it's very clear to me that the policy-makers, and the enforcers, do not want to live in a run down environment.  Neither do I.  If anything, they want the Codes strengthened, and they want them enforced.  We want to step it up, and have a neighborhood that pleases us and that we can be proud of.

We have a piece of public sculpture of our own.  It's in "Griffing Park," just across 6th Avenue from the log cabin.  But we're not limited to one sculpture.  We could have as many as we want.  As long as we're interested and willing to provide them for ourselves.  We could have frequently occurring smaller concrete pieces, on every median, if we want, and/or we can have more attention-grabbing pieces, in large medians or any of our public places.  All we need is interest, a certain amount of money, and a commitment from the Village to make the spaces available.

Have I sparked anyone's interest?  I want to know about it if I have.  I'm more than happy to help find pieces, collect money, and get us stuff.  Or, the Foundation, if it raises enough money on a reliable and recurring basis, may want to begin a program of acquisition of public sculpture for us.  Also, if we don't have enough money, many sculptors who make large and expensive pieces, will rent those pieces, usually for 10% of the purchase price per year.  You can lease a piece for a year or two or so, then let it go and get something else.  Or if we really liked something we leased, we could just finish paying for it and keep it.

So lemme know what you think.

Bada-Bing

Steve Bernard and I do not speak to each other.  My best guess is that given an adequate opportunity, we might well not even like each other.  This will come as a kind of surprise after the Commission meeting last night, where we seemed so well coordinated, as if we had been planning and rehearsing a show.  It was, in its way, a bit like professional wrestling, where we seem to fight, but we are really acting a very carefully choreographed demonstration.  So what did we demonstrate last night?

There was the build-up, of course.  The pre-banter and the mutual dissing.  Played out to the public over days, weeks, and months.  Last night, we started with me for the evening's show.  I gave my little speech, which I had written the week before and circulated, including to my partner, Commissioner Bernard.  This works better if he knows what I'm going to say.  So I said he was rigid, stubborn, contrary, disruptive, and uncooperative.  It's the typical material he and I use.  We find it works well for us.  I said he would complain that he didn't have a fair chance to digest the budget, had too many unanswered questions, felt unaccommodated, was generally immature in his approach, and would ultimately vote against the budget.  I threw in his junior partner as well, and Steve and I have come to have excellent confidence that the lad won't disappoint.  So that was the set-up.

Then, it was my partner's turn.  I only get three minutes, and he gets all night (mercifully shortened this time to 10 crushing minutes), so I think we can safely call his part of the demonstration the Steve Bernard Show, starring......Steve......Bernard!  So he picks up his cues and explains that of course he has a million questions.  He's already asked them, he admits, but they went unanswered.  So he still has them.  (We now make reference to what each other says, for thematic continuity and comic timing.  Never mind; believe me, it works well.)  So where I accuse him of getting ready to complain that he's been cheated out of time to study the budget and get answers to his questions, he then complains that he's been cheated out of time to study the budget and get answers to his questions.  (We're trying to develop a variation where he blames me for the deprivation, but we haven't been able to come up with a mechanism.  Yet.)

We had a few missteps last night, and we have to work them out.  They were untidy.  One was where I say he's had two months to study the budget and ask all his questions privately of the Manager and Finance Director.  Well, the fact is he really didn't bother to discuss any of this with them, and I'm afraid he may have come out looking badly on this one.  This is not good for the act.  Also, he invokes the public interest and desire to know about the budget, and I clumsily pointed out that essentially no one came to the public workshops.  In the past, he's whined that there wasn't adequate notification, people didn't know, the recording system wasn't working, or some other irrelevant or nonsensical tangent.  But he sort of surrendered last night to my assertion that actually no one cares, and he's just talking to himself.  We'll try to compose a better comeback for him next time.

So Steve continues on.  The million questions, asked with hostile attitude; the undercurrent accusations and complaints of managerial misbehavior and incompetence; the references to inept and gullible colleagues; the disdain for the appalling lack of rigor in the entire pathetic system.  Steve can do this in his sleep.  He probably does.  But it's not just content, which is beginning to get dangerously trite for him.  He has a stage show to perform.  After all, there are the imagined peeps out there.  The fantasied adoring audience.  The hypothetical beneficiaries of the pitbull advocacy he delivers.  These aren't lines you simply read.  You have to act them out.  Out comes the interrupting, the badgering, the hectoring, and those trademark smirks.  And the spitballs.  Tom Cruise and Denzel have their mulitmillion dollar smiles.  Our Steve has his spitballs.  He nearly unnerved Roxy, and he threw Bob Anderson completely off track.  Bob had to give up in disgust, having admittedly lost his train of thought.  What a barrage.  Better than Fourth of July fireworks.  Al Childress was too far away, and he contented himself simply with telling Steve he had the floor.  Yawn.

Then, we approach the end.  Now I have to set this up right.  It's way too good to mischaracterize.  And I have an admission to make.  I said far in advance, and in my preparatory words last night, that the Commission would pass the budget 3-2.  I know: duh.  But one of my friends bet me a bottle of scotch it would pass 4-1.  What?!! 4-1?!!  Who, I asked incredulously, is going to flinch?  Cooper, said my friend.  Nah, you're out of your mind.  Cooper won't flinch.  Cooper, "Dr No," doesn't even know what's going on.  He has no reason to flinch.  But no, my friend wouldn't flinch, either.  He really thought he was getting a bottle off me.  So here's where it gets good.  Each Commissioner had his or her say, and a chance to make suggestions for the budget.  My Steve started.  Then it was Childress.  Eventually, it was Cooper's turn.  At some point, he let slip that he "couldn't vote for this budget because..." and I turned and gave my friend a smirk of my own.  Now in the meantime, I'm actually getting worried.  My Steve asked all his questions, and made many suggestions.  But Roxy, who I thought was a friend, starts making sure Steve gets answers to his questions, and worse, she starts engineering that each of his requests is satisfied.  Come on, Rox, I have a bottle of scotch riding on this.  My friend didn't say the bet was about Cooper.  He said it was about the vote.  If it's any 4-1, I lose!  And my so-called friend Roxy Ross is explicitly and completely openly trying to get Steve to find agreement with the budget.  So he'll vote for it!!  She said so!!  You know how the car salesmen ask what they have to do to get you buy the car right now?  Yeah, it was like that.  Rox!!  How can you do this to me?  So Steve gets everything he wants.  All questions answered.  All requests accommodated.  I'm sunk. 

The vote gets taken, and it's..............3-2.  Ahhhh.  That's my boy.  You can give him absolutely everything he wants, and he still won't be satisfied.  The funny thing is, that's exactly what I said in my opening speech, but I forgot.  I got a little panicked over the scotch, and I forgot the deal.  This is Steve Bernard we're talking about here.  It wasn't about the budget.  It was just about rebelling.

So now, my friend can go buy me a bottle of Glenrothes, and everything will be right with the world.  Thanks, partner.