"Results Are O-fficial"

The Village sent out an e-blast regarding election results.

Of 2104 registered voters in the Village, 448 voted. 

Ginny O'Halpin had the most votes with 323.  Mac Kennedy had just a few less, with 304.  Rafael Ciordia got 168 votes.

Ginny will have a two year, 11 month term, and Mac will have an 11 month term.

Congratulations to the winners.  Rafael Ciordia said he felt moved to help the Village, and I hope he meant it.  It will be great to have him on a board.

An Act of Kindness

Saturday, January 4, 2020, is the day Rafael Ciordia chose to suggest that he himself would perform some "act of kindness," and he suggested his neighbors might do the same.  He made a number of specific suggestions as to what acts of kindness might be, and he imagined that the Village might be abuzz with residents performing their own individual acts.

I thought this was a nice idea, although if Village residents are individually going to perform kind gestures, not in coordination with each other, there's no reason they should all choose to do this on the same day.  In fact, Rafael might better have suggested that Village residents simply strive to be kind people, and do kind things all the time.  But that's not what Rafael chose to suggest.

Rafael gave no indication as to how or why he chose the idea of people performing kind acts, and how or why he imagined Village residents performing these kind acts on Saturday, January 4, 2020.  I suppose it's a puzzle.

Rafael presented his suggestion in a post on Nextdoor.  And he closed his post with a curious comment.  He reminded Village residents that the Village is having an election on Tuesday, January 7, 2020, and he encouraged Village residents to vote.  He said there were "three great candidates."  Presumably, that means he considers himself a "great candidate," but he also reassures that his two opponents are great candidates.

Rafael's declaration of candidacy to be a Village Commissioner does not, on the surface, make any sense.  It doesn't seem to be about anything, at least it's not about anything evident.  Rafael moved here in 2012, he has had no activity or visibility in the Village, he knows nothing about the Village and its problems, and he never even came to Commission meetings until he decided to run for Commission.  One of his opponents has been very visible, and very involved, since the day he moved here, and the other has been here longer than has Rafael, and she's been on two ad hoc Village committees.  If Rafael considers these two candidates to be "great" choices for Commission, I wouldn't argue with him.  The fact is that apart from Rafael himself, they're the only other Village residents who declared candidacies.  So, if these other two Village residents are the only two other Village residents who wanted to be Commissioners in this election, and Rafael thinks they're "great," then it could easily appear that the Village has solved its immediate problem, without any help from Rafael.

And I'm not sure, frankly, that I would agree with Rafael when he says all three candidates are "great."  Rafael himself is frankly sketchy as a Commission candidate right now, and his offerings at the Meet the Candidates event were very concerning.  Rafael has clearly adopted understandings that are shared by almost no one, and they're not reality-based.  But Rafael, who is starkly uninitiated regarding the Village and its functioning, has allowed himself to rely on input from very, very few people, has apparently ignored input from others, and winds up parroting positions that are undermining to the Village.  Rafael hasn't seen much in terms of what's been going on, even at Commission meetings, but what he's seen should have allowed him to recognize what's breathtakingly wrong with the picture someone painted for him, reproductions of which he then peddles himself.

The Village is currently suffering from a disease.  Rafael has seen it.  He's seen two Commissioners, out of only three who are left, force through approval of Ordinances of which no one except those two Commissioners approves, over the objection of the remaining Commissioner, who suggested these Ordinances be put on hold for one month, until the two new Commissioners are elected, and they do it without even acknowledging the concerns of their neighbors.  And it is the momentum of these two Commissioners that Rafael is apparently seeking to join.  It is their non-reality-based assertions which Rafael repeats.

It may be too late for Rafael to perform a real act of kindness, and mercy, or maybe it's not too late.  If Rafael was feeling genuinely kind, and considerate of his neighbors, and dedicated to the best functioning for the Village, he would drop out of this race now.  Frankly, he would have done that weeks ago.  Rafael can deliver to the Village and its government two "great" new Commissioners ("great," by his own estimation), and he can save the Village $16K.  And the best result of this kind and merciful act Rafael could perform is that it will stop the Tracy Truppman, once again supported by Will Tudor, majority that is so badly damaging the Village and its functioning and finances.

If Rafael did that, it would be better for the Village than his raking a median, or bringing soup to one of his neighbors, things he could have done, and could do, any time.  Rafael might still be able to do for the Village something "great."  I hope he does it.

