Tag Archives: Amanda Rice

Quote

The Letter

26 Thursday Jul 2018

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Cambria Fire Department, Community Involvement, Local politics, Measure A-18, Parcel Tax, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Social Media, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

I’m having one of those days where past and present seem to swim together, leaving little wakes that diverge and overlap, rising and falling in free form. I’m feeling like these should somehow be tied together in a story, but I’m kind of afraid of screwing it up by forcing these thoughts and feelings into combinations that sound right in theory but kinda suck in practice.

But that never stopped me before, so…

Then and Now

I was happy to see that the business I devoted a lot of my life’s second act to today emerged as a stand-alone enterprise, free from the constraints of a larger corporate brand that at times helped, but also hindered the healthy evolution of a premier brand in a niche industry.

Pitney Bowes Document Messaging Technologies is now BlueCrest, with a new brand, a new market freedom, and I am sure the same hungry spirit, staffed by creative, innovative technologists and thought leaders. 

Catching glimpses of familiar faces in tweets and press releases was a gift I wasn’t expecting. I am happy for them, and a little envious that I’m not there to experience their next successful chapter.

Go get’ em, BlueCrest!

Document Messaging Technologies-BlueCrest  

Leadership

Over the course of my career, I got to experience leadership in all shapes and styles. When I wandered into Danbury looking for a short-term temp job to help me support my family, (as playwright Robert Andersen once said, “you can make a killing but you can’t make a living in the theatre”) the production mail business was very small, and very much behind in the industry. That changed rapidly, driven by a team of brilliant designers, engineers, field service professionals and support groups that somehow managed to take what at the time was undisciplined, adventurous passion and energy and form a world-class organization.

Building that business required a leadership team that could harness the chaos, set big goals and motivate everyone to work together. They had to figure out how to deal with the brilliant, the stubborn, the dreamers and the grind it out-ers who had to come together to build the business.

From the outside, that leadership team may have looked just as diverse and disheveled as the rest of the workforce. But they were far from that. Today, as I sit in the back of the room watching and listening as our community leaders make sense of complicated issues, I find myself thinking about lessons I learned from those who mentored me. I remember things they said and did, things that are stored away in my mental file cabinet, available for revisiting and reuse.

Empowerment, Given And Taken

‘It’s your business, do what you think.’ Brian Baxendale, a gregarious and insightful leader, had the ability to see the potential capabilities of an employee and provide the right amount of permission tempered with the right amount of firm guidance. He remains an inspiration to many of us who got the chance to try things, to fail, and to try again.  

Cambria’s recent struggle with the issues around our Fire Department gave our community an opportunity to engage in passionate debate about how we view our world, and how we want to see it in the future. Cambria is rich in so many ways, but that richness doesn’t extend to the financial realities many of us face.  It has been interesting to observe and participate in the spirited discussions in support of or in opposition to a tax measure that would fund three firefighter positions. The conversations revealed more political and philosophical facets than I expected.

There were supporters of the measure who face real economic pressures, yet valued the service the firefighters bring to the community. There were those who feel the same economic pressures who opposed the measure because it would have a real impact on them. Many of us are staring at increased costs for all the services we rely on, with limited opportunities for a complimentary increase in personal income. There are people who are more financially secure who supported the measure because the tax would not cause them pain, and the additional capabilities were viewed as cheap insurance against a high-probability fire event. There were those similarly positioned who believe the extra manpower was unnecessary, as the coverage provided by both local and county/CalFire departments is more than sufficient. There are supporters who respond emotionally (“these are our guys!!!”) and detractors who see everything as corrupt and driven by greed (those bastards are at it again!!!)  And there are many, both supporters and opponents, who check some of the boxes in all of these categories.

A Loss

The reality though is that after all the tumult the measure was not successful. The supporters delivered a 54% tally, which fell considerably short of the required supermajority of 66%.  

Analysis of the outcome provided some insights, notably that within each area of Cambria those who voted – and voter turnout was not great – delivered a majority “yes” vote. Like they say, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades… but is there a message in the 54%, beyond just winning and losing?  

bigboard

Can I get the Home Version of “Steve Kornacki’s Big Board”?

Informal polling, which has mainly been me asking people stuff, revealed that there was a real information gap in what the measure would do and how it would affect the fire services going forward. I was surprised to find that some folks thought the tax would add three additional members to the fire department. They did not realize that the defeat of the measure would result in the loss of three full-time professional firefighters. Of course, there were a lot of good, reasoned “no” votes, based on well-informed and considered rationale.

They Persisted

‘I’d like to try anyway.’   Ajay Ghia combined a studious, low-key approach with an unshakable determination to follow a course he knew was right. While presenting an acquisition recommendation to the corporate “C Suite” , he was met with a curt “you’re not going to convince me this is a good idea” from a notoriously difficult executive. After a beat Ajay replied, “I’d like to try anyway.” He then made a presentation that supported his position. The executive still did not agree, but he didn’t expressly kill the idea. Ajay and team went on to follow his strategy, the acquisition was made, and it became the platform for a series of systems that transformed the competitive landscape.

