 |
| Sometimes what some put forth as "solutions" to pressing issues are nothing more that veiled attempts at greater degrees of control...... |
Ho hum.
I met with John Peacock earlier this year on this topic. I told him then, in my office to his face, I was open to look at what he is considering--even willing to discuss it at a workshop with my peers---as we cannot discuss anything outside of these meetings. My understanding is we will have such a discussion at an upcoming committee of the whole.
Good.
But my willingness to discuss these ideas does not signal my support of these concepts--and I told Peacock this as well to his face; he left the meeting knowing I do not support an elected executive administrator for the county.
And reading the tea leaves from earlier discussions I have held with my counterparts over my idea to make 4 of 5 districts at large--I see no appetite thus far leading me to believe there is support for an even more radical transformation of the board's makeup the likes of which Peacock's group is proposing.
Wanting to create efficiencies for taxpayers and save by consolidating some functions in common with other entities? Yes--that makes sense and I could support such a plan if it was well thought out and was efficient and effective.
Wanting a strong, independently-elected "County Mayor" for our organization? No, that is a horrible idea. Absolutely terrible and I do not, will not and cannot support that. And, again, I told Peacock this.
It was bad enough ceding all power to ONE king superintendent in the county's school district where I served 10 years...and where on many occassions the duly elected 5-member board's staffing ideas were
defiantly ignored. Imagine five board members telling the superintendent we want "X" (which was a reasonable request having to do with deans in middle schools NOT being replaced with paper-pushing second assistant principals) and the king superintendent saying to all five--"NO!" and doing the opposite. (That happened by the way). The same 5 board members were kept in the dark purposely about items of extreme importance and student safety surrounding a charter school's nefarious conduct---for political reasons and the election calendars' sake. It was disgusting and reprehensible----and it stemmed from too much power being bestowed upon ONE person. Or just on congeniality and working as a team--how about the king superintendent prohibiting items from the board members from being added to the board's agenda? Yeah, that happened too. With the terse explanation being "No, it will not go on the agenda because to do so signals that I support what you are proposing and I do not!" (Yeah, that happened too, on multiple occasions)
And so I did support eliminating the throwback "elected" superintendent of schools model in Escambia County and the voters agreed in 2018, albeit by a small margin. Because they knew what I know: It was too much power for one person and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The Pensacola Mayor became a "strong mayor" in 2010(ironically with the backing of some of the same folks who supported ending the "strong" superintendent in 2018)--and for 8 years that model worked quite well. Lately, with a new and strong city council, and some big development decsions not going the way the powerful want them to go-- some are frustrated and believe that model isn't working now and leading to gridlock. Time will tell on that.
But the folks who installed the strong mayor and ended the strong superintendent now want to create a strong, elected County Administrator or Mayor. They, apparently, do not like some decisions the current board of county commissioners has made. They, apparently, do not like the fact that the board, the five members, make the decisions and the administrator implements our vision. They, apparently, do not like the recent termination of an administrator with whom they were simpatico.
They apparently think the system is broken because decisions they want, ideas they favor, and what they envision hasn't happened quickly enough.
But here's the thing on that: It is not the structure--it's the people.
Elect good people, and insure they stay in their lanes, and hold them accountable, and either system can function. Living and serving under both models (a unique vantage point I hold) I can say unequivocally that the current system the BCC is under, while not perfect by any means, works well. And bringing in a "strong" executive would eviscerate the board's vision, initiatives and authority. It would be worse, far worse, for each districts' citizens because the wealthy and powerful would actually be the one's calling the shots--as they could very successfully elect "their guy" who could thwart the will of the elected board. That is the fact of undisputed reality that makes an elected county executive idea a non-starter to me. The wealthy and powerful can rally behind opposition commissioner candidtates---but there is NO guarantee of success as commission candidates in single member districts can overcome funding deficits if they walk neighborhoods and work diligently (i.e. they can overcome the monied interests' candidates via sweat equity and hard work in low-turnout primaries with small voter participation percentages)
So the current sysem attenuates power, can be ugly at times, perhaps moves a bit too slow, and can sometimes be inefficient. Yes.
But it works better than other models, insures citizens' interests are prioritized higher than the powerful, and contains more checks and balances. This is an axiom of truth I hope the star chamber understands--althought they won't like making friends with that reality.
No, the structure is not the problem. Problems are inate to what we do and go hand in hand with governance. Remember--if it's too easy something is wrong and you'd better watch your wallet.
And so therefore structural "reform" of the county---- because some that are powerful in other venues do not currently have a voice at the table with respect to the power of governance in the county--- is not going to be the panacea they expect even if they get it. It's not the be all, end all. It's just one idea (of many) floating around out there, offered as a "solution" to a problem for which it is looking.
And nothing more.
With all due respect, Commissioner, our current board can't even put together a budget without begging for help from the people it forced out. There is literally no objective metric that would suggest the current organizational structure is in any way the highest and best use of our citizens' votes.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous-That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. However, I'd simply say we got the budget done, we settled the contracts with all but one of our bargaining groups, we have now, via our administrator Wes Moreno, filled the positions of facilities director and director of HR, EMS and Public Safety, and we have terminated our former medical director and brought in new, professional medical directors and we are actively pursuing a new director of budget and finance. Yes, Stephan Hall from the city was brought in on a temporary basis to assist us over the hump at the end of the FY to get our new budget done, and for that we are all very grateful. Stephan is a great guy and losing him was a big loss. But he obviously had some more significant opportunities with the city so good for him for making the switch. As of last Friday, the negotiations with our final bargaining group, the ATU non-operational, were finalized and we are simply waiting for their ratification vote. So although we have gone through a transition recently with some necessary and overdue leadership changes in administration--the organization is reforming and reorganizing into a better more able team. And this improvement is anathema to the few in the downtown set who want to constantly portray us as in a continual state of disarray and disorder. This group of critics and cynics are also, coincidentally, the ones who think we need a "new structure" now that some with whom they were simpatico have been shown the door by this board. See how that works anonymous? I see it with crystal clarity as do those who have a brain.
ReplyDelete