"Competition leads to loss. People pulling in opposite directions on a rope only exhaust themselves: they go nowhere. What we need is cooperation. Every example of cooperation is one of benefit and gains to them that cooperate. Cooperation is especially productive in a system well managed. It is easy to make a list of examples of cooperation, some of which are so natural that we may not have recognized them as cooperation. Everybody wins."
W. Edwards Deming
Showing posts with label management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label management. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Amending Oriental's Zoning Law
Of all of Oriental's ordinances, the most consequential by far is the Growth Management Ordinance (GMO). The GMO has the greatest effect on the look and feel of the town, the value of real estate, the possibilities of real estate development, and the opportunities for the town's growth.
North Carolina General Statutes rightly provide explicit rules for initial adoption of a zoning ordinance and its subsequent amendment. The goal of these rules is to foster an open process and provide members of the public meaningful opportunities to make their views and wishes known.
In discussions about zoning, we hear frequent admonitions that we must be friendly to business - after all, businessmen and real estate developers invest a lot of money in their projects.
It is worth remembering that, for most of our residents, their home represents the largest investment they will ever make. Maintaining the value of that investment as well as the look and feel of their neighborhoods is often of supreme importance to them.
The town's planning board, made up of volunteers, has significant responsibilities to advise the town's board of commissioners on zoning matters. They are, in effect, the substitute for what, in a larger municipality would be the town's planning department. But they are an advisory board. Both NCGS and our GMO make it clear that the board of commissioners is not bound by the planning board's recommendations.
The Town Board is, after all, the governing body.
Last Tuesday night's kerfuffle between the planning board and the town board shouldn't have happened. In one case, the town board rejected the request for a public hearing on a proposed new section 88. In another case, the town board tabled a motion to schedule a public hearing for a seven-page (single-spaced) complete rewrite of Article XV of the GMO, so that board members would have time to compare the proposed draft with what exists now.
There is a widespread misconception that "tabling" a motion is a back door means of killing it. Not so. Properly used, tabling a motion is appropriate whenever the proposal is seen as not quite ready for a vote (as in not being understood by the board members) or it may even provide an opportunity to build stronger support for the measure. In any event, I believe it is inappropriate (except in case of a quasi-judicial proceeding) to schedule a public hearing on a draft ordinance unless a majority of the board has reviewed the draft and is comfortable putting it before the public. Those conditions did not exist last Tuesday.
I have a number of problems with the draft amendments, including the form of the amendments as put before the town board. I will have more to say about that later.
In the meantime, anyone with an interest in Oriental's GMO, including anyone for whom an amendment might at some time in the future jeopardize any provision of the GMO of personal importance should read the proposed amendments here.
All interested citizens should be sure to attend the public hearing now scheduled June 7.
It isn't clear to me why the planning board is in such an all-fired hurry, or what the actual problems are to which these five drafts are the purported solution.
North Carolina General Statutes rightly provide explicit rules for initial adoption of a zoning ordinance and its subsequent amendment. The goal of these rules is to foster an open process and provide members of the public meaningful opportunities to make their views and wishes known.
In discussions about zoning, we hear frequent admonitions that we must be friendly to business - after all, businessmen and real estate developers invest a lot of money in their projects.
It is worth remembering that, for most of our residents, their home represents the largest investment they will ever make. Maintaining the value of that investment as well as the look and feel of their neighborhoods is often of supreme importance to them.
The town's planning board, made up of volunteers, has significant responsibilities to advise the town's board of commissioners on zoning matters. They are, in effect, the substitute for what, in a larger municipality would be the town's planning department. But they are an advisory board. Both NCGS and our GMO make it clear that the board of commissioners is not bound by the planning board's recommendations.
The Town Board is, after all, the governing body.
Last Tuesday night's kerfuffle between the planning board and the town board shouldn't have happened. In one case, the town board rejected the request for a public hearing on a proposed new section 88. In another case, the town board tabled a motion to schedule a public hearing for a seven-page (single-spaced) complete rewrite of Article XV of the GMO, so that board members would have time to compare the proposed draft with what exists now.
There is a widespread misconception that "tabling" a motion is a back door means of killing it. Not so. Properly used, tabling a motion is appropriate whenever the proposal is seen as not quite ready for a vote (as in not being understood by the board members) or it may even provide an opportunity to build stronger support for the measure. In any event, I believe it is inappropriate (except in case of a quasi-judicial proceeding) to schedule a public hearing on a draft ordinance unless a majority of the board has reviewed the draft and is comfortable putting it before the public. Those conditions did not exist last Tuesday.
I have a number of problems with the draft amendments, including the form of the amendments as put before the town board. I will have more to say about that later.
In the meantime, anyone with an interest in Oriental's GMO, including anyone for whom an amendment might at some time in the future jeopardize any provision of the GMO of personal importance should read the proposed amendments here.
All interested citizens should be sure to attend the public hearing now scheduled June 7.