The members of the Cambria Fire Department are a determined and committed team who believe what they do is essential and critical to the health and safety of the community. They are also very dedicated to each other’s safety and success. As the community wrestled with the questions posed by Measure A-18, the firefighters continued to seek out ways to fund the three at-risk positions. The three firefighters had been hired under an earlier SAFER grant, which covered the cost for a period of two years. One of those efforts entailed applying for a second SAFER grant from FEMA.

Same Name, Different Rules

The difference between the first grant and the second grant is not trivial. Having seen the lack of follow-up from many communities who received the first round of grant funding, FEMA changed the rules and added a requirement that the governing agencies (CCSD) had to commit in writing to increasing levels of matching funds across the life of the award. This requirement raised the barrier to success considerably.   As opposed to the revenue A-18 would have provided, the cost of the match would fall to the CCSD, and by extension the community, with no additional revenue source to cover the expense.

Ready, Fire, Aim

‘Interesting, but Irrelevant’ Rick Jablonski, Sales Leader and strategist, would occasionally use this phrase when discussions would wander a bit and stall on issues that were tangential to the decisions that needed to be made. I find myself using it a lot lately.

Because the challenge wasn’t daunting enough, the staff report, required when matters are put before the board for consideration, contained a suggestion that funds currently directed to the support and maintenance of the Fiscalini Ranch might be redirected to the fire department. The funding deficit that would be then applied to the ranch would be filled by a potential parcel tax that would be dedicated to the ranch upkeep.

(Cue inspirational music)

The Fiscalini Ranch is a majestic oasis, with a history that in many ways defines Cambria.

20121002_123305

Note to self – remember sunscreen!

It means many things to many people, and there are community-based organizations that dedicate time and money to keep it safe and vital. Walking the bluff trail and sitting on one of the unique and beautiful benches is my version of going to church. 

I don’t quite know where that proposal came from, or how much thought went into the ramifications of proposing it in this context, but it sure landed with a big BOOM. Suggesting that taking steps to “unfriend” the Ranch stirred a response that filled the cozy meeting room with community members who likely would riot (politely and gently) should the suggested actions gain approval.

Reverberations!

‘Is this resonating?’ Bernie Gracy has been described as having “a brain the size of a small planet.” He was and is a tireless innovator with a passion for 100 + slide PowerPoint presentations, delivered with spell-binding energy and intelligence. He would always make sure to pause, wave his arm in front of the screen and ask the audience “is this resonating?”  A great reminder to validate that what we say is well understood.

This suggestion did two things; one positive and one amazingly damaging. On the positive side, the immediate and passionate response brought into crisp focus just how much the community will support and protect the Ranch. A smaller, though equally important effect, was carrying more of the community to the meeting, where they could see and hear the issues in person, and not have to rely on others, including me, to tell them what happened. Many of us who share our views and recollections do so through the lens of our own positions, which can unfairly shade the story as it is retold. A shining exception to that is Kathe Tanner, our long-serving journalist who has seen it all and told it all. Her report of the meeting was crisp, factual and spin-free.

The damaging part of the recommendation was that it cast the firefighters as villains, and gave fuel to opponents who had both subtly and overtly positioned them in that light throughout the discussion leading up to the June vote. That battle was pretty brutal, and the rank and file of our small but mighty fire department were put in the position to represent themselves in the debate.  They had the disadvantage of being firefighters and not accomplished debaters, opinion shapers, or skillful public commentators. Nor were they inclined to get down in the mud with some opponents filled with a weird rage built on a worldview that everything CCSD is corrupt, incompetent, greedy or otherwise evil. Instead, they had to make their case again, having seen the community not support their cause through the ballot box, yet facing what they believe is a serious staffing shortfall.

Facts and Reason

What was meant to be a simple, administrative and policy discussion to determine if the required letter of commitment should be issued quickly changed as the Board saw the furor the public release of the supporting staff report set off across the town. Board President Amanda Rice did an excellent job of setting the correct expectations for what was to be discussed and considered, and what was not to be considered. The ” not” was the linkage of Ranch funding to Firefighter funding, or any other method for funding the required grant match. The other members of the board added similar commentary, and also expressed a bit of discomfort with the inclusion of it in the report. This demonstration of leadership from the board went a long way towards averting unnecessary and destructive commentary from a rightfully upset gathering of citizens and Ranch lovers.

The Public, Speaking 

‘Here’s my sense of the thing…’was the signal that Karl Schumacher had finished his process of examining an issue and coming to a recommendation. This phrase artfully set the table for a well-reasoned and insightful answer rather than a partisan position. Amazingly effective and diplomatic.