My Mistake. And Rafael Is Good For His Word.

Rafael told me in an e-mail which I included in this blog two posts ago that he hoped for what he called a "random act of kindness" from me on "1/4/20."  He made further mention of his reference to this on Nextdoor.  I told him I'm not on Nextdoor.  I didn't hear back from him about this.  I then wrote a post yesterday, and I referenced two assumptions I made regarding his hope for a "random act of kindness" from me on "1/4/20."  I was wrong about both assumptions.

I got curious about Rafael's mention of something on Nextdoor, and I looked for it.  I can view Nextdoor.  I just don't have an active account there, and I can't comment.  So I never look.  Except this time, because I wanted to know whatever Rafael wasn't specifying.

In fact, Rafael did mean Saturday, January 4, 2020, and he was referring to what he presented as a day of service in which he hoped Village residents would participate.  His proposal had nothing to do with voting for him, which is what I thought he meant when I also thought he meant Tuesday, January 7, 2020.

Rafael promised us two things.  One was that he is unfamiliar with many things going on in the Village, and the other is that he would learn fast.  He was right about both.

One thing Rafael learned very quickly has to do with the Village's problem about communication.  The current Commission has talked about this problem many times.  It seems the Village government and administration feel too much communication has been happening, and the goal is to stop it.  Ways of accomplishing this goal have included refusing to communicate at all (not announcing things, not responding to outreaches, and not answering questions), and communicating in such a minimal way, and with such unreliable offerings, as to be ineffective.  And Rafael has been mentored well already.  He offers as little substance as possible, and when there is ambiguity and lack of understanding, Rafael does not elucidate.  And Rafael has streamlined the process of learning about the Village and its functioning by relying on very few people to inform him.

As for the content Rafael intended regarding his proposed 1/4/20 day of service, because Rafael never told me what he meant, I don't know how Rafael understands this proposal.  For example, does Rafael think he came up with this idea himself, or does he think there was ever in the past a Village day of service, let's say in January?  If the former, I wonder how Rafael got this idea.  It sounds like a good and friendly and community-spirited idea.  We have Griffing Boulevard, named for Arthur Griffing, and Ed Burke Park, named for Ed Burke.  I wonder if we should memorialize Rafael's idea for a day of Village service in January by calling it the Rafael Ciordia Day of Service.

Or, does Rafael think anyone else ever thought of a Village day of service, in January?  Does Rafael think such a thing ever happened here?  If so, I wonder who Rafael thinks came up with this idea, when, and when and why it stopped happening.  Rafael says he moved to the Village in 2012.  I wonder if there was ever a Village day of service, in January, any time after 2012.  If there was, I wonder if Rafael ever participated in it.

I'm asking a lot of questions, I know, and I guess I'm unlikely to get the answers to them, now that Rafael has learned how to deal with the Village's communication problem.  But I'm still curious.

Kumbaya? That Paul Harvey...

Our Village special Commission election is the week after next, and Rafael Ciordia has made a suggestion to me.  Perhaps it was a request.  Rafael said he "hope[d] to catch [me] doing a random act of kindness come 1/4/20."  I'm making two assumptions here.  One assumption is that he meant 1/7/20, and the other is that the "random act of kindness" he had in mind is that I vote for him.

On the surface of it, Rafael's suggestion seems as if it could be friendly and inclusive, and meant to forge a nice connection between me and him.  He's running for Commission, and I'm welcome to get right on the Rafael Ciordia bandwagon.  If that's not Kumbaya...

But here's the problem.  Three people are running for two seats, and Village voters are only allowed to vote for two candidates.  For one thing, and most conspicuously, I've already chosen two candidates whom I support.  Their campaign signs are in the swale in front of my house, and Rafael's isn't one of them.  So, if Rafael has in his mind that I would change my own mind, and vote for him, then he's advocating that I withdraw my support from at least one of the candidates I already support.  What Rafael sees as an "act of kindness" toward him is an act of marked unkindness, and even betrayal, toward someone else.

And further, I didn't have to support the two candidates whose signs are in my yard.  I chose them.  And I chose them, because I decided they would be better Commissioners, and be better for the Village, than would Rafael.  It's my prerogative to make judgments and conclusions like that, and I made them.  So again, if I do the "act of kindness" toward Rafael that he suggests I might do, then I vote for someone who I think will represent the Village, and me, and all the rest of us, worse than the people I already chose.  The "act of kindness" Rafael suggests I do for him is an act of unkindness, and even sabotage, to the Village.