It isn't clear to me why the planning board is in such an all-fired hurry, or what the actual problems are to which these five drafts are the purported solution.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Management that Works
I'm reading through The New Economics by W. Edwards Deming. That his methods get results is demonstrated by the postwar success of the Japanese automobile industry after he trained them in his system. More recently, his methods have contributed to the current success of the Ford motor company.
Every page of his book has one or more gems. Here's one:
"Reward for good performance may be the same as reward to the weather man for a pleasant day."
Every page of his book has one or more gems. Here's one:
"Reward for good performance may be the same as reward to the weather man for a pleasant day."
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Town Budget
I've been thinking about the budget and some of the priorities reflected therein. But let's get to first principles.
What is a town for?
To provide services to the citizens. If there were no services, there would be no need for the town.
How are the services provided? The town's employees deliver the services. The water plant doesn't operate itself. Neither does it repair itself. The water meters don't read themselves and the bills don't get in the mail by themselves. The streets and sidewalks aren't self repairing.
No employees - no services. It's as simple as that.
Last year the town board decided to balance the budget on the backs of our employees by establishing and gradually increasing a monetary contribution by each employee to purchase his or her health insurance. The scheme was to reduce the town's contribution to health insurance, but to compensate somewhat by increasing wages and salaries. Even if this modification to the pay structure resulted in a dollar for dollar compensation (one dollar increase in pay for each dollar of decrease in the town's contribution to health insurance), the burden on the employee would be greater. We would replace an untaxed benefit (health) with a taxed benefit (wages).
We're talking about employees making as little as $11.00 an hour, who are having difficulty buying enough gas to get to work and we want to place another burden on them? These are people for the most part who can't afford to live in Oriental and walk or bicycle to work. And they don't buy Priuses.
So where might the town get the money to continue paying employee health insurance as before and still balance the budget? A good place to start would have been to not spend the $22,000 the board spent to hire a lawyer to investigate the previous town manager in hopes of finding a cause to fire him that would save spending the $25,000 termination pay in the contract the town negotiated and signed.
A second place to look for how to balance the budget without passing the hat to the employees is to tap into the money the water system should have been paying to the general fund (recently recalculated) but hasn't. That's on the order of another $25,000 for the coming fiscal year.
I think there are better options than taking up a collection from the workers.
What is a town for?
To provide services to the citizens. If there were no services, there would be no need for the town.
How are the services provided? The town's employees deliver the services. The water plant doesn't operate itself. Neither does it repair itself. The water meters don't read themselves and the bills don't get in the mail by themselves. The streets and sidewalks aren't self repairing.
No employees - no services. It's as simple as that.
Last year the town board decided to balance the budget on the backs of our employees by establishing and gradually increasing a monetary contribution by each employee to purchase his or her health insurance. The scheme was to reduce the town's contribution to health insurance, but to compensate somewhat by increasing wages and salaries. Even if this modification to the pay structure resulted in a dollar for dollar compensation (one dollar increase in pay for each dollar of decrease in the town's contribution to health insurance), the burden on the employee would be greater. We would replace an untaxed benefit (health) with a taxed benefit (wages).
We're talking about employees making as little as $11.00 an hour, who are having difficulty buying enough gas to get to work and we want to place another burden on them? These are people for the most part who can't afford to live in Oriental and walk or bicycle to work. And they don't buy Priuses.
So where might the town get the money to continue paying employee health insurance as before and still balance the budget? A good place to start would have been to not spend the $22,000 the board spent to hire a lawyer to investigate the previous town manager in hopes of finding a cause to fire him that would save spending the $25,000 termination pay in the contract the town negotiated and signed.
A second place to look for how to balance the budget without passing the hat to the employees is to tap into the money the water system should have been paying to the general fund (recently recalculated) but hasn't. That's on the order of another $25,000 for the coming fiscal year.
I think there are better options than taking up a collection from the workers.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Town Manager
At today's special meeting of Oriental's Board of Commissioners, the Board announced its appointment of Bob Maxbauer as town manager.
Bob has been the town's interim manager for about six months, and will now serve as the permanent manager.
Bob has been the town's interim manager for about six months, and will now serve as the permanent manager.
Water and Taxes
Two years ago, I explained that the Town of Oriental had a problem with water rates. I pointed out, as I had at Town Board meetings, that the Town had been losing money on water. Not only that, the water system had been subsidized by the general taxpayers.
This meant, among other things, that taxpayers had paid for reduced water rates for the Town's biggest water users.
Our interim town manager has recently done a more thorough examination of costs properly chargeable to the water system. His review revealed that the general taxpayer's subsidy to the water system was even higher than I had thought.
An inevitable consequence of this subsidy is that it reduced tax resources available for other town priorities. Many times over the past few years, Board members have avoided expenditures for projects that residents desired, claiming we don't have the resources. The money ($150 - $250 thousand) unknowingly spent over the past decade subsidizing the water system could have gone a long way toward meeting those needs.
