Tag Archives: Amanda Rice Cambria

Reports & Retorts Redux

20 Monday Nov 2017

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Uncategorized, Words matter

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Click Here for Part I 

October

The unsuccessful attempt to fill the open director’s seat created a few question marks for the community.  Much was made of the chaotic process used in the September 19th special meeting.  Many Cambrians felt that process was poorly thought out and unfair to the candidates.  A lot of heat was directed towards board President Amanda Rice. As the keeper of the gavel, it was assumed that she would be the person responsible for defining the process and managing the execution.  While I agree she owns the hot seat, I’m not in the camp that sees the weakness of the attempt as solely her fault. Governing is a team sport.

President Rice, to her credit, reached out to members of the community to solicit ideas on how to do a better job with the next round scheduled for October 3rd. I don’t know how much helpful input she received, but it wasn’t quite enough to fix it all before the meeting.

Post 9/19, the community was buzzing with thoughts, suspicions, complaints and the odd call for revolution. Business as usual in this crazy, awesome town.  Candidates that had submitted themselves to the Circus Minimus that took place between the hills over the skate park and the hills over the Fiscalini Ranch had time to rethink their commitment to service.  Many decided to remain in the competition, despite not quite knowing the rules.

Let Us Try Again

I was unable to attend the October 3rd meeting but did manage to catch a portion of the proceedings via the Slo-span.org live feed, and later watched the whole session via the archived recording.

The community came out in force, with different candidates having groups of supporters rooting for their success. There were a lot of the usual attendees and an increased number of citizens who came to speak in support of Aaron Wharton. Aaron is a local business owner who decided that he wanted to contribute to the community that he and his family chose as their home. He bore a different profile from most other candidates. He had acquitted himself reasonably well in the original round of interviews and was one of the six chosen for the bonus round.

Support

To the surprise of some, multiple speakers rose to vocalize their support for Wharton’s candidacy. So many that those not in his camp began to voice suspicions that the whole thing was planned, perhaps in cahoots with one or two directors. The word “puppet” made its way into the conversation. It seemed that some of the regulars, who frequently pack the meeting and regularly speak about this and that couldn’t believe that another group of folks would take advantage of the public comment period to advocate their cause!

I’ve got no strings, so I have fun
I’m not tied up to anyone
They’ve got strings, but you can see
There are no strings on me

Written by Dickie Jones and performed by Pinocchio

After public comment, the meeting turned to the business at hand – fill the seat. Here’s where the whole thing went sideways again. Since no meaningful progress had been made in structuring the selection process, the previous month’s chaos came back for an encore. It was unclear – would candidates have a chance to speak? Would there be more interview questions from the board? At some point, President Rice noted that in her view any member of the community could still submit themselves for consideration. Oh boy!

Suddenly there was a cavalcade of citizen activists marching to the podium to declare their candidacy.  It was like a mashup of Bullworth, The American President, Forrest Gump and Waiting For Guffman. Yes, those are four loosely associated films with tenuous plot ties strung together to make an inconsequential point.

But seriously…

Things settled down a bit though candidate DeWayne Lee, a strong contender for the seat, was unsure if he would have an opportunity to present himself again. It was assumed he would, so he deferred his public comment slot with the expectation that he would present later in the proceedings.

Aaron Wharton made his way to the podium for a second round of grilling.  He began by referring back to some of the answers he had given in the first round. He inartfully tried to clarify that his answer to the question on how many permits should be allowed wasn’t quite right, and it had been given as an effort to “tell them what they wanted to hear.”  Not the best or most thoughtfully constructed statement; it gave the impression that he was just appeasing a few directors.

It’s Gettin’ Hot In Here…

Director Farmer picked up the oven mitts, turned up the heat and started grilling Mr. Wharton.  It was clear that he was not a fan, and was using his time to aggressively challenge Wharton’s answers.  The exchange got a bit weird, with Farmer rejecting Wharton’s answers by interrupting him and repeating his questions in an even harsher tone.  Mr. Wharton, clearly bemused, asked Mr. Farmer “what do you want my answer to be?” – turning his earlier misstep into a humorous and de-escalating jibe.