Is this what Rafael had in mind when he made his suggestion?  Is this seemingly friendly and inclusive idea of his really disruptive, destructive, and divisive?

The point is that everything in the world has various ways of looking at it.  Everything has pros and cons.  Rafael makes a big mistake if he thinks a good-natured suggestion like that I should vote for him is uncomplicated, or even, in any sense at all, the right thing to do.  I suppose that on the other hand, Rafael might have been sending me a subtle message, or even a threat.  He could have been telling me that I vote for him, and support him, and don't criticize him, or else.  If he wins a seat on the Commission, he won't be the only Commissioner who relates to me, and many of us, that way.

I've already said, repeatedly, that I like Rafael.  He's a nice, friendly, seemingly intelligent guy.  I'm less impressed with his judgment.  He makes a decision to run for Commission, on whatever basis he made that decision, without critically important local background (or any prior manifestation at all even of interest).  And he adopts understandings that are peculiar and not reality-based, like his conclusion that any Commissioners were ever threatened, or that a Commissioner would need extensive legal counsel on the basis of being criticized.  I've witnessed a number of Commissions, and I was on one.  Every Commission, and every Commissioner, gets criticized.  No one ever gets threatened.  And no one suddenly can't make a move without extensive consultation with whoever is the Village attorney.  This is all invented.  And Rafael swallows it, hook, line, and sinker.

Rafael is told a story, and it's a very quirky and unsupported one, which is not remotely true, and he doesn't fact check it.  He never learns what Paul Harvey called "the rest of the story."  He has no perspective, and he's not looking for one.  Rafael has told us repeatedly that he will compensate for his areas of knowledge deficiency by learning quickly.  Is this what he means?  He'll ask Tracy Truppman and Krishan Manners, and consider himself well-informed?  Yikes, Rafael!

Rafa Has Given Me His Permission to "Cut and Paste" This e-Conversation.

Rafa wrote to me regarding the last post:

Now you’re just auditioning to be my chief of communications.  And for the record, the full line was “when a woman tells you she feels threatened, believe her”.  

Hope to catch you doing a random act of kindness come 1•4•2020. See my challenge to our village neighbors on Next Door.

Have a great holiday and healthy, prosperous new year.

Rafael

I replied:

I'm not on Next Door.

I hope we all see a non-random act of decency from you before 1/7/20.  If we see it very soon, you'll save your Village over $16K.  But if you think either of your opponents would make such a terrible Commissioner that it's deeply important that you do something to prevent it, then you should stay in the race.  And I'd be curious to know which of your opponents strikes you as that bad, and what's so bad about them.  I myself must have missed it.

Fred

PS: PPS: Since you're correcting me, and quoting your line more precisely, I gather it was a staged and pre-planned quip.  Interesting.  Tracy and Krishan really do have you very tightly by the balls.

Also, I'm sure it's clear to you that you could have responded to me in the blog, so the conversation would have been public.  I encourage that.

Rafa wrote back:

My friend, journalism with integrity 101.  The video is there, you didn’t even have to take notes.  Quoting partials takes them out of context, and that’s the stuff of hyper-partisan politics.  I told you I strive to be ,ore public servant. And my prepared thoughts included adding “and children too.  And men won’t tell you we are threatened.  But sometimes we are... yadda yadda.  

Also - I said trying not to be trite … “Residents come and go, the village is forever” but really *at least hopefully* 25 more years until Biscayne’s wondrous shore is creeping up to our elevation.

So much to say, so little time.  And the questions were pretty softball, don’t you think?  I was sure there’d be some good ones like the OCITT audit, and details about the negotiations with CNM and the 121 street maintenance split, and the FEMA reimbursement delays.  Alas.

I’m totally OK with you thinking Tracey/Krishan have my in their court.  You are predisposed to that notion, and anything I could say would only have you double and triple down. 

I won’t be commenting on your blog. I will have conversations (face to face, or digitally) with you, and you can cut and paste to your blog all you want to, if you need to. All I would ask is that you are faithful in the representation of my words.