This meant, among other things, that taxpayers had paid for reduced water rates for the Town's biggest water users.
Our interim town manager has recently done a more thorough examination of costs properly chargeable to the water system. His review revealed that the general taxpayer's subsidy to the water system was even higher than I had thought.
An inevitable consequence of this subsidy is that it reduced tax resources available for other town priorities. Many times over the past few years, Board members have avoided expenditures for projects that residents desired, claiming we don't have the resources. The money ($150 - $250 thousand) unknowingly spent over the past decade subsidizing the water system could have gone a long way toward meeting those needs.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
White Smoke over Town Hall
Oriental residents claim to have seen white smoke from the chimneys at Town Hall. Could it signal the election of a permanent Town Manager?
It has been about six weeks shy of a year since the Town last had a permanent manager. During much of that time, some commissioners even disputed that the town had a council-manager form of government. It does.
The firing, last July 1, was not Oriental's finest hour. No item on the agenda that night suggested that the manager's removal would be considered. The Town had previously spent more than $20,000 for an employment attorney to "investigate," in apparent hopes that she would find some legal cause to fire the manager. Apparently she didn't.
The motion to terminate the manager's employment was made at the end of a long meeting, as a "non-agenda item," simply introduced by the commissioner who had been fetched to the meeting earlier by the Chief of Police at the direction of one of the Town's part time secretarial employees.
To say that this was an improper exercise of the Town Board's legislative and investigative powers is an understatement. The lack of proper notice was a clear violation of North Carolina's open meetings act.
The account of the proceedings that appeared on a local web site here accurately describes what I saw that night, with some additional details that the reporter witnessed personally.
Without arguing the merits of the board's decision that evening or whether the board had the power to take the action (the Commissioner who made the motion accurately asserted that the Board has the power to terminate the manager without any reason), it is also true that the Board never gave the manager the opportunity, either in closed session or open session, to confront his accusers, to be given any information as to the board's views of what he might need to correct.
In short, it was an irregular, illegal (from the standpoint of public notice), underhanded and less than courageous procedure.
It would be good in the future if the board would remove the "non - agenda item" category from the monthly agenda and follow a procedure similar to that used by the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners. The chair of that body asks the commissioners at the beginning of the meeting whether any commissioner has an item to remove or add to the agenda. If the commissioners agree unanimously, the chair then formally modifies the agenda. This procedure is used sparingly, but gives the board some flexibility to deal with last minute emerging issues.
The issue of the town manager's employment was not a last-minute emerging issue.
I hope the members who went along with this kangaroo court procedure have reflected on their actions and resolved to do better in the future.
I understand an announcement will be made at a Town Board meeting at 5:00 pm April 21.
It has been about six weeks shy of a year since the Town last had a permanent manager. During much of that time, some commissioners even disputed that the town had a council-manager form of government. It does.
The firing, last July 1, was not Oriental's finest hour. No item on the agenda that night suggested that the manager's removal would be considered. The Town had previously spent more than $20,000 for an employment attorney to "investigate," in apparent hopes that she would find some legal cause to fire the manager. Apparently she didn't.
The motion to terminate the manager's employment was made at the end of a long meeting, as a "non-agenda item," simply introduced by the commissioner who had been fetched to the meeting earlier by the Chief of Police at the direction of one of the Town's part time secretarial employees.
To say that this was an improper exercise of the Town Board's legislative and investigative powers is an understatement. The lack of proper notice was a clear violation of North Carolina's open meetings act.
The account of the proceedings that appeared on a local web site here accurately describes what I saw that night, with some additional details that the reporter witnessed personally.
Without arguing the merits of the board's decision that evening or whether the board had the power to take the action (the Commissioner who made the motion accurately asserted that the Board has the power to terminate the manager without any reason), it is also true that the Board never gave the manager the opportunity, either in closed session or open session, to confront his accusers, to be given any information as to the board's views of what he might need to correct.
In short, it was an irregular, illegal (from the standpoint of public notice), underhanded and less than courageous procedure.
It would be good in the future if the board would remove the "non - agenda item" category from the monthly agenda and follow a procedure similar to that used by the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners. The chair of that body asks the commissioners at the beginning of the meeting whether any commissioner has an item to remove or add to the agenda. If the commissioners agree unanimously, the chair then formally modifies the agenda. This procedure is used sparingly, but gives the board some flexibility to deal with last minute emerging issues.
The issue of the town manager's employment was not a last-minute emerging issue.
I hope the members who went along with this kangaroo court procedure have reflected on their actions and resolved to do better in the future.
I understand an announcement will be made at a Town Board meeting at 5:00 pm April 21.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Japanese Serenity
It has been 45 years since I lived in Japan.
Much has changed, but much remains the same.
Forty-five years ago, it was not clear that Japanese would accept nuclear power.
What was clear even then was the ability of Japanese society to pull together.
