"I Like Hearing Myself Talk. It Is One of My Greatest Pleasures." Oscar Wilde

Tonight, we sat through the overflow agenda from last week's Commission meeting.  Tracy Truppman had stopped the meeting after about 3 1/4 hours, because there were other items she wanted to discuss, and she felt they needed adequate time.  And she should have known how much time they would have needed, since almost all of them were her issues.  Tonight, she apologized for having had to schedule this extra meeting, and she blamed the necessity on the variance exploration from last week.  Yeah, that's where the fault lies.

I'll tell you now that tonight's overflow took three hours.  As someone in the audience pointed out, that was 6 1/4 hours to do one meeting.  And that's under the guidance of a Mayor who's showing us how to streamline meetings, to keep them short.

Here was the overflow agenda:

13.c  Discussion of the hiring of reserve police officers.  Johnson-Sardella.  This consumed some time, at the end of which, we learned that it is the Manager and the Police Chief who determine how many officers, including reserves, we need, and they have not in any way inhibited or failed to consider applicants.  We had 21 last year, and of those, we hired two.  We wanted quality, not just quantity.  So this item actually didn't need to come up at the meeting tonight.  It was already attended to.  Had the sponsor of the item discussed it with the Manager first, she would have discovered there was nothing to discuss.

13.d  Discussion on Police Department: Shift in policy to address overtime expenditures, proactive policing, increased enforcement, and visibility.  Truppman.   We learned in public comment at the beginning of the meeting that changes have already been made, under the appropriate direction of the Manager and Police Chief.  This was the Manager's purview (as was pointed out about several topics tonight), and it did not require formal discussion from the Commission.  As above, had the sponsor of this item discussed it first with the Manager, she would have learned that the discussion was not necessary.  There was a good deal of it, though.  Tick, tick, tick.

13.e  Setting Policy for Job Requirements for Chief of Police.  Truppman.  It was never clear what this item was supposed to be about, but what became very clear was that the Manager was already managing the hiring very well, and this discussion did not need to take place.  What it needed was for the sponsor to discuss it with the Manager, before placing it on the Commission agenda.

13.f    Discussion on Log Cabin fire suppression and detection/alarm system status and fire alarm system in the Village Hall.  Truppman.  This was probably the lengthiest discussion of the evening.  Tracy Truppman was having a devil of a time trying to decide what she wanted to accomplish.  Apart, of course, from her central aim, which was to use lots of engineering terms.  She kept saying she only wanted to "look forward," but she could not for a given whole minute refrain from raking one or another person over the coals.  If it wasn't the former Manager, then it was the building inspector, or the contractor, or the prior Commission.  But mainly, she was more than content to channel Oscar Wilde.  And at various points on the long, long course of this meeting, she sort of (sort of) apologized for "monopolizing" the meeting, as if she would have had it any other way.  She could see it, but she couldn't stop it/herself.  But back to the tragedy of the log cabin and the Village Hall, Tracy repeatedly pointed out how endangered occupants of these two buildings were, because no one inspected them properly!!  The Village resident sitting next to me leaned over and pointed out how much more expeditious it would have been if Tracy had simply had this discussion with the Manager a month or two ago, and the problem would have been resolved by now.  Thus saving building occupants from the danger under which Tracy saw them as laboring.  Sure, sure the problem would have been solved, but then Tracy would not have been able to hold court before her subjects, and been able to show how perspicacious she is.  And she very much made sure we all knew.  Most of her comments were made to the microphone, while Tracy gazed out among the audience.  This discussion wasn't about safety.  It was for show.  The Tracy Truppman Show, starring Tracy...Truppman.

13.g  Discussion on the amendments to the Charter corresponding with a special election timelines (sic).  Truppman.  Tracy surprised me here.  So many of her neighbors spoke against her attempted "power grab" that she actually retrenched on this one.  But she still wants someone to have more control over the hirings of "all Village employees."  She did, however, agree to hold meetings, and even perhaps seat a newest Charter Review Committee.  (If these descriptions give the impression that Tracy spoke as if she thought all decision-making was up to her, she did.)  And it took Tracy way too long even to relent on the effort to force this through.

13.h  Resolution [to have a special election to replace David Coviello].  With more experience, Tracy will learn that matters like this one don't require discussion.  They are obvious, and they are very quickly passed.

And that's where three hours went tonight.  Had Tracy been at all moderate, and had she had any real sense of proportion, this agenda would have been accomplished in an hour or less last week.  But I'm sure the Village Attorney isn't complaining that Tracy took two more hours than were remotely necessary.

OK, I Surrender. Thank "God."

"The Tracy Truppman Show, Starring Tracy...Truppman" is better than "The Noah Jacobs Show, Starring Noah...Jacobs."  It's less crazy, less raging (although still with moments of the hostess' bitterness), and more goal-directed.  It lasts just as long, or perhaps longer (because it had to be adjourned, to be continued some other day), and somehow manages not to get quite enough done.  And it has that same focus on the central character.  At one point, Tracy apologized for "monopolizing."  So she perceived it.  She just couldn't stop herself.

Admittedly, it was an ambitious agenda, and part of it took a deservedly long time.  There was a complicated variance issue that involved various and ranging and contradictory testimony which resulted in more questions than answers.  The end result, although fair, was unsatisfying, because it left the petitioner very unhappy.  But within this matter we could see how parts of this new Commission might coalesce.  And it was interesting to observe.

No one would say the matter wasn't complicated.  It very much was.  And it involved neighbors who were accusing each other of various forms of misbehavior.  The question came down to whom to believe: never a happy place to be.  But there was a convenient way out for the Commission.  It could decide, as it did, that the petitioner had an argument that could not be supported, because the old records were gone, so he could not prove his case.  The decision therefore went against him.  This was a bit of a technicality, or a cop-out, but it allowed the matter to be settled.  But it was a very difficult conclusion at which to arrive.