Best,

Rafael

I concluded:

Rafa,

I don't consider myself a "journalist," but it seems to me journalism 101 can be a two-way street.  It is certainly the responsibility of the "journalist" to report accurately.  But it is the reciprocal jeopardy of the "journalist" to have to be revealed to be wrong, when s/he is wrong.  You have two kinds of opportunities to "out" me.  You can ask me for access to the blog, in which case you have to reassure me you won't sabotage anyone else's material, or you can post any comment you like, with no restriction from me.  And you've taken that second opportunity, so you know it's available to you.  Frankly, I think that on the surface, it's unfair of you to communicate with me only privately to tell me I was wrong about something.  But you've resolved that unfairness by giving me permission to "cut and paste...all [I] want to," and I accept your offer.  What I plan to do is "cut and paste" the entire back and forth we're now having (unless you tell me you've changed your mind, and withdrawn your permission), so there's no danger to you of my not being "faithful in the representation of [your] words."  They're your words.  All I'm going to do is cut and paste them.  By the way, there are many* typos and incorrect usages.  I'm going to cut and paste your comments precisely as they are.  I'm not going to fix anything for you.  If you want something fixed, you'll have to do it yourself.

You should not feel there's little time to say as much as you want said.  Take the time.  Say it all.  You have an audience.  You have made zero outreach to me.  (You only eventually accommodated Chuck and me when we reached out to you.)  Political candidates are not permitted to campaign on Next Door.  I have no idea what method you're using to try to introduce yourself to your neighbors in such a way that they would want to vote for you to represent them.  It all seems unbelievably sketchy to me.  I don't tell you how to run your life, or how to run for office, but if you didn't have abundant secret help, you would be dead in the water in this campaign.  You couldn't do what you're doing without Tracy and Krishan working for you.  And as I said in the blog post about which you commented to me, you adopted a very peculiar angle about our exploded attorney's fees and the sergeant-at-arms, and almost no one in the world, except Tracy and Krishan, would look at it that way.  Everyone who has said a word about it thinks one way, and Tracy and Krishan, and now you, think another way.  Coincidence, huh?

I'm going out to do yard work.  When I come back, and maybe after I get cleaned up, I'll do the "cut and paste" task.  If I haven't heard from you to ask me not to do that after all, then my light is green.

Fred

*I said "many," but on review, there are only a few.

Also, I forgot to respond to Rafa's estimation that the questions were what he called "softball."  I agree with him.  I, too, would have liked to see more probing questions.  What was interesting, coming from someone who has not been involved with the Village in any way, nor come much to Commission meetings, was what Rafa was expecting.  Why would he have expected questions about CITT, the various negotiations with CNM, and delays in reimbursement from FEMA?  He doesn't, from the context of an uninvolved and uninformed Village resident, have any awareness of these issues.  Whoever told him what questions would be on the exam didn't tell him the right questions.

You Pick the Title of This One.

I don't always know I'm going to blog about something.  Sometimes, as I experience it, the idea comes to me that I have something to communicate, and what is the most relevant angle.  That's what happened at the Meet the Candidates event tonight.

My first thought (the idea for a title comes to me before I'm fully aware of what I want to discuss) was "Well, We [Met] the Candidates."  If I had used that title, I would have talked about what the candidates said.  But frankly, most of what all of them said was, apart from being answers to questions, and not their own agendas, essentially non-provocative pablum.  Each of them wanted as much to make nice with the others as they did to tell us what was on their minds.  And I'm not complaining.  The evening was structured that way.  I suppose it was nice to see that they could make nice with each other, and find lots of areas of agreement.

My second thought for a title, which came not long after my first thought, was "I Said It Before, And I'll Say It Again."  If I had used this title, I would have focused on how civilized and engaging they all were, how Mac Kennedy was slightly more substantive than was Ginny O'Halpin, but that Ginny acquitted herself well, and what an undiluted charmer is Rafael Ciordia.  I still like Rafael, and I still don't trust him.  He could have been running for anything anywhere, and he would have presented himself the same way.  At one point, he forgot the question, after Ginny and Mac had answered it, so he asked for it to be repeated and had to offer something completely off the cuff.  And where Rafa said he "doesn't want to be trite" (that's what he said), trite is precisely what he was.  He knows next to nothing about the Village, and his best offer was to promise to learn quickly.  One example of that delightful and enthusiastic gentleman's output had to do with a question about speed bumps.  Rafa talked about what a great thing it would be for us to start by putting those crossing warnings on 6th Avenue, so lights would flash, pedestrians would cross, and drivers would decide it's easier just to drive on Biscayne Boulevard than it is to "cut through" BP.  It was obvious that Rafa does not know 6th Avenue is not ours, that it's a state property, and that we can't do things like that.  And that was one of Rafa's few mistakes, in offering an opinion that was not simply trite sloganeering, resorting to platitudes, and agreeing with whatever the other two said.