American newspapers write of panic in Japan. As I watch the coverage, I see no signs of panic. Everyone is going about their business with purpose, and the purpose is to help each other.
It reminds me of Reinhold Neibuhr's Serenity Prayer:
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Much has changed, but much remains the same.
Forty-five years ago, it was not clear that Japanese would accept nuclear power.
What was clear even then was the ability of Japanese society to pull together.
American newspapers write of panic in Japan. As I watch the coverage, I see no signs of panic. Everyone is going about their business with purpose, and the purpose is to help each other.
It reminds me of Reinhold Neibuhr's Serenity Prayer:
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Friday, February 25, 2011
They Hired the Money, Didn't They?
Commenting in 1925 on a proposal to restructure European war debt, President Calvin Coolidge said, "they hired the money, didn't they?"
The same might be said of New Jersey and, indeed, of other states, who negotiated labor agreements without setting aside sufficient funds to meet their obligations.
The details set forth in today's New York Times article, "How Chris Christie Did His Homework," makes it clear that for seventeen years, New Jersey did not set aside enough funds to meet the pension obligations to which the state had agreed. In the case of health care obligations, they set aside no funds at all.
This is hardly the fault of the unions.
In many cases, pension and health care agreements were negotiated in lieu of salary increases. In other words, the state said "you provide work for us now in return for future compensation" and signed on the dotted line.
They hired the money.
Did the state negotiate in good faith? If so, the failure to set aside sufficient funds reveals sustained incompetence. If not, what do we call it? A confidence game?
The same might be said of New Jersey and, indeed, of other states, who negotiated labor agreements without setting aside sufficient funds to meet their obligations.
The details set forth in today's New York Times article, "How Chris Christie Did His Homework," makes it clear that for seventeen years, New Jersey did not set aside enough funds to meet the pension obligations to which the state had agreed. In the case of health care obligations, they set aside no funds at all.
This is hardly the fault of the unions.
In many cases, pension and health care agreements were negotiated in lieu of salary increases. In other words, the state said "you provide work for us now in return for future compensation" and signed on the dotted line.
They hired the money.
Did the state negotiate in good faith? If so, the failure to set aside sufficient funds reveals sustained incompetence. If not, what do we call it? A confidence game?
Saturday, August 28, 2010
End "Complaint-Based System"
If I were asked what qualities or views I would seek in a new Town manager, at the top of my list would be the abandonment of the "complaint-based system" concept.
Our Town manager, the Chief of Police, the Mayor, and other elected and appointed officials keep reciting the mantra that we have a complaint based system of enforcing the Town's ordinances. If this is true, we should abandon the system.
Otherwise, we set neighbor against neighbor.
We saw the consequences of "complaint-based system" last Thursday. The Board of Commissioners seemed unable to resolve a neighborhood dispute, even after spending $1500 that was not budgeted.
If there arise in the course of Town affairs disputes between neighbors, the proper place to resolve such disputes is the courthouse in Bayboro. The Board of Commissioners is not a court and cannot rule in favor of one or the other disputant. What the Town Board is supposed to do, is make the rules (ordinances) that apply to everyone and rely on the Town manager and subordinate departments for enforcement.
Requiring a complaint to initiate enforcement results in inherently inconsistent, arbitrary and unfair enforcement.
If the Town is not going to enforce an ordinance, the Board shouldn't pass it. If an unenforceable or unenforced ordinance remains on the books, it should be repealed. (I tried to do that last year with the chicken ordinance, without success).
Then the Police Chief, the Town Manager, etc. could simply enforce the ordinance anywhere in town against any resident, owner or business, without requiring a citizen complaint.
All too often, when a citizen complaint initiates action, another citizen makes a counter complaint and the Town Board members choose up sides, perhaps based on personal animosities or likes and dislikes, rather than enforcement of existing ordinances or judging what new ordinances or amendments are best for the Town.
That's no way to run a government.
Our Town manager, the Chief of Police, the Mayor, and other elected and appointed officials keep reciting the mantra that we have a complaint based system of enforcing the Town's ordinances. If this is true, we should abandon the system.
Otherwise, we set neighbor against neighbor.
We saw the consequences of "complaint-based system" last Thursday. The Board of Commissioners seemed unable to resolve a neighborhood dispute, even after spending $1500 that was not budgeted.
If there arise in the course of Town affairs disputes between neighbors, the proper place to resolve such disputes is the courthouse in Bayboro. The Board of Commissioners is not a court and cannot rule in favor of one or the other disputant. What the Town Board is supposed to do, is make the rules (ordinances) that apply to everyone and rely on the Town manager and subordinate departments for enforcement.
Requiring a complaint to initiate enforcement results in inherently inconsistent, arbitrary and unfair enforcement.
If the Town is not going to enforce an ordinance, the Board shouldn't pass it. If an unenforceable or unenforced ordinance remains on the books, it should be repealed. (I tried to do that last year with the chicken ordinance, without success).