When it came time to make a motion-- to support the petition for the variance, or to deny it-- none of the Commissioners said anything for what seemed like many seconds.  My own thought was that this required finesse and intelligence, and that if either Roxy Ross or David Coviello made any motion at all, the other three would agree to it, since they didn't know what they were doing.  But Roxy and David reserved input, letting the others figure out what to do.  It was finally Jenny Johnson-Sardella who made the motion, and she relied entirely on comments Roxy had made, and avenues of inquiry Roxy had pursued in her exploration of the matter.  Jenny's motion was seconded, and it was passed 4-1.  The outlier was Will Tudor, who throughout the meeting made repeatedly clear that he had no idea what was going on, or what his tenure was about.  On this occasion, he said he could not vote in favor of the motion (although it had to be explained to him what a no vote or a yes vote on this motion to deny implied), because the matter was too unclear.  Yes, that's exactly right, Will.  That's the job for which you applied.  I know you're only there to stop someone from making you have a driveway on your property, but in the meantime, there are lots and lots of other tasks.  And they're all yours.

Then, there was the matter of the police.   We're in a bit of trouble.  The Chief is gone, and our detective has resigned.  We're down manpower.  And we have no Chief.  Sharon Ragoonan said she was refused by two people before Nick Wollschlager grudgingly agreed to be the acting Chief.  Sharon was very happy, and relieved, that Nick agreed, and the matter at hand last night was how to compensate Nick.  He's still doing his old Corporal's job, the new Chief's job, he's totally enthusiastic and effective (and very well-liked among the rest of our force), and he's somehow available for consultation 24/7.  He represents what Sharon described as substantial "intangibles" to the neighborhood.  So Sharon calculated that we should continue to give him his regular salary, and supplement it by $5000 per month.

Tracy agreed that Nick does a wonderful job and is a wonderful asset to the Village.  And she felt a raise was more than appropriate.  She did not, however, think an extra $5000 per month was reasonable.  She was concerned about the budget, and she just felt an extra $5000 per month was, well, just too much more than Nick was already making.  She thought maybe like $2500 more, or $2000 more, would be the right amount.  She described Sharon's suggestion of $5000 more per month as "irrational."

Sharon's calculation that Nick would be doing two jobs, and was available for X number of hours per week, was reality-based, and therefore rational.  Her introduction of "intangibles" would be considered at least semi-rational, coming from someone who understands about the influence of good workers and good leaders in a work environment.  What was completely irrational was Tracy's personal, idiosyncratic sense that $5000 per month seemed to her like a lot of money, and that some other arbitrary figure, like $2500, or $2000, seemed somehow better.

So the argument continued, until everyone who wanted to speak had spoken, and a vote had to be taken.  The vote was unanimous to give Nick the $5000 per month raise.  Amazingly, inexplicably, and very irrationally, Tracy voted against every argument she herself made in opposition to the amount of the raise.

Somewhere, in one of the discussions, Tracy relinquished the floor to allow Roxy to speak.  Roxy said something, and Tracy cut her off, accusing her of being out of line.  Roxy pointed out to Tracy that she was only speaking, because Tracy had recognized her and allowed her to speak.  Before the meeting began, while we were all waiting outside, I got to talking to someone who had had a conversation with Bryan Cooper, about Cooper's Commission tenure.  The person asked Cooper why he didn't resign, as he seemed to have no role on the Commission, and didn't seem to want to be there.  Cooper told him that his mission on the Commission was to give Roxy Ross the hardest time he (and Steve Bernard, and later Noah Jacobs) possibly could.  In the last meeting of our new Commission, Roxy suggested a standard civility Resolution.  Tracy, Jenny, and Will joined together to defeat this completely normal and friendly Resolution.  It seems they've been handed a baton.

A lot didn't get done last night.  Tracy had had enough by before 10:30.  Roxy and Sharon persuaded her to take up just two more important and timely matters.  One of them was producing a list of priorities for our lobbyist, who needs to know what funding to try to get from the State legislature.  The Commission worked up a list of maybe eight wish list items, and Sharon suggested the lobbyist would do better with a list of maybe two items.  Tracy decided to ask those of her neighbors who remained at that hour, instead of having the Commissioners decide.  Tracy pointed out more than once that she's new at this.  And how.

An important matter that didn't get discussed, and that stimulated several or many public comments early in the meeting, was Tracy's suggestion that Commissioners, including the new ones, should have ultimate authority to hire new department heads.  This is the responsibility of the Manager, as established by a Charter Review Committee in 2005, confirmed by the Commission that year, reconfirmed by the Village residents at large through referendum, reconfirmed again by a Charter Review Committee in 2015, and reconfirmed by the then Commission that year.  Tracy, who has had no meaningful involvement with Village functioning, no meaningful involvement with the Village Administration, and is newly on the Commission, decided that the Manager should not have the sole authority to hire new department heads, but that the Charter should be changed to position Commissioners to have overarching powers here.  And Tracy would like to start now, just as we are hiring a new police Chief, and a new Recreation Director.  Tracy sees this is so urgent that she is not interested in the scrutiny and contemplation of yet another Charter Review Committee, and she doesn't want to wait for a proper electorate.  She wants it sneaked in at the special election to replace David Coviello, who is resigning his Commission seat at the end of March.  Tracy wants to rely on the smallest possible voter turnout, ASAP, and she's not interested in workshops.  More of us spoke against this kind of what Mac Kennedy properly called a "power grab" than those who favored it.  The matter was a casualty of the long variance discussion and poor clock management, and it will be considered at the make-up meeting, to complete last night's agenda, on January 19.  7:00.  Log Cabin.

Thinking back on this meeting, it seems to have been the new Commission's salvation that Roxy Ross and David Coviello are still on it, and that Sharon Ragoonan has assertiveness and a very level head.  "Thank 'God'" they were there.  And Jenny Johnson-Sardella showed some promise as well.

The Big Picture

I sent the following e-mail to the Commissioners on 1/6/17.

Commissioners,

Some of you know the history of the current Charter provisions, and some of you may not.  In consideration of item 13.c in the upcoming Agenda, that history may bear some recalling.

Until 2005, the Village's functions were overseen by its Commissioners.  These people were, municipal management-wise, lay people.  Sometimes, they did a better job than at other times, but none of them were experts in the tasks at hand.