Objections

With the floor open for public comment, community members shared their thoughts on the issue at hand. Most of the comments were in opposition to the request for commitment. Some arguments were made using perceived deficiencies and inaccuracies in the grant application, and the long-range financial impact the funding requirement would have on the fiscal health of the district. Issues raised also included the thought that the recent defeat of A-18 was a clear signal that the community had spoken and did not want tax dollars spent on funding the fire department positions. This position had been shared by a fair number of people on social media prior to the meeting.

Support

I spoke in favor of supporting the grant, sharing my belief that the staffing levels advocated by the fire department, and endorsed by every fire professional I had interviewed, were both sensible and necessary. I also shared my dismay at the proposal to take from Fiscalini and give to Fire Department, likening the use of that tactic to Fake News – tossing an incendiary topic into the middle of a serious issue, resulting in a splatter of shrapnel that causes injury to common sense and thoughtful discourse. I also made a pitch for treating those with opposing views, and in this particular situation our firefighters, with less disdain and more respect.  Cambria Health District Board President Jerry Wood, speaking as a private citizen, also voiced support for the measure.

Convincing

The most resonant and reasoned presentation came from Ted Siegler, a highly capable and respected community member with in-depth knowledge of the District’s financial condition as well as the working of the Fiscalini Ranch. Ted has served and continues to serve in leadership roles on multiple committees and boards, including the CCSD Finance Committee and Fiscalini Ranch organizations. I think I also saw him on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Armed Services committee, but that may have been different prominent white-haired guys.

Ted laid out a clear set of facts, challenged some of the numbers that were included in the staff report, and concluded with the position that due to the district’s fiscal condition it would be irresponsible to take on additional financial responsibilities with no offsetting increase in revenues. It was practically impossible, absent a purely emotional motivation, to disagree with his findings and recommendation.

Decision Time

The talking stick was returned to the board, and they had further discussion about what they were about to decide. Cambria Fire Captain and grant writer Emily Torlano answered questions and clarified some information about how the grant was written and submitted. She noted that there was a question in the grant application that asked if the agency would like to request a financial hardship waiver of the matching funds requirement. The decision to check “no” had been made based on previous practice and with the thought that checking “yes” might have a negative impact on the application. It should be noted that the grant application process was begun well before Measure A-18 was placed on the ballot – a reasonable action given the uncertainty of the funding options to maintain the three firefighters hired under the original grant.

Before voting, the question was raised whether the Grant Application could be amended to change the hardship checkbox to “yes.” It was clear that the vote was going to go against the request, and options including not responding at all, returning with a brief decline – to – commit funding letter, or something else that would have the same effect but not incur a red mark against Cambria should future grant opportunities arise. In the end, the language used in the letter articulated the reasons for the decision to not commit. They were: District’s uncertain financial condition, and the defeat of Measure A -18. 

Next 

The decision the board made, while disappointing to some of us, was the right one for the community. As messy as it got, the Board showed solid thinking, compassionate listening, and excellent, committed leadership. 

The firefighters were a bit disheartened, but I believe they left feeling they got a fair hearing from the board and most of the community. There is no gloating or complaining to be done here; there should be some comfort in knowing the process worked, our voices were heard, and our elected leaders did their job with intelligence, honesty, and fairness. I hope we take that forward with us as we steam full speed ahead into the next hurricane of rate increases and ambulance taxes.

UPDATE

Shortly after the decision was made to withdraw the grant application, the Cambria Fire Department was notified that their application had been approved and the grant awarded. They had to decline.

 Pat Carberry spent his professional life leading different functions with grace, wit and compassion. Pat was also a hard-nosed businessman when necessary. He served in Vietnam as an Army Green Beret, but rarely spoke about his service. Pat was famous for the “Letters From God” that he’d read at the retirement parties of fellow PB’ers. When it came time for him to retire, he took a very different approach. He spoke quietly, and shared, ‘I’ve seen the horrific things human beings have done to each other.” A pause, then he looked at each one of us and said “Love one another.’

Tough Slog

28 Tuesday Feb 2017

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Water, Water Everywhere

It certainly has been a challenging few weeks for the Cambria Community Services District employees.  They’ve been inundated from every possible direction, with never-ending rain straining every resource. From the well fields to the brine pond, water, water everywhere.  The town, the surrounding hills, the beaches and the roads were assaulted by blessed and cursed rain.  It was all hands on a flooded deck.   Danger. A slip, a missed step, a falling tree, or a power line.  Look left, get pummelled from the right.  Miss something over there while trying to fix something over here, and bad things can happen. 

At the same time, the CSD staff leadership was under a different deluge – one of warnings and eventually notices of violation from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.  Some of these issues overlapped, with the rains exacerbating the strain and driving serious and consequential real-time decision-making, each choice the best that could be made, knowing that the downside of other things put aside could come back to haunt.  There is real danger in these times.