Then the Police Chief, the Town Manager, etc. could simply enforce the ordinance anywhere in town against any resident, owner or business, without requiring a citizen complaint.
All too often, when a citizen complaint initiates action, another citizen makes a counter complaint and the Town Board members choose up sides, perhaps based on personal animosities or likes and dislikes, rather than enforcement of existing ordinances or judging what new ordinances or amendments are best for the Town.
That's no way to run a government.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Special Meeting of Oriental Town Board Aug 26
Oriental's Town Board met at 4:00 p.m. today, August 26, 2010 in special session. Commissioner Styron was unable to attend.
The main reason for calling the meeting - to appoint an interim Town Manager - was delayed until the end of the meeting. Items were discussed as follows:
1. Bay River Metropolitan Sewer District and the Town of Oriental continue to negotiate in an attempt to conclude an interlocal agreement. The main issue is the price the Town charges Bay River to provide billing services, including collecting payments and remitting them to the utility. About two years ago, at the recommendation of the Town's representative on Bay River's Board (Nancy Inger) the Town increased the monthly fee to $1.50 per household. Bay River proposed an agreement that would freeze this rate for five years. The previous board found that unacceptable and wanted to set a level that would not lose money. They also wanted to establish an automatic escalator clause in case Bay River were to increase their rates. Negotiations have been going on for more than a year. The absence of a contract was identified in last year's audit as a control deficiency.
2. South Water Street. The Board played "kick the can" with this issue as well. The Town retained a surveyor who had never surveyed in Oriental or perhaps even in Pamlico County, to determine where South Water Street's right of way lies in hopes of resolving a neighborhood dispute. The report, which arrived today, described how the R/W line was surveyed and marked. Now the contentious issue is "how wide is it?" The surveyor reports some maps show it 36' wide, some 40', some 45' and at least one shows the R/W as 60.' He marked the R/W with stakes at a width of 40'. The Board decided to table the issue until next week's agenda meeting, though it was unclear exactly what was tabled. Commissioners Bohmert and Roe advocated just setting the R/W width at 36' since this width was encompassed within all of the possible widths. This was rejected by Commissioners Johnson and Venturi. Mayor Sage broke the tie, voting with Johnson and Venturi.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that a surveyor familiar with Oriental and its history would have given far greater weight to the original survey of 1900, which shows the width as 36'. Another factor to consider is that if the Town tries to claim a wider R/W than 36', they may have difficulty defending it in court. The survey has already cost the Town $1200.
3. South Avenue Right of Way. Mayor Sage reported that he has met with Mr. Lacy Henry. Mr. Henry has "given the Town permission" to remove the fence. Why the Town needs Mr. Henry's permission to remove a fence in the Town's R/W was not explained. Heidi Artley reported she has received one bid from a contractor to remove the fence at a cost of $1200. Two more bids are expected. Some of the commissioners seemed unaware that a decision had been made to hire a contractor for this job. No mention was made of whether the Town would send the bill to Mr. Henry. Some mention was made of the contractor cleaning up debris and identifying items of historical interest. As I reported here three months ago, the items of greatest historical interest disappeared not long after the judge signed his order. Removed by a person or persons unknown.
Incidentally, one of the commissioners reported some time ago an interest in a grant application, which opened June 15. Well, that deadline (Boating Infrastructure Grant program) has passed and nothing was submitted. What will it take to get some action?
4. Amendment to Town Charter. It was Alice DeBaun who provided information that the Town had adopted an ordinance in 1997 amending the Town Charter to Council-Manager form of government. Apparently for some reason it wasn't filed with the Secretary of State and the Legislative Library. I informed the Board that a similar circumstance appears to exist concerning the amendment to have five commissioners instead of three.
It was the council-manager amendment to the charter that required the Board to appoint an interim manager. They went into closed session to discuss personnel, even though Commissioner Roe tried to make a nomination in open session.
Following the closed session, Commissioner Venturi moved to appoint Heidi Artley as interim manager, seconded by Commissioner Johnson. Commissioners Bohmert and Roe voted against the motion. Mayor Sage broke the tie by voting in favor.
In his closing remarks, Mayor Sage said this is a major step to "making right" what we did during a nearly three month interim, in the mistaken impression that the Town had a mayor-council form of government.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
The main reason for calling the meeting - to appoint an interim Town Manager - was delayed until the end of the meeting. Items were discussed as follows:
1. Bay River Metropolitan Sewer District and the Town of Oriental continue to negotiate in an attempt to conclude an interlocal agreement. The main issue is the price the Town charges Bay River to provide billing services, including collecting payments and remitting them to the utility. About two years ago, at the recommendation of the Town's representative on Bay River's Board (Nancy Inger) the Town increased the monthly fee to $1.50 per household. Bay River proposed an agreement that would freeze this rate for five years. The previous board found that unacceptable and wanted to set a level that would not lose money. They also wanted to establish an automatic escalator clause in case Bay River were to increase their rates. Negotiations have been going on for more than a year. The absence of a contract was identified in last year's audit as a control deficiency.