After the cross-examination ended, Director Bahringer nominated Mr. Wharton.  (note: he had also nominated him during the seven rounds at the previous meeting.)  The nomination was quickly seconded by Vice President Sanders.  Director Farmer looked quite stunned by the quickness of the nomination process, and during discussion asked for clarification on whether he could abstain.  That took a few minutes, and then the intrepid clerk called the roll.

Director Bahringer – AYE. Vice President Sanders – AYE. Director Farmer (more clarifying discussion, then…) ABSTAIN.  President Rice – AYE.

Aaron Wharton, come on down and raise your hand!

It was me against the world, I was sure that I’d win, but the world fought back, punished me for my sins.

Mike Ness, Social Distortion

Standards

How do we view the job of an elected official?  Why do we choose one candidate over another?  Positions or personality?  Values or attitudes?  Comfortable or charismatic?  Familiar or mysterious?

After we make our choices, how do we expect our chosen few to execute their duties?  How long do we stick with them, or more accurately how soon do we abandon them?

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream, and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”   The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp “Why?”                       Replies the scorpion: “It’s my nature…”

  • I vote for a person with the expectation that they will do what I want them to do because they work for me.
  • I vote for a person because I believe they have the capacity and skill to make the best choices based on all the facts available, combined with their experience and discernible character traits.  I don’t expect to agree with or like every decision or position, but my vote is a sign of confidence in the person.

There is also the question of how an elected official views their responsibility once they assume office.

The proper view should always be “regardless of how many votes I garnered I am obligated to represent all the members of the community.”

What we sometimes see, however, is the view that “I represent the people who voted for me, and I will decide based on their wishes.”

Are We, We Are

During all this tumult it again became clear that Cambria is a community of many tribes. Some are very vocal, which can give the impression that their numbers are much larger than they are. Some, in their passionate zeal, ignore social norms and fall back on volume and venom to move their position forward. Some rely on quiet negotiation, using relationships and positive persuasion to advocate for their views. Some follow along, and some just ignore it all. When hard times hit, or someone needs a helping hand the community frequently drops the animus and acts with a level of unity that reminds me how great this town is. When it comes to the CCSD, and to a lesser extent the CCHD (Cambria’s Community Health District) that unity heads to Costco for a big box of “NOPE.”

Sightlines

Watching from afar and watching from the back of the room are two very different experiences.  Being “in the room where it happens” adds dimension to the experience.  You can see and hear the murmurs, sharp comments, snorts and quiet affirmations from the audience.  You can watch the body language of the crowd, see furious scribbling or iPad tapping, catch the fleeting smiles and nods as well as the darkening scowls and grimaces depending on what is being said from the dais or the speaker’s podium.  You can also catch the interaction between citizens as they comment to each other or, frequently about each other.

Occasionally, rude or disruptive outbursts or steady streams of angry chatter cause others to turn around, stare or comment, communicating the request for courtesy so everyone might hear the words of those who legitimately have the floor.  This general sense of courtesy and reasonable public behavior sadly falls apart when some citizens feel their right to “free speech” trumps the rights of others to focus on and listen to the rightfully recognized.

An Example

This story is not intended to be “gossipy,” but it is meant to shine a light on behaviors and attitudes that sometimes diminish the principle that everyone has the right to participate in the proceedings without harassment or undue disruption.

While getting feedback from people who attended the October 3rd meeting, a few  relayed an exchange that happened between two locals.  One, a noted activist and frequent disruptor, and the other a local business owner attending the meeting in support of a candidate.

As the proceedings went on, a group of folks stood in the back of the room, talking loudly and distractingly.  The business owner turned around and asked for them to quiet down so people could hear what proceedings.  The requestor was met with the following response. (stealing a masking tactic from the Megan Amram-scripted hit comedy series “The Good Place) “FORK OFF, BUB.”

Nice.

After the meeting ended, he approached the disruptor to express his dismay at being treated so rudely.  That earned a second “FORK OFF, BUB.”

Now, this type of truculence isn’t all that surprising, but I wanted to be sure what I was told was accurate.  I reached out to the recipient of this verbal assault, who after ascertaining that I wasn’t out to cause him grief, agreed to meet and fill in the blanks.  Those blanks included a third invitation to “FORK OFF.”