In 2005, the then Charter Review Committee concluded that the Village should have professional management, and it forwarded that consensus to the then Commission.  That Commission agreed (I'm not sure if it was unanimous), and it further submitted the concept to the Village residents at large, as such a change was a Charter change, and could not be ratified without a referendum.  The concept of changing from lay management to professional management was adopted by the Village residents voting that year.  So three groups of people-- the Charter Review Committee, the Commission, and the residents at large-- all agreed that professional management would be better than lay management.  And to demonstrate their commitment to this change, the then Commissioners also agreed to decrease their stipends from the Village.  There was nothing uncertain or tentative about this repeatedly confirmed change.

We have had three professional managers before the current one.  The first one was terrible, did nothing for us, and was a desperation choice, since we did not know how to choose a manager.  The second manager did substantial and very important things for the Village.  Her tenure with us ended for two reasons.  One was that the then Commission, the majority of which had no agenda, no direction, and no relevant experience, did the only thing they could have done: they rode the manager, and refused every attempt she made to help them function.  The other reason she left was that in the midst of this, the manager, who had already begun "looking," got a very advantageous offer from another municipality.  The third manager also did some very good things for the Village-- she will long be remembered for the successes she oversaw-- but her personality-based issues got in the way, and she made a couple of very bad mistakes.  She resigned under heavy criticism, some of which was scapegoating.

We now have a new manager.  Three of you had no role in choosing her, although you very much could have.  I, for one, made a public offer that anyone who was considering running for Commission, which each of you was then, could contact me early in the process, and I would have gone out of my way to include you and take into consideration your views.  None of the three of you accepted my offer.  One of you did contact me very late in the process-- when it was too late-- to tell me that the manager we finally did hire was, in this person's opinion, a poor choice, and that the best choice would have been someone who had already been eliminated.

You are now, as suggested by item 13.c, considering undermining the prerogatives of the manager, and imposing yourselves as arbiters of the manager's choices.  This kind of suggestion goes in the opposite direction of what a past Charter Review Committee, and a past Commission, and a consensus of your neighbors, wanted.  You may want to give that very careful reconsideration, before you go against everyone.

And part of your expressed theory is that some subsequent Charter Review Committee (a Charter Re-Review Committee) made a recommendation to the then Commission, which was the immediate preceding Commission, in 2015.  If you will examine that Charter Re-Review Committee's recommendation (included in the backup), it was that no change in the Charter was recommended.  So you're going against two Charter Review Committees, two Commissions, and the consensus of your neighbors.  I don't know if it's your math that's funky, or your philosophizing.

We have a system.  It works.  It doesn't please everyone, any more than anything pleases everyone.  None of you is expert in municipal management, and you frankly have no business imposing yourselves on the manager or the process and structure that have been created.  And even if each of you happened to be retired, or even active, municipal managers in other municipalities, what you are proposing is a Charter change.  It remains in effect even into the very distant future, when you are no longer Commissioners.

The Commission has a role in BP, and it's an important role.  That role is not demeaning professional managers, and having them come to you like school children for your approval.  Professional managers know vastly more than you do about how to manage municipalities.  Don't get yourselves so confused and disoriented that you forget that.

On your agenda for the upcoming Commission meeting, you have a couple of items that reflect the impressions of some of your neighbors, and perhaps of you yourselves, that it seems as if police visibility has decreased, or that crime has increased.  Telling that to the manager, who will review it with the police chief, is your job.  Imposing yourselves as determiners of who is hired as police chief, or how many reserve officers the Village should have, is not your job.

You talk about saving money, and you itemize a couple of areas of possible savings.  What you propose is meaningless.  (Let alone that it's really not your call.)  If you could save a couple thousand dollars, or a couple tens of thousands of dollars, this does nothing to solve the Village's real fiscal problems, and it does not even provide a meaningful basis upon which to try to lower taxes (also irrational, given our fiscal situation-- nice demagoguery, though).

Big picture.  That's your job.

Fred 

PS: I see that part of your theory as to why we could manage the manager differently than we do is that some other municipalities do it differently.  Yes, I'm sure some do.  And some probably don't.  But if you want to be like other municipalities, how hard did you try to get the Commissions, and your neighbors, to back annexation, so we would have a commercial component, as your models do?  Except, of course, Golden Beach.  We can't be on the ocean, as they are, but what are you proposing to do to create for us the look, order, and value that allows Golden Beach properties to have such a high assessed value that they don't need a commercial component?  Can I assume that the first thing you'll want to do is get cars off the swales, and tidily onto driveways on the property?  And will you be encouraging the Code Review Committee to offer you a plan for high class landscaping on private properties, as well, of course, as in our medians?

If you're going to talk the talk, then walk the walk.

I received the following reply the next day from Jenny Johnson-Sardella

Fred,

Thank you for your email and advice. 

Regards,

No other replies were received.

Perspective and Focus, Dan Keys. It's the Medians.

Dan Keys and I have had this conversation many times.  Some of those times have been private, and some have been public, either in public meetings, on Nextdoor Biscayne Park, and even in comments to posts in this blog.  Dan remains intransigent on the matter, and he generally manages to find me, and the topic, more or less comfortable to dismiss.  So I thought maybe a more formal and stand-alone airing here might be deserved by the topic, and it might stimulate more thinking and even expression of opinion.

It should also be noted that one of Dan's complaints about management of this issue is that individual Village residents (I think of Harvey Bilt, Chester Morris, and whoever put the pandanus in the median at 10th Avenue and 115th  Street) sometimes get frustrated and simply take it upon themselves to make improvements.  Dan objects to acts like these.  But it seems he leaves Village residents who care about the medians, and their own properties, no other choice.

Dan will say in his defense that he doesn't act alone.  This is partially true.  He sometimes relies on some form of consensus from the Parks and Parkways Board, of which he is the Chair.  But he has managed this Board in a very particular way, trying (generally successfully) over time to extrude members he can't control. At other times, he simply does an end around the whole concept of the Board, and he "makes himself available" to be asked, such as by one or another Manager, to make a plan, which he does on his own.