Pick up a shovel or spreadsheet?  Answer a public request or comply with an agency requirement?  Ensure safety or ensure administrative compliance?  Ask for help or ask forgiveness?  Whatever call is made, another one will be made by someone else. Such is a life in public service.  Plenty of support when someone gets hurt, and plenty of told-you so’s when someone comes up short.

Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. Thomas Paine

Extra, Extra!!!

In the weeks since the last Board meeting, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board sent Notices of Violation to the CCSD.  Each notice contained specific complaints, and each listed infraction carried the potential for fines; the number of instances times the dollar amounts per violation quickly added up to a theoretical fine closing in on $600,000.00 all in.  Startling, disturbing and definitely eye-catching.  Which is why the headlines led with it in one form or another.  Not Fake News, but certainly tone-setting.

A careful reading of the credible news articles revealed a more detailed and nuanced view of the situation. The vast majority of the violations were administrative – late or incomplete reports being the main bloc of issues.  The reporting requirements placed on the CSD are not trivial; some would argue they are close to punitive.  The reports seem to be required so the Water Board and other oversight agencies can monitor and manage any potential issues that could compromise the health and safety of both citizens and the environment.  Important stuff, and each agency seems to take these data points very seriously.  Timeliness of the reports likely impact the reporting the respective agencies need to do, and on it goes.

A deeper dive into the reporting and updates from the involved parties reveal that the draconian tone of the notices (and the subsequent headlines) were meant to convey a message – “Hey, guys – we are very serious here.  Get it together fast!!!”  Further reading offered a more conciliatory and even encouraging posture from agency representatives.  While not absolution, it revealed a more pragmatic and less dramatic approach to solving the problems that drove the notices.

The General Manager acknowledged the violations, and accepted that he and his staff had to do much better to win the trust of the agencies and the public.  Significant progress has been made against the backlog of late reporting.  Root causes were identified, and process changes and personnel realignments were made to better manage the requirements going forward.

Still – those headlines!  The most extreme of the stories flew around Social Media like the winning Lottery numbers.  To some, I guess, there were.

Accountability

I never expect to see a perfect work from an imperfect man. – Alexander Hamilton

Throughout the onslaught, some very serious questions were raised around accountability.  There is no doubt that the General Manager is ultimately responsible for ensuring the CSD’s obligations are met. He’s The Guy.  Responsibilities for individual deliverables fall across different parts of the organization, and many are shared among different, interlocking functions, but when things go boom, people are looking for that “one throat to choke.”  He is the one who takes the beating, no matter how fair or unfair.  I think he accepts that responsibility, and so far he has stood up and taken the heat.  He also stood tall and apologized for his comments at an earlier meeting, directing his words to the individual he scuffled with and the agency he inaccurately represented. Most importantly, he has taken action to correct what needed correcting.  Still, there are members of the community who are demanding his head.  Some have been taking small snips, others flashing their blades wildly. Still others lay out stones in the road hoping he will stumble over one and knock his own head off.  Or lose his cool, speak out of turn, and force the hand of say, oversight agencies.

Others take a more measured view, shut out the noise, and deal with the facts.  Not a single dollar in fines has been levied based on the Notices Of Violation.  That could change, and maybe it could result in a significant fine.  Maybe there will be a nominal fine or penalty.  Maybe the oversight will be ramped up and the reporting requirements tightened.  Or maybe, with considered review, opportunities to reshape some of the requirements will make it easier to comply while maintaining the correct levels of safety and situational awareness.  I struggle to think of a reason an agency would severely punish a community for these types of infractions.  I wonder why some community members seem almost gleeful at the prospect.  Weird, right?

Abandonment

I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!  – Margaret Hamilton

You know what else is weird?  The incredible swiftness with which some loyal friends and supporters of the Board President tossed her under the Prius and sped away because she did not do their bidding.  She (GASP!!!!) voted the way she thought was best.  Well, hot damn!! I fear some people don’t quite know how representative government is supposed to work.  It is interesting  to see some of these folks go on about free and equal, but when they don’t get the specific actions they want they call for the overthrow of their own votes. To quote some bozo in Washington. “SAD!”

Unaccepted Answers

With every meeting and every conversation, it becomes clearer that no matter what the explanation, what the reasoning or what the evidence says, some  folks simply will not believe anything the Board says about the Sustainable Water Facility.  From the conditions that drove the rapid development and build out of the facility, to the funding of the project, the rebranding, and the current status, required changes and ongoing permitting, every position given by the Board is called into question by those who oppose the plant, along with pretty much everything else that is the District’s responsibility.  Every question has been answered, and just about ever answer has been rejected.  Short of allowing folks to place fingers in wounds nothing will change any mind.  This is really too bad.  But if the foundational mindset is that there never was an emergency and the facility was always intended to fuel growth, therefore everyone involved is corrupt and dishonest, this will never change.  It becomes a game of attrition.

