City residents should consider Ms.
Mallozzi's DRW article as an opportunity. An opportunity to see through any
smokescreen of rhetorical nonsense and examine the deplorable condition of
governance in Cooper City. Even more to the point, it is time for each resident
in our community to gauge for themselves just how far away we are from any
semblance of good governance. And I am not referring to some unreachable political
Utopia. The citizenry need
only reflect upon basic concepts of decent representation provided by
responsible local elected officials conscious of their sworn oath of office and
fiduciary responsibilities.
The individuals controlling the
majority of votes on the Commission, with an able assist by fellow travelers
and sycophants, count on you, the residents. They count on you to be far too
busy to focus on the activities of part-time, locally elected officials who
generally meet only twice a month. In addition, most residents are probably
vaguely aware we have a qualified, professional City Manager to really run
things, and generally make sure the wheels don't come off the bus.
In the person of Bruce Loucks we
indeed have a qualified, professional City Manager. While I may sometimes
vehemently disagree with Mr. Loucks' decisions, he is a very competent and
well-respected professional. However, counterbalancing Mr. Loucks' competence
and qualifications are the local offices of mayor and city commissioner. With
only three votes necessary to fire any City Manager who might rub their fur the
wrong way, I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone trying to hold down that
position.
Back in 2008, the majority of
individuals holding the offices of mayor and city commissioner exercised a coup de main. Through a
series of events never fully explained, and quite irregular in process, they
literally bullied their way into seizing the reins of local power. The elected
officials decided that despite a distinct lack of any qualifications, and damn
the consequences, they were taking control of "City policy". This
decision allowed Commission members to fully develop and put into practice
their present "make it up as we go along" political philosophy. In an unforeseen consequence, taking power to
which they were never intended also sounded the death knell for any effective
oversight within the City.
In over 26 months of closely observing
the City Commission, I've noticed "the truth" has a life expectancy
shorter than soldiers assigned to WWII Soviet Penal Battalions. The DRW
magazine publication has graciously provided local elected officials the
opportunity to publish several articles in each edition. It is with
astoundingly poor judgment that some of our elected officials seem intent on
using the platform provided by DRW to disseminate propaganda pieces, rather
than the local chamber of commerce, or health/safety/welfare type articles for which the space is clearly intended.
Rather than respect and observe the
courtesy granted by the DRW publication, it seems several Commission members
have discovered a new outlet for their favorite method of communication with
the electorate. Commission members can write what they want, and then have
their propaganda printed and disseminated to a wide audience. Of course, given
that DRW is a publication not intended for political statements, there is no
procedure in place whereby readers can raise questions that should be answered. The DRW publication is not in the
business of fact-checking and making considered judgments regarding articles
submitted by local officials. It offers elected officials a transaction
dependent on good faith and trust. (Hmmm. Wasn't there a line in the movie "Animal
House" relevant to this trust situation?).
I first noticed misuse of the DRW magazine
in an article by Commissioner Jamie Curran in the December, 2013 issue. The
article was part of Mr. Curran's efforts to, amongst other things, resuscitate
a stalled expenditure of over $6,000,000 for construction of a Soccer Complex
and upgrades to existing athletic facilities. The projects were to be funded by
the City's taxpayers.
Despite essentially no public
disclosures, participation, or input through about 18+ months of private
discussion and development, the way seemed clear to force through this enormous
project. However, at almost the last possible moment certain problems arose.
First, it became impossible to hide that no due diligence had ever been
done demonstrating any necessity for the notably large expenditure of
taxpayers' dollars. Second, to this observer there looked to be an inability to
convince Mayor Ross and City Manager Loucks into setting aside their
well-founded concerns. Third, there had been questions raised by Commissioner John
Sims that remained very much unanswered.
Commissioner Curran used his December
of 2013 DRW article to discuss the projected projects of a park and updating
athletic facilities (note, for now the term "Soccer Complex" has been
virtually barred from the City's vocabulary). He also focused on alleged public
disclosure, as well as public input into the projects. The article was based on
a rather sketchy version of local legislative history, but the real problem was
Commissioner Curran's use of inaccurate information to bolster a key point.