Still, I wanted to understand if there was more to the story, or perhaps gain an understanding of why the responder felt it was appropriate to behave in this fashion. I sent an email to the orator asking if the story was true and accurate and if there was more that could be shared that might provide a different perspective on the exchange. As of today, I’ve not gotten any response.

Next – The new guy takes a seat, just in time to do it all over again.

 

 

 

 

Image

Reports and Retorts

19 Sunday Nov 2017

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Check The Milk Carton

I’ve taken some time away from my blog for a few reasons.  I’ve been a bit busy with “work” writing, and by the time I’m done with that, the last thing I want to do is write some more.

The larger reason, though, is a bit more personal.  As an observer of community interactions, I’ve developed some particular views on people, on positions and the intersection of both.  It would be dishonest to say I am “neutral,” but I think it would be similarly dishonest to say I am a committed member of a group that advocates one side over the other.  I lean, but I don’t believe I fall.

This has made it a bit difficult for me to keep a clear line of sight as I attend the monthly meetings, read the mountain of documentation that surround the major issues, and have conversations with friends and acquaintances around town.  So, I took a few months off from the blog but still followed along as things progressed.

And boy, have things progressed!

Structure

For those who read from afar, a quick description of how the Cambria Community Services District is structured.

We have a Board of Directors consisting of 5 elected positions. Each elected term is four years, and those terms are staggered with the thought of keeping some level of continuity as terms expire or seats otherwise become vacant.

There are several ways to fill positions that become vacant during a term:

  • A special election can be called.
  • An interim appointment can be made by the remaining board members.
  • Should all attempts to make an appointment in this process fail, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors can make the appointment.

Depending on when in the term a vacancy occurs, the seat will be on the ballot during the next election cycle.

All the options have positives and negatives, and in  Cambria, each method has vocal supporters and detractors.

Now It’s Time, To Say Goodbye…

Long-serving Director Michael (nobody calls him Mickey) Thompson announced that he was resigning his position effective the end of August 2017. Director Thompson’s adult life has been dedicated to public service, pre-dating his time in Cambria. He has been an active member of this community, with a broad and loyal base of friends and supporters. In addition to his service to the CCSD, he has been a contributing member of organizations ranging from the Chamber of Commerce, Cambria American Legion Post 432 and more.  He has been a faithful supporter of the Sustainable Water Facility, as well as a strong advocate for sensible management of balanced growth and environmental stewardship.  (Begin howls of disagreement here…) Over his long career of service, he developed a low-key but clear way of expressing his positions on important issues. He has also demonstrated an open-minded and fair approach to listening and adjusting his views based on new input or information.

His term runs through November of 2018, so the seat was eligible for appointment. The decision was made to follow the previous practice and have the sitting directors select a replacement by unanimous vote. The legally required process was followed; post a notice of vacancy, call for interested candidates, provide an application form and schedule a special meeting where the next phase of the process would play out.

A Baker’s Dozen

Thirteen candidates submitted applications.  A read through all of the applications revealed a healthy list of desirable skills and experiences, many in the public sector, and some with previous leadership roles on the CCSD Board.

By the time the meeting began only a dozen candidates had remained under active consideration. There was just one woman on the slate, which, given the makeup of the town and the number of women who are very involved in the community was a bit of a surprise.

“Let’s Get Ready To Grumble!!!”

From the first gavel, it was obvious that the meeting was not going to go very smoothly. There were no clear guidelines that would cover the entire process and there were no objective criteria the Directors could use to fairly and equally “score” candidates.  In reality, each member of the board brought personal preferences and biases to the process, and without more structure that ultimately ruled the decision-making process.

The “interview”  process had been used in the past, but with a much smaller group of candidates. With a dozen people to work through it became clear that it would be at best difficult to give each candidate, and each director, a decent amount of time to thoroughly explore even a minor few positions. Successive applicants, having heard the previous questions and answers, would have the advantage of adjusting their responses based on what they just saw and heard.

In This Corner…

Two of the sitting directors – Jim Bahringer and Greg Sanders – expressed views that advocated appointing someone with positions similar to Mr. Thompson’s, the rationale being that he was elected with a significant margin, and the citizens who spoke with their votes should have their positions sustained for the remainder of the term.  Others on the board had different views.