I often question my own view of the facts, so I reach out to different members of the resistance to ask for a better understanding of their positions.  Results have been mixed, with some good, open and civil conversations, and some sharp, “stick to the issues and “What do you not see?” retorts, as if coming to different conclusions somehow makes me a dullard.

Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. – Alexander Hamilton

How Do We Listen?

There were a couple of real head-scratching exchanges during the last meeting.  They illustrate our collective differences in how we listen, what we hear through our own filters and biases, and how we respond to what was said.  A few quick examples:

  • The GM went through, in some detail, the actions he and the staff have taken in response to the Notices of Violation.  He highlighted a few of the drivers that contributed to late reporting, including samples that are sent to different labs around the country, resulting in uneven and delayed results needed to populate the required reports.  He outlined the steps taken to remove this particular stumbling block; later, in public comment a citizen referred back to the GM’s comments as an example of finger-pointing and shifting blame.  Now, my initial reaction was “that’s not what I heard.” Director Bahringer’s response confirmed my take on what was said.
  • Another citizen (and prior candidate for a Board seat) spoke about the loan agreement that funded a large part of the facility, saying we have “hocked everything we own…”and painted a dire picture of having everything in town seized if we default.  I wonder if he read a different loan agreement, because I didn’t see anything like that in the one I read.
  • A third example was an exchange between Directors Farmer and Sanders regarding the work needed to be done to complete the EIR.  Director Sanders shared his experienced opinion that documents like the EIR often go through a complicated response process, and at times the information that agencies have requested in their review comments are already in the document, and could be found by a more careful review of the data provided.  Director Farmer replayed that back as Director Sanders blaming the Agencies for not doing a good job, rather than the original EIR document being flawed.  Certainly not what I heard Director Sanders say, but that’s how Director Farmer heard it.
  • The last example of what was said versus what was heard – in discussing the excess water in the brine pond, the GM outlined a plan that is under consideration, pending approval and permitting from the appropriate agencies.  That plan includes draining much of the rain and floodwaters out of the pond and into nearby fields, lowering the content of the pond to safe, compliant levels.  The second piece of the puzzle would be the ongoing removal of the brine produced by the SWF.  This would entail pumping the brine into tankers and trucking it south to a facility that would dispose of it safely.  The General Manager did some quick math, and estimated that taking everything currently in the brine pond, pumping and trucking it out could cost around a million dollars, and that clearly was not a feasible solution.  This was relayed back to me in an email as  “The estimate at the meeting was at least $1 million to dispose of what’s there now. “

Perhaps these few examples can highlight why it might be helpful to take a minute or two, think about what we hear, ask clarifying questions, or even replay a recording to validate our thoughts.  However, if we all go into a situation with set jaws and contentious minds, not much will change.  A war of attrition.

Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest – Paul Simon

Once Upon A Time

A friend shared with me an article by Nathan Welton from July 2004, detailing the multiple environmental groups who engaged in the battles over the Hearst development efforts. I was struck by the sheer number of different and overlapping groups, and the fractures and tensions among them as they battled to find a common voice.

This section caught my attention: “Leading up to that event was raucous name-calling littering editorial pages — one recent letter painted North Coast county supervisor Shirley Bianchi “a wholly owned subsidiary of the Hearst Corp.” for her support of the current preservation and development plan.”

“Meanwhile, a former adviser to the Environmental Defense Center has admonished the group for having the temerity to make a public request for documents related to the Hearst deal.”

“And Sierra Club officials are threatening to kick local board member Tim O’Keefe out of the organization for publicly airing his differences over Hearst.”

Turn on a trusted and dedicated public figure – check.

Get mad about public document requests – check.

Exile individuals for airing differences of opinion – check.

The more things change…

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

We The People

18 Sunday Dec 2016

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Community

The period between Thanksgiving and New Year is one of increasing activity for everyone. In Cambria, that includes such traditional events as Hospitality Night, Friends of The Fiscalini Ranch “Songs For The Season” Fundraiser, the opening of the Cambria Christmas Market (which I believe can be seen from space) and Cambria Center For The Arts Theater’s delightful production of “It’s A Wonderful Life”, which is open to all free of charge. The weather is cooling, the shops are looking festive and the line at the Post Office has begun to double back on itself as holiday greetings arrive and depart and packages are lugged in and hauled out. The rotating faces of the homeless stationed outside remind me that we still have a way to go to make the season a little brighter for everyone.

Cambrians are many things, but at the top of that list sit the twin sisters of Kindness and Generosity. We may grumble a bit as we dig a little deeper to pay our water bill, but that grumbling doesn’t even think about making an appearance when we reach again for that ten or twenty dollars to hand to the volunteers lining the driveway circling the Vet’s Hall every time a community member is faced with a difficult and often tragic situation. The sudden unexpected loss of a beloved community member draws a congregation to mourn together, remember together and celebrate a life well lived, together. People truly care about each other around here; as good as it is, it ain’t the spaghetti that draws a crowd.