2. South Water Street. The Board played "kick the can" with this issue as well. The Town retained a surveyor who had never surveyed in Oriental or perhaps even in Pamlico County, to determine where South Water Street's right of way lies in hopes of resolving a neighborhood dispute. The report, which arrived today, described how the R/W line was surveyed and marked. Now the contentious issue is "how wide is it?" The surveyor reports some maps show it 36' wide, some 40', some 45' and at least one shows the R/W as 60.' He marked the R/W with stakes at a width of 40'. The Board decided to table the issue until next week's agenda meeting, though it was unclear exactly what was tabled. Commissioners Bohmert and Roe advocated just setting the R/W width at 36' since this width was encompassed within all of the possible widths. This was rejected by Commissioners Johnson and Venturi. Mayor Sage broke the tie, voting with Johnson and Venturi.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that a surveyor familiar with Oriental and its history would have given far greater weight to the original survey of 1900, which shows the width as 36'. Another factor to consider is that if the Town tries to claim a wider R/W than 36', they may have difficulty defending it in court. The survey has already cost the Town $1200.
3. South Avenue Right of Way. Mayor Sage reported that he has met with Mr. Lacy Henry. Mr. Henry has "given the Town permission" to remove the fence. Why the Town needs Mr. Henry's permission to remove a fence in the Town's R/W was not explained. Heidi Artley reported she has received one bid from a contractor to remove the fence at a cost of $1200. Two more bids are expected. Some of the commissioners seemed unaware that a decision had been made to hire a contractor for this job. No mention was made of whether the Town would send the bill to Mr. Henry. Some mention was made of the contractor cleaning up debris and identifying items of historical interest. As I reported here three months ago, the items of greatest historical interest disappeared not long after the judge signed his order. Removed by a person or persons unknown.
Incidentally, one of the commissioners reported some time ago an interest in a grant application, which opened June 15. Well, that deadline (Boating Infrastructure Grant program) has passed and nothing was submitted. What will it take to get some action?
4. Amendment to Town Charter. It was Alice DeBaun who provided information that the Town had adopted an ordinance in 1997 amending the Town Charter to Council-Manager form of government. Apparently for some reason it wasn't filed with the Secretary of State and the Legislative Library. I informed the Board that a similar circumstance appears to exist concerning the amendment to have five commissioners instead of three.
It was the council-manager amendment to the charter that required the Board to appoint an interim manager. They went into closed session to discuss personnel, even though Commissioner Roe tried to make a nomination in open session.
Following the closed session, Commissioner Venturi moved to appoint Heidi Artley as interim manager, seconded by Commissioner Johnson. Commissioners Bohmert and Roe voted against the motion. Mayor Sage broke the tie by voting in favor.
In his closing remarks, Mayor Sage said this is a major step to "making right" what we did during a nearly three month interim, in the mistaken impression that the Town had a mayor-council form of government.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Oriental Form of Town Government New Info
I understand the ordinance amending the Town's charter to a council-manager system has been found. Good. The Town needs a manager.
Thursday's special meeting to appoint an interim Town manager is important. The interim manager has all of the statutory powers assigned by state law to a permanent manager.
Whoever is appointed will be responsible for taking the town through its annual independent audit.
Thursday's special meeting to appoint an interim Town manager is important. The interim manager has all of the statutory powers assigned by state law to a permanent manager.
Whoever is appointed will be responsible for taking the town through its annual independent audit.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Oriental's Form of Government
Professor David Lawrence of the NC School of Government has kept a detailed database of town governments in the state: http://www.sog.unc.edu/pubs/FOG/index.php
Using his database, you can find out how every town is governed and the statutory citations. Where a town with a mayor/council form of government hires an administrator to run the departments, this is also shown. According to his data, of the municipalities in Pamlico County, Minnesott Beach and Oriental are Council/Manager governments. The rest are all Mayor/Council.
The professor provides statutory cites for each town. For Oriental they are:
SL 1993, c. 4
GS 163-279
GS 160A-101
Pr. 1899, c. 184
SL 1991(92), c. 878
You can look it up.
Using his database, you can find out how every town is governed and the statutory citations. Where a town with a mayor/council form of government hires an administrator to run the departments, this is also shown. According to his data, of the municipalities in Pamlico County, Minnesott Beach and Oriental are Council/Manager governments. The rest are all Mayor/Council.
The professor provides statutory cites for each town. For Oriental they are:
SL 1993, c. 4
GS 163-279
GS 160A-101
Pr. 1899, c. 184
SL 1991(92), c. 878
You can look it up.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
What Next in Oriental?
I just learned from Town Dock that an investigation is finally underway into the possible criminal acts alleged in a letter from Oriental's town attorney to the District Attorney earlier this year.
I just hope it isn't too late. Computers should have been impounded long ago for evidence.