What came along near the end of the event was my last choice for a title.  And that one was "Now We Know the Answer to the Question."  There was frankly pretty good and uniform agreement among our three candidates, about more or less everything.  Until we talked about the budget.  Ginny started, and she complained about the explosion of the legal expense.  It was a pretty cheap example of shooting fish in a barrel, but she wasn't wrong.  And Mac, who spoke next, completely agreed with Ginny.  They both said we've spent way too much on our attorney.  Rafa looked at it in a different way.  Oh, he, too, talked about the legal expense, but he wasn't blaming the Commission, or the mayor, or the manager, or the attorney.  No, Rafa blamed us.  Rafa explained that the mayor had been so beset with complainers so early in her term that she had no choice but to check, double-check, and triple-check everything she did, by consulting liberally with the attorney.  Because we criticized so much.  And that wasn't the last time Rafa used that perspective.  A little later, the topic of how the Commission could get along better among itself, and with the non-Commissioner BP residents, came up for discussion.  And again, Ginny and Mac agreed about one thing: we need to lose the sergeant-at-arms who sits at the Commission desk, and has the effect of intimidating BP residents.  But Rafa didn't see it that way.  He let us all know that it was our fault, and that someone(s) at that Commission desk said she/they felt threatened, and that "when a woman says she feels threatened," Rafa admonished...

Now, the fact is, Rafa, who has no experience with the Village and its functioning, and has never come to meetings until very, very recently, could only have heard an angle like this from two or three people in the world.  He could only have heard it from Tracy Truppman or Krishan Manners, or maybe the legal scam from Rebecca Rodriguez.  And there he was tonight, at the Meet the Candidates event, letting us all know who controls his thinking.  And showing us that when he doesn't know something, he'll believe any nonsense Tracy Truppman or Krishan Manners tells him.

My question about Rafa all along has been who's behind him.  Propping him up.  Feeding him.  Molding how he would understand things (about which he doesn't know).  I had my suspicions.  Tonight, he told me I was right.  He told that to all of us.

I Want to Go On a Bit About Rafael Ciorida

I've already said I don't trust Rafael, and I believe I made clear what my issues are.  At the same time, I like him.  I like him a lot.  I would like to have Rafael-- he says to call him Rafa-- as a friend.

And here's a potentially important consequence of not trusting Rafa.  Mac Kennedy is a guest author on this blog.  So is Ginny O'Halpin.  There are 18 guest authors, apart from me, on this blog.  Guest authors have complete access to the blog.  They can do anything I can do.  They can publish anything they like.  They can also have access to anything that's been published.  They could edit something that was already published, or that's a draft, even if it wasn't theirs.  They could delete a post, or a comment, or a draft, even if it's someone else's.  I have to be able to trust guest authors not to do that.  I wouldn't do it, and no one else is allowed to do it.  I have removed three guest authors, either because they did that, or because I came to suspect they would.  I want Rafa to be a guest author, if for no other reason, then because it would help him in his campaign.  I've told this to Rafa.  But for me to have the blog send him an invitation to be a guest author, I have to trust that he won't make mischief.  One of the three people I have removed as guest authors is Tracy Truppman.  She posted something once.  It was a post in favor of outsourcing sanitation.  But I didn't make her a guest author, because she happened to agree with me about that.  I wouldn't have cared what position she espoused.  I made her a guest author, because I thought then that I could trust her not to mess with anyone else's stuff.  When I decided I could no longer trust her that way-- that I couldn't trust her to be honest and respectful-- I removed her.  If I have to worry that Rafa and Tracy are more in league with each other than either of them is admitting, then I can't trust Rafa.  And I will say again, Tracy is extraordinarily controlling.  She's off the charts controlling.  And if I know that Mac Kennedy can't possible be a Tracy stooge, and I'm sure Ginny O'Halpin couldn't, either, and Tracy didn't put up any of her usuals, and I know she desperately needs one more stooge, then to me, Rafa is it.  Especially if his connection is Krishan Manners, who is very, very firmly under Tracy's thumb, and who will evidently do anything for her.