The community demonstrates caring in other ways, most visibly in the political process. There are thousands of people in the community, and a really impressive number participated in the recent election, with a registered voter participation rate in the neighborhood of 87%. The run-up to election day was crowded with candidate forums, small gatherings at citizen’s homes, discussions at the Farmer’s Market and everywhere people would meet. Everyone had an opinion, a favored candidate, and carried a burning platform. Lines were drawn, sides taken, divisions hardened. But really, how deep did the divide go? My guess is that there are a handful of diehards on every side, a larger number adjacent, and an even larger number right in the neutral zone; not uncaring, not uninvolved, not ambivalent. Just people who kept their humanity standing in front of their partisanship. It was pretty noisy, and kind of ugly at times, but we all had our chance to speak with our votes.

No Electoral College Needed

With the election behind us, I looked ahead to the December Board meeting, where the newly elected and re-elected Directors would take their seats at the podium.

One major item needed to be addressed at the top of the session – electing the President and Vice President who would lead the Board in the upcoming year. This was an event eagerly anticipated by much of the community, and there was a lot of energy around the topic in the weeks between the election and the session. As with many things, there was a lack of clarity as to how the process actually works. Many believed that there was a rotational policy, where the officers would rotate through their terms. A subset of this belief was that the sitting VP (assuming re-election or in this case, continuation of his elected term) would become president, and a new Vice President was to be elected. Others believed that everybody got a turn with the gavel. Many felt that it was only fair that a sitting Director who had served a full term, but who had not been given a turn in either position was “due”. This viewpoint had some additional merit since this Director was the top vote-getter in this election, as well as in her previous run.

Where’s the Rulebook?

I remembered a bit of a conversation I had with one of the Directors earlier in the year, and I believed I had a good understanding of the “rules” surrounding this process. I wanted to be sure I had it right, so I sent an email to the Directors and asked for clarification of the rules, and for any “color” they might want to add.

My Email: “I’m doing a bit of research for my next piece and was hoping you all could give me your quick view on the nomination and election of Board execs – President and Vice President.  There seems to be some confusion in the community about how that process works.  My understanding from what I’ve read and heard is that there is no official rule/policy/bylaw that mandates a change in officers.  There is a section on the CSD Website that says officers are chosen every year, but nothing that says “new” officers must be chosen. I’m trying to clearly separate the issues -what is “REQUIRED” versus what is “Past Practice” versus what is “Fair.”  There is a perception in some parts of the community that everybody should get a turn with the gavel; some believe that it is a requirement, others believe that is a customary practice, others believe it is a position that is earned.  So my simple (!) question – what is the current governing rule/regulation/bylaw that determines how these positions are filled? If you care to add any “color” to the response that would be helpful.”

 Within two days I received independent responses from Directors Sanders, Thompson and Rice. They agreed on the facts, and also gave some interesting background. They all agreed I could share their feedback.

 Greg Sanders: “Michael – the CCSD Board of Directors By-Laws, duly adopted by the Board, are very clear on the subject.  Section 1.4 of the By-Laws states as follows:

“The President and Vice President of the Board shall be elected annually at the first regular meeting in December and the term of office shall commence immediately upon election and continue until replaced.” 

That is the only provision of the By-Laws pertaining to the election of the President and Vice-President of the Board.  There is nothing in the By-Laws regarding rotation, etc. The Board is free to use any criteria it chooses to select a Board President and Vice-President.  The Board could, for example, decide immediately following an election that a candidate receiving the most votes should be selected as the President.  Or, the Board could choose to ignore the election and select a President and Vice-President on the basis of some other criteria, or no criteria at all.

He also added some historical perspective: In my service on the Board… there has been no particular pattern followed.  I served back-to-back terms as President of the Board in 2009 and 2010.  The Board wanted continuity at a time when some very significant issues were under consideration.  When I served from 2002-2010, Don Villeneuve, a fellow Board member, did not serve at any time as President.  As I recall, he did not serve as Vice President, either.  He resigned in 2008 (or thereabouts).

In my experience, selection of a Board President and Vice-President has been based on exigencies.  Ilan Funke-Bilu served as either Board President or Vice –President when the District was involved in litigation with Chevron Corp. over MTBE contamination of the Santa Rosa Creek aquifer.  He conducted most of the negotiations with Chevron.  Having a leadership position enhanced his position vis-à-vis Chevron.”

Mike Thompson: “Good afternoon Michael—-To avoid any possible Brown Act violation, I won’t cc any of the other individuals you queried. You are correct in assuming that there is no official rule/policy/bylaw regarding Board elections. The only requirement is the ability to count to three…in other words, it takes two members besides yourself to gain election. Last year Gail indicated a desire to continue in the chair to see through the process of applying for the permanent permit for the SWF. I and two others felt that was in the best interest of the District. In the recent past, Greg Sanders was President for two consecutive terms, so there is precedence.”

