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?"
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
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.
Some Clarification about My Friend, Our Visitor
I recently mentioned an out of town visitor who attended one of our Commission meetings. She had heard from me about the Commission, she reads this blog, she had some reservations about how accurate was my description of the dynamics and personnel, and she "wouldn't miss" seeing this for herself.
She later told me not only that I was unexpectedly, and somewhat disturbingly, accurate in my description, but that frankly, she wouldn't fully have believed it had she not seen it herself. One word she used was "disgusting," and she particularly cited and indicted "your [our] Mayor." He wasn't on a rampage that day, just doing what he does. She was also very unimpressed with Commissioner Dr Cooper. Or maybe she found him depressing.
But these specific insights and observations are almost beside the point. She had an overarching message for me and for us. Telling it to me was preaching to the choir. I've said it ad nauseum myself. The message to all of us was that it seemed to her essential that Villagers attend these meetings. Even once. Even just for part of a meeting. She felt it was undermining to democracy and to public participation in the governing process for people not to see what they elected.
So I've said it before, and I'll say it again: PLEASE COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS!!! Most likely, and sadly, the people who are the most likely readers of this blog already come to Commission meetings. So I'm preaching to the choir, too. But if there are any readers of this blog who don't come to Commission meetings, please come. And whether readers come to meetings or not, please ask your neighbors to come.
And I'm not trying to say that in my opinion, one or another of the Commissioners is better or worse than any other Commissioner. If I did say it, it would only be my opinion. And my opinion is worth no more than your opinion. My opinion is expressed in this blog. If you choose to comment, which you are welcome to do, then your opinion will be expressed here, too. In fact, tell me you want room to express yourself, and I'll give you a guest post. Say whatever you want. On my dime.
Don't believe what I say. Assume I'm wrong. Or lying. Or stupid. Come see for yourselves. These are your elected representatives. You voted for them. Or you didn't successfully vote against them. You pay them. PLEASE COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS!! Please.
PS: Also, feel free to pass this blog around. Ask people who agree with you, and people who disagree with you, to read it. If I'm wrong, or my thinking is faulty, or someone just sees it another way, I'd like to know about it. And for the record, in the interest of "full disclosure," I get nothing for this blog. There are no advertisers. It makes no difference if two people read this, or 2000 people do. I don't make anything from it, and no benefit accrues to me if someone reads it. I have no way of knowing who, if anyone, reads it, and the "Stats" are unreliable, so I have no way of knowing even how many people read it. Just for the record.
She later told me not only that I was unexpectedly, and somewhat disturbingly, accurate in my description, but that frankly, she wouldn't fully have believed it had she not seen it herself. One word she used was "disgusting," and she particularly cited and indicted "your [our] Mayor." He wasn't on a rampage that day, just doing what he does. She was also very unimpressed with Commissioner Dr Cooper. Or maybe she found him depressing.
But these specific insights and observations are almost beside the point. She had an overarching message for me and for us. Telling it to me was preaching to the choir. I've said it ad nauseum myself. The message to all of us was that it seemed to her essential that Villagers attend these meetings. Even once. Even just for part of a meeting. She felt it was undermining to democracy and to public participation in the governing process for people not to see what they elected.
So I've said it before, and I'll say it again: PLEASE COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS!!! Most likely, and sadly, the people who are the most likely readers of this blog already come to Commission meetings. So I'm preaching to the choir, too. But if there are any readers of this blog who don't come to Commission meetings, please come. And whether readers come to meetings or not, please ask your neighbors to come.
And I'm not trying to say that in my opinion, one or another of the Commissioners is better or worse than any other Commissioner. If I did say it, it would only be my opinion. And my opinion is worth no more than your opinion. My opinion is expressed in this blog. If you choose to comment, which you are welcome to do, then your opinion will be expressed here, too. In fact, tell me you want room to express yourself, and I'll give you a guest post. Say whatever you want. On my dime.
Don't believe what I say. Assume I'm wrong. Or lying. Or stupid. Come see for yourselves. These are your elected representatives. You voted for them. Or you didn't successfully vote against them. You pay them. PLEASE COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS!! Please.
