As some BP residents have come to know, our Police Chief, Ray Atesiano, has resigned. A policeman who becomes a Chief, who is effective, respected, and well-liked, does not resign such a post without a good reason. Ray did not give one.
Few of us in the Village know anything about this. Those of us (Commissioners and upper level administration) who know bits of it are limited in what we know, and more limited in what we can say. Under the circumstances, there are applicable State statutes that prevent disclosure of any information. For that reason, Commissioners who knew something about it a week or two ago, have not been given any further information since, until it was made public that Ray resigned.
I have been approached by Miami Herald reporter Charles Rabin, and by a reporter from Channel 4 television news, for information about this matter. I have had to frustrate both of them, for the reasons just stated: I don't know much, and what I know, or think I know, I can't say.
Mr Rabin published a brief and unrevealing article about this matter in the Herald. He indicated he had not been told anything of substance by anyone, except by the Manager, who reportedly mentioned an "investigation" and "possible misdeeds." Mr Rabin also, as it turns out, called more people than just the Village Manager and all five Commissioners. He included a quote from one of our neighbors, Steve Bernard. Steve was requoted by another of our neighbors, Noah Jacobs, in a communication Noah sent to some others of our neighbors*. Steve commented to Mr Rabin as follows: "I don't have any problems with [Chief Atesiano]. I don't think anybody does. It's just bizarre." It was the word "bizarre" that Noah requoted.
What is important to note here is that both Steve Bernard and Noah Jacobs have been on the BP Commission. Each of them has received privileged information, and each of them has attended Commission meetings "in the shade," in which the Commission and Village brass were included, and everyone else was excluded. No one was ever heard to complain about being excluded from whatever these dealings were, and neither Steve nor Noah was ever heard to complain that their neighbors were excluded. Commissioners are sworn to confidence about the content of these communications and special meetings, and I have no reason to believe that either Steve or Noah violated the trust about confidentiality that was placed in them.
So where Steve tells Rabin that he never had any problem with our Chief, and that he thinks the matter is bizarre, unless I'm being overly sensitive, I hear him complaining. He seems to be saying he is unaware of any basis for a problem, and he is offended at the apparent fact that there is one, and that he doesn't know about it. He declares it "bizarre." He seems to be complaining that he is excluded. Noah seems to be echoing the same complaint.
What Steve and Noah did is both unfair and unkind. Each of them, having "been there," in the sense of having seen some of the behind-the-scenes dynamics that can happen, should know better. Some things, at least at a particular point in time, are not fit for publicity. Whether the reason is an active investigation or something else, there are limits, statutory limits, on what can be submitted to the public record. There was a time, and there were circumstances, when Steve and Noah understood and accepted that. It is disrespectful to propriety, process (legal and otherwise), and people for them to buck those limits now. They need the sense of perspective, concern, and decency that their time in office should have instilled in them. Clearly, it did not. To say that they should have had a sense of perspective, concern, and decency before they sought and accepted public office is a lot of water under a bridge now.
*Correction: Noah did not quote Steve in a separate communication sent by e-mail. His quote reportedly was included in other comments he made on his facebook page. I do not use or visit facebook, and I misremembered what someone else told me about where this quote appeared.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Thursday, April 3, 2014
An Increasingly Interesting Dance
Rewritten, under editorial advice to reduce the run-ons. I intended to use them strategically to illustrate and provide experience of a convoluted and dizzying dance that deposits us in precisely the place we were trying so hard to avoid.
At this point, there have been approximately 550 views of this blog in just over 24 hours. At this pace, I expect the highest two-day total of views ever. Clearly, the topic has been of great and urgent interest to us. There are two relevant posts on this topic in the past day, and one of them is authored by someone who never before contributed to this blog. There have been very many comments, and they have been thoughtful and extensive. And I'm not even counting the related posts from days or so before yesterday, which included yet other authors and even more comments.
The topic, of course, is our sanitation function, and the idea of outsourcing it to a private contractor. Whether or not there is clear reason for us to consider outsourcing, the response has included impassioned opposition to the idea. This opposition has been coupled with alternative proposals that would allow us to keep the function under Village Hall's jurisdiction, and functioning efficiently and well. There appears to be universal agreement that even if we like our sanitation function, and the employees who execute it, no one thinks we have been efficient about it.
Anti-outsourcing suggestions include increasing the amount we pay for our service-- most definitely increasing what we pay-- as well as buying new trucks and related equipment. But we all also agree we should increase the efficiency of our crew. To do that effectively, we have to change the (union) contract we have with our PW employees, and the opportunity to do that is right now. Their union contract ended last September, and we have simply adhered to it on a continuing basis since September. But we need a new contract with them, and it needs not to leave us at the disadvantages under which we have been laboring. Results of a new union contract will include greater efficiency and accountability on their parts. There will be, for example, fewer allowed absentee days. We may need more prerogative about when to ask them, and require them, to provide extended hours, at overtime pay, of course, to get needed work done.
Drew Dillworth reminds us of another possible change we may have to consider. In the almost nine years I have lived in BP, I, too, remember mention of this idea. The idea is to decrease the collection days, so that garbage is collected one day a week, instead of two. When this idea has been floated in the past, it has been for exactly the same reason as it may be considered now: to decrease the cost of the program. When the cost of the sanitation program has been addressed before, there have even been neighbors who themselves have suggested decreasing the number of days, which some consider an unnecessary luxury, to lower the cost.
There may be casualties of our making changes. For example, we should "tighten" the union contract, and extract more exertion and more efficiency from our employees. This may lead some of them to conclude BP is not the friendly, comparatively accommodating, place to work to which they had accustomed themselves. It could be imaginable that some might choose not to continue employment with us. We have already seen that offering to compensate them by paying them more is not experienced by them as inducement enough.
Further, some of us might complain if we decrease garbage pick-up from two days a week to one, even though that may be prudent or even fiscally necessary. Some may like the more frequent relief. But when we get new trucks, which are planned to be larger and more reliable than the old trucks, and we have our crew operating more efficiently, there is little need or even excuse for such frequent pick-up.
So here's the curiosity. What we might "succeed" in doing is winding up with new equipment, busier and possibly less happy, though better paid, employees, and less frequent garbage pick-up. All of this very closely approximates what some of us are trying to avoid by resisting outsourcing. And "accomplishing" all of this unwanted (by some) effect will be at much greater cost than having a contractor do it. I'm not sure this qualifies as a pyrrhic victory, but it sure is close.
At this point, there have been approximately 550 views of this blog in just over 24 hours. At this pace, I expect the highest two-day total of views ever. Clearly, the topic has been of great and urgent interest to us. There are two relevant posts on this topic in the past day, and one of them is authored by someone who never before contributed to this blog. There have been very many comments, and they have been thoughtful and extensive. And I'm not even counting the related posts from days or so before yesterday, which included yet other authors and even more comments.