Oddly enough, although Dan seems averse to having the input of other people in creating landscape designs, he has enjoyed success in getting many of us to help him with the actual installation of plants.  I wonder if this seems as much a one way street to Dan as it does to those of us who are happy to help, but feel shut out of the planning process.


Dan,

For some years now, you and I have been having an endless argument.  It's been endless because you won't do what I ask, and I won't stop asking.  The issue is the Village's medians, which I consider inadequately developed (and therefore not the aesthetic and functional features I think they should be).  You, on the other hand, have responded by identifying a variety of reasons the medians could not or should not be better developed.  Your reasons include things like cost, maintenance, selection of materials, and some more loosely related concerns.  But, as what I believe is an important, and possibly critically important, frame of reference, I don't believe you ever said we should not further develop the medians-- further than they are-- because you think they look very nice already, or as nice as they could or should look.  I have never been given reason to think you believe that, and I have never heard anyone else say they thought it, either.

I want to put you in mind of a few ways of looking at this matter, Dan.  About two years ago, you sent to all of the then Commissioners an e-mail.  You had gotten it from somewhere, and for whatever reason, you thought the Village, through its Commission, should be aware of it.  The e-mail was an educational one-- of sorts-- and it had to do with pruning trees.  If I remember correctly, it described five mistakes that should not be made in how trees are pruned and maintained.  As it turns out, Dan, I happened to be particularly interested in this e-mail from you.  At least, I was at the outset.  The fact is, I'm not an arborist, I've heard it makes a difference how trees are pruned, and it just so happened I actually wanted to know what was the proper approach to this task.  But I never found out.  All I learned, having read carefully what you sent, was how not to prune a tree.  Given a tree, and a chainsaw, I still didn't know what to do.  And I don't today.  Dan, you do versions of this a lot.  And every time you do it, in every setting in which you do it, it is as useless, and frustrating, as it was the day I didn't learn how properly to prune a tree.

Do you know the joke line, "the operation was a success, and the patient died?"  Consider all the reasons you always give as to why and where caution has to be taken, and caveats applied, to the project of median development and maintenance.  Being respectful of all those caveats is the operation.  Now, go look at the medians.  That's the patient.  You've been very, very careful, Dan.  You have cautioned the Village to avoid many traps and pitfalls.  You've urged us to save ourselves from many mistakes of many kinds in attending to our medians.  The result is medians that are awful, and in no way the credit they should be to a neighborhood that is uniquely endowed with medians.  Your operation is a success, Dan.  And the patient is dead.

In that connection, have you ever heard the aphorism "the best (or perfection) is the enemy of the good?"  In the interest of saving the Village from imperfections, you have left us with something that isn't good.  In fact, it's bad.  I'm quite sure you've heard the saying "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face."  That is what the Village has done, at your very strong and unwavering encouragement.

I'm going to ask you to reconsider, and think through the approach you have taken to the Village's medians.  Dan, you say you have some relevant training in this area, you had a career in something to do with landscaping or public works or something, and you have always encouraged the Village to rely on you, and to consider you some sort of expert, in matters related to this.  And the Village has accepted your offer.  You have even shown us partial versions of what you have suggested we could expect from your taste and judgment, by doing smaller scale designs for us, like of our southern 6th Avenue entry.  So the Village is even more inclined to assume you have special and applicable expertise and value.  If that's what you wanted us to think, you succeeded in getting us to think it.  So now, Dan, give us the help we really need from you.  And if you won't, then take personal responsibility for what our medians look like.

Fred

Oh, Yeah. That.

Today, Tracy Truppman held what she called a workshop to discuss the Village's police function, and "Codes."  The latter was more broadly a discussion of the general condition, and the visual impression, of the Village and its properties.

Tracy organized the event for today, and it appears enough of her colleagues knew in advance about it that she didn't have to ask them if they liked the idea, and if they were available for today.  Only Roxy Ross and David Coviello had to check their schedules, to see if they were free.  How all that was known by two of Tracy's colleagues, before the meeting at which it was announced, is a mystery.

The meeting was Tracy's solicitation to her neighbors, to find out what they thought, and what they wanted.  And the answer was various, as it always is.  The meeting was divided into sections in which the police were discussed, and Code was discussed.

There were lots of thoughts, ideas, and wishes regarding the various domains of enforcement, but the bottom line of each consideration was the same: we have limited resources.  We can wish for all the police, and all the Code compliance, we want, but if we can't afford more officers, or speed bumps or humps or tables, or more coordinated Codes, or a new Code Officer vehicle (ours is now out of commission, and we temporarily rely on a loaner from Sunny Isles), we really can't move forward with anything.

And that's the way it always is around here.  Even during the Meet the Candidates event, each and every candidate identified as our biggest problem our fiscal limitation.  But instead of a real effort to solve that problem-- our acknowledged biggest problem-- we give ourselves over to fantasizing about how we'd like it to be.  In the ways it can't be.  Because we can't afford it to be that way.

Barbara Kuhl made a point Janey Anderson also makes: the Village as a municipal entity should lead the way, if not at least play by the same rules, regarding an adequate standard of order and visual appeal.  And that point was indirectly reinforced by the police-related concern regarding people who cut/drive across our medians.  They're not supposed to, but they do it anyway, and they don't get caught.  The concept during that part of the discussion was that our meager police force should, in addition to all the other places two officers should simultaneously be, always be there to catch and ticket people driving across the medians.  Or parking on them.

I had nothing to do with this.  I didn't say a word.  It was one of our newer 117th St. neighbors who seemed to put two and two together, and hit upon what seemed to be the kill-two-birds-with-one-stone logic that if we planted in the medians, people wouldn't park or drive on them.  They couldn't, if the medians were occupied with trees and shrubs.  From the mouths of "babes," it would seem.  The poor man had in mind that we should have beautiful medians, as they do in other municipalities nearby.  Like it would be a good thing for us somehow, to have our medians look better.  So he simply thought...  Oh, never mind.