PS: Also, feel free to pass this blog around. Ask people who agree with you, and people who disagree with you, to read it. If I'm wrong, or my thinking is faulty, or someone just sees it another way, I'd like to know about it. And for the record, in the interest of "full disclosure," I get nothing for this blog. There are no advertisers. It makes no difference if two people read this, or 2000 people do. I don't make anything from it, and no benefit accrues to me if someone reads it. I have no way of knowing who, if anyone, reads it, and the "Stats" are unreliable, so I have no way of knowing even how many people read it. Just for the record.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave...
I listened again. Commissioner Dr Bryan Cooper has "researched" the matter, and he has learned that the idea of moving the BP election to the general election was actually my idea. He has further reasoned, intuited, or otherwise discovered that I have "brought forward" this idea through Commissioner Ross, whom he characterizes as my "friend."
This train of events and reasonings is beyond tricky. It is closer to death-defying. I must say, I have no idea what activity Commissioner Dr Cooper means when he says he "researched" something. Whatever it is, it has unfortunately led him in a very wrong direction. He might also have some attentional or memory problems. I moved to BP in the summer of 2005. I voted in my first BP election in December of that year. The next general election was the next November. It was some time in that time frame that I came upon the idea that there was something very inefficient going on, and I began to suggest to the Commission that there might be sense in unifying the elections. It would be cheaper, and the turnout would be better. I have made that suggestion to three different Commissions. I began to suggest it not only before Commissioner Ross became a Commissioner, but even before I met her. I never communicated this idea, or any idea, to one or another Commissioner, to the exclusion of the others. I have never communicated any idea for Commission action to Commissioner Ross unless I also communicated it to all the other Commissioners, including Commissioner Dr Cooper. If Commissioner Dr Cooper doesn't read e-mail I send him, I count that as his problem, not mine.
So Commissioner Dr Cooper is grossly wrong to imagine that I have ever promoted any idea through one Commissioner or another. His researches have also somehow failed to inform him that this idea has been mentioned in the Village for many years, long before I moved here. He says the idea was mine, but it simply was not. There isn't much else to say to him about that. He either made a mistake, was careless, or has made up a story. Only he knows which explanation is correct.
What is most curious about his comment is the idea he now exposes, that a non-Commissioner resident of BP, like me, could bring forward an agenda by using a Commissioner. He is describing a situation in which a non-Commissioner resident has great power over Commissioners, and can direct them to do what he wants. It would seem that he treats them like puppets, and they do his bidding. Commissioner Dr Cooper is making a pretty clear statement about Commissioners who are so weak, mindless, and susceptible. Presumably, he is also saying something about such a resident, who we should imagine must be rather dramatically taken with himself and his power, and is essentially predatory in the way he uses other people, including elected officials.
I guess this is what Commissioner Dr Cooper is saying, and what he believes. I can disagree with him about me personally, and he has no way of knowing how independent-minded Commissioner Ross is, and how often she has disagreed with me or declined suggestions of mine, but Commissioner Dr Cooper may know something I don't know. He may be referring to something entirely different. He is wrong to think I have either the inclination or the power to control Commissioners, but I am not in a position to say that no one has such an inclination, or that there are no Commissioners who can be so manipulated. If Commissioner Dr Cooper is trying to tell us something when he makes these assertions, he will have to be a bit more explicit, and more detailed.
This train of events and reasonings is beyond tricky. It is closer to death-defying. I must say, I have no idea what activity Commissioner Dr Cooper means when he says he "researched" something. Whatever it is, it has unfortunately led him in a very wrong direction. He might also have some attentional or memory problems. I moved to BP in the summer of 2005. I voted in my first BP election in December of that year. The next general election was the next November. It was some time in that time frame that I came upon the idea that there was something very inefficient going on, and I began to suggest to the Commission that there might be sense in unifying the elections. It would be cheaper, and the turnout would be better. I have made that suggestion to three different Commissions. I began to suggest it not only before Commissioner Ross became a Commissioner, but even before I met her. I never communicated this idea, or any idea, to one or another Commissioner, to the exclusion of the others. I have never communicated any idea for Commission action to Commissioner Ross unless I also communicated it to all the other Commissioners, including Commissioner Dr Cooper. If Commissioner Dr Cooper doesn't read e-mail I send him, I count that as his problem, not mine.
So Commissioner Dr Cooper is grossly wrong to imagine that I have ever promoted any idea through one Commissioner or another. His researches have also somehow failed to inform him that this idea has been mentioned in the Village for many years, long before I moved here. He says the idea was mine, but it simply was not. There isn't much else to say to him about that. He either made a mistake, was careless, or has made up a story. Only he knows which explanation is correct.