The topic, of course, is our sanitation function, and the idea of outsourcing it to a private contractor. Whether or not there is clear reason for us to consider outsourcing, the response has included impassioned opposition to the idea. This opposition has been coupled with alternative proposals that would allow us to keep the function under Village Hall's jurisdiction, and functioning efficiently and well. There appears to be universal agreement that even if we like our sanitation function, and the employees who execute it, no one thinks we have been efficient about it.
Anti-outsourcing suggestions include increasing the amount we pay for our service-- most definitely increasing what we pay-- as well as buying new trucks and related equipment. But we all also agree we should increase the efficiency of our crew. To do that effectively, we have to change the (union) contract we have with our PW employees, and the opportunity to do that is right now. Their union contract ended last September, and we have simply adhered to it on a continuing basis since September. But we need a new contract with them, and it needs not to leave us at the disadvantages under which we have been laboring. Results of a new union contract will include greater efficiency and accountability on their parts. There will be, for example, fewer allowed absentee days. We may need more prerogative about when to ask them, and require them, to provide extended hours, at overtime pay, of course, to get needed work done.
Drew Dillworth reminds us of another possible change we may have to consider. In the almost nine years I have lived in BP, I, too, remember mention of this idea. The idea is to decrease the collection days, so that garbage is collected one day a week, instead of two. When this idea has been floated in the past, it has been for exactly the same reason as it may be considered now: to decrease the cost of the program. When the cost of the sanitation program has been addressed before, there have even been neighbors who themselves have suggested decreasing the number of days, which some consider an unnecessary luxury, to lower the cost.
There may be casualties of our making changes. For example, we should "tighten" the union contract, and extract more exertion and more efficiency from our employees. This may lead some of them to conclude BP is not the friendly, comparatively accommodating, place to work to which they had accustomed themselves. It could be imaginable that some might choose not to continue employment with us. We have already seen that offering to compensate them by paying them more is not experienced by them as inducement enough.
Further, some of us might complain if we decrease garbage pick-up from two days a week to one, even though that may be prudent or even fiscally necessary. Some may like the more frequent relief. But when we get new trucks, which are planned to be larger and more reliable than the old trucks, and we have our crew operating more efficiently, there is little need or even excuse for such frequent pick-up.
So here's the curiosity. What we might "succeed" in doing is winding up with new equipment, busier and possibly less happy, though better paid, employees, and less frequent garbage pick-up. All of this very closely approximates what some of us are trying to avoid by resisting outsourcing. And "accomplishing" all of this unwanted (by some) effect will be at much greater cost than having a contractor do it. I'm not sure this qualifies as a pyrrhic victory, but it sure is close.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Another Post on Privatizing Sanitation!
Please forgive this new post on a topic that is apparently gaining consideration. My take on privatizing sanitation. But before launching into the substance, I thought I'd start by saying hello to my neighbors, many of whom I do not see frequently enough! Anyway, here goes nothing --
Years ago I was on a Committee charged with examining the future of the public works facility. As part of that process, several of us on the Committee supported examining what impact privatizing the public works department would have on the Village. Our rationale was two-fold. In part, we believed that privatizing some functions within the public works department would create cost savings for the Village and, at the same time, reduce demands on the Village’s general administrative department. The saved dollars could then be repurposed to long overdue infrastructure improvements within the Village. In part, we also wished to start a dialogue within the Village concerning whether the present level of service (i.e. trash pick-up two times per week) ought to be curtailed to meet with our environmentally conscious times. Stated more directly, eliminating one pick-up day per week might very well force all of us, as a community, to examine our behavior and hopefully reduce our aggregate trash output. I confess to being among those needing a little encouragement in that area.
10831 NE 8th Court
Years ago I was on a Committee charged with examining the future of the public works facility. As part of that process, several of us on the Committee supported examining what impact privatizing the public works department would have on the Village. Our rationale was two-fold. In part, we believed that privatizing some functions within the public works department would create cost savings for the Village and, at the same time, reduce demands on the Village’s general administrative department. The saved dollars could then be repurposed to long overdue infrastructure improvements within the Village. In part, we also wished to start a dialogue within the Village concerning whether the present level of service (i.e. trash pick-up two times per week) ought to be curtailed to meet with our environmentally conscious times. Stated more directly, eliminating one pick-up day per week might very well force all of us, as a community, to examine our behavior and hopefully reduce our aggregate trash output. I confess to being among those needing a little encouragement in that area.
Despite our best efforts at the time, the Committee never
meaningfully engaged in an analysis of the pros and cons of privatization and,
to my knowledge, no informed and thoughtful discussion of the subject has ever
occurred at the Village Commission.
I was happy to hear that our Village Manager recently raised
this subject before the Commission. Regardless
of anyone’s specific views on the subject, this type of proactive management ought
to be applauded. It is about time we have a full frank
discussion about subjects that might lead to meaningful steps forward
regardless of the outcome. Unfortunately,
I was unable to attend the Commission meeting to lend voice to those within our
community that believe the idea of privatizing public works has substantial
merit. I encourage the Commission to really dig in
and take the opportunity to gather the underlying information and thereafter
engage our community in a meaningful discussion of the pros and cons of both privatizing
public works and maintaining the status quo.
In my view, no meaningful
discussion can be complete without some focus on the potential benefits we all
might enjoy from repurposing any dollars saved from privatization.
Incidentally, as part of the privatization debate, I also
believe it appropriate to consider how the public works department should
function in the future even assuming the Commission decides to maintain the
status quo. It seems to me that consideration of reducing
service levels should be considered regardless of the path forward here. Moreover,
if the Commission decides to maintain the status quo, I hope that some
discussion focuses on restructuring the public works department to ensure that
our public works employees are earning a living wage. The last time I saw the data, it was apparent
that few of the positions within that department provide a real living wage
and, as a community, I believe we are better than that!
Well, if you made it this far, thank you for your time. I look forward to seeing how this debate unfolds in the coming months.
Sincerely,
Drew Dillworth10831 NE 8th Court
My Very Sincere Apologies. Addendum to 4/1/14 Commission Meeting Post.
I made a mistake last night. The Boy Scouts requested a concession from us. They wanted to use Village public space without having to pay us for it, as everyone else does. The issue for us was that whether or not we might be willing to forego the income, we openly objected to the BSA's official position regarding sexual preference. Specifically, they previously banned gays from any involvement with the organization, including as Scouts, but they have now softened their position. They will allow gay boys to be Scouts, but not gay men to be Scout leaders.
So we were poised to punish them for the policy and their adherence to it. We asked them if they 1) were willing to make an open protest to the national organization, and 2) willing to ignore the policy, and accept gay men as Scout leaders. They were willing to make the statement, but unable to ignore the dictate from national.
