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."
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
Oriental Zoning Controversy
There were fireworks at last Tuesday night's meeting of Oriental's Town Board even before the vote on a proposed town dock.
At the beginning of the meeting, the board considered whether to schedule public hearings on five separate amendments to the town's Growth Management Ordinance (GMO), the town's zoning ordinance. When the proposal to schedule a hearing on changes to Article VI of the ordinance failed due to lack of a motion and the motion to schedule a hearing on changes to Article XV was tabled because some commissioners wanted to read it before voting on it, one member of the planning board stormed out of the meeting and the other members present expressed displeasure in other ways.
In view of the board's actions on the two most controversial GMO amendments, the subsequent public comment period was devoted entirely to the town dock issue (previous post).
At least one member of the public, who had come to the meeting for the specific purpose of speaking out against the change to Article VI, did not speak on that