What is most curious about his comment is the idea he now exposes, that a non-Commissioner resident of BP, like me, could bring forward an agenda by using a Commissioner. He is describing a situation in which a non-Commissioner resident has great power over Commissioners, and can direct them to do what he wants. It would seem that he treats them like puppets, and they do his bidding. Commissioner Dr Cooper is making a pretty clear statement about Commissioners who are so weak, mindless, and susceptible. Presumably, he is also saying something about such a resident, who we should imagine must be rather dramatically taken with himself and his power, and is essentially predatory in the way he uses other people, including elected officials.
I guess this is what Commissioner Dr Cooper is saying, and what he believes. I can disagree with him about me personally, and he has no way of knowing how independent-minded Commissioner Ross is, and how often she has disagreed with me or declined suggestions of mine, but Commissioner Dr Cooper may know something I don't know. He may be referring to something entirely different. He is wrong to think I have either the inclination or the power to control Commissioners, but I am not in a position to say that no one has such an inclination, or that there are no Commissioners who can be so manipulated. If Commissioner Dr Cooper is trying to tell us something when he makes these assertions, he will have to be a bit more explicit, and more detailed.
The Republic of Biscayne Park: Jacobstown
Before I begin, I would like to say two things. First, Gaspar Gonzalez approached me to tell me how offensive is my demeanor, how unlikeable I am, and particularly how disrespectful I am in calling Commissioners by their first names. Guilty as charged, to all of it. (Guilty to calling Commissioners by their first names. Some are personal friends, and the rest I simply know. That's what happens in a tiny municipality. Although Gaspar likes to interpret disrespect in my way of addressing people I know, that is his game. But if he's so delicate, I have no need to discomfit him.) So I have resolved to show more respect, and I will from now on refer to Commissioners by their proper titles and names.
Second, I had a friend visiting from out of town this past week. She is aware of my blog, has read it, and I have described our little goings-on to her. I don't miss Commission meetings if I'm in town, and I offered her the chance not to waste her time. She "wouldn't miss it." She concluded after the meeting that the personnel and dynamics were exactly as I have described them, to her surprise. So I'm glad I have not misled or distorted. As for the topic at hand...
In the Commission meeting of May 1, 2012, Noah Jacobs informed us that the Village is not a democracy. It is a Republic. Although it is not clear what distinction he was drawing, his somewhat arresting assertion deserves some scrutiny. Republics are generally understood to be countries, or "States," not States like the 50 United States. There doesn't seem to be much precedent for a State among states being a Republic, and certainly not a municipality within a state. But what is perhaps more at issue is how we think about the leader of a Republic. Although according to my new resolution I should refer to Noah as Mayor Jacobs, his title according to the Charter of the one-time Village of Biscayne Park, it is likely I would be understating his importance, and showing all the disrespect of which Gaspar (Dr Gonzalez) accuses me, if I did not refer to Noah as President Jacobs. So until I hear differently from our Head of State, I will dutifully refer to him as President Jacobs. The alternative is that I challenge President Jacobs and tell him that in my opinion, having read our Charter, I think we are not a Republic. But this in itself might be unbearably disrespectful. Disrespecting President Jacobs can be a dangerous business.
Commissioner Ross knows what happens when President Jacobs doesn't get the respect to which he considers himself due. In the past, when she was Mayor Ross, she felt the future President's wrath. Last month, after he had dethroned her, she felt it again. Both times, she spoke when he didn't want her to, and she failed to provide direct and dutiful answers to his provocative, and even irrelevant, questions. He fumed, he raged, he drowned her out. He mocked her. He tried his best to silence her, only stopping short of having her removed. He is prone to rather ugly temper tantrums.
With others, too, he can be ruthless in his dismissals and suppressions. In my case, he has silenced me on more than one occasion, and was imperious in so doing. For whatever were the President's reasons, he was more tolerant of Chuck Ross, who was permitted to go over time to finish a thought. Others are treated even more cordially, depending, it seems, on the President's mood.