I asked those of us who spoke most openly about how distasteful this policy was, and how indisposed they felt to waive a fee, if they were only opposed to waiving the fee, or if they would go further and recommend we not allow the Boy Scouts to function on Village property. Before there could be much discussion about it, the Village Attorney informed me/us that we would not be allowed to ban an organization like the Boy Scouts, or any other organization, from using Village space, if they paid for it like anyone else. I suppose the issue was essentially a First Amendment issue.
I tend to be more of a carrot and stick person, so I suggested we waive the fee for one year, and let the BSA know that if they change their policy about gays, we could waive it thereafter, too. But if they don't change it, the fee-less party would be over. This suggestion of mine was taken by some to be grossly insensitive, and outrageously accommodating of a cruel position on the part of the BSA. One of the BSA speakers had even used the term "flag-waving" to describe the kind of visibility the BSA are not able to tolerate. I confess I did not clearly hear this term, only vaguely, but more important, it did not engage my attention as it should have. It did not raise hackles in me as it clearly did in some others of us.
So it has been brought to my attention that my proposed partial concession to the BSA, one of whose representatives at the meeting last night is also one of our BP neighbors, was experienced as all but anti-gay itself. That was never my intention, and I am deeply apologetic for the impression I left. My attempt at finesse, which may have been faulty anyway, was never meant to carry that kind of connotation. I'm sorry.
So we were poised to punish them for the policy and their adherence to it. We asked them if they 1) were willing to make an open protest to the national organization, and 2) willing to ignore the policy, and accept gay men as Scout leaders. They were willing to make the statement, but unable to ignore the dictate from national.
I asked those of us who spoke most openly about how distasteful this policy was, and how indisposed they felt to waive a fee, if they were only opposed to waiving the fee, or if they would go further and recommend we not allow the Boy Scouts to function on Village property. Before there could be much discussion about it, the Village Attorney informed me/us that we would not be allowed to ban an organization like the Boy Scouts, or any other organization, from using Village space, if they paid for it like anyone else. I suppose the issue was essentially a First Amendment issue.
I tend to be more of a carrot and stick person, so I suggested we waive the fee for one year, and let the BSA know that if they change their policy about gays, we could waive it thereafter, too. But if they don't change it, the fee-less party would be over. This suggestion of mine was taken by some to be grossly insensitive, and outrageously accommodating of a cruel position on the part of the BSA. One of the BSA speakers had even used the term "flag-waving" to describe the kind of visibility the BSA are not able to tolerate. I confess I did not clearly hear this term, only vaguely, but more important, it did not engage my attention as it should have. It did not raise hackles in me as it clearly did in some others of us.
So it has been brought to my attention that my proposed partial concession to the BSA, one of whose representatives at the meeting last night is also one of our BP neighbors, was experienced as all but anti-gay itself. That was never my intention, and I am deeply apologetic for the impression I left. My attempt at finesse, which may have been faulty anyway, was never meant to carry that kind of connotation. I'm sorry.
Commission Meeting 4/1/14
It wasn't a Commission meeting as much as it was a tortured and not-well-organized workshop. It came out at best like a gripe, and whine, session. There was really only one topic of conversation, just one substantive Agenda item. And it didn't look like much on paper. Item 11a was the Manager's recommendation about outsourcing the sanitation function of our Public Works Department. She had studied the matter, and she was going to tell us what she thought we should do. She was going to give us a piece of advice, which the Commission could accept or reject. Her advice, known in advance by the time of the meeting, was that we ask her to negotiate a potential contract with WastePro to remove garbage and trash, and do recycling. The idea was that she and the Village Attorney would negotiate the best contract they could, and that the Commission would either endorse or reject that contract a month or so later. The reason for the deadline was that we have to communicate a sanitation fee to the County Tax Assessor by June 1, and we have to begin the process of transmitting that communication about two weeks before. In theory, then, we have to arrive at the fee by about the May 6 Commission meeting, give or take.
Because the Manager's suggestion was "known" in advance (some of the knowledge was based only on rumor, or even assumption), there was abundant feedback from BP neighbors, almost uniformly to complain about whatever fantasy neighbors had as to what the Manager was suggesting, and what her suggestion meant. Some of the usual sources of misinformation were at the core of these screeds (most were via e-mail). Almost all of the people who wrote in advance had not been to the public information sessions and further wrote to say they would not, for one specified or unspecified reason or another, be able to attend the Commission meeting, either. So most correspondents were as deprived as possible of real facts and real opportunities to acquire information. One of the common complaints, even from some people who actually did attend the public information sessions, the Commission meeting, and wrote e-mails, was that announcement of the sessions was inadequate. How people knew of these meetings they complained were inadequately announced was never made clear. I did ask, but I did not get an understandable answer. Even people who said they knew from the Village website said posting on the website was not good enough. It was good and effective enough for them, apparently, but it was somehow just not good and effective enough.
The Manager was ready to present her recommendation, but some on the Commission did not want to hear it. There was talk of delaying this announcement and the full presentation of it for a year. Some neighbors did not want to hear it, either, leaving in clusters as soon as it was decided by a 3-2 Commission margin that we would, in fact, listen to what the Manager had to say. Our Public Works employees had been pleaded with to go in advance to meet with WastePro, simply to see the operation, ask questions, and talk to other WastePro employees, in case there was a decision to outsource. They refused, to a man. When WastePro personnel were brought to them instead, most of these PW employees simply stubbornly refused to consider exchanging one employer for the other. At the Commission meeting, two of the PW employees announced that if we outsourced, they would refuse to accept employment with WastePro, no further questions asked or information needed. WastePro higher-ups attended the Commission meeting but were never allowed to make a coherent presentation. Instead, their Florida VP occupied himself responding to various incendiary bits of inaccurate accusations, some of them coming from a union guy, brought in from the west coast of Florida. Finally, Roxy Ross made the relevant motion: task the Manager and the Attorney simultaneously to negotiate a contract with WastePro and work up the real numbers representing the real cost of running the sanitation function in-house. The purpose, in case it wasn't obvious, was that we could then make a direct comparison, which would lead us to a clear-headed decision. There was opposition to that, too, but the motion passed.
Resistance, and antipathy to facts, ran this far: one neighbor responded to my suggestion that he talk to the Manager, and to WastePro representatives, to get questions answered, by telling me the sanitation industry is rife with criminals, and he wouldn't believe them no matter what they said. There isn't much you can do with a posture like that.
