The time is quickly approaching for the Village and its Commission to begin to make a decision about sanitation.
I might as well make a confession here. It's probably clear enough anyway, but I should be on record about it. At the beginning of this conversation, I was very much opposed to outsourcing sanitation. I felt the same way you do, and for the same reasons. But the more I studied the matter, the more I talked to people, and the more I learned and thought carefully about it, the more I have changed my thinking about outsourcing. I think it's the right thing for the Village to do, it's better organized and more efficient than our current system, it will produce extra income that is otherwise not easy to get, and it will leave us with the same service we will have if we don't outsource. We have more control over sanitation if we contract it out. And it's much cheaper for each of us as homeowners than trying to accomplish exactly the same things if we don't outsource.
I have been having a philosophical debate with myself about this issue. Is it my job to advocate for the satisfaction of my neighbors' wishes, or is it my job to do what I think is best for the Village, whether my neighbors like it or not? And if the former, for which neighbors' wishes should I advocate?
Well, I've found a partial way out of the dilemma in the case of sanitation. It's true the Village gets more money for less work if we outsource, but if we compensate ourselves for the money we would have gotten with outsourcing, it comes out to a kind of wash for the Village. Except for the extra management requirement. It makes a very big difference to each of us homeowners, who have to pay the extra money, but it can be more or less equal for the Village fiscally. There's a way I can advocate for the wishes of people who, for whatever reasons, don't want to outsource sanitation, while protecting the Village at the same time. Partially and more or less.
The very clear fact is that many of us don't want to outsource sanitation. We've seen and heard it all, but some of us just like it the way it is. It doesn't have to be rational, it's just the way some of us feel. One of our neighbors, a friend of mine, says the numbers make clear we should outsource, but she just doesn't want to. Got it.
So here's what I have decided to do. I've decided that if my neighbors want to keep sanitation under Village Hall's roof, and they're willing to pay what it will cost the Village, who am I to vote to take it away from them? If you don't want to outsource sanitation, and you're willing to pay the cost, my vote and I are yours. All I ask is that this is really what you want, that you're really committed to paying for it, and that what you want is what most of us want.
There won't be any problem for you and me if we agree with each other to pay a higher sanitation bill. You've already offered to do that. The problem will come when we tell our other neighbors that we've decided to have them pay a much higher bill, too. What will happen if I advocate for you, and we don't outsource, and sanitation fees get really high, is that someone, not you, will want a word with me. They'll want to complain, vigorously, that I have stuck them with a bill they don't want to pay, and it was their understanding there was a way they didn't have to. They won't come to you. They'll come to me.
So I need you to bail me out. I need you to explain to your neighbors, and convince them, that outsourcing is not what they/we want, and that they should be agreeable to pay much more than they've been paying and more than they might otherwise have to pay to get their refuse removed. Now I know you won't convince everyone, but I need you to convince a lot of people. I need to vote on behalf of a very healthy majority.
Let me present you a model of what you might do. A year and a half ago, there was a question of moving the BP election to combine it with the general election. It seemed to me to be a good idea, because it would be cheaper for the Village, and we would get many more people to vote. So some of my BP neighbors and I had nice flyers printed, we paid for those flyers, we put our names and telephone numbers on those flyers, and we went door-to-door distributing them. Every home in BP got one. It was unquestionably money equity and sweat equity. If someone was home, we took the time to talk to them, to explain why this seemed like such a good idea, and why they should vote to do it. To me, moving the election was as obviously a good thing to do as not outsourcing sanitation is to you. I and my neighbors put our money and more where our mouths were. I guess I would have to say we succeeded in convincing people, because they voted to move the election. It's moved.
That's what I'm asking you to do. Go convince people. Convince most people. Do it for me, so I can do something for you. Plenty of people will get mad at me for wasting their money, so produce an irresistible majority that I can feel I am legitimately representing. Not a majority of people in a certain room at a certain time on a certain day, but a majority of all the people who write checks to pay their sanitation bills, and a majority of people who can vote. And put yourselves out there. Let your neighbors know who you are, and that it's you who want not to outsource. Maybe when some of them get incensed, they will remember you, and they'll come talk to you about it. If they come to me, I'll remind them that it was you who saw the community value in keeping sanitation the way it is. I will advocate for you. But remember, as there were more of you at a given meeting, urging that we don't outsource, than there were neighbors who thought we should, there are vastly more BP residents who don't bother to come to these meetings at all. They don't even bother to vote. They seem very uninvolved. Do you want to guess what they think about things like our PW department and the sanitation bill? Couldn't care less; just want lower bills and the garbage picked up? That's my guess, too. I will hear from them when their bill suddenly increases substantially. Those neighbors are your challenge.