In That Corner…

President Rice pointed out that over time, Director Thompson’s positions evolved and would likely have continued to evolve should he have served his entire term.  Director Farmer pointed to the most recent election, where he was selected over an incumbent, as a sign that community sentiments had changed significantly since the 2014 vote, and those sentiments should be taken into account.

In The Peanut Gallery…

A third position, which makes sense to me, is to appoint someone to fill the vacancy who brings a new energy and outlook, different experiences and a philosophy that is inclusive and open to input but can stand firm on major decisions.  More importantly, the appointee should have a set of skills that would add value to the body, rather than just appeasing any given segment of the overall town.

Round One

The candidates make their statements.  Each established their positions, using different techniques from a classic recitation of resumes to showy flourishes that played to the crowd but didn’t land with much impact.  The rounds progressed, with various combinations of probing jabs and slick defenses.  After a while, the judges decided to narrow the field, with each member offering their choices.  Those that met the on-the-fly threshold of multiple mentions went on to the round of six. At this point, I have to switch to a different sports metaphor.

The Ties That Bind…(Apologies to Bruce Springsteen)

After eliminating 6 of the 12 candidates, the board continued their attempt to select a new teammate.  Rather than retelling the whole excruciating story, I’ll go with the Warner Wolfe version. (If you want you can “go to the videotape” HERE)

“Bahringer opens with a strong nomination -picking a seasoned veteran to join the starting five.  He makes a strong case for his pick, citing a 17-year career on the CCSD team as a major strength.  Sanders nods and agrees, adding a second.  Crunch time – the ball is passed around the court, and ultimately the candidate is REJECTED!  The crowd is getting into it now.”

The process continues, with nominations, discussions, and rejections.  Each round ended as the first had – Bahringer and Sanders on one side, Rice and Farmer on the other.  The exchanges got hotter, the arguments more pointed, and the language grew more forceful.  “Come on man, take this seriously!”  “I’m taking this very seriously, Mister!”  Tough stuff!

In the end, seven votes were taken, seven scores of 2-2.  Nobody wins.

Let’s Do It Again!

With no selection made, the board agreed to have a second special meeting to try again to fill the seat.  We’ll take a look at that in our next episode.

Oh, Yeah…

Did I mention that Greg Sanders announced that he was resigning his seat at the end of October?

 

PART II  – CLICK HERE

 

 

 

Posted by | Filed under Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Uncategorized, Words matter

≈ 3 Comments

100 Days

04 Thursday May 2017

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Words matter

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Crazy Beauty of Democracy

Elections – our opportunity to make choices and vote our ideals. Or hearts.  Sometimes even our rational minds.  This past election season was certainly unlike anything we’d seen before.  And now we get to look back at the magical 100 days, and see what we have wrought!

Setting the Stage

Not everyone was happy.  No matter where one stood on the issues, the general sense was that some soon-to-be made choices would either lead to comfortable stability or radical change.  Some traditional affiliations held, but without the rock-solid surety of previous election seasons. New candidates emerged, familiar faces stepped up and fell back, and in the end, it came down to two.  One, a familiar and often scrutinized woman with a long and laudable record of public service.  The other, a man of some celebrity, known for things other than a firm grasp on the intricacies of complex and serious governmental process and responsibility.  Both had ardent and vocal supporters.  Both had detractors.  Both stepped forward and spoke of their vision for the future.  They were different, very different.

The campaigns rolled on, the candidates leaned on their respective bases for the votes needed to win the election.  Most observers thought that she would succeed. Her popularity wasn’t as solid and enthusiastic as it might have been; she had been urged to lean in a bit harder and expand her support, but she stayed true to her strategy.

He was a wild card from the beginning.  Of course, there was a core group of passionate supporters who shared his views and attitudes.  There was also a growing distrust of the established government and of the established governors.  The vague discomfort grew into something stronger as the campaign season wore on.  More and more supporters of adjacent candidates turned to him, embracing his message.  A message that was often hard to figure out, and positions that were more sound byte and vague accusation than firm and verifiable policy positions and governing platforms.  It was all, “They’re bad, I’m not” and, “There’s something going on here and I can stop it” slugs.