Neighbors approached the speaker's podium in what sometimes looked like endless procession, to plead for us not to outsource. Few of these neighbors had been to the information sessions, and their pleas came during initial Public Comment, before the imposition of any factual or substantive content. Four of our neighbors who spoke wanted to outsource sanitation. About 25 wanted to keep it as it is. Written communications received in advance of the meeting tallied about like that, too. Now here's an interesting fact: At the two informational meetings, there was a similar parade of neighbors who tore their clothes in devotion and protest over the idea of losing our PW guys (although that was never the proposal), so that it appeared no one wanted to outsource. But a secret ballot poll taken at the end of those meetings showed that fully 50% of BP residents* actually did want to outsource. It appears they felt freer to say so, if no one was watching or listening.
Here's the real irony of this issue. Chester Morris, in his comments, concluded by saying we should all act on our consciences, and leave out personal feelings. The let's-keep-our-sanitation-function-no-matter-what sentiment was about nothing but personal feelings. There was what seemed like an aversion to anything else.
Much of the "discussion" last night, then, looked like bad news. There was, however, a very distinct piece of very good news. Our neighbors, who pleaded to keep the system and personnel we have now, with every bit of its local charm, offered more or less unanimously to pay more, and whatever it costs, to preserve exactly what we have. We have recently paid $572 per dwelling per year, and projected fees like $717 and $930 were floated last night. No matter, devotees announced. We want what we have, and we will pay for it! Now to be perfectly fair to our devoted neighbors, some of them did flinch a bit, and begin to wonder if perhaps there might be some ways to economize, too. They weren't so fiscally blind that they were really willing to write the blank checks they almost waved around last night. But they were close. One neighbor offered $500 on the spot, toward the purchase of a new lawnmower. We weren't discussing lawnmowers, but the sentiment was not lost. Another neighbor immediately matched him. No checks were written, but I have confidence these neighbors would be good for it.
The rest of the meeting was anticlimactic. Only two other issues came close to inspiring any meaningful reaction. One was the offense we took toward the Boy Scouts of America, who will not permit gays in positions of "leadership." (Interesting thesis: prejudice against gay people as a demonstration of "leadership.") The other was our favorite bogeyman of all time, FPL, who want to install more concrete transmission poles in the Park. The BSA wanted us to waive the fee for use of Village space. We told them no, until they finish cleaning up their act, and knock off the homophobia. If they expect to help boys grow up, they themselves should grow up. It is unlikely we will stop resisting FPL. We have developed what appears to be a real appetite for demonizing them (I was going to say "a healthy appetite," but there's nothing healthy about it), and several of us seem more than satisfied to keep them as our favorite enemies. So the BSA helps boys grow up, we want the BSA to grow up, but no one is going to help us grow up. OK, so we'll declare concrete power poles the worst scourge of the urban environment, and we'll enter into endless battle with that evil empire, FPL, to resist them. Sounds like a good use of time, trouble, and emotion. We'll need something to occupy ourselves once we either outsource sanitation, or we don't.
11:30, if you were wondering.
*Correction: the vote did not represent "50% of BP residents." It represented 50% of people who voted. Not only did not all BP residents vote (proportionately very few BP residents were there), but not even all who attended voted. There is no basis to guess whether those who chose to vote were probably more in favor of outsourcing, or more opposed to it. There is no way to identify who voted.
Because the Manager's suggestion was "known" in advance (some of the knowledge was based only on rumor, or even assumption), there was abundant feedback from BP neighbors, almost uniformly to complain about whatever fantasy neighbors had as to what the Manager was suggesting, and what her suggestion meant. Some of the usual sources of misinformation were at the core of these screeds (most were via e-mail). Almost all of the people who wrote in advance had not been to the public information sessions and further wrote to say they would not, for one specified or unspecified reason or another, be able to attend the Commission meeting, either. So most correspondents were as deprived as possible of real facts and real opportunities to acquire information. One of the common complaints, even from some people who actually did attend the public information sessions, the Commission meeting, and wrote e-mails, was that announcement of the sessions was inadequate. How people knew of these meetings they complained were inadequately announced was never made clear. I did ask, but I did not get an understandable answer. Even people who said they knew from the Village website said posting on the website was not good enough. It was good and effective enough for them, apparently, but it was somehow just not good and effective enough.
The Manager was ready to present her recommendation, but some on the Commission did not want to hear it. There was talk of delaying this announcement and the full presentation of it for a year. Some neighbors did not want to hear it, either, leaving in clusters as soon as it was decided by a 3-2 Commission margin that we would, in fact, listen to what the Manager had to say. Our Public Works employees had been pleaded with to go in advance to meet with WastePro, simply to see the operation, ask questions, and talk to other WastePro employees, in case there was a decision to outsource. They refused, to a man. When WastePro personnel were brought to them instead, most of these PW employees simply stubbornly refused to consider exchanging one employer for the other. At the Commission meeting, two of the PW employees announced that if we outsourced, they would refuse to accept employment with WastePro, no further questions asked or information needed. WastePro higher-ups attended the Commission meeting but were never allowed to make a coherent presentation. Instead, their Florida VP occupied himself responding to various incendiary bits of inaccurate accusations, some of them coming from a union guy, brought in from the west coast of Florida. Finally, Roxy Ross made the relevant motion: task the Manager and the Attorney simultaneously to negotiate a contract with WastePro and work up the real numbers representing the real cost of running the sanitation function in-house. The purpose, in case it wasn't obvious, was that we could then make a direct comparison, which would lead us to a clear-headed decision. There was opposition to that, too, but the motion passed.
Resistance, and antipathy to facts, ran this far: one neighbor responded to my suggestion that he talk to the Manager, and to WastePro representatives, to get questions answered, by telling me the sanitation industry is rife with criminals, and he wouldn't believe them no matter what they said. There isn't much you can do with a posture like that.
Neighbors approached the speaker's podium in what sometimes looked like endless procession, to plead for us not to outsource. Few of these neighbors had been to the information sessions, and their pleas came during initial Public Comment, before the imposition of any factual or substantive content. Four of our neighbors who spoke wanted to outsource sanitation. About 25 wanted to keep it as it is. Written communications received in advance of the meeting tallied about like that, too. Now here's an interesting fact: At the two informational meetings, there was a similar parade of neighbors who tore their clothes in devotion and protest over the idea of losing our PW guys (although that was never the proposal), so that it appeared no one wanted to outsource. But a secret ballot poll taken at the end of those meetings showed that fully 50% of BP residents* actually did want to outsource. It appears they felt freer to say so, if no one was watching or listening.
Here's the real irony of this issue. Chester Morris, in his comments, concluded by saying we should all act on our consciences, and leave out personal feelings. The let's-keep-our-sanitation-function-no-matter-what sentiment was about nothing but personal feelings. There was what seemed like an aversion to anything else.