Amanda Rice: “The way boards choose their officers has always struck me as kind of an awkward situation, primarily due to Brown act restrictions about talking to other directors about certain business items. I can’t, for instance, talk to directors to try and find out if there’s a consensus about who should be president or vice president. There is no rule or law that requires the officers to ever change; as long as somebody is in office they can serve as president or vice president.

Besides there being nothing specific about “how” officers are rotated, there is nothing that bestows any additional powers or authorities to any individual board member, whether they are president, vice president or non-officer directors. The bylaws give the president the job of chairing… the meetings and to the vp in the president’s absence.

Amanda then added some interesting color: “Last year the bylaws were amended to give the president some additional authority:

  1. Designates or acts as a spokesperson for the board and a point person for gov’t relations.
  2. Makes appointments to all committees subject to board approval.
  3. May add an item to the agenda without the same required board majority of other directors. Can also approve the request of another director to add an item to the agenda, even without board majority.

The bylaws were also changed so that the general manager developed the agenda in cooperation with the president and vice president. Previously, the bylaws stated that the executive committee worked with the general manager to put together the agenda.

The bottom line is this – with the approval of the majority of the board, our bylaws give the president additional control of the direction of the board and therefore, of the district. I disagreed with the changes then. I disagree with them now. But they are the bylaws that I abide by as a director.”

So, one official bylaw.  No official “Rule.”  All for an office that has “no special power” except when it does.  Got it?  Good!

It was a blustery day in the hundred acre wood.
Fortunately, Pooh's thoughtful spot was in a sheltered 
place. Now he sat down and tried hard to think of 
something.
Winnie the Pooh: Think... think... think...
Gopher: Say, what's wrong, sonny? Got yourself a 
headache?
Winnie the Pooh: No, I was just thinking.
Gopher: That so? What about?
Winnie the Pooh: I... Oh, bother! You made me forget.

The Big Moment 

I was a few minutes late due to the big ass rainstorm that picked the right day to show up. Despite the weather, the Vet’s Hall was packed with people eager to have their voices heard. There was a lot of great energy in the joint – not all positive of course; I got the sense that many of the attendees were staunch supporters of Amanda Rice, and they were not convinced the Board would honor their wish and select her as the new president. And so we begin.

Vice President Thompson did an “LBJ’, indicating he would not accept if nominated and would not serve if elected. Newly elected Director Harry Farmer, in his best “slow-jamming the news” voice, nominated Amanda Rice to fill the office of President. Wild applause from the audience! Discussion followed. Director Jim Bahringer spoke. He said that the politically easy thing for him to do would be to support Amanda, but in his view Director Greg Sanders would be a better choice to lead the Board, given the circumstances and work to be done over the next year. He felt Amanda should be Vice President this year, and President in 2018. This did not go over very well with the attendees. Public comment was fiery, with pointed and passionate comments along with a reading of the will – of the people who signed a petition calling for Amanda’s ascension, complete with the petitioner’s written comments. The nomination was defeated 3-2. Director Bahringer then nominated Greg Sanders and Amanda Rice for President and Vice President. More discussion, with Director Rice giving her reasoning as to why she would be the right choice for President. More cries from the people, lots of angry faces, fully expecting their hopes for change to be crushed.

A vote was called on the Sanders/Rice ticket. Monique straightened her Christmas sweater and called the roll:

Director Bahringer – NO.

Director Sanders – NO.

Vice President Thompson – NO.

Director Rice – NO.

Director Farmer – NOOOOO.

What? WOW!!!!! He voted against his own nomination!?!? This was really fascinating – a ripped-from-the-pages of a political thriller screenplay. I scanned the room for Aaron Sorkin. He wasn’t there, so I scanned the room for Aaron Wharton, who also wasn’t there. No matter – the drama continued.

Director Bahringer then immediately nominated Director Rice for President. Monique, now at the edge of her seat, again called the roll. The vote – 5-0. Amanda was President. She immediately nominated Greg Sanders for Vice President. Again Monique cheerfully called the roll – again 5-0. The CCSD Board of Directors was ready to go.

Fast Forward

I know Kathe Tanner will report on the important discussions that followed, but I want to comment on the last Agenda item. A compensation increase for selected members of the CSD staff was put before the Board for a vote. The increase would be given in two steps in 2017. A 5.5% increase in January, a second 5.5% in June. At first blush an 11% increase is attention-grabbing and cause for serious discussion. The General Manager went through the reasoning behind the proposal, with one of the key points being very compelling to me. Over the last several years staffing levels have been reduced, with several positions eliminated and the attendant duties added to the responsibilities of the employees under discussion. So these positions carry more responsibility, and in my mind additional compensation should be given.

I understand arguing against the increases on financial grounds. I was distressed to hear that some members of the board and the public had views that were less than sensitive, culminating in a public comment that the employees “should be grateful they have a job.”