If, in the future, Dan Keys is remembered for anything in BP, I suspect it will be for his unflinching intransigence regarding improving the medians.  As much as he possibly can, he refuses to see it done.  And he spoke against it again.  If he hasn't got a half dozen reasons why not, he's got a full dozen.  He rotates them around, depending on the conversation.  Today's convenient excuse was that specimens should not be planted simply according to the whim of the resident.  Dan carefully stayed away from adding something like "without a real plan," because he knows very well who has worked hard and tirelessly against providing that plan.  But there he was again.  Good old Dan Keys.

So we had a fun time imagining all the improvements we can't afford to make.  Although... A minute or two before one of our neighbors said it, I sent an e-mail to a guy who has access to low-priced electric cars.  He's got some new vehicles, made in China, and he can add enough batteries to get the range to 30-40 miles per day (more than enough for us), with AC.  I'm waiting to hear back.  I asked Heidi Siegel about this, but she wasn't receptive.  Sharon Ragoonan seems to be.

By the way, regarding our discussion about speeding, one of our neighbors, Ernesto Ortiz, said he would donate $1000 for speed bumps/humps/tables.  A bunch more gestures like that, and it's something to think about.  Assuming you agree with the concept of speed bumps/humps/tables.  Absent that, we're still stuck on having the right Commission at the right time to do something meaningful to get us a better revenue stream.  Then, we're not preoccupied with wouldn't-it-be-greats, and this, that, or the other, but not all or both, or maybe not any of them.  Our three new Commissioners did agree it was our biggest problem.  Let's see how motivated and creative they are to try to solve it.  Not easy?  Yeah, I know.

I'm Not Sure What to Call This One.

Tuesday night, the new Commission met for the first time on record.  There didn't need to be much discussion, but there was some.  Here are my choices as to how to title the report of this meeting.

I  considered calling this post "Thank 'God.'"  If I go with this title, I would say that Roxy Ross asked the new Commission to reaffirm, or reconfirm, a gesture the last few Commissions have honored.  Her suggestion was that a Resolution of Decorum be asserted, so that Commissioners would remember to treat each other, and non-Commission residents, with proper respect.  This gesture was sort of mindless.  It was the type of matter that is routinely passed in regular meetings by Consent: it was obvious, and it did not require any discussion.  But since there was no Consent Agenda Tuesday night, and Roxy wanted special and explicit affirmation, she introduced the matter on its own.  It was on the new Commission's Agenda.

But Roxy didn't get the affirmation she requested.  David Coviello affirmed the concept, but our new majority, the "three-pack," joined together to defeat it.  "Cost" was raised, even though there is no cost.  (Presumably, in time, given enough time, our new Commissioners, who have absolutely no relevant experience with Village matters, will learn the difference between an Ordinance, which has a cost, and Resolution, which doesn't.)  There was expressed concern about "First Amendment rights," even though no one proposed to limit anyone's opportunity to speak.  It was just a reminder to be courteous.

But the other important--critically important-- basis for resistance was that the Resolution was already on the books.  So if this intention has already been established, our "three-pack" argued, and it's already on the books, then it does not require reaffirming.  As a purely personal matter, I consider this fabulous news.  I refuse to say the "Pledge of Allegiance."  There are two reasons I won't say it, but the most glaring and superficial one is that I am a militant atheist, and I am deeply offended that our new Pledge, the one adopted in 1954, had a reference to "god" inserted in it.  This is every kind of wrong.  It violates concepts of the separation of Church and State, and it's unnecessarily provocative, and deeply offensive to me.  If anyone thinks I should say the Pledge of Allegiance, they can restore the one that existed when I was born.  I might say that one.

Since the new Commission regime doesn't want to reaffirm what's already on the books, then it should be easy for them to stop the New "Pledge of Allegiance" nonsense.  It's already been said (I said it in elementary school, and I still remember having said it), and it doesn't need to be said any more.  Just like the Decorum Resolution.  Thank you, new Commission majority.  Thank you, "three-pack."

My other choice for a title is "Dream Interpretation: Manifest Content and Latent Content."  Here's how I would put that one together.  I would talk about so-called manifest dream content, which is the obvious story of the dream.  It's the part you remember and relate to someone else.  The latent content is what the dream really means, and what the conscious symbols unconsciously represent.  So your memory of the dream is that you waited for your friend to meet you at the park, but your friend forgot and didn't show up.  That's the manifest content.  The latent content, which you learn in analyzing this dream with your therapist, is that you haven't gotten over the loss of your father in your childhood, when he went to work, but had a heart attack and died, and you never saw him again.  But you were too young to have been able to understand this, and all you unconsciously continued to feel was that you were abandoned.

So I would still have started this story with Roxy Ross' proposal about the Decorum Resolution, and I would have summarized the "three-pack's" multiple and nonsensical resistances.  I would have suggested that these interactions were manifest content: Roxy proposed something, and three of her colleagues gave her a range of reasons why not.

I would then have looked a bit more deeply into these interactions, and I would have interpreted that Roxy, in proposing something that was not strictly necessary, was asserting her own considerable seniority on the Commission, and she was asking her new colleagues to adopt now accepted conventions.  She was being the big dog, trying to civilize them, and she was reminding them who was the heart and soul of the Commission.  That, I would have said, was Roxy's latent content.  The latent content of the response she got was that her new colleagues, much like the other "three-pack" of Cooper, Watts, and Jacobs, were asserting themselves, too, and rubbing Roxy's nose in the mess they were about to make.  The latent message delivered to Roxy this time could be translated to "siddown and shut up, Ross, or we'll smack you down.  Your wisdom, perspective, and good nature are no longer relevant around here.  Do we understand each other?"  I believe that was the latent message from our new "three-pack."  After all, they had to work a bit hard to come up with really lame and irrational excuses not to do something harmless, that a succession of prior Commissions have done.

