Sunday, May 3, 2009
If You Say “No” You Need to be Part of the Solution
The easiest thing in the world is to say, “No.” How many times have you been with someone and said, “Where should we go to lunch?” and the reply comes, “I don’t care.” However, when you suggest someplace, they say, “No, I don’t want to go there…” So they really DID care! You can play that game forever, suggesting new things as the person just shoots down idea after idea. My next question after that is, “OK, where do you want to go?” If they say they don’t care again, you remind them that you already made a suggestion and they did care and said, “No.” At that point, they need to start being part of the solution instead of simply objecting.
The same thing goes for my role at work. I have to say “No” about a number of things, but I try to offer an alternative. I TRY to do this in other areas of my life, although in some situations it becomes very difficult. The Village Hall is one such issue. Problem is, I don’t see a solution that works that will get the support it needs to be implemented. We keep bouncing around, looking for the right answer, the one that works for everyone on cost, location, and providing the needed space. It is a tall order, almost a no win situation. And to tell you the truth, I am not sure it is one we will resolve.
Another is the subject of the Village becoming a city. At a recent joint meeting of the Village Council with the Scio Township Board, Donna Palmer, the Treasurer for Scio, raised the issue of costs associated with becoming a city. An independent group, the City Study Committee (which included no members of Council and a cross section of people from the community), determined the additional costs for the Village in becoming a city were less than $50,000 per year. That is measured against the more than $250,000 paid to Scio and Webster Township every year. So the question is, “If there is some level of cost that the Village would have to bear, and the townships believe those costs are not being accounted correctly, what do the townships propose as an alternative?” If the issue is truly costs, how about the townships refund to the Village all taxes paid and charge the Village for services received? How about we just get an accounting from the townships of what services they provide, so we know the actual costs? It is not that difficult - assessing, Board of Review for assessing, and elections. Neither township provides police or fire service for the Village. Neither dedicate any funds from Open Space millages to the Village, even though the Village pays a sizable amount of money into those funds. How about the townships earmark open space money collected from the Village for land in and around the Village? (like Gordon Hall…)
What is the REAL objection here? Is it really the costs? Or are those nay-sayers just saying, “No,” for some other reason? There are arguments to be made for not becoming a city, although personally I think they pale in comparison to the benefits, monetarily in terms of taxes and based on services to Village citizens. Let’s have an open and honest debate about becoming a city, based on the facts where facts apply, and a discussion about benefits to the citizens of a village vs. a city where there are no objective measurements. What we cannot have is people on either side of the discussion just saying, “No.” It just won’t work for an informed debate.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
It’s Not About the Person
Pet peeve #1 - It’s not about the person.
Do yourself a favor: focus on the issue. We get so bogged down in the person in the process of trying to make a point about an issue. I try not to do it, and it KILLS me when it happens to me. It makes it hard for me to focus on the issue at hand.
Good example is our last two presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. How many times is the focus of the conversation (and I am saying these things only because they are what is repeated in newspapers and on TV) that Clinton was always chasing women around (not Hillary) and Bush was dumber than a box of rocks? Here’s a good example - George W. Bush or Chimpanzee? I mean, is that the best we can do? Attack our leaders as if they really are the Saturday Night Live parody of themselves? If you don’t like what either of these guys did, fine. Say why you don’t like the policies they pursued. Why denigrate yourself by resorting to personal attacks?
This is why I have such a hard time watching Bill Maher. I love to hear the commentary of intelligent people with differing points of view, which is why I watch Real Time. But, man o’ man, does Bill and his guests go off on tears against people. Watch the show sometime and ask yourself, “Is that person making a thoughtful statement about the issue or playing to the crowd (or baiting the crowd) and Maher by being an attack dog?” The weight I put in their argument directly corresponds to how well they stay away from that kind of thing.
The weight I put into ANY argument often swings on the same evaluation. If you ever make it to a Council meeting, pay attention to what Ray Tell says. He’s like the Joe Friday of Council, “Just the facts, ma’am.” He doesn’t say much, but what he says matters. With Ray it is never about the person.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Firing Up the Region - Will a Regional Fire Department Work?
The Chelsea Area Planning Team (CAPT) and Dexter Area Regional Team (DART) have been meeting and talking about, among other things, a regional fire department. Imagine a fire department, covering an area including all of Scio, Webster, Lima, Dexter, Sylvan, and Lyndon Townships, and the city of Chelsea and village of Dexter. This is 30% of the land in Washtenaw County!
What would be the potential benefits? Less administration (one chief instead of three), a better overall staffed department (most small departments struggle to afford sufficient staffing levels to meet all needs), shared resources such as trucks (does each community really need their own set of tankers and ladder trucks?), and possibly, an overall cost savings to all involved with better service.
I think that is what everyone has in mind when we sit around the table and, like the scene from the movie, “The Untouchables,” everyone talks about teamwork, all heads nod, and everyone agrees it is a great idea. The only problem is that, in the movie, Al Capone pulls out a baseball bat and demonstrates to one associate at the table that he is definitely NOT part of the team. No one at CAPT/DART wants to be that guy. So while everyone is nodding in agreement that it sounds like a great idea, what are the baseball bats hidden in the corners? You would probably call those issues “politics.”
A regional fire department would combine three fire departments from the area - Scio Fire Department, Dexter Area Fire Department, and Chelsea Area Fire Authority. Everyone wants to get a fair shake and not feel like they are getting the short end of the deal. Everyone has their own valuation of their own equipment. (”My 2 year old fire truck is worth WAY more than that 8 year old junker you’re trying to pass off…”) Everyone thinks their way of “running a department” is the best way. (”OUR department doesn’t have the problems that department has…”) No method of funding is going to be totally “fair” in everyone’s eyes. (”What do you mean you want to charge by square miles? How about we charge by population density?”) Chelsea is a Fire Authority, with the ability to put a millage to the vote of the people, Scio now has a special assessment district to fund their public safety, and Dexter is funded directly by the participating municipalities - which is right or better? And the list goes on and on.
That really is the tough part. When you get eight municipalities together, you have potentially 28 different government to government interactions, and that’s just one on one! There are rural and urban areas, big box stores and single family businesses, schools of all sizes, mobile home parks and apartment buildings to 10+ acre lots with single family homes, and a multitude of other variables such as lakes and areas with very remote access. How does one formula fit all?
There is no “perfect” solution. Really, as I said at the meeting last Monday, all we can hope for is everyone goes away from the table a little disappointed, without anyone walking away saying, “Yipee! We got a great deal!” If everyone compromises somewhat, it is likely everyone will get the best deal possible. This is where the Nash Equilibrium game theory comes in - I can only succeed if everyone in this with me succeeds as well. So talk to your elected officials, ask them to put away their bats, and tell them to get in there and take one for the team. Then we can all be winners.