I continue to be confounded by the people who, in earlier public comment railed against the staff for not delivering information they have demanded (demands that add additional workload and are a time drain on an already overburdened team) are the same people who, in the same meeting, cried out loudly for “fairness” and  “doing the right thing” in the election of the Board President would speak so forcefully against showing “fairness” and “doing the right thing” for the employees who give more than what is reasonable in service to the community.

The board did the right thing and approved the compensation.

Happy Holidays.

 

 

I just went to pick up tomatoes!

23 Sunday Oct 2016

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

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

The Question

My wife came home from church one morning and shared a simple question that struck a chord with her. It came from Reverend Rod Richards in a talk he had given that morning. The question – “How are we going to be?” I think about that a lot, and mentally apply it to the discussions I have with people who are asking us for their support.

Quick Recap (or “whaaaah, nobody listens to me!!!)

As I have mentioned before, I had submitted a list of questions crafted specifically for the challengers to CCSD Board who had declared and filed to be on the ballot. The goal was to gain insights into their top concerns, their depth of knowledge surrounding the major challenges we face as a community, their level of commitment to fully understand all of the moving parts that go into those issues, and their views on the pressures and provocations that members of the Board often face.

So – short story long – I got no responses. I followed up a few times with no results, but I’ve been able to catch up with some of the candidates in the parking lot of the Vet’s Hall.

The Talk

This week I approached Dewayne Lee, who was manning a spot in the middle of the Farmer’s Market Candidate’s Row with Tom Kirkey, Harry Farmer and Amanda Rice to his right, and Greg Sanders and Gail Robinette to his left. (To all my theater friends, that is Stage Right and Stage Left, respectively.)

The conversation began much like my earlier conversation with Tom Kirkey. I introduced myself and set the stage, recapping the sent questions/no response/follow-up/no response events. Dewayne indicated that he was not unwilling to talk, and gave several reasons as to why he didn’t respond to my written questions. He said “you have already made up your mind” and there was no reason to respond, and that the questions I posed would require detailed knowledge that only someone already on the Board would possess.

(To the first reason – in an earlier post, where I outlined my process for evaluating candidates I wrote “I don’t see the value of changing horses just because you can.” You can read the line in context HERE.  To the second –you can see the questions I posed HERE.)

We moved ahead with the conversation, and exchanged viewpoints on several of the details surrounding the EWS/SWF. We discussed some of the drivers around the need for a stable water supply, the process by which the current facility was selected and built, the costs – known and unknown around the plant’s continued operation, its use, and the long-term fiscal impact on Cambrians of decisions that have been made and will need to be made going forward.

The Interpretation

After some fairly intense discussion, I replayed what I believed I heard in order to not misrepresent his positions and reasoning. I’ll summarize them here.

  • He believes that the EIR should have been done before anything was built. For this reason he believes the current EIR process – review, identify environmental impact, take input, define remediation steps – is not proper.
  • He believes that the CCSD Board and Staff did not act appropriately when the project transitioned from The Emergency Water Supply to the Sustainable Water Facility.
  • He believes that any change from one to the other should be brought before the voters to decide on how the plant should be used.
  • He believes the “flaws” in the current plant design – specifically the brine pond/evaporation method – should have been foreseen and that bad engineering decisions were made. He believes that the discharge process is spreading toxic mist across the area and encroaching on the adjacent State Park.
  • He believes transitioning that brine pond to a water storage area is a good idea.
  • He believes that the CCSD Board and Staff are not answering questions about the long-term costs of dealing with environmental impacts (and in particular the removal of “unrecoverable” waste from the treatment process.)
  • He believes that the ad hoc committee process currently used does not give the public good insight and input into discussions and decisions that are made around critical issues. He believes that standing committees are a more appropriate way to get public involvement and oversight on Board decisions.

(note: both Dewayne and Andy Pickar, who joined us for part of the discussion, corrected my understanding of how ad hoc committees and standing committees work and differ.)

  • He believes, based on his personal review, that the public financial reporting is inaccurate and that the Board is not reflecting the true state of the district’s finances.
  • He believes that growth should be sensibly managed with all factors weighed before more building is allowed.
  • He believes that the public abuse of the Board (accusations of corruption, fraud, incompetence, personal attacks…) has at times gotten out of hand and is unacceptable.
  • He believes that he has the skills and experience to work positively with people of different viewpoints to get thing done.

There were a few more topics we discussed but I believe this list covers the most important ones we explored.

As always…

The candidate’s positions are theirs, and any questions about them should be directed to them. As I have said in previous postings, all of the candidates I have spoken with have invited the public to contact them directly if they want more information.

Final Thoughts

I’m looking forward to wrapping up my visits with the main candidates. Gail Robinette and I started a discussion that we hope to finish in the coming days. I’ve had a few failed attempts at conversation with Harry Farmer, so I don’t have anything more to add to his public comments at both forums and his published literature.

When I’m done perhaps I will have a better sense on how to answer the question “How are we going to be?”