There wasn't much else that happened in the meeting.  Mayor Tracy Truppman wants "workshops," so we can closely examine Village residents' thoughts about the functioning of various Village areas, such as the police, recreation, and our Code function.  It will be interesting to find out what Tracy has in mind, and if she cares any more what her neighbors think than she does what Roxy Ross thinks.  And both Tracy and Jenny Johnson-Sardella want to be more closely "in the loop" regarding hirings, like of our new Code Officer.  This hiring is the responsibility of the Manager, not of the Commission, and it's unclear what kind of say the new Commission wants over it.  Tracy herself has been equivocal as to whether she thinks the new Manager was a terrible choice, as she told us just after we hired the new Manager, or whether she thinks the new Manager is a wonderful asset regarding Codes, as she told us when she was trying to get us not to approve the new driveway and swale Ordinance.  Perhaps she'll eventually figure out what she thinks of the new Manager.

And now, immediately former Mayor David Coviello told us he will be resigning from the Commission, because a family situation is causing him to have to move out of BP.

So that was the meeting.  If you have a preference for the title, feel free to comment.

"Funny Little City(sic)."

I was talking this morning with my brother.  The topic was politics, and new regimes.  We talked about the big new regime, and the small one.

My brother was under the impression that we in BP "can't pay [our] bills" on our revenue.  I told him that we do pay our bills; it's only that we're selective about what we agree is a bill.  We won't agree that street repair is a bill, because we choose not to try to repair our streets.  (Because we couldn't afford to repair them.)  The same is true of median development.  We built a new building, and renovated the log cabin, but only because more than half the money was donated to us by the State, and we groused about paying the rest.  Not only do we not agree to improve drainage, and therefore that improving drainage is even a bill, but some of us want to claim that we don't need to improve drainage, because we don't have a drainage problem.  That's what some of us assert.  So we won't have a bill.  And we won't then fail to be able to pay the bill.

My brother of course fully understood our little "situation."  We have extremely limited ability to have revenue, because we don't have the diversification of revenue sources available to almost all municipalities.  He knows all about Golden Beach and Indian Creek Village.  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

He also knows all about the municipalities like CNM, and CMB (where he lives).  They have revenue sources, and they're not one bit shy about tapping them.  They know what they need, and they know what they want, and they're going to take proper care of themselves.  Among other things, they have pride.  Or call it self-respect.

My brother thought we charged ourselves as much as we could: 10 mills.  No, I told him, we can't quite get ourselves to pull that particular trigger.  We stall ourselves out at 9.7, a number that has no meaning, except it's been the same number for a few years now.  It's not the same revenue for the Village, nor is it the same tax from property owners.  It's just a millage number we choose not to change.  Even though it doesn't mean anything.  My brother asked me how much the difference between 9.7 mills and 10 mills was worth to the Village.  I told him I didn't know, because property values are a moving target, and there are new sales, but I estimated that since it was recently about $50K, and values have improved and been bolstered by some recent and substantial sales, it was probably somewhere around $75K or so now.  It's the difference between trying to decide whether to redo the Codes, or instead resurfacing the tot lot, but being unable to decide which to do, so not doing either...and doing both.  That's what we could do with $75K: both.

And I pointed out, being back on my soapbox and all, that what that $75K would cost the average BP property owner used to be about $45 per year, but is now probably about $60 per year.

My brother thought we were limited to 10 mills ad valorem property tax, but I told him that the 10 mill limit is only for the easy part.  It's what an elected body can impose on property owners, on it's own initiative.  But a municipality is not limited at all to 10 mills.  I don't know if there is a limit to what residents of a municipality can choose to charge themselves for ad valorem property tax.  It's just a matter of how motivated they are to address municipal issues and responsibilities, and how much pride they have.

The fact is, we could charge ourselves twice as much millage as we do, if we agreed by referendum to do it.  The Village portion of the ad valorem tax bill could be 19.4 mills, instead of 9.7.  And that wouldn't double the overall ad valorem bill (the one you just paid, or are just getting ready to pay).  It would only double about a third of the bill.  The two other major portions are for the County and the School Board, and we have nothing to do with how much they charge County property-owners.

I realize I get very little support for an idea like this.  I get none from the Commissions.  Some years back, Steve Bernard suggested we tax ourselves at 10 mills.  He was on the Commission then.  Nowadays, Dan Keys is known to agree we should increase our millage.  I don't know what he thought many years ago, when he was on the Commission.

Very interestingly, Mac Kennedy advocated for increased millage, so we can get our work done.  What's interesting about that is that Mac, and Dan Schneiger, are new Village residents.  People like them do the heavy fiscal lifting in the Village, because they established a property value recently.  They homestead, of course, but in the meantime, they're the big dogs, ad valorem tax-wise.  And they're willing to go higher, and suggest the rest of us do, too.  People like Max Deitermann, who owns very expensive property here, don't urge low taxes.

People like Max, and Mac and Dan, not only have the most to "lose" by our having higher millage, but coincidentally (?), people like them are also strong advocates for an improved, "Best We Can Be," Village.  And they have the experience with property ownership, municipal development, and design sense, to know what it takes.

But too many of the rest of us can't see that far, or that wide.  We fuss over the silliest, most insignificant, things and amounts of money.  We resist ponying up a few dollars to improve ourselves.  We complain about a very substantial Village Hall project, because we have to pay for part of it.  Some of us form whole campaigns over not wanting to have to construct driveways on our properties, which we have to do anyway, and which will improve our own properties(!), as well as the Village overall.

My brother and I talked about all of this, which is what led him twice to describe us as a "funny little city(sic)."

Reality Really Does Bite Some Times.

I was elected to the Commission in December, 2013.  I had a very clear track record in the Village, owing to my continuous involvement at reasonably high levels, and I faithfully attended Commission meetings for eight years before that.  It would not be hard, or inaccurate, to argue that I had a pretty good sense of what was going on in the Village, and how things worked.

In addition to my normal activities, I also started a Village-focused blog (this one) in which I held forth without much, if any, restraint regarding my opinions and positions about things.  And there was the Meet the Candidates event that year, where I further expressed opinions and even intentions.