Although I found Mr. Curran's use of
the DRW space for propaganda to be an exercise in poor political acumen, it involved
an emotional matter for the Commissioner. He had become very closely associated
with building a Soccer Complex, and despite taking zero personal responsibility
for there being no due diligence, he was clearly unhappy with the situation.
Thus, although the article was premised on at least one fact that was clearly
and unequivocally false, I thought it likely Mr. Curran had not intended to
lie.
Ms. Mallozzi's recent article suggests the
bully pulpit offered by DRW presents certain Commission members with an
irresistible opportunity. Though cowardly, the preference of the majoritarians
for "no questions asked; no questions answered" communications with the public is a matter of record. It's also quite
effective, though misuse of DRW magazine could very well backfire badly on those seeking to use the free printing and
dissemination of rank propaganda to beat down, undermine or suppress dissent.
Once again, the selfish interests of a few local elected officials may well
result in certain unintended consequences.
At this point in examining the
Mallozzi article, I want to really focus in on the nuts 'n bolts of bad
governance. Therefore, I direct your attention to the Commissioner's ill-judged
effort to distort and, certain evidence suggests, intentionally mislead residents via
her reference to and explanation of the "70% threshold" in the 2012
CCO-City Resolution.
Resolutions since at least 2003 have
resolved that Optimist-run leagues must be made up of 70% or more City
residents. Indeed, Ms. Mallozzi alludes to the 70% threshold being part of the
2012 Resolution. However, seeking to justify an apparent back room deal, Ms.
Mallozzi adds that participant numbers from basketball are not included, "since
they use non-city facilities". Looking at the history of City-CCO
sports and Resolutions, this is an absurd and rather comical contention.
However, by examining the several different aspects of exactly how the
statement is misleading, residents can look "behind the curtain" and
view the absence of ability or imagination, as well as the overall lack of
candor prevalent amongst the majority of the Commission.
The reason basketball numbers are
backed-out in determining the 70% threshold is as basic as you can get. If the
numbers are included, the 70% threshold cannot be reached. It's that
simple, and that's all there is to it. Basketball participation was an element
of determining the threshold percentage of residents from sometime as early as
the 1980's (note, at one time, in a much smaller program, the threshold number
was 90%!) through July of 2012. I have scoured the public records produced by
the City, and there is no discussion or reference to a discussion concerning
backing-out basketball numbers because of using non-city facilities.
If one chooses to pause for 20
minutes and review the applicable data (e.g., the City budget numbers on
overall maintenance costs for athletic facilities, CCO participants by town of
residence, etc.), there really isn't any scenario where backing-out the data on
participation in CCO-organized basketball makes sense but for "the cold
equations". Those being that with the basketball numbers included, it is
impossible for a 70% threshold of City participants to be reached.
Of course, because discussions
involving negotiation of the 2012 Resolution ranged from secretive to fully
private in manner, it is not possible to categorically state that Commissioner
Mallozzi was being untruthful. There was an alleged open public meeting on
April 12, 2012, that addressed six CCO sports-related matters, with the meeting
lasting 1 hr. 45 min. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) for Ms. Mallozzi,
what is being very unwisely hawked by the City as "official minutes"
for that meeting describe 105 minutes of discussion in a mere 17 words. That's right, 17. If 17 words representing an hour and
forty five minutes of discussion is not disgraceful enough, Commissioners
Curran and Jeff Green have publicly asserted these minutes to be substantially inaccurate. (Yes, I know we have a City
Attorney. But...).
All of the other meetings that might
have discussed the 70% threshold or otherwise supported Ms. Mallozzi's story
were private. Commissioner Curran was there, but there are absolutely no
records indicating the basketball story is true, and no minutes from the
private meetings exist. It should also be noted that when the 2012 Resolution
came before the Commission for consideration and vote, there were no
discussions or disclosures of any sort. Even though he had presumably been at
the helm while the Resolution was drafted, Commissioner Curran failed to
introduce the matter, point out and explain changes, ask if he could answer
questions, etc., etc. Nothing anyone might expect of an experienced elected
representative and official liaison to the Optimists was done. Or was it... ?