We all know how that turned out.

Raise your Hand and Repeat…

The oath of office was administered.  Some thoughts at the time:

“Well, he won on a wave of passion and desire for something other than the same old, same old… but running for the office and actually being in the office are very different things. He will realize how complex and difficult the role is, and will become more serious about doing the job. There is no way he will continue to pepper other government representatives with vague accusations of corruption, incompetence and elitism… no way he will remain under-educated about how the government works, how public service differs from public criticism, how the mechanics of public budgets and finance differ from simpler tasks of personal financial management…  how public works differ from private enterprise, even when both are technically complex.  He will grow and mature, and recognize that the words he used as a private citizen with little public accountability must be delivered more thoughtfully and with greater precision when holding the public trust. He will recognize that the other elected representatives are there, as he is there, through the will of the people… he will not need to embrace them, but he will need to work with them in a trusted and professional manner…”

Compromisers may not make great heroes, but they do make great democracies.

Walter Isaacson, writing about Benjamin Franklin and the Founding Fathers

Showtime

So the clock ticks, and the official record begins. His knowledge is on public display.  His questions are now coming from a position of responsibility, and what was ok before is now not so okay.  Expectations are higher.  Skills are expected to sharpen.  Efforts to become more expert in key areas have to be made, and results have to be measurable.  Careless and inflammatory remarks made as a private citizen, or as a populist candidate, now have to be challenged more quickly and more forcefully.  Attacking others, no matter how “benignly” will draw return fire; he can’t be surprised by it nor unduly offended.  This isn’t a game, its people’s lives.

Survey Says…

The maturity has not happened.  His questions and public comments remain, at best, difficult to follow.  The go-to move of repeating the vague accusations and suspicions that enthralled his supporters during the campaign just don’t pass muster now.  Certainly, many of his base still cheer him on and marvel at his courage and “stick it to the establishment”  attitude.  Great.  Fantastic.  Unbelievable, believe me.

I don’t, and here’s why.

It is easy to declare one’s intention to “bring people together” and “heal the divides that separate us”. But, with every comment to a reporter, every broadcast interview, and every indolent repetition of the same old lines, bridges erode.

Every repeated, simplistic analogy is evidence of a closed mind.

Every play to the base is a missed opportunity for wider connections.

The true test of leadership arrives; the opportunity to really listen, digest and incorporate information and develop a better understanding – well, still waiting.

The hundred day mark has been reached.  From where I sit things have gone badly.  Sorry, Harry, but that’s my thought from the back of the room.

 

As the kids say, “I just can’t….”

25 Wednesday Jan 2017

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Uncategorized, Words matter

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Where do I begin…

I’ve taken a little more time than usual to capture my thoughts from the January CCSD meeting. I was so – I don’t know – confused, disheartened, bemused, all of the above when I left that I really had a hard time sorting through it all. It was such a strange and unsettling meeting that I actually went to the video tape and watched the whole thing again, wanting to be sure my initial reaction wasn’t due to the weather. It wasn’t; this meeting was a mess.  A quick look at the agenda didn’t reveal anything controversial, and my sense was that it should be a pretty crisp meeting. Boy, was I wrong.

It doesn’t matter how fair and balanced I try to be with this one. I’m bummed that our most critical local government function went all Humpty Dumpty.

If you could see her through my eyes…” Cabaret

Let’s go to the video tape…

It might be a good idea for every Director, Staff  member and public speaker to watch the entire 4 hours and thirty-nine minutes of this session so they can see what we the people see from the audience.  It could  offer some insights as to where behavioral changes might result in a better, more productive and positive collaborative enterprise.

HERE’S A LINK TO THE REPLAY

So why the long face?

After thinking about it for a few days I’ve come to the belief that the behaviors exhibited in the meetings are more the result of issues that take place outside the Vet’s Hall, and build to a point that explode during a public meeting.  Let’s start with Public Comment. It seems like it has become a game of dueling speakers. One gets up to speak negatively about the Board, the staff, and actions taken or not taken. The next speaker gets up to defend the board, the staff and actions taken or not taken. It’s like a slow game of tennis, but you get to sit down after each stroke.