I don't want to pay an inflated price for something that can be inexpensive. But I'm just one person, and I'll do it, if that's what you want. I'll be OK with it. I won't be OK with fighting your battles for you, though. Especially if I think you were wrong to pick them.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Sunday, April 6, 2014
How Many Addenda Could There Be to the "Privilege, and Responsibility" Post?
It was brought to my attention on Saturday that Noah Jacobs was complaining bitterly about the "Privilege, And Responsibility" post. He was portrayed as being on some sort of rampage about it. I was not told what was the content of his complaint. So I reached out to him to offer him an opportunity either to post a comment/complaint below the post, or to take a whole post as a guest author, so he could tell us all whatever he wanted. He declined. He did, however, give me some sense of what his gripe was.
As best I was able to understand it, he thought I either misunderstood or distorted his facebook comment, and that at the very least, I was incomplete in summarizing it. Noah sent me a more or less complete e-mail complaint about what he considered my mishandling of this issue. Since Noah did in fact decline an opportunity to explain this to us himself, other than telling it to me via e-mail, I will not reprint his e-mail here. I will not do for or to him what he did not want to do for or to himself. I will, however, reprint his facebook comment. It says, in its entirety,
"Just so all of you residents know... our three top police officers have been suspended with pay. No charges have been filed by the state attorney's office. The Village Manager and the entire Commission won't say why. I really think we should know who's in charge of protecting us in their absence. I really like these guys and to quote former commissioner Bernard" this is bizarre" .
The ellipsis is Noah's. I have preserved the punctuation errors, so as not to tamper with this post in any way.
The intention of the "Privilege, And Responsibility" post was to address one specific problem, committed mostly by Steve Bernard, and merely requoted by Noah. It's true that Noah significantly compounds the problem with his facebook post, but that was not my point.
Since Noah brings it up, however, we can examine exactly what he and Steve did that was problematic. I have already fully quoted Steve, at least to the extent Charles Rabin quoted him, and there is nothing more to be said about that. Noah takes this problem a few significant steps further.
First, Noah quotes Rabin, too, in informing his followers that "our three top police officers have been suspended with pay [and] no charges have been filed by the state attorney's office." I have no reason to suppose that Noah checked with BP administration to confirm if this was true. I was not told he did. What is crystal clear, however, is that if that statement was true, it would be precisely the kind of information of which the silence of an investigation would be intended to prevent dissemination. My point about Steve and Noah was that each of them has been in the unique position to know that some matters are exquisitely delicate and should not be made public, at least at a given point in time. Either of them, most certainly including Noah under this circumstance, should have known 1) that he had no information, at least no reliable information, and 2) that if he thought what was suggested to him might be true, he should contact the Manager for confirmation, if available, and permission to publicize. In this case, I have every confidence that the Manager would have told Noah not to make public this assertion, whether it was true or not. Again, this is precisely the kind of assertion that was not fit for dissemination. But my other, more salient, point is that Noah, and Steve, had every reason, and more reason than most people, to know this. They have very much "been there."
Noah's second point in his facebook post was that "we should know who's in charge" of our police force. Should we? If the whole matter is not to be known at this point, and if it is the Manager's job to see to Village functioning, including the police, it may well be that we shouldn't know anything, and that we should, even in retrospect, confidently assume that things are under control, unless the Manager says they're not. I don't think Noah is at all correct here. A few weeks ago, our Chief was away in Broward at a two-week seminar. This is true. Should Noah and the rest of us have been informed that the Chief was off site for two weeks, but we should not worry, because there was a functioning chain of command in his absence? What about when the Chief, or anyone else on the force, is on vacation? What does Noah, and what do the rest of us, need to know during that interval?
Third, Noah, explicitly sharing Steve's frustration, requotes Steve's declaration that the whole thing is "bizarre." Noah further explains that what makes it bizarre to him is that he "like[s] these guys." That's why the possibility of some unrevealed personnel action, reportedly possibly based on "misdeeds," is "bizarre?" Because Noah "like[s] these guys?" If he, or Steve, or all the rest of us, like them, then there couldn't be anything wrong, and it would be "bizarre" if there was? Either Noah is saying, in complaining both on facebook and to me, that unexpected things cannot happen, or he and Steve are protesting that they were unaware if something unexpected was happening. It would be "bizarre," they conclude, if something unexpected was happening, and they were not told about it. But isn't that exactly the point? Isn't the whole concept of confidential and non-public investigation supposed to prevent public dissemination of information? Even to them (perish the thought, apparently)? And shouldn't Noah and Steve, more than most people, know that very well? So what, exactly, is the complaint from these two?
Noah made one final criticism of me in the e-mail he sent. He said I should properly have reassured my neighbors, even if I had to go door-to-door to do it. He seems to have forgotten, or to have overlooked or ignored, or perhaps, amazingly, not to have comprehended, that I couldn't say anything. What little I knew was not for me to repeat. To anyone, and under any circumstances. Noah criticizes me for not being as indiscriminate and disrespectful of protocol as he is. You know what, Noah? Guilty as charged.