Much of the "discussion" last night, then, looked like bad news. There was, however, a very distinct piece of very good news. Our neighbors, who pleaded to keep the system and personnel we have now, with every bit of its local charm, offered more or less unanimously to pay more, and whatever it costs, to preserve exactly what we have. We have recently paid $572 per dwelling per year, and projected fees like $717 and $930 were floated last night. No matter, devotees announced. We want what we have, and we will pay for it! Now to be perfectly fair to our devoted neighbors, some of them did flinch a bit, and begin to wonder if perhaps there might be some ways to economize, too. They weren't so fiscally blind that they were really willing to write the blank checks they almost waved around last night. But they were close. One neighbor offered $500 on the spot, toward the purchase of a new lawnmower. We weren't discussing lawnmowers, but the sentiment was not lost. Another neighbor immediately matched him. No checks were written, but I have confidence these neighbors would be good for it.
The rest of the meeting was anticlimactic. Only two other issues came close to inspiring any meaningful reaction. One was the offense we took toward the Boy Scouts of America, who will not permit gays in positions of "leadership." (Interesting thesis: prejudice against gay people as a demonstration of "leadership.") The other was our favorite bogeyman of all time, FPL, who want to install more concrete transmission poles in the Park. The BSA wanted us to waive the fee for use of Village space. We told them no, until they finish cleaning up their act, and knock off the homophobia. If they expect to help boys grow up, they themselves should grow up. It is unlikely we will stop resisting FPL. We have developed what appears to be a real appetite for demonizing them (I was going to say "a healthy appetite," but there's nothing healthy about it), and several of us seem more than satisfied to keep them as our favorite enemies. So the BSA helps boys grow up, we want the BSA to grow up, but no one is going to help us grow up. OK, so we'll declare concrete power poles the worst scourge of the urban environment, and we'll enter into endless battle with that evil empire, FPL, to resist them. Sounds like a good use of time, trouble, and emotion. We'll need something to occupy ourselves once we either outsource sanitation, or we don't.
11:30, if you were wondering.
*Correction: the vote did not represent "50% of BP residents." It represented 50% of people who voted. Not only did not all BP residents vote (proportionately very few BP residents were there), but not even all who attended voted. There is no basis to guess whether those who chose to vote were probably more in favor of outsourcing, or more opposed to it. There is no way to identify who voted.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Sanitation Outsourcing - Thoughts from a Corporate Hack
After reading Milton Hunter's post (which I encourage everyone to do), and the responses from Barbara, Rosemary, and an anonymous neighbor, I feel compelled to briefly share my experiences as an employee of various-sized organizations, as it relates to this topic.
I have worked for small firms (i.e. privately owned, the size of the village staff or smaller), mid-sized firms (100-200 people) , and large corporations, with faceless stockholders, boards of directors, etc.
In my experience, the best kind of company to work for in order to maintain a healthy work/life balance is a privately owned, mid-size firm. Small firms tend to pay less, offer less opportunity for advancement, and have less efficiencies in their processes, which can often lead to longer hours as folks are forced to wear many different hats, often without additional compensation. However, the main benefit is that you probably know the owner; you might even know him/her well, attend family gatherings, exchange Christmas cards, etc. However, that doesn't change the fact that an organization that can not grow can not therefore offer you much in the way of increased compensation, career advancement, etc.
Conversely, a large corporation might have great pay scales, a variety of advancement paths, and more long-term stability as a company, however, it is far less likely that you will "know" the owners, who in many cases turn out to be stockholders, and to be specific, majority shareholders (founder's children, investment banks, hedge funds). And to be blunt, they have one overarching goal - to make more money and grow the bottom line, even if that means taxing employees to work longer hours, sacrifice family time, personal time, skip vacations, layoffs, etc. I've been a part of that world for longer than I care to admit, and while I've done OK, I've been "downsized" twice. The most recent episode was actually quite a welcome change for me, as the corporate culture I had been experiencing was absolutely nerve-wracking. It's much easier to treat your employees like crap when you don't know them, and thus don't have to relate to what they experience on a day-to-day basis.
The "sweet spot" then, in my opinion, is in the middle - a mid-size company where you know the owner, and there is enough efficiency in the size of the organization to earn more money, advance through the ranks, and yet still maintain a healthy work-life balance. It's the best of both worlds. This is what Waste Pro sounds like to me, although I have not gone to visit their office and meet the owner, which I would encourage our staff to do.
In summary - you're less likely to get paid a fair market value for your time at a small company, and less likely to maintain good work-life balance at a corporation. There is a happy median, and while I'm not saying that Waste Pro is it, I would encourage our crew to consider that maybe this company is worth looking into. I'm surprised on one hand to hear that they are resistant to a change that could result in a 50% compensation boost, as well as a savings to the villlage, but we all fear change to some degree, so it's understandable.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
John Holland
Resident since 2003
I have worked for small firms (i.e. privately owned, the size of the village staff or smaller), mid-sized firms (100-200 people) , and large corporations, with faceless stockholders, boards of directors, etc.
In my experience, the best kind of company to work for in order to maintain a healthy work/life balance is a privately owned, mid-size firm. Small firms tend to pay less, offer less opportunity for advancement, and have less efficiencies in their processes, which can often lead to longer hours as folks are forced to wear many different hats, often without additional compensation. However, the main benefit is that you probably know the owner; you might even know him/her well, attend family gatherings, exchange Christmas cards, etc. However, that doesn't change the fact that an organization that can not grow can not therefore offer you much in the way of increased compensation, career advancement, etc.
Conversely, a large corporation might have great pay scales, a variety of advancement paths, and more long-term stability as a company, however, it is far less likely that you will "know" the owners, who in many cases turn out to be stockholders, and to be specific, majority shareholders (founder's children, investment banks, hedge funds). And to be blunt, they have one overarching goal - to make more money and grow the bottom line, even if that means taxing employees to work longer hours, sacrifice family time, personal time, skip vacations, layoffs, etc. I've been a part of that world for longer than I care to admit, and while I've done OK, I've been "downsized" twice. The most recent episode was actually quite a welcome change for me, as the corporate culture I had been experiencing was absolutely nerve-wracking. It's much easier to treat your employees like crap when you don't know them, and thus don't have to relate to what they experience on a day-to-day basis.
The "sweet spot" then, in my opinion, is in the middle - a mid-size company where you know the owner, and there is enough efficiency in the size of the organization to earn more money, advance through the ranks, and yet still maintain a healthy work-life balance. It's the best of both worlds. This is what Waste Pro sounds like to me, although I have not gone to visit their office and meet the owner, which I would encourage our staff to do.
In summary - you're less likely to get paid a fair market value for your time at a small company, and less likely to maintain good work-life balance at a corporation. There is a happy median, and while I'm not saying that Waste Pro is it, I would encourage our crew to consider that maybe this company is worth looking into. I'm surprised on one hand to hear that they are resistant to a change that could result in a 50% compensation boost, as well as a savings to the villlage, but we all fear change to some degree, so it's understandable.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
John Holland
Resident since 2003
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Do Yourself a Favor
Normally, I don't do this. I have recommended series or venues I like, but never a specific show. It's time to make an exception.
