by
Skip Klauber, resident & p/t journalist
I
don't care for the tactics being utilized by Commissioners Jamie Curran, Lisa
Mallozzi and Jeff Green. While I can't give a legal analysis, as far as I can
tell from observing events and reviewing documents, there is no present issue
about the "Optimists owing money". The aforementioned individuals,
and their fellow travellers, need to stop trying to undermine the Optimists. Be
men, and women, rather than selfish, self-centered, power hungry cowards.
There
certainly seems to be an issue of financial and other mismanagement by the
City. There are also, apparently, issues of mis-governance related to covering
up the City's financial and other mismanagement. But based on everything I've
seen, and I forwarded public record requests for everything relevant, I don't
believe the Optimists owe the City a single penny. But the Optimists' financial
obligations are not what the aforementioned Commissioners, and any possible
accommodations for them by the Mayor, are all about.
There
are few things more annoying to purveyors of bad governance than dissent. All
the potential thinking and answering questions can be so very bothersome. In
2009 our Commission found a way to get around most of that dissent
"stuff". The Commission promulgated a rule that terminated the decades-old
privilege held by City residents to pose questions to Commission members.
The
Commission liked the new gag rule so much it has not only been reaffirmed, it
has even been extended to all of the City's so-called advisory boards. In fact,
it appears the Commission members are even barred from asking questions of one
another! (To his credit, Mayor Greg Ross joined Commissioner John Sims in
unsuccessfully seeking to widen public input at Commission meetings).
Getting
rid of a need to answer residents' questions has been a real boon to most
Commission members. Other than having to listen to three, or at most six total
minutes of a resident's comments, most Commission members have a pretty
low-stress position. A Commission member doesn't even have to listen to
residents' comments- it's not like an elected official might have to answer
questions, or anything potentially challenging. If nothing else, the past few
years have shown that truly anyone, of any ability, can be on our City's
Commission.
Eliminating
nearly all effective dissent is nice, but your average tin-horn Caesar with a
soft spot for authoritarian process requires more. They need affirmation. A
sure vehicle for such affirmation is reading what others say or write about the
utter brilliance of your positions, analysis, or performance. And having the
populace as a whole reading of your accomplishments goes hand in hand with the
affirmation process. Thus, there are "house organs", "party
newspapers", and the like. After a while, some pols of high ego/low
intelligence even forget they are just reading political propaganda.
Because
city commission in a town of under 50,000 residents is on the smaller potatoes
side, local yokel tin-horn Caesars need to settle for less media when it comes
to the affirmation/ propaganda process. This leads to my thoughts regarding
Commissioner Lisa Mallozzi's recent article in the DRW publication.
The
article may be more in the nature of self-affirmation, but it fulfills the sine
qua non of our local Commission majoritarians: "No Questions Will Be
Answered!" This is reflected in
what I believe to be the "write what you want, and don't worry"
philosophy underlying the author's approach.
I
don't know who penned the DRW article attributed to Mallozzi. I guess I'd like
to think its not someone who defeated the well-qualified David Nall in the 2010
election. But whoever composed the article has a very hostile relationship with
the truth.
What
is the precise status of the facts in Ms. Mallozzi's article?
(1)
The article claims it will let residents know "a few facts". This is
true. Ms. Mallozzi's article has a few actual facts;
(2)
The 2004 Resolution? Sorry, what Ms. Mallozzi writes is less than accurate. By
2004 the Optimists and City were several decades into a relationship. I believe
Ms. Mallozzi's entire discussion on this point shows either a complete lack of
knowledge (i.e., "ignorance") regarding the Optimists-City
relationship, or is intended to be misleading;
(3)
The April 12, 2012 get-together? I'm afraid what Ms. Mallozzi writes scores
comfortably below the Mendoza Line for truthfulness. That's not to say
everything is inaccurate or misleading, but there is enough here straying far
from the truth to give me material for another article, or two.
For
the doubters, some examples:
(A)
Why did the City (note, CITY, not the Optimists!) "invite" only four
Commissioners? Do you think it odd the sole Commission member not invited,
Commissioner John Sims, was also the only Commissioner not a member of the
Optimists organization?
(by the way, did Commissioner
Mallozzi mention she is a member of the Optimists?)
(B)
While the 2012 meeting was indeed held in the Commission's meeting room, it was
moved to that room at the time of the 2012 meeting. The 2012 meeting was
noticed for the City Manager's office. At 9:00 A.M. On a weekday.
(C)
As noted, the notice said the meeting was in the City Manager's office. Does
that sound like easy access for the public? If you think so, go try and walk
into the City Manager's office tomorrow morning;
(D)
About that "notice". In Cooper City, City policy is that open public
meetings subject to the Sunshine Laws are noticed to the public in (at least)
two places, a cork board in City Hall, and online. The City's online site has
this big calendar that has about every meeting possibly of interest to a resident,
in quite a bit of detail. Yet, the April 12, 2012 meeting was not on the
website. Only on that City Hall bulletin board;
(E)
The notice failed to reference two of the items to be discussed on April 12,
2012. The items left off the notice were the most complex matters, as well as
those of greatest importance to the public;
(F)
Ah, the minutes. Yes, the minutes. Maybe Commissioner Mallozzi should read
these minutes at the next Commission meeting. A discussion of five subjects
over 1 hr. 45 minutes summarized into: 17 words (note, in fairness to all, one
word is hyphenated). That may sound a little, sketchy, but
(G)
Those minutes again! Commissioner Mallozzi failed to include in her article
that two of her colleagues, Commissioners Curran and Green, insisted at a
January 28, 2014 Commission meeting the 2012 "minutes" are
inaccurate. Yep, inaccurate. (And you
believe Commissioners Curran and Green, don't you?);
This
could go on for quite while, so let's summarize. The article by Commissioner Mallozzi
is disrespectful to residents, devoid of integrity, and a stain on Cooper
City's reputation. Surely, Commissioner Mallozzi must realize that sooner or
later the truth always comes out.
No comments:
Post a Comment