It took me a while to figure out what one speaker was talking about. Survey equipment or surveillance equipment?  A man with a dog? Two men in hazmat vests? Routine surveillance? What is this, an episode of the X Files? Photographic evidence showed surveyor’s levels, but no surveillance equipment. Or hazmat vests. Or a pickup truck. Or the man on the grassy knoll. Weird, but definitely the CSD’s fault. I’m still not sure what that was all about, or why it was an issue for the Board.

The interaction between the General Manager and Citizen Dickason was embarrassing. It went from Jerry Gruber to Jerry Springer, with both sides hitting  the “I DON’T TRUST YOU!!!!!  WELL I DON”T TRUST YOU EITHER!!!!! duet like veteran community theater actors.

New Direction?

With the elevation of Director Rice, I expected that there would be some differences in how the meetings would be run.  Community members have expressed unhappiness over the length of the meetings. President Rice on several occasions stated that she would like to see them take less time. In her first full meeting with the gavel, she brought this baby in at a crisp four hours and thirty-nine minutes plus a few seconds. There was much shifting from side to side in the folding chairs. A good chunk of time was spent on President Rice going through her proposed goals and objectives for the coming year. Perhaps a review of the meeting recording could help her identify where clear thought and word economy might move things forward at a more reasonable pace.

There seemed to be a marked change on how dialog around public comment would be handled. The combination of Brown Act requirements and CCSD Bylaws set a general framework for allowable interaction. Directors have the option of giving short responses to speaker questions, and to ask short questions of the speaker for clarity or amplification. In past meetings these exchanges were few, and generally brief. In this session, debates seemed to break out all over the place, and, in several instances, Directors had terse exchanges with speakers, the audience and each other.

New President

On multiple occasions the President made what I consider to be inappropriate or poorly thought out comments to the General Manager. Putting aside the battle between GM Gruber and Citizen Dickason, I was stunned by the way President Rice handled two issues.

I am of the mind that an employee, no matter how high they are in the organization, should not be dressed down, have their competence questioned or otherwise undermined in a public meeting by a Board Director or Officer.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”    From The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

Additionally, it is, in my view, inappropriate for a Director, let alone the Board President, to publicly accuse or imply that a business or organization doing work with the CCSD is behaving unethically.  The comments by President Rice and Director Farmer in relation to the CDM Smith task orders were painful to hear, and based on my experience, reflected a real lack of understanding of how projects like the Sustainable Water Facility are managed.  Consulting firms do not exist to do favors – heck, they would go out of business pretty quickly if they gave away their services.  These services have real value, and require real work by real people with deep expertise to achieve complex objectives.  The whole process of designing and executing a complex technical project demands clear requirements and deliverables; it also requires a robust change -management methodology, which covers expanded requirements, changes to project scope, additional services required (time, materials, expertise, support…).  The methodology usually outlines what steps are to be taken to define the  scope of any change, why the change is needed, who is responsible for the change, and what costs, if any, are projected to be required for the change.  To have public officials imply that the consulting firm is acting in bad faith – “they know we have this money…” is not cool.  Telling the General Manager that you think he did a poor job in negotiating the changes is at a minimum in poor taste and shows a real lack of leadership.  Comparing the execution of the complex project to building a house, and telling the consultant tough – the rest of the work will be on their dime – may seem like a popular posture but is actually pretty ignorant.

What good is sitting alone in your room… Cabaret

Some suggestions

General Manager Gruber expressed the desire to file requests for information from all of the agencies he believes are being hectored by members of the community.  He has stated a belief that the impact to the staffs of these agencies, including the CSD, is significant in cost and operational effectiveness.  He also stated that these constant filings (and other contacts) are seriously undermining the reputation and credibility of the District.  He also believes some of these efforts are deliberate tactics by some groups to cause the SWF project to fail.

OK, if these assertions are true, I would support an effort to prove them.  File the requests, collect the data, put together a process to translate these situations into real costs – with some reasonable calculations that would give the Board and the community a fair sense of the size and impact of these issues.  If it turns out that they do, in fact, have a measurable impact on the District, it should be reported on, just like a failed piece of equipment, an infrastructure emergency, a vehicle replacement or any other expense or activity that impacts the District’s ability to do business.