I don't like it this way.  I don't like not trusting Rafa.  I want to trust him.  But he's not giving me a basis to do it.

Anyway, here's what I really wanted to discuss about, and with, Rafa.  Rafa is a comparative unknown in BP.  And he's doing a very unusual style of campaigning.  I haven't heard of any events for him, and he reportedly won't use yard signs.  He's running for office, and he wants votes from people who don't know him, but he's flying under the radar, and campaigning in a stealthy way.  So the thing that springs to mind for me, conspiracy theorist that Rafa says I am, is that he's getting help that's not visible.  He's getting help from Tracy Truppman, in the form of phone calls or whatever style of leaning on people that Tracy does.  And if recent history is any indicator, then this might be very effective.  Rafa might very well win a just under three year seat or a just under one year seat on the Commission.  So my question is, then what?  And I'm asking specifically.

For example, the thinnest possible majority for a BP Commission-- two out of three remaining Commissioners-- just passed an Ordinance on second reading.  The Ordinance was to spend money the Village really doesn't have to waste on a Code infraction special magistrate.  And not one Village resident who is not one of the two Commissioners who just passed this Ordinance spoke in favor of it.  Everyone who had anything to say, except two Commissioners, was against it.  And it's now an Ordinance, passed into Village law by two Village residents/Commissioners over the objection of everyone else who expressed an opinion.

But the other Commissioner, Dan Samaria, the one who voted against this scheme, says he intends to bring this issue back for reconsideration when there's a full Commission.  Dan asked the skeletal three-person Commission not to consider this matter for second reading, because the Commission was too small to be fairly representative, and we're about to get two new Commissioners in one month from now, but the two majority Commissioners refused to wait.

So my question to you, Rafa, is this.  Supposing you somehow get elected, which, without help from Tracy Truppman, would seem out of the question, and supposing the magistrate Ordinance finds itself immediately back on the agenda.  How would Commissioner Rafael Ciordia vote?  I'm asking.  Rafa, Dan Samaria will put this back on the agenda.  Tracy and Will will vote as they did before.  Dan will vote as he did before.  Either Ginny or Mac will vote some way.  Let's imagine, to make the discussion interesting, that either of them votes to return to a Code Compliance Board only.  How will you vote?  I know you'll remind me that you don't know much about the issues, and you intend to learn, but the issue is now.  You were at the last meeting, where the issue passed on second reading, and I'm not sure you weren't at the meeting before that, when there was first reading.  All of your neighbors who expressed themselves don't approve of this.  How will you vote?

And I'll ask you the same question about the other Ordinance on this past week's agenda.  It was the rules and procedures Ordinance, and it was for first reading.  It was a terrible idea, and not one of your non-Commissioner neighbors liked it.  Dan Samaria didn't like it.  The only two people who liked it were Tracy Truppman and Will Tudor.  So those two people voted to pass it on first reading.  And again, to make it interesting, let's suppose you win a seat, and either Commissioner O'Halpin or Commissioner Kennedy doesn't like this Ordinance.  You're the tie-breaker.  Break the tie.  How will you vote on this one?  (Dan Samaria persuaded his two Commission colleagues to set this for second reading in February.  He's saving it for you.)

Or, let's make the same suppositions, and assume Tracy and Will think Tracy should be the mayor, and Dan and either Ginny or Mac think she shouldn't.  Break that tie.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think Tracy still has juice around here.  I think she's going to get you elected.  And as one of your constituents, I want to know what you're going to do.

Ginny O'Halpin and Rafael Ciordia, the Other Two Candidates.

I met with Ginny O'Halpin last week.  Ginny posted a small amount of information about herself on this blog.  I've met Ginny a few times, I like her, and I trust her.  She does not have extensive knowledge about the Village's functioning and its particular problems.  She just feels, as she said in her short post, that somehow, the government here is not working, and since she's gotten over the loss of her husband, and she has time, she thinks she should try to help, or confront whatever is faulty.  As I said, her specific grasp on what is faulty is tenuous.

Ginny told me one story that she found interesting, and illustrative, and I agree with her.  After she submitted her paperwork to declare herself as a candidate, she got a call.  From Rebecca Rodriguez.  The Village attorney.  Rebecca personally called Ginny to give her a helpful heads up.  She pointed out that in her application, Ginny said she owned properties other than the one in which she lives in BP, and Rebecca was advising Ginny to report income from these properties.