As best I was able to understand it, he thought I either misunderstood or distorted his facebook comment, and that at the very least, I was incomplete in summarizing it. Noah sent me a more or less complete e-mail complaint about what he considered my mishandling of this issue. Since Noah did in fact decline an opportunity to explain this to us himself, other than telling it to me via e-mail, I will not reprint his e-mail here. I will not do for or to him what he did not want to do for or to himself. I will, however, reprint his facebook comment. It says, in its entirety,
"Just so all of you residents know... our three top police officers have been suspended with pay. No charges have been filed by the state attorney's office. The Village Manager and the entire Commission won't say why. I really think we should know who's in charge of protecting us in their absence. I really like these guys and to quote former commissioner Bernard" this is bizarre" .
The ellipsis is Noah's. I have preserved the punctuation errors, so as not to tamper with this post in any way.
The intention of the "Privilege, And Responsibility" post was to address one specific problem, committed mostly by Steve Bernard, and merely requoted by Noah. It's true that Noah significantly compounds the problem with his facebook post, but that was not my point.
Since Noah brings it up, however, we can examine exactly what he and Steve did that was problematic. I have already fully quoted Steve, at least to the extent Charles Rabin quoted him, and there is nothing more to be said about that. Noah takes this problem a few significant steps further.
First, Noah quotes Rabin, too, in informing his followers that "our three top police officers have been suspended with pay [and] no charges have been filed by the state attorney's office." I have no reason to suppose that Noah checked with BP administration to confirm if this was true. I was not told he did. What is crystal clear, however, is that if that statement was true, it would be precisely the kind of information of which the silence of an investigation would be intended to prevent dissemination. My point about Steve and Noah was that each of them has been in the unique position to know that some matters are exquisitely delicate and should not be made public, at least at a given point in time. Either of them, most certainly including Noah under this circumstance, should have known 1) that he had no information, at least no reliable information, and 2) that if he thought what was suggested to him might be true, he should contact the Manager for confirmation, if available, and permission to publicize. In this case, I have every confidence that the Manager would have told Noah not to make public this assertion, whether it was true or not. Again, this is precisely the kind of assertion that was not fit for dissemination. But my other, more salient, point is that Noah, and Steve, had every reason, and more reason than most people, to know this. They have very much "been there."
Noah's second point in his facebook post was that "we should know who's in charge" of our police force. Should we? If the whole matter is not to be known at this point, and if it is the Manager's job to see to Village functioning, including the police, it may well be that we shouldn't know anything, and that we should, even in retrospect, confidently assume that things are under control, unless the Manager says they're not. I don't think Noah is at all correct here. A few weeks ago, our Chief was away in Broward at a two-week seminar. This is true. Should Noah and the rest of us have been informed that the Chief was off site for two weeks, but we should not worry, because there was a functioning chain of command in his absence? What about when the Chief, or anyone else on the force, is on vacation? What does Noah, and what do the rest of us, need to know during that interval?
Third, Noah, explicitly sharing Steve's frustration, requotes Steve's declaration that the whole thing is "bizarre." Noah further explains that what makes it bizarre to him is that he "like[s] these guys." That's why the possibility of some unrevealed personnel action, reportedly possibly based on "misdeeds," is "bizarre?" Because Noah "like[s] these guys?" If he, or Steve, or all the rest of us, like them, then there couldn't be anything wrong, and it would be "bizarre" if there was? Either Noah is saying, in complaining both on facebook and to me, that unexpected things cannot happen, or he and Steve are protesting that they were unaware if something unexpected was happening. It would be "bizarre," they conclude, if something unexpected was happening, and they were not told about it. But isn't that exactly the point? Isn't the whole concept of confidential and non-public investigation supposed to prevent public dissemination of information? Even to them (perish the thought, apparently)? And shouldn't Noah and Steve, more than most people, know that very well? So what, exactly, is the complaint from these two?
Noah made one final criticism of me in the e-mail he sent. He said I should properly have reassured my neighbors, even if I had to go door-to-door to do it. He seems to have forgotten, or to have overlooked or ignored, or perhaps, amazingly, not to have comprehended, that I couldn't say anything. What little I knew was not for me to repeat. To anyone, and under any circumstances. Noah criticizes me for not being as indiscriminate and disrespectful of protocol as he is. You know what, Noah? Guilty as charged.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Addendum to "Privilege, and Responsibility"
Ronald Reagan famously cautioned us to "Trust, But Verify." Now is the time to trust. The time to verify will come. This is a very difficult matter, and it is being handled remarkably well.
Privilege, and Responsibility
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)