Our President is not schooled in the art of presiding over a meeting of Commissioners. He is frequently tutored by his informal council of Advisors, chief among them the Attorney of the Republic. But these tutorials seem to have about as much impact as what is commonly jokingly said of the satiation-inducing capacity of Chinese food. The President seems never able to retain the idea that a second is needed before discussion can begin, that public comment must precede Commission discussion regarding Ordinances, under what circumstances the vote must be a roll call vote, and that he cannot simply "call the question" whenever he has tired of the prattlings of the Commissioners. Funny enough, though, at one point he decided it was the moment for him to hand the gavel to his right hand aide, Vice Mayor Dr Barbara Watts, and he was practically erupting in suggestions for her as to how to call upon him for his contributions.
The end of the meeting was another demonstration of the President's whims, his personal touches. When his colleagues bored him, he moved yet again to "call the question." The Attorney for the Republic tried, yet again, to tell him that he could not call the question until everyone had spoken. For the listener in the audience, this concept seems almost simple and straightforward. Evidently, there are subtleties and complexities only the President understands. It wasn't at all simple or straightforward to him. In the midst of this discussion, which also involved Commissioner Ross' effort to preserve her chance to finish a discussion, and a thought, it was realized that the 11:00 meeting limit had expired, and the meeting was in fact over. A motion was offered, to extend the meeting 30 minutes, and the President was inclined to accept this motion. The Attorney for the Republic, however, pointed out that the meeting was statutorily over, and no motion could be offered, voted on, or accepted, even by Presidential fiat. Pish, tosh! This is not some small town Mayor we're dealing with. This is the President of a Republic. The President of RBP:J. The meeting was continued for 30 minutes.
Second, I had a friend visiting from out of town this past week. She is aware of my blog, has read it, and I have described our little goings-on to her. I don't miss Commission meetings if I'm in town, and I offered her the chance not to waste her time. She "wouldn't miss it." She concluded after the meeting that the personnel and dynamics were exactly as I have described them, to her surprise. So I'm glad I have not misled or distorted. As for the topic at hand...
In the Commission meeting of May 1, 2012, Noah Jacobs informed us that the Village is not a democracy. It is a Republic. Although it is not clear what distinction he was drawing, his somewhat arresting assertion deserves some scrutiny. Republics are generally understood to be countries, or "States," not States like the 50 United States. There doesn't seem to be much precedent for a State among states being a Republic, and certainly not a municipality within a state. But what is perhaps more at issue is how we think about the leader of a Republic. Although according to my new resolution I should refer to Noah as Mayor Jacobs, his title according to the Charter of the one-time Village of Biscayne Park, it is likely I would be understating his importance, and showing all the disrespect of which Gaspar (Dr Gonzalez) accuses me, if I did not refer to Noah as President Jacobs. So until I hear differently from our Head of State, I will dutifully refer to him as President Jacobs. The alternative is that I challenge President Jacobs and tell him that in my opinion, having read our Charter, I think we are not a Republic. But this in itself might be unbearably disrespectful. Disrespecting President Jacobs can be a dangerous business.
Commissioner Ross knows what happens when President Jacobs doesn't get the respect to which he considers himself due. In the past, when she was Mayor Ross, she felt the future President's wrath. Last month, after he had dethroned her, she felt it again. Both times, she spoke when he didn't want her to, and she failed to provide direct and dutiful answers to his provocative, and even irrelevant, questions. He fumed, he raged, he drowned her out. He mocked her. He tried his best to silence her, only stopping short of having her removed. He is prone to rather ugly temper tantrums.
With others, too, he can be ruthless in his dismissals and suppressions. In my case, he has silenced me on more than one occasion, and was imperious in so doing. For whatever were the President's reasons, he was more tolerant of Chuck Ross, who was permitted to go over time to finish a thought. Others are treated even more cordially, depending, it seems, on the President's mood.
Our President is not schooled in the art of presiding over a meeting of Commissioners. He is frequently tutored by his informal council of Advisors, chief among them the Attorney of the Republic. But these tutorials seem to have about as much impact as what is commonly jokingly said of the satiation-inducing capacity of Chinese food. The President seems never able to retain the idea that a second is needed before discussion can begin, that public comment must precede Commission discussion regarding Ordinances, under what circumstances the vote must be a roll call vote, and that he cannot simply "call the question" whenever he has tired of the prattlings of the Commissioners. Funny enough, though, at one point he decided it was the moment for him to hand the gavel to his right hand aide, Vice Mayor Dr Barbara Watts, and he was practically erupting in suggestions for her as to how to call upon him for his contributions.