So, here are the problems with this helpful little phone call.  First, Ginny didn't say she derives income from these properties, and she doesn't.  One of these properties is in the upper Keys, and the other is somewhere else, and Ginny and her late husband used to use them for vacations.  Why Village attorney Rebecca Rodriguez took it upon herself to assume these were income-generating properties was not stated and was unknown.  Second, even if these had been income-generating properties, and even if Ginny hadn't reported this as a source of income (you have to report sources of income in your application to run for elected office, presumably so it can be determined if there are any possible causes of conflict of interest), Rebecca Rodriguez, the Village attorney, should have been the last person to have called Ginny with a helpful heads up.  Village attorney Rebecca Rodriguez should never even have known about these properties, or the content of Ginny's application.  The Village clerk would have known about and handled that, or she would have brought it to the Village manager.  Ginny told me this story to illustrate one of the problems she wants to confront (or maybe several of them), and it was a pretty good illustration.

I met Rafael Ciordia this week.  Chuck Ross and I intended to talk with him together, and we tried to make arrangements.  But Rafael portrays himself as an almost hopelessly busy guy, and it was not easy to get him to agree on a time and place.  Chuck and I were intent, and we accepted Rafael's offer to meet at Alaska Coffee Roasters at 7:00 AM.  Frankly, Chuck and I had the same thought: that Rafael was offering something he thought we would reject, because it was so inconvenient.

Anyway, Rafael is a ball of enthusiasm.  He's all smiles and some version of happy talk.  He likes slogans, like that you should always ask a busy man to handle a responsibility, because busy men are so intent on getting things done.  Rafael has a lot of slogans like that.  And everything excites and inspires him.  Rafael knows next to nothing about the Village and how it works, and every topic that is raised, and every question that is asked, inspires Rafael to reassure that this is exactly the kind of thing he wants to learn.  (He's much more willing to learn on the job than many other people would be, and than some people would be to "hire" someone whose first mission is to try to figure out what the job is.  But that's Rafael.)

I like Rafael.  He's a delightful person.  He's very outgoing and friendly.  I told him I like him.  I also don't trust Rafael.  I told him that, too.  He's willing to do stupid things, like learning on the job, and he expressly considers it unnecessary to start anywhere near the bottom of the ladder.  He has, at best, tremendous confidence in himself.  That's the careless part.  If Rafael was only careless and didn't have the world's best judgment, I could maybe forgive him for that.  I think Rafael considers himself very smart, and I don't disagree with him.  I do think Rafael gets a bit ahead of himself, since he isn't deterred by finding out how little he knows, and he's an early morning person who is taking on a responsibility part of which occurs at night, and even relatively late at night.  Rafael fell asleep during this week's Commission meeting.  Would Rafael force himself to stay awake if he was on the other side of the Commission desk?  Maybe.  Probably.  But as Chuck Ross said to Rafael and to me, Rafael is doing the equivalent of cramming for an exam.  All of a sudden, Rafael is coming to Commission meetings, and board meetings.  If he can't stay awake when he's cramming and the exam is the next day, it's maybe not looking great.

But that's not my big problem about Rafael (who, by the way, is on the circulation for this blog, and is more than welcome to post a comment).  My big problem is the other reason I don't trust Rafael.  I don't know where Rafael's candidacy came from, and Rafael isn't saying.  I know, and Rafael acknowledges, that he's friends with, or thinks particularly well of, Krishan Manners.  I have no reason to think Rafael would even have known about the Commission or the openings had it not been for Krishan tapping him on the shoulder.  Rafael knows I'm skeptical about this, and in his stated attempt to prove to me at least that it isn't Tracy Truppman seducing him into running, he told me some story about Tracy's having approached him after this week's Commission meeting, to confirm that he was Rafael, as if Tracy wasn't sure who Rafael Ciordia is.  But Tracy is a control freak.  Even if it was Krishan who dug up Rafael, Tracy would have known all about it.  And no doubt have met and spoken at length to Rafael.

Rafael also told me and Chuck his version about how he decided to run for Commission, and why, for example, he didn't start out at some other level of "service" (Rafael likes to say he's inspired to "serve" the Village).  He simply got the calling.  It was simply time.  He didn't get the calling two weeks or two months or two years before Betsy Wise and Jenny Johnson-Sardella resigned, and we declared we had to have a special election, and there were empty board seats.  No, Rafael got the calling only when we suddenly needed two new Commissioners.