And, if this all proves out, what action could or should be taken to address the specific identified problems?  Will the individuals or groups found to drive these problems change their views and alter their behaviors?  Based on initial reactions over the last few months that these charges have been surfacing, I doubt it.  Will the information galvanize the community to apply their voices in an effort to persuade?  Maybe, but to what effect?  Will the Board find a way to better dialog and support their responsibilities, or will they as individuals continue to root with their core constituents?    Based on this last meeting I have my doubts…

Come into the light

It is one thing for members of the community to make accusations of corruption, malfeasance, collusion, secret meetings and other nefarious goings on by Board members.  It is quite another to hear sitting Board members make similar veiled accusations against their colleagues, the firms that the CSD does business with, and other businesses and concerns in town.

If someone has an accusation to make – make it.  Publicly.  With facts.  Data.  Names. Specific actions or events.  Stop with the passive-aggressive, air-quote “many people are saying” type of nonsense.  Put it out there and be ready to prove it.  Save the suspicions, conspiracy theories and “alternative facts” for a different forum.  Decide if you want to be a grown up who takes the facts as they come or a partisan who takes the facts that they favor.

Make the meeting rules clear and stick to them.

Demand respectful behavior from everyone.

Correct errors and misinformation in a crisp, factual way.  When a speaker repeats false information – like how many hours CSD employees work – provide the data that clearly ends the debate.

Figure out a way to get the tough conversations done before or after a public meeting. Solve the conflicts before they hit the meeting floor.

It’s like raaa-aiiiiin on your meeting day…”

badly heard Alanis Morrisette lyric

Have a meter

One of the interesting things about attending the meeting twice was the opportunity to see it from different perspectives.  I generally sit in the last row so I can see, hear and observe the whole room.  Watching the replay gave me different views of the proceedings, and offered a few chuckles.

Watching the speakers queue up for their shot at the podium reminded me of shoppers looking for the fastest line at Costco.

Listening to a citizen address the Board and mention how a Director spent some time looking at his phone at the last meeting.  Watching the same citizen sitting in the audience reading the newspaper as other matters were discussed.

Having a citizen proclaim that the General Manager should be fired for his exchange with a speaker, and then stating that his assertions of harrassment were based on hearsay.  The citizen then continued with ” I heard it wasn’t even her… I heard it was someone else.”  uh, using hearsay to attack hearsay?  Have a meter!

hearsay – noun
  1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
    irony

Voices, Votes and Values

18 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Words matter

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Random thought of the day

I don’t know about you guys, but I can’t think of anything more exciting than magnificent pictures of water treatment infrastructure – especially motors and pumps. Can I get an AMEN!!!???  It’s clear the General Manager embraces the old adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” but I’m not sure we need the pictures and the thousand words! No wonder the meetings run so long!

Signs

Many words have passed among the community during the run-up to the November 8th election. In addition to the fate of the free world being decided, there was also a Presidential selection that needed to be made. Our fine candidates for the CCSD Board did their best to get their messages out to the voters, making themselves available for discussion. The Farmer’s market was a popular spot to get face time with all of them. It was kind of interesting to see them standing a few feet away from each other – close enough to ask each other a question or have a quick discussion as a group, with constituents right there to participate in an informal, open air way. That could have been an opportunity to build a dialog that would continue beyond Election Day, regardless of the outcome. Sigh; a boy can dream…

I did a quick spin through the market looking for the purveyor of the magic beans that yielded the millions of colorful campaign signs that sprang up everywhere around the town. That must have been some feat of seed engineering to have them all grow with different colors and names.

October Scarcecrows

Speaking of hybrids, the October CCSD Board meeting was held at 4:00 pm. Not the traditional 12:30 pm nor the requested 6:00 pm, but a compromise time that seemed to make neither a major or minor difference in attendance. By my count, there were 16 attendees, excluding board, staff and speakers. Of the 16, 4 were non-incumbent candidates. One of those guys was there to speak on a different subject. So 25% of the audience had to be there. We were missing some of the regulars, but were joined for a while by an interesting fellow who shared some of his thoughts during public comment. Although his political views and personal belief systems were certainly different, he was given a free and equal opportunity to speak. He may have been humming “Don’t Stand So Close To Me” because he was met by 3 members of the police.