The end of the meeting was another demonstration of the President's whims, his personal touches. When his colleagues bored him, he moved yet again to "call the question." The Attorney for the Republic tried, yet again, to tell him that he could not call the question until everyone had spoken. For the listener in the audience, this concept seems almost simple and straightforward. Evidently, there are subtleties and complexities only the President understands. It wasn't at all simple or straightforward to him. In the midst of this discussion, which also involved Commissioner Ross' effort to preserve her chance to finish a discussion, and a thought, it was realized that the 11:00 meeting limit had expired, and the meeting was in fact over. A motion was offered, to extend the meeting 30 minutes, and the President was inclined to accept this motion. The Attorney for the Republic, however, pointed out that the meeting was statutorily over, and no motion could be offered, voted on, or accepted, even by Presidential fiat. Pish, tosh! This is not some small town Mayor we're dealing with. This is the President of a Republic. The President of RBP:J. The meeting was continued for 30 minutes.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
It's a Small World After All
So the question is, when should we hold our elections. Our Charter specifies that we hold them on the first Tuesday of December in odd numbered years. Which we do. It's our special private time with each other. Just us, and our election for our Commissioners. Three of them. When I moved here in 2005, there was one other issue: acceptance of the renewed VBP Charter.
There's another possibility, though. And it gets some play every several years. It's the possibility of piggybacking our little BP election onto the general election, which falls on the first Tuesday of November, in even numbered years. That's when we vote for President, Senator, Federal Congressperson, State legislators, County elections, judges, Ordinances, and various other issues.
So what's the difference? Well, there are three. We pay to register issues on which to vote. We pay it no matter when we vote. But if we vote for BP elections at the time of the general election, we don't pay more than the registration, which covers advertising. If we run our own elections, we also have to pay for the running of the election. This extra cost is about $4500 per year (about $9000 per election, which happens every other year.)
Another difference is turnout. During the general elections, people have voting on their minds, and they come out to vote. Anywhere from about 40-70% do. But when we have our own VBP elections, it seems fewer people are inspired to bother, and we only get about 27-43% turnout. So if we held our elections during the general election, instead of all by their lonesome, we'd get a much better turnout.
Well this was on the agenda for the Commission meeting tonight. Should we move the election, to save money and get a better turnout, or should we leave it as it is. And this is where the third difference comes into it. Some people like our little stand-alone elections. They just like 'em. Some of the Commissioners talked about that. These people seem to like that "small town" feeling. They painted a charming picture, like Norman Rockwell would have, of neighbors out walking, meeting the candidates, walking to the polls, enjoying each others' company. The old time small town charm was downright palpable. Yessir, it surely, surely was. Yup, neighbors acting like neighbors. Why I s'pose you could go on over to your neighbor's house to borrow a cup of sugar, and sit yourself right down there and talk about who's running for Commissioner. You could have a cup of coffee while you're jawin' about it. And that's just how some people feel. Not too many signs, and the candidates themselves, right there in the flesh, dropping by to meet you personally. And just like Barbara Watts pointed out, she could drop on by and introduce herself to you, and not lose the opportunity if she was trying to get that Barack Obama elected. After all, it would complicate matters a good bit if she was to ask you to vote for him, and ask you to vote for her at the same time.
Now you know it just couldn't be quite that simple. There's always a cost, no matter what you do. So the costs are that extra money, and the low turnout. Well Barbara and Noah both had the answer for you on the money end of it. They switched it from a number of dollars for the election to how many dollars per home ($4!!), or what percent of the budget (less than 1!!), to make you feel better about spending it. I don't mean to harp, but these are some of the same people who keep not getting around to giving the Foundation their $20 per year.
So let's say you bite. You figure it's really not that much, especially to keep that old time small town charm. But you still have a problem. How can you rationalize that low turnout? And keep in mind that everyone, and especially the defenders of the old time small town charm, say they want to try for high voter turnout. "100%," according to the signs Steve Bernard likes to post. What I find weird is that he claims, through his signs, that he wants 100% turnout, but he's a proponent of those elections that get uncharacteristically low turnout. I must remember to ask him how to reconcile that next time I see him.
But there is an answer. Barbara Watts hinted at it, and Bryan Cooper called it what it was. Barbara grudgingly agreed to want a democracy, but she said she really wants a "philosopher king." Bryan said he didn't mind at all that few people vote, because that way, we only get the really knowledgable voters. An oligarchy elected by the elites and cognoscenti. Yessir.