To take two issues that were prominent at the time, I expressed myself in this blog, making clear I did not favor annexation, and at the Meet the Candidates event, I answered a direct question regarding outsourcing sanitation to say I didn't favor it.  What I knew or thought I knew, and what I imagined, led me to both conclusions, with the confidence that came from limited information.  "Ignorance is bliss" kind of thing.  (It's not the truth that sets you free; it's not knowing what the truth is.)

Once I became a Commissioner, and was exposed to much more information, I famously and publicly changed my mind about both issues.  I would say I learned things I had not previously known, and I had a chance to discuss both issues with people in conversations that were far beyond the superficial and emotional ones I had had before.

Before I became a Commissioner, my exposure to reality was incomplete.  After I became a Commissioner, it was much more complete and extensive.  The other thing that happens after someone becomes a Commissioner is that he or she begins to hear from people who had not been in the inner circle or comfort zone of the pre-Commissioner.  The result of all this is that you are offered opportunities to expand what you know, and how you think, and you're in a position to feel more responsible to consider those opportunities.

So the new Commissioner, or probably any elected official of any length of tenure, has a choice.  In some cases, this choice is a dilemma.  Do you ignore or refuse to hear what is newly offered, because you've already made up your mind?  Do you hear it, but dismiss it, because you feel personally committed, or beholden to your supporters, not to waver from your original path?

One of our neighbors chided me for being "closed-minded" about something.  I think it was outsourcing.  She was angry and frustrated with me, because I decided the right path was not the one she favored.  What I said to her was that I couldn't think of any better example of open-mindedness than an ability and willingness to change one's mind, given new information.  And I still feel that way.

As an elected official, you are guaranteed to frustrate and disappoint someone.  No matter what you do or don't do, and no matter the issue.  You only decide whom you're willing to frustrate and disappoint, and on what basis you will do it.  You can respond to what you used to think, or what your friends prefer, or what you feel you promised.  Or, you can respond to what you come to learn is true, and more true than what you thought before.  If actual reality happens to be in line with what you already thought, good for you.  If it isn't, you have a complicated dilemma on your hands.  But no matter what you do, or don't do, you are guaranteed to upset someone (perhaps it makes you feel better that you've pleased someone else), and that someone will have as compelling, impassioned, and strident a competing approach as the one you went with instead.

For me, I decided it was better to be "right," whatever "right" was.  And my way of trying to answer that question was to choose whatever I thought made the Village a better (stronger, more stable, more likely to succeed, more pleasing) place.

The problem was expressed in one of the questions in this year's Meet the Candidates event: would you rather choose something that makes people happy now, or would you take a broader and longer range view that might leave some people-- maybe lots of people-- unhappy?  Or angry.  Or furious.  Or wanting nothing more than to get you out of office.  That's the choice, and that's the dilemma.  It will happen to every elected official, frequently.  It doesn't feel like that at first, when you get elected.  You feel chosen, like someone's choice from among others.  (Which of course you were.)  You feel approved of.  You feel uniquely legitimate, as if someone has told you you were right, and you should do whatever you think is best.  (For...?)  I'm sure that's the way every election winner feels.  And I felt that way even though I knew that there was a population of Village residents who really didn't want me there.

That's what I, and every other elected official, thinks and feels, and I have not the slightest doubt it's what our new elected officials think and feel.  That's why they'll confront and deal with what we all did.  The only question is which way they'll go, on any issue, and what will inform and motivate the choices they will make.



"The color of truth is grey."  Andre Gide, Author, Nobel laureate (1869-1951)

"Inclusion and Diversity?" Again?

(Mac Kennedy asked me to post something about this matter on this blog.  I told him he was more than welcome to do it himself, but he wanted me to do it.  So here it is.  You're welcome, Mac.)



Mac Kennedy is up in arms.  He's let the whole world know about it.  He seems to have gotten someone kicked off Nextdoor, and now, he's railing at the Commission, and the rest of us.  Outgoing Commissioners, incoming Commissioners, everyone.  Mac wants something done!  He wants someone read the riot act.

And here's what this is all about.  Ron Coyle, one of our neighbors and even a former BP Commissioner, was simply and perfectly legally speaking his mind on Nextdoor, and he happened, innocently enough, I'm sure, to observe "Let's be objective, we are surrounded by negros [sic], pretend you are in South Africa, and not America USA [sic].  It's hard to believe but that is where we find ourselves here in the Park...I've lived here all of my life, 58 years, and we have never seen the amount of crime we are now seeing.  The darkening of our demographics is profoundly to blame...the public schools in the area...are all overrun with darkies...we spend exorbitant amounts more to send our kids to schools with students and teachers of the proper caliber and color."  And then, he cites Darwin, although the citation seems relatively like a non sequitur.

So, Mac, what's the problem?  Ron has an opinion, and he's clearly thought carefully about the matter.  Doesn't he have every right to his opinion, and to share it with the rest of us?

And some of our neighbors turned out to be really intolerant of Ron Coyle and his ideas.  Words like "racism," "ugliness," "bigotry," "hatred," "twisted," "offensive," and "deplorable" were used.  Some wanted him "muted" from Nextdoor, or worse.  Just because Ron Coyle, lifelong BP resident and even former Commissioner, happens to take a very dim view of "negros [sic]" or "darkles," or whatever he likes to call them.

Some wondered whether Ron also took a dim view of homosexual people, or hispanics, or Jews, or any of a number of other groups.  But Ron never said that.  All he intensely and viscerally hates is "negros [sic]."  You know, "darkies."  Really, what's the big deal, if Ron Coyle happens to hate black people?

And some people seemed to think it is a big deal.  Like as if they thought Ron Coyle's hatred and intolerance were not only offensive, but to worry about.  Mac Kennedy, for example, allowed himself to consider that someone with such thoughts could "act out...physically," and that this seemed to him like the kind of sentiment that leads to behaviors about which people would in retrospect say "why didn't someone do something before?"  Another BP resident, commenting on Nextdoor, wrote "For a long time, many of us, including me, have had our heads in the sand, or have looked the other way, and have said this is the stuff that goes on in other places or in the movies.  Well, no, it's alive and well and living amongst us...Knowing that this exists in our midst, and more importantly, seeing it and hearing it, has given me a new perspective."