And then, it gets slightly worse.  In recent weeks, there's been a lot of talk about a proposed agreement between us and CNM.  The subject was the medians on 121st St.  The bottom line is that the agreement was in some sense terrible for us.  There have been e-mails circulated around about this problem of the terrible proposed agreement.  No one who had a word to say about it thought it was anything but bad.  It came up at this week's Commission meeting.  And important background is that it is alleged that it was either David Hernandez, Krishan Manners, or both of them who hatched this terrible proposed agreement with CNM idea.  The Commission had to decide whether or not to resolve to accept it.  Bizarrely, this hot button, highly scoffed at, proposed agreement that would be dramatically disadvantageous to BP was placed on the consent agenda.  This is supposed to mean it's so obviously acceptable that it doesn't require any discussion.  Who on earth placed it there?  Beats me.  But it was only Dan Samaria who had sense enough to take it off the consent agenda, so it could be discussed.  By the time the discussion was over, not one of the current Commissioners approved of this obviously acceptable (placed on the consent agenda) agreement, and even David Hernandez admitted it had some, um, drawbacks.  But the very next day, in a group e-mail discussion, Rafael was still saying-- and he was apparently by then the only one saying this-- that he liked the proposed agreement.

I don't trust Rafael, because I don't know who is his sponsor, or his client, or whom he represents.  I don't know what he's about, and apart from the slogans and the platitudes, he isn't telling.

As I said, I like Rafael.  I would like to trust him.  I would like to be behind him and his alleged wish to "serve" the Village.  But he's making it impossible to do it.  It's a great deal of song and dance, but no substance.  And he unwaveringly rejects advice like that he should not run for Commission now, but get on a board, learn what he admits he doesn't know, and run in the future.  He's in a big hurry.  Just when Tracy Truppman happens to be desperate for one more stooge.

Oh, Judith...

The most recent meeting of the so-called Charter Review Committee was last night.  I didn't go.  I had made commitments to do two other things yesterday evening and night.  Frankly, from what I experienced at the CRC meeting before last night's, I would have preferred a root canal to sitting through another of those.  And from what I'm told, I guessed right.

I don't know what happened at the meeting.  I hope someone who was there and who reads this blog post will give some of the knock down, drag out.  What I was told was that Judith Gersten harassed and unloaded on Dan Keys in the same way she harassed and unloaded on Roxy Ross, and Dan Keys, and me, in the prior meeting.

As I said, I don't know what this was supposedly about.  If it was anything like the last meeting, it wasn't about anything, except being nasty.  What a waste of an opportunity to have the honor to review the Charter.

I don't know if it should be counted as a further waste, or the opposite of a waste (it depends on your perspective), for me to suppose that Rebecca Rodriguez was there, too, merrily experiencing the ticking of the lawyer's clock.

One of the Stepford CRC members, Kate Eaton, was appointed to the BP Foundation just this week.  I don't suppose Kate thought maybe she shouldn't be on two unrelated work groups at the same time.  I hope she thought that.  It would be great not to have her vacant smile and bobbing head on the CRC.  The CRC is supposed to be a serious endeavor, although clearly, neither the CRC nor the current Commission treats it that way.

Is It Friday, December 6, Already?

Apparently, it is.  I'm reminded of that fact, because Art Gonzalez just sent out an e-mail to let his neighbors know to come to his house from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM today.  Art is hosting a Meet Mac Kennedy event, and he and Mac are eager to meet and be met by neighbors.

Art lives at 10926 Griffing Boulevard.  He says he'll answer the door from about 6:00 to about 7:00.  If anyone arrives after that, they should just make their own ways around the side gate to the back yard.

So, go meet Mac, if you don't know him already.  Tell him you'll vote for him, or you have reasons why you won't (and it's his job to change your mind), or grill him until you've decided.

The election is on Tuesday, January 7, at the recreation center building.  (That's where elections held in BP always are.)

On another note, Linda Dillon just sent out an e-mail to say there's a formal and highly structured Meet (All) the Candidates event on Thursday, December 19, at 7:00 PM, also at the recreation center.  If the meet Mac event is sort of partisan, Linda's event, which is co-sponsored with Judi Hamelburg, is not.  So, try to get to both events.  Not to be too heavy-handed about it, but it might make a huge difference for whom you vote in January.