At GableStage, a playhouse at the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables, there is a play called The Mountaintop. It runs through April 13. I'm not sure what ticket prices are, but for me, because I subscribe, they are $46, with a charge of $36 for the Sunday night show. Say I sent you, and tell them you'd like the discount they would give me. Tell them they should have a Biscayne Park discount, and you should get it. I think the regular price is about $10 per ticket more. If you're OK to pay them the full price, I'm sure they'd appreciate it. The box office number is 305-445-1119.
The Mountaintop is a fantasy depicting the last night of the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. There are two characters: MLK, and a woman named Camae. No, I had never before heard of Camae, either.
I'd rather not say more about the story told by this play, since there is a remarkable trick in the device. What I do want to say is that this is at least one of the very best plays I have ever seen, and the acting is beyond description. I watched a youtube clip of Samuel L Jackson as MLK and Angela Bassett as Camae on Broadway, and the acting by the cast at GableStage is far, far better. If you want to know what an actor has to do to be far, far better than Jackson and Bassett, go to GableStage.
Please forgive me for pressing you about this play, but my conscience would not permit me to keep it to myself. As a frame of reference, I called to get tickets for tonight, having seen it just last night, and I am told that the publicity has led to a short supply of seats. I am going with one of my friends, who also just saw it last night, as well as four other friends who have not yet seen it. Please, do yourself a favor. And you have to do it by April 13.
At GableStage, a playhouse at the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables, there is a play called The Mountaintop. It runs through April 13. I'm not sure what ticket prices are, but for me, because I subscribe, they are $46, with a charge of $36 for the Sunday night show. Say I sent you, and tell them you'd like the discount they would give me. Tell them they should have a Biscayne Park discount, and you should get it. I think the regular price is about $10 per ticket more. If you're OK to pay them the full price, I'm sure they'd appreciate it. The box office number is 305-445-1119.
The Mountaintop is a fantasy depicting the last night of the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. There are two characters: MLK, and a woman named Camae. No, I had never before heard of Camae, either.
I'd rather not say more about the story told by this play, since there is a remarkable trick in the device. What I do want to say is that this is at least one of the very best plays I have ever seen, and the acting is beyond description. I watched a youtube clip of Samuel L Jackson as MLK and Angela Bassett as Camae on Broadway, and the acting by the cast at GableStage is far, far better. If you want to know what an actor has to do to be far, far better than Jackson and Bassett, go to GableStage.
Please forgive me for pressing you about this play, but my conscience would not permit me to keep it to myself. As a frame of reference, I called to get tickets for tonight, having seen it just last night, and I am told that the publicity has led to a short supply of seats. I am going with one of my friends, who also just saw it last night, as well as four other friends who have not yet seen it. Please, do yourself a favor. And you have to do it by April 13.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Same Service- Same Employees
I attended the workshop on Monday
night hosted by the Village and Waste Pro. I have found myself thinking about
this issue ever since and thought it may be a good idea to relay some of the
information either for those who were not able to attend the meeting or as a
refresher for those who were there.
A couple of months ago, prior to
our Elections when we were vetting our Commissioner candidates, we all knew
that we were approaching a difficult period and that difficult decisions needed
to be made. And in some incidences, it was past
the proper time in making these decisions.
I believe this very thinking is
what contributed to the turnover of our Commission and in exploring the options
for both annexation and potentially outsourcing our sanitization services. And
here is the reason for both; we are running out of money. It’s really no more
complicated than that.
Here is an excerpt from an article addressing this very issue:
In recent years,
municipal solid waste departments have faced slack operating budgets,
increasing operating costs, rising cost-of-replacement capital expenses and
skyrocketing exposure to environmental liability. All of which makes
privatization an attractive option. Those that take the plunge find many of the
aforementioned headaches disappear.
But first, the
powers that be must be convinced. Let’s examine the City of Williston, Fla.,
which took a calculated risk and was rewarded. Williston had underlying budget
issues that put the city $50,000 in the red. The city also required new and
updated route trucks and container replacements (sound familiar?) The city
manager, decided to put the hauling operations out for bid. The end result of
this decision was a $200,000 upswing in the city’s annual budget. The
majority of the $200,000 savings was a result of eliminating operating and
administration costs. Free to sell its antiquated collection equipment, the
city netted an additional $75,000 and eliminated all looming environmental
liabilities.
So, with the understanding behind
this, let’s look at the benefit package and other comparisons of Waste Pros
proposal.
Same Service with Same
Employees- Salary Comparison
Waste Pro Biscayne Park
Driver’s
salary= $45,000 *
$31,000 +$14,000 annual
or +45%
Helper’s
salary= $38,000 *
$23,000 +$15,000 annual
or +65%
*Based on a 50 hour work week. However, the true hours will be determined based on how long each employee takes
to complete their daily route. In other words, it’s the same system as we now
use in the Village. So, our guys could potentially receive an immediate raise
of between 45-65%.
Other Benefits
Dental, vision, life insurance
(company paid) short and long-term disability, supplemental, flexible spending
accounts, 401K with 100% company match up to 4%, paid time off, flexible
vacation time (based on existing BP service) with any unused vacation pay at
year end.
Bonuses
I for one was impressed with the
many different bonus and incentives packages Waste Pro has in place for their
people. This is part of the difference of what a Company with $420 Million in
annual revenues and 70 locations can offer verses our Village stand alone. Now to the bonuses:
Safety Bonus- (drivers)
Annual $250 bonus- no claims or accidents, good attendance required
$10,000 bonus- same criteria as above for a 3 year period
$50 weekly bonus- no complaints on route. This could result in adding another $200.00 monthly to the already increased salary.
All employees:
·
$250 (increasing $250 each year) up to a cap of
$2,500 annually based on length of service.
Benefits to the Village
- By outsourcing our service the Village would be able to collect a Franchise Fee. Based on Waste Pro’s proposal, the Village would generate NEW REVENUE of $39,000-$77,800.00 annually.
- The Trac-EZ Live Online Program. Real time communication and reports available. Live local customer service- no automation or call center. SAME DAY SERVICE response time.
- Waste Pro-Tection- Community Awareness Program. “See Something, Say Something” type initiative partners with local law enforcement.
- Waste Pro can provide the same service in less time and for less money. Those savings could either be passed on to our residents, or forwarded to the Village for other capital improvements.
When considering privatization,
most communities discover not only that they are capable of reducing operating
costs, but also that, after making the switch, they are able to expand services
for less. Our in-house sanitation fees have increased by 121% over the past 11 years. Clearly, this is not
sustainable for those residents on fixed incomes and is an indicator that the
current structure is not working.