I had posed what I thought was a problem, but Barbara and Bryan allowed me to see that it was really the solution. With talk of keeping the elections small scale so that voters wouldn't be confused by the complicated ballot, including President and all that other nonsense, and so that there wouldn't be so many signs on lawns, confusing potential voters, I thought proponents of stand-alone Village elections were basically saying they thought BP residents were, um, intellectually limited, and needed to be protected from so much commotion. And I learned that's exactly what these proponents think, and in fact they would just as soon the dimwits stay home. So we have our quiet little elections, and we don't make enough noise to awaken those who really should just take a nap. We just get our little turnout of voters who know just what to do. Often, funny enough, because someone tells them just what to do.
We're a small town, with a small population, of people many of whom have small intellects. And that's part of our special charm.
Now it wouldn't be a fair telling of the story if I didn't reveal the unexpected twist ending. You figured this was one of those 3-2 against moving the election, didn't you. Roxy Ross had a good deal to say, about democracy and the value of people voting and whatever other pie-in-the-sky philosophies she was going on about, and Noah started getting very uneasy. It appears he didn't like what Roxy was saying, not one bit. So he tried to shut her down. He kind of likes shutting people down, and he got a very good tutorial in the techniques of it from Andre Pierre, the tyrant of North Miami. He decided to practice some of this on Roxy. Except Roxy just wouldn't be stifled. It appears she's not an obedient girl. Like she thinks this isn't the '40s or '50s, and the little lady doesn't just do what the men folk tell 'er to do. Noah began to unhinge. (This is exactly the kind of thing Steve Bernard would kill to get on youtube, if only it wasn't his boy who was getting unhinged.) And you know what he was getting unhinged about? He said responsible people would certainly vote (he didn't for years that he said he lived here), and he didn't like the way Roxy treated him for the past two years. Which is unexplained, since he never had anything to do with her or even ever came to a Commission meeting until about 7-8 months ago. And he definitely poo-pooed the idea that anyone would forget or not notice we were having an election. But Roxy is going on with her remarks, Noah is turning up the rage (much like he did the day he introduced himself to us last summer, sputtering and raging around like he was going to assault someone, mainly Roxy), and poor Barbara is sitting between them, looking like she's afraid she'll catch a stray bullet, or at least get spit on by Noah. Well, when it came time to vote, Barbara actually went the other way. She voted for the proposed Ordinance. I want to think she saw what was wrong with the other theory, but I have to consider that it occurred to her this was perhaps not the company you want to keep.
I'm frankly sure Steve Bernard will have a word with her. Tonight was, after all, only the first reading of this Ordinance, and Barbara will have a chance to straighten out and do what Steve tells her. But I will confess that I considered Barbara the possible lucid free thinker of the three of them. Maybe she is. She's certainly the one with detectable charm.
There's another possibility, though. And it gets some play every several years. It's the possibility of piggybacking our little BP election onto the general election, which falls on the first Tuesday of November, in even numbered years. That's when we vote for President, Senator, Federal Congressperson, State legislators, County elections, judges, Ordinances, and various other issues.
So what's the difference? Well, there are three. We pay to register issues on which to vote. We pay it no matter when we vote. But if we vote for BP elections at the time of the general election, we don't pay more than the registration, which covers advertising. If we run our own elections, we also have to pay for the running of the election. This extra cost is about $4500 per year (about $9000 per election, which happens every other year.)
Another difference is turnout. During the general elections, people have voting on their minds, and they come out to vote. Anywhere from about 40-70% do. But when we have our own VBP elections, it seems fewer people are inspired to bother, and we only get about 27-43% turnout. So if we held our elections during the general election, instead of all by their lonesome, we'd get a much better turnout.
Well this was on the agenda for the Commission meeting tonight. Should we move the election, to save money and get a better turnout, or should we leave it as it is. And this is where the third difference comes into it. Some people like our little stand-alone elections. They just like 'em. Some of the Commissioners talked about that. These people seem to like that "small town" feeling. They painted a charming picture, like Norman Rockwell would have, of neighbors out walking, meeting the candidates, walking to the polls, enjoying each others' company. The old time small town charm was downright palpable. Yessir, it surely, surely was. Yup, neighbors acting like neighbors. Why I s'pose you could go on over to your neighbor's house to borrow a cup of sugar, and sit yourself right down there and talk about who's running for Commissioner. You could have a cup of coffee while you're jawin' about it. And that's just how some people feel. Not too many signs, and the candidates themselves, right there in the flesh, dropping by to meet you personally. And just like Barbara Watts pointed out, she could drop on by and introduce herself to you, and not lose the opportunity if she was trying to get that Barack Obama elected. After all, it would complicate matters a good bit if she was to ask you to vote for him, and ask you to vote for her at the same time.