One of my main concerns has been possible violation of the integrity of the town's books. I warned of that last January here and here and here and here. It was only later that I learned of allegations about clandestine audio recordings. I also spoke to at least three commissioners last January suggesting the Town should cause a forensic accountant to look at the Town's accounting system files.
My main interest isn't sending people to jail, but finding out for sure what happened. The public has a right to know the truth. The trail is growing cold. More like "Cold Case" than "CSI."
Whatever investigators find, the important question is: "Where does the Town go from here?"
The best approach to a bad experience is to learn from it. Here are candidate "lessons learned:"
1. Audits. If one or more audits list no control deficiencies, be suspicious. The point of an audit is to uncover problems. If none are uncovered and brought to the Board's attention, better check to see if something is being swept under the rug;
2. Hiring. It may be a bad idea for the town to hire a former commissioner for clerical tasks. Sorting out the proper relationships may be confusing to all parties;
3. Hiring and Management. If the Town hires someone for a management position, be sure that person is given the responsibility and also the authority to do the job. Lines of responsibility must be clear. No micro managing or interference in daily operations by elected officials. There is a difference between oversight and interference. The former holds the manager accountable. The latter destroys accountability. To the manager: "manage!" Sink or swim;
4. Avoid a protracted turnover period with the previous manager. Stretching this process out just confuses everyone about who is really in charge;
5. Commissioners must protect the integrity of sensitive personal and financial information of which the town manager is the custodian.
I have some thoughts about management style.
Every leader or manager has his or her own style of leadership. In more than fifty years managing various size organization, both military and civilian, I have come to some conclusions as to what works best:
1. Positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement;
2. Leaders get better results when they seek cooperation and ideas rather than demanding compliance by ordering it, except in extreme cases;
3. Leaders can delegate authority but never responsibility - when a ship runs aground, the Captain is responsible even if he is asleep in his cabin;
4. Effective leaders delegate as many tasks as possible, exercising oversight by intervening only to keep things from going wrong - that's known as "control by negation";
5. Subordinates also need to understand that they are not and cannot be responsible to the degree that the "boss" is.
I just hope it isn't too late. Computers should have been impounded long ago for evidence.
One of my main concerns has been possible violation of the integrity of the town's books. I warned of that last January here and here and here and here. It was only later that I learned of allegations about clandestine audio recordings. I also spoke to at least three commissioners last January suggesting the Town should cause a forensic accountant to look at the Town's accounting system files.
My main interest isn't sending people to jail, but finding out for sure what happened. The public has a right to know the truth. The trail is growing cold. More like "Cold Case" than "CSI."
Whatever investigators find, the important question is: "Where does the Town go from here?"
The best approach to a bad experience is to learn from it. Here are candidate "lessons learned:"
1. Audits. If one or more audits list no control deficiencies, be suspicious. The point of an audit is to uncover problems. If none are uncovered and brought to the Board's attention, better check to see if something is being swept under the rug;
2. Hiring. It may be a bad idea for the town to hire a former commissioner for clerical tasks. Sorting out the proper relationships may be confusing to all parties;
3. Hiring and Management. If the Town hires someone for a management position, be sure that person is given the responsibility and also the authority to do the job. Lines of responsibility must be clear. No micro managing or interference in daily operations by elected officials. There is a difference between oversight and interference. The former holds the manager accountable. The latter destroys accountability. To the manager: "manage!" Sink or swim;
4. Avoid a protracted turnover period with the previous manager. Stretching this process out just confuses everyone about who is really in charge;
5. Commissioners must protect the integrity of sensitive personal and financial information of which the town manager is the custodian.
I have some thoughts about management style.
Every leader or manager has his or her own style of leadership. In more than fifty years managing various size organization, both military and civilian, I have come to some conclusions as to what works best:
1. Positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement;
2. Leaders get better results when they seek cooperation and ideas rather than demanding compliance by ordering it, except in extreme cases;
3. Leaders can delegate authority but never responsibility - when a ship runs aground, the Captain is responsible even if he is asleep in his cabin;
4. Effective leaders delegate as many tasks as possible, exercising oversight by intervening only to keep things from going wrong - that's known as "control by negation";
5. Subordinates also need to understand that they are not and cannot be responsible to the degree that the "boss" is.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Support and Defend
This morning I took office as a newly appointed member of Pamlico County's Board of Elections. Sue Whitford, Pamlico County's Register of Deeds, did me the honor of administering the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of North Carolina.
This is the ninth time I have taken such an oath, modeled on the one prescribed in the United States Constitution for the President.
I take the obligation to support and defend the Constitution very seriously. One way or another, I have devoted my adult life to that endeavor.
As oaths of allegiance go, the United States oath broke new ground. In European monarchies, the usual procedure when the monarch died was for all military officers and high government officials to swear allegiance to the new king (or tsar or kaiser). But our constitution provided for replacing the president every four years or perhaps more often in case of death. In addition, the president was not a sovereign. The people were sovereign.