The question we face
is, “Do you prefer to manage a
multi-faceted operation and expose yourself to uncontrollably rising costs and
liability exposure, or instead manage a single contract that enables the
elimination of that exposure thereby reducing those costs?” I would think that those in favor of helping “our guys” would encourage them to consider moving up to a professional privately owned company that has more resources and options for them than we will ever have.
This is NOT about losing any alleged Village “charm” any more than was the logic of combining our elections to save much needed resources. Times are changing and we all need to keep up.
This IS all about finding ways to survive and improve the Village for all residents. Once again, we have already been warned that at the current rate of expenses vs. income we have approx. 5 years left before we exhaust our reserve fund.
I think we should all think of the big future picture and the reasons behind this proposal in the first place.
Milton Hunter
Biscayne Park Resident
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
SANITATION!!
As you know, we are on the verge of deciding whether to continue to operate our own sanitation department (Public Works' major function) or to outsource it to a popular contractor called WastePro. The decision will be made at the Commission meeting on Tuesday, April 1. Next week. No fooling.
In anticipation of this decision, our Manager, Heidi Shafran, put together a major and comprehensive fact-finding effort. She found four potential contractors through a Request For Proposal (RFP) process, turned them over to an ad hoc committee made up of one BP resident, one BP employee, and two other people in the know, and ended up with the choice of WastePro among the applicants. That is, if the Village decides to outsource sanitation, we would outsource this function to WastePro. If we decide not to outsource, we learned a lot about the industry, and we gave close scrutiny to our own functioning in this area.
Heidi then created two workshops, or "listening sessions," on Saturday, March 22, and Monday, March 24, so all of us could listen to Heidi, Candido Sosa-Cruz, and WastePro, and learn, and Heidi, our administration, and WastePro could listen to us and learn. The first workshop was very well attended, and the second slightly less so. I would say we all learned a lot. One way or the other, sanitation will not be the same in the Village. Either we will outsource it, or we will keep it and hold it in higher regard and provide more support than we ever did before.
Please come to the Commission meeting on Tuesday, April 1. If you usually come to these meetings, this one will be worth your time and effort more than most. If you almost never come to them, this one is the one you shouldn't miss this year. Develop your thinking, talk to your neighbors, talk to Heidi and Candido, and expect to say whatever is on your mind about this topic. It's very important. There are considerations you never thought of. Really, no fooling.
In anticipation of this decision, our Manager, Heidi Shafran, put together a major and comprehensive fact-finding effort. She found four potential contractors through a Request For Proposal (RFP) process, turned them over to an ad hoc committee made up of one BP resident, one BP employee, and two other people in the know, and ended up with the choice of WastePro among the applicants. That is, if the Village decides to outsource sanitation, we would outsource this function to WastePro. If we decide not to outsource, we learned a lot about the industry, and we gave close scrutiny to our own functioning in this area.
Heidi then created two workshops, or "listening sessions," on Saturday, March 22, and Monday, March 24, so all of us could listen to Heidi, Candido Sosa-Cruz, and WastePro, and learn, and Heidi, our administration, and WastePro could listen to us and learn. The first workshop was very well attended, and the second slightly less so. I would say we all learned a lot. One way or the other, sanitation will not be the same in the Village. Either we will outsource it, or we will keep it and hold it in higher regard and provide more support than we ever did before.
Please come to the Commission meeting on Tuesday, April 1. If you usually come to these meetings, this one will be worth your time and effort more than most. If you almost never come to them, this one is the one you shouldn't miss this year. Develop your thinking, talk to your neighbors, talk to Heidi and Candido, and expect to say whatever is on your mind about this topic. It's very important. There are considerations you never thought of. Really, no fooling.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Grumble, Grumble. Maybe I'm Just a Complainer. Commission Meeting, 3/4/14
I'm just going to state at the outset that once again, we failed to end at a respectable hour. This time, it was about 10:30. I wish I had kept notes of where the time went.
Things started well enough. During public comment, one resident criticized the Commission for entertaining a Resolution scolding the government of Venezuela for mistreating its people. This Resolution had been listed on the Consent Agenda, and the Resolution's sponsor, David Coviello, pulled it from Consent. I naively, as it turns out, thought he was pulling it, because he took the criticism to heart. No, he wanted to let us all know that the reason for this Resolution was that someone in the City of Doral asked us, and other municipalities, to be co-sponsors of the complaint. My feeling was that this Resolution, like others our Commissions have passed, had nothing to do with Biscayne Park, or anything of relevance to us, and we should not take the time for it or place it on our public record. It appears I was the only Commissioner who looked at it this way. So I suggested we add language scolding the governments of Syria, Russia, North Korea, and others, since we're letting the world know how dissatisfied we are about mistreatment of citizens of places other than BP. Oddly, that suggestion didn't get any traction, either. So we have joined Doral and some number of other local municipalities in giving the government of Venezuela something to think about.
A piece of good news that took some time separate from the Consent Agenda was that we have reached what we all hope will be a mutually satisfying agreement with Joe ("Coach Joe") De Madet. Joe has been a central part of the Village's recreation programs for several years, and it seems we may have staved off his fantasies about retiring. We'll let you know if and when we can go on without you, Joe.
Leslie Reilly, one of our neighbors and a fitness trainer, introduced herself and hopes to provide fitness-related services to as many Village residents as want them.
Our storm water overrun problem will now be dealt with by the Craig A Smith company, who will use a subcontractor named R. P. Utility and Excavation, at Smith's discretion. We hired Smith, and they hired R. P. Barbara Watts pulled this item from Consent, because she wasn't sure R. P. had good enough credentials for her. She was not distracted by the fact that they had good enough credentials for Smith. As an aside here, I have a red car with clearly visible white letters that say "100% ELECTRIC." It is remarkable how many people stop me or roll down their windows, and I roll down mine, so they can ask me if the car is really "100% ELECTRIC." I don't tell them what a dumb question that is. (Why would it say "100% ELECTRIC" unless it was "100% ELECTRIC?") I just say yes, it is. And so it was with Craig A Smith's defense of its selection of R. P. Utility and Excavation. The Smith President was asked in a variety of ways, consuming way too much time, if R. P. was really an OK and acceptable contractor. The Smith President did not tell us what a dumb repeated question that was. He just reassured us that R. P. is really OK (otherwise, he wouldn't have hired them, kind of thing).