Now you know it just couldn't be quite that simple. There's always a cost, no matter what you do. So the costs are that extra money, and the low turnout. Well Barbara and Noah both had the answer for you on the money end of it. They switched it from a number of dollars for the election to how many dollars per home ($4!!), or what percent of the budget (less than 1!!), to make you feel better about spending it. I don't mean to harp, but these are some of the same people who keep not getting around to giving the Foundation their $20 per year.
So let's say you bite. You figure it's really not that much, especially to keep that old time small town charm. But you still have a problem. How can you rationalize that low turnout? And keep in mind that everyone, and especially the defenders of the old time small town charm, say they want to try for high voter turnout. "100%," according to the signs Steve Bernard likes to post. What I find weird is that he claims, through his signs, that he wants 100% turnout, but he's a proponent of those elections that get uncharacteristically low turnout. I must remember to ask him how to reconcile that next time I see him.
But there is an answer. Barbara Watts hinted at it, and Bryan Cooper called it what it was. Barbara grudgingly agreed to want a democracy, but she said she really wants a "philosopher king." Bryan said he didn't mind at all that few people vote, because that way, we only get the really knowledgable voters. An oligarchy elected by the elites and cognoscenti. Yessir.
I had posed what I thought was a problem, but Barbara and Bryan allowed me to see that it was really the solution. With talk of keeping the elections small scale so that voters wouldn't be confused by the complicated ballot, including President and all that other nonsense, and so that there wouldn't be so many signs on lawns, confusing potential voters, I thought proponents of stand-alone Village elections were basically saying they thought BP residents were, um, intellectually limited, and needed to be protected from so much commotion. And I learned that's exactly what these proponents think, and in fact they would just as soon the dimwits stay home. So we have our quiet little elections, and we don't make enough noise to awaken those who really should just take a nap. We just get our little turnout of voters who know just what to do. Often, funny enough, because someone tells them just what to do.
We're a small town, with a small population, of people many of whom have small intellects. And that's part of our special charm.
Now it wouldn't be a fair telling of the story if I didn't reveal the unexpected twist ending. You figured this was one of those 3-2 against moving the election, didn't you. Roxy Ross had a good deal to say, about democracy and the value of people voting and whatever other pie-in-the-sky philosophies she was going on about, and Noah started getting very uneasy. It appears he didn't like what Roxy was saying, not one bit. So he tried to shut her down. He kind of likes shutting people down, and he got a very good tutorial in the techniques of it from Andre Pierre, the tyrant of North Miami. He decided to practice some of this on Roxy. Except Roxy just wouldn't be stifled. It appears she's not an obedient girl. Like she thinks this isn't the '40s or '50s, and the little lady doesn't just do what the men folk tell 'er to do. Noah began to unhinge. (This is exactly the kind of thing Steve Bernard would kill to get on youtube, if only it wasn't his boy who was getting unhinged.) And you know what he was getting unhinged about? He said responsible people would certainly vote (he didn't for years that he said he lived here), and he didn't like the way Roxy treated him for the past two years. Which is unexplained, since he never had anything to do with her or even ever came to a Commission meeting until about 7-8 months ago. And he definitely poo-pooed the idea that anyone would forget or not notice we were having an election. But Roxy is going on with her remarks, Noah is turning up the rage (much like he did the day he introduced himself to us last summer, sputtering and raging around like he was going to assault someone, mainly Roxy), and poor Barbara is sitting between them, looking like she's afraid she'll catch a stray bullet, or at least get spit on by Noah. Well, when it came time to vote, Barbara actually went the other way. She voted for the proposed Ordinance. I want to think she saw what was wrong with the other theory, but I have to consider that it occurred to her this was perhaps not the company you want to keep.
I'm frankly sure Steve Bernard will have a word with her. Tonight was, after all, only the first reading of this Ordinance, and Barbara will have a chance to straighten out and do what Steve tells her. But I will confess that I considered Barbara the possible lucid free thinker of the three of them. Maybe she is. She's certainly the one with detectable charm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)