The meeting was fairly low-key, with a very good presentation on the new town park that is being designed and implemented in what seems to be sensible and well thought out phases. Good job!

The Town Engineer then shared some very interesting information on an issue that had risen (floated?) to the top. Sharp-eyed and focused community members had noticed significant differences in the amount of water pumped versus the amount of water that was accounted for – either through meter counts, known allotments for special contracts, and/or testing. The initial numbers that raised the alarm were significant, and demanded investigation and explanation. The Engineer came prepared with updated data and explanations for the numbers. Coincidentally, he was in the process of going through training on the required methods of auditing and reporting on water usage. He was freshly armed with tools and processes that would help get a handle on the issue. His initial findings told us that the numbers used in the preliminary report were unaudited and inaccurate. After putting things in the right framework, the data revealed a much more manageable loss. It is not where it needs to be, but the corrected numbers and better processes will be used to set a strategy of continuous improvement. My takeaway is that it will be several months until the process is refined to a point where everyone can at least agree on the data and the technical teams can implement plans to attack water loss on multiple fronts.

By the end of the meeting we were down to 2 attendees – me and Dewayne Lee. It took a few minutes to get the circulation back into our legs, but dammit, we survived!

Election day, and the winners are…

Voter turnout was beyond impressive with over 79.5% of registered voters casting ballots. That, my friends is an engaged electorate, and underscores the level of passion in our community.

With such a large turnout in Cambria as well as the rest of San Luis Obispo County, ballot counting has taken longer than anyone expected. As of today two of the incumbents – Amanda Rice and Greg Sanders – have comfortable margins and, barring a major change, should be returned to the board. The third seat is unsettled, with incumbent Board President Gail Robinette enjoying a slender 14 vote lead over surprise challenger Harry Farmer. That order quickly changed as the next round of ballot counting put Harry in the lead. As of last count his lead stands at 23 votes. With around 386 ballots left to be counted, this one might be finalized by the weekend. I can’t imagine how stressful this is for the candidates and their supporters. Regardless of who wins the final seat, I hope all the passionate supporters maintain their sense of propriety. I don’t want to see any rowdy protests in the West Village; no angry chants of “Not My Board President.”

November already

The business of governance continued with the November CCSD Board meeting. This session was held at the traditional time of 12:30 pm, and citizen attendance was really light. I guess everyone was spent from all that voting. If I didn’t include myself, I could count the attendees on one hand. Literally. The room was crowded with members of the Water and Wastewater teams, who were recognized for their contributions to the community. It was nice to put faces to names, and to see them receive recognition from the community. (They all wore blue shirts – but nobody told them they had to leave!)

There was another speaker (also wearing a blue shirt) who gave an update on upcoming events that support the SLO County homeless population. The General Manager’s report (including pumps and motors pix) was followed by an interesting discussion around a request to extend a Franchise Agreement with Mission Country Disposal for Solid Waste Disposal Management. The request was for an extension of 20 years (and possibly more) and is linked to the build and management of a state of the art plant that would process materials not suitable for landfills. I will leave the real explanation to the experts – including our local reporter Kathe Tanner, who pays way more attention to the details than I do.

Finally, a discussion around a compensation increase for the Finance Manager sparked good discussion among the board. They are challenged with balancing the realities of hiring and retaining qualified employees with sensible financial oversight. After a healthy discussion, the motion to approve the compensation was passed by a 4-1 vote, with Director Rice the dissenting vote. Her objection was based on fiscal concerns; she was very clear about her appreciation for the employee and his value to the community.

During the public comment periods, a returning regular exercised her right to freely complain about actions and inactions taken and not taken by the board, and treated each member with equal disrespect, eschewing the more respectful title of Director, or even Mr. or Ms. And used their first names as she went over her allotted time. I guess when you’re a real activist the rules of time don’t apply, and the simple courtesies are only to be expected from the board members who are attacked. I am a pretty mellow guy, and I can’t remember the last time I came close to losing my temper in public. I came really close today, but decided that I would let magnanimity carry the day.

Serenity now!!!