The discussion about how Board members are chosen was not, in itself, a problem. It took time, but it was worth it. There were some controversial issues, and they deserved attention. What took plenty of time, and was not at all worth it, was the review of each Board, and the reconfirmation or addition of members. Central to this exercise was the trotting out of each Board member who was present to give us the surprising news that he or she wanted to remain on the Board. Gobble, gobble, gobble went the time. Bottom line: Boards now full, and I'm very happy, delighted, actually, to say that several newer and/or not-previously-involved residents expressed interest, sometimes avid interest, in serving on Boards. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!
Our discussion of "traffic calming" measures for the Village, and especially around the park: As you might imagine, the featured speaker for this item was our police chief. As in, who would know better about traffic calming measures than a police chief? And that turned out to be the operative question. Oh, the inspired and perspicacious ideas offered by our Commission, who couldn't have been more helpful to our police chief when it came to thinking of ways to calm traffic. I suspect he was grateful for all the assistance.
I'm sorry to say that I myself contributed to the "where on earth did all the time go?" show. I thought Parks and Parkways should devise a Village-wide plan for median design and development. In my defense, I thought this would take somewhere around two minutes. It seemed kind of like an obvious and uncomplicated concept that would give P&P a very substantial and far-reaching mission. Something they might be very proud of. Nope. It turns out this is practically impossible, as P&P Chair Dan Keys brought painfully to my attention, what with the time it would take and the fiscal scope of the work. But I didn't ask for work, as in actual median development. All I wanted was a plan, on paper: the 101 course. Implementation was the 201 course, or maybe even the 301 course. Well, we're not getting a unified or Village-wide plan. We're getting attention paid to the "entrances." And it took plenty of time just for that conclusion to be reached.
A bomb of sorts was dropped. It seems FPL are planning to harden even more areas of the Village network of power lines. Yup, more of those secure concrete poles. Perish the thought: delivery of electric service that is more reliable than what we have. Heidi Shafran misunderstood what the poles were all about, and she thought they would be considerably higher than the current poles. They are in fact identical to the concrete poles we already have, which are identical in height to the wood poles they replaced. But nothing could reassure one of our Commissioners, who apparently thought the world was coming to an end.
Finally, we do not yet have a contract with the City of North Miami for the delivery of water. They are engaged in some form of thinking it over.
Things started well enough. During public comment, one resident criticized the Commission for entertaining a Resolution scolding the government of Venezuela for mistreating its people. This Resolution had been listed on the Consent Agenda, and the Resolution's sponsor, David Coviello, pulled it from Consent. I naively, as it turns out, thought he was pulling it, because he took the criticism to heart. No, he wanted to let us all know that the reason for this Resolution was that someone in the City of Doral asked us, and other municipalities, to be co-sponsors of the complaint. My feeling was that this Resolution, like others our Commissions have passed, had nothing to do with Biscayne Park, or anything of relevance to us, and we should not take the time for it or place it on our public record. It appears I was the only Commissioner who looked at it this way. So I suggested we add language scolding the governments of Syria, Russia, North Korea, and others, since we're letting the world know how dissatisfied we are about mistreatment of citizens of places other than BP. Oddly, that suggestion didn't get any traction, either. So we have joined Doral and some number of other local municipalities in giving the government of Venezuela something to think about.
A piece of good news that took some time separate from the Consent Agenda was that we have reached what we all hope will be a mutually satisfying agreement with Joe ("Coach Joe") De Madet. Joe has been a central part of the Village's recreation programs for several years, and it seems we may have staved off his fantasies about retiring. We'll let you know if and when we can go on without you, Joe.
Leslie Reilly, one of our neighbors and a fitness trainer, introduced herself and hopes to provide fitness-related services to as many Village residents as want them.
Our storm water overrun problem will now be dealt with by the Craig A Smith company, who will use a subcontractor named R. P. Utility and Excavation, at Smith's discretion. We hired Smith, and they hired R. P. Barbara Watts pulled this item from Consent, because she wasn't sure R. P. had good enough credentials for her. She was not distracted by the fact that they had good enough credentials for Smith. As an aside here, I have a red car with clearly visible white letters that say "100% ELECTRIC." It is remarkable how many people stop me or roll down their windows, and I roll down mine, so they can ask me if the car is really "100% ELECTRIC." I don't tell them what a dumb question that is. (Why would it say "100% ELECTRIC" unless it was "100% ELECTRIC?") I just say yes, it is. And so it was with Craig A Smith's defense of its selection of R. P. Utility and Excavation. The Smith President was asked in a variety of ways, consuming way too much time, if R. P. was really an OK and acceptable contractor. The Smith President did not tell us what a dumb repeated question that was. He just reassured us that R. P. is really OK (otherwise, he wouldn't have hired them, kind of thing).
The discussion about how Board members are chosen was not, in itself, a problem. It took time, but it was worth it. There were some controversial issues, and they deserved attention. What took plenty of time, and was not at all worth it, was the review of each Board, and the reconfirmation or addition of members. Central to this exercise was the trotting out of each Board member who was present to give us the surprising news that he or she wanted to remain on the Board. Gobble, gobble, gobble went the time. Bottom line: Boards now full, and I'm very happy, delighted, actually, to say that several newer and/or not-previously-involved residents expressed interest, sometimes avid interest, in serving on Boards. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!
Our discussion of "traffic calming" measures for the Village, and especially around the park: As you might imagine, the featured speaker for this item was our police chief. As in, who would know better about traffic calming measures than a police chief? And that turned out to be the operative question. Oh, the inspired and perspicacious ideas offered by our Commission, who couldn't have been more helpful to our police chief when it came to thinking of ways to calm traffic. I suspect he was grateful for all the assistance.
I'm sorry to say that I myself contributed to the "where on earth did all the time go?" show. I thought Parks and Parkways should devise a Village-wide plan for median design and development. In my defense, I thought this would take somewhere around two minutes. It seemed kind of like an obvious and uncomplicated concept that would give P&P a very substantial and far-reaching mission. Something they might be very proud of. Nope. It turns out this is practically impossible, as P&P Chair Dan Keys brought painfully to my attention, what with the time it would take and the fiscal scope of the work. But I didn't ask for work, as in actual median development. All I wanted was a plan, on paper: the 101 course. Implementation was the 201 course, or maybe even the 301 course. Well, we're not getting a unified or Village-wide plan. We're getting attention paid to the "entrances." And it took plenty of time just for that conclusion to be reached.
A bomb of sorts was dropped. It seems FPL are planning to harden even more areas of the Village network of power lines. Yup, more of those secure concrete poles. Perish the thought: delivery of electric service that is more reliable than what we have. Heidi Shafran misunderstood what the poles were all about, and she thought they would be considerably higher than the current poles. They are in fact identical to the concrete poles we already have, which are identical in height to the wood poles they replaced. But nothing could reassure one of our Commissioners, who apparently thought the world was coming to an end.
Finally, we do not yet have a contract with the City of North Miami for the delivery of water. They are engaged in some form of thinking it over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)