But come on, Mac, people don't spout this kind of antisocial nonsense, and then act out, having gotten it off their chests.  Well, maybe they do.  Yeah, OK, people like racist Ron Coyle might be to worry about.

But what's he going to do, "go postal?"  I mean, he doesn't have a gun or anything, does he?  (Mac, I'm asking, does he?)

Three years ago, at the Meet the Candidates event, we were asked about our concerns regarding "diversity" in BP.  I particularly remember David Coviello's response.  (Frankly, I don't think any of us thought there was much of a problem about tolerance of diversity.)  David said that while he was campaigning, one of our neighbors said something about David's age, apparently judging it to be greater than it was, on account of David's (very, very slightly) receding hairline.  So David suggested sensitivity regarding our elderly population.  (Jeez, David, did you take a look at Drew Dillworth, who gave up and shaved his head, or Noah Jacobs, or me?  And you were whining about your mane?  Talk about lack of sensitivity!)  I mean, three years ago, that's what we thought we had to worry about regarding tolerance of other people.  And now, we have people who think "Make America Great Again" really means "Make America White Again," and some well-spoken white supremacist named Spencer, and Ron Coyle.  Man, have we lost a lot of ground in only three years.

I Was Wrong. They Do Have an Agenda.

Last night, the outgoing Commission had its last business meeting.  The urgent matter was approving the second reading of an Ordinance, but a few other matters were added, to get them off the books and into action.  One of those matters was the commitment the Village already intended, to acquire four new police vehicles.  There are four that are very high mileage and increasingly low reliability, the maintenance costs for them exceed the cost of a lease-purchase, the money was already set aside in the new budget, and all we had to do is place the final stamp of approval on the commitment.  The matter was listed in the Consent part of the Agenda, because it wasn't worth discussion.  Or so we assumed.

We received a letter from one of the Commissioners-elect, Jenny Johnson-Sardella, telling us why this matter should not be considered by the outgoing Commission.  It involved an expense, and Jenny proposed that it was not properly publicized.  Jenny couldn't be at the meeting, for reasons she did not specify.

Tracy Truppman, another Commissioner-elect, was there, and she said the same thing Jenny did.  Will Tudor, the other Commissioner-elect and "three-pack" member, wasn't there.

Jenny and Tracy had outgoing Commissioner Barbara Watts to add muscle for them, and Barbara took the matter off the Consent Agenda, so we would have to discuss it.

As I said, this matter has been discussed before.  It was discussed a few months ago, when the budget was approved.  The reason to cycle out old, high-mileage, and low-reliability police cruisers is that they cost too much to maintain, and they're not reliable.  These are emergency vehicles we're talking about.  Emergency vehicles that are not reliable is not a good thing.  So on the surface of it, there was no reason not to go forward with the intention, as we had already planned and for which we had made fiscal room, and the sooner, the better.  These cars take many months to complete, because they are specially equipped.  They're much more expensive than similar models for sale at car dealerships.

The only reason not to move ahead with this plan last night was to preserve the opportunity to cancel it.  And since cancelling the intention to order these cruisers is the one and only possible outcome of delaying the order, then it must be the reason two of our Commissioners-elect, and one outgoing Commissioner, wanted the delay.

We're then left to wonder why they would want to cancel such an order.  It can't be that police cruisers are considered trivial or unnecessary.  We very typically clamor for more police action and visibility and effectiveness.  It can't be saving money.  Repairing old cruisers, apart from keeping them unreliable and unavailable, costs more than paying the lease on new vehicles.

But there is one reason the new Commission might want us not to have new cruisers.  Tracy Truppman has told us what that reason is.  Tracy has decided, for whatever are her reasons, that we should cut back what she somehow understands or imagines our police expense to be, by no longer offering our officers take-home vehicles.  So presumably, Tracy, with the apparent agreement of Jenny and Barbara, has calculated that the fewer police cruisers we have, the less available they are to be provided as take-homes to our officers.  This is apparently Tracy's, and Jenny's and Barbara's, idea of an end run around the contracted commitment we made to our police officers, providing a take-home vehicle as a consolation or compensation for underpaying them.

And let's say, just for purpose of discussion, that Tracy and Jenny and Barbara had a point worth looking at.  Let's suppose that if we have fewer vehicles, and they're not very good, that we would have grounds not to be able to spare them for our officers to take home.  The theory about police officers taking home their cruisers versus not taking them home, apart from how the officers feel about it, is that if officers take home their vehicles, then municipalities have to have more vehicles available.  And the vehicles are only used when the given officer is on duty, or when he or she is commuting to and from the Village.  If officers don't take home their cruisers, and have to use their personal cars to commute to and from work, then the municipality needs fewer cruisers, and those cruisers are used continuously, by whoever is on duty each shift.  So one scheme requires more vehicles, which are spared when officers are off duty, and the other scheme requires fewer vehicles, which wear out much sooner, because they're used much more heavily.  Most knowledgeable people who calculate this conclude that it's essentially a wash, with the difference represented by the consolation or compensation experienced by the officers.  And since our officers-- the ones we underpay-- have been more or less content to accept the take-home vehicles as consolation or compensation enough, that's what we do.  It's in their PBA contract with us.

But here's the other problem, and the real problem, with Jenny's and Tracy's and Barbara's proposal.  Setting aside how not nice and not respectful and not honorable it is.  If we don't have newer police cruisers, then we have older police cruisers.  Those are the unreliable ones, that eat up more money in repairs than it would cost to replace them.  It means that when you or I have an emergency, and we need police help, we might not get it, if a cruiser won't start, or dies on the way to us.  It completely defeats the entire purpose of an emergency vehicle.

So last night, we went ahead with our lease commitment.  Bob Anderson wasn't there, and the vote to make the commitment was 3-1, with Barbara Watts representing her incoming replacements, who are trying to figure out a way to squeeze the BP police department.  This was what Tracy told us she would try to do, it's the way she said she'd try to do it, and she's been good for her agenda.