So to whom should federal military officers and other public officials swear allegiance? Should they swear a new oath every time a new president was elected?
The solution was an oath to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." It also worked nicely as a presidential oath, avoiding the religious issues inherent in the British coronation oath.
The Board of Elections is a major player in defending the Constitution. If the people are sovereign, the way they exercise that sovereignty is at the ballot box.
I think we can be proud of the way elections are run in Pamlico County. I will work hard to make sure we continue that fine tradition.
This is the ninth time I have taken such an oath, modeled on the one prescribed in the United States Constitution for the President.
I take the obligation to support and defend the Constitution very seriously. One way or another, I have devoted my adult life to that endeavor.
As oaths of allegiance go, the United States oath broke new ground. In European monarchies, the usual procedure when the monarch died was for all military officers and high government officials to swear allegiance to the new king (or tsar or kaiser). But our constitution provided for replacing the president every four years or perhaps more often in case of death. In addition, the president was not a sovereign. The people were sovereign.
So to whom should federal military officers and other public officials swear allegiance? Should they swear a new oath every time a new president was elected?
The solution was an oath to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." It also worked nicely as a presidential oath, avoiding the religious issues inherent in the British coronation oath.
The Board of Elections is a major player in defending the Constitution. If the people are sovereign, the way they exercise that sovereignty is at the ballot box.
I think we can be proud of the way elections are run in Pamlico County. I will work hard to make sure we continue that fine tradition.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Leadership and Management
There seems to be some confusion about what the Town Board of Commissioners actually does. The Board is, under NC General Statutes, the "governing body." That doesn't mean that the commissioners as a body or any one of the commissioners as an individual has any administrative role in the day to day operation of Town Hall.
The Board of Commissioners is a legislative body. It makes the rules - passes ordinances, approves the budget, makes policy; but has no operational function. The Board has hiring and firing authority over the Town Manager, but no direct authority. Its only authority is that of oversight.
That sometimes leaves the Town Manager in an awkward position. Does he have five bosses? What if one commissioner says one thing and another commissioner says the opposite?
The Mayor also lacks administrative authority, at least by statute. He has only the authority to chair meetings of the Board of Commissioners. So how does the Town Manager know what to do if a problem arises between Board meetings?
Experienced managers often navigate this maze by establishing informal arrangements. Sometimes that works. Another possibility is to establish a formal arrangement. The Board of Commissioners, for example, has the authority to designate the Mayor as the person the Manager should consult for guidance on day to day matters. The Board would always retain the authority to override the Mayor, but such an arrangement might alleviate some confusion.
What the Board doesn't do is enforce ordinances. That is the responsibility of the Town Manager, through his heads of department.
Every leader or manager has his or her own style of leadership. In more than fifty years managing various size organization, both military and civilian, I have come to some conclusions as to what works best:
1. Positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement;
2. Leaders get better results when they seek cooperation and ideas rather than demanding compliance by ordering it, except in extreme cases;
3. Leaders can delegate authority but never responsibility - when a ship runs aground, the Captain is responsible even if he is asleep in his cabin;
4. Effective leaders delegate as many tasks as possible, exercising oversight by intervening only to keep things from going wrong - that's known as "control by negation";
5. Subordinates also need to understand that they are not and cannot be responsible to the degree that the "boss" is.
The Board of Commissioners is a legislative body. It makes the rules - passes ordinances, approves the budget, makes policy; but has no operational function. The Board has hiring and firing authority over the Town Manager, but no direct authority. Its only authority is that of oversight.
That sometimes leaves the Town Manager in an awkward position. Does he have five bosses? What if one commissioner says one thing and another commissioner says the opposite?
The Mayor also lacks administrative authority, at least by statute. He has only the authority to chair meetings of the Board of Commissioners. So how does the Town Manager know what to do if a problem arises between Board meetings?
Experienced managers often navigate this maze by establishing informal arrangements. Sometimes that works. Another possibility is to establish a formal arrangement. The Board of Commissioners, for example, has the authority to designate the Mayor as the person the Manager should consult for guidance on day to day matters. The Board would always retain the authority to override the Mayor, but such an arrangement might alleviate some confusion.
What the Board doesn't do is enforce ordinances. That is the responsibility of the Town Manager, through his heads of department.
Every leader or manager has his or her own style of leadership. In more than fifty years managing various size organization, both military and civilian, I have come to some conclusions as to what works best:
1. Positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement;
2. Leaders get better results when they seek cooperation and ideas rather than demanding compliance by ordering it, except in extreme cases;
3. Leaders can delegate authority but never responsibility - when a ship runs aground, the Captain is responsible even if he is asleep in his cabin;
4. Effective leaders delegate as many tasks as possible, exercising oversight by intervening only to keep things from going wrong - that's known as "control by negation";
5. Subordinates also need to understand that they are not and cannot be responsible to the degree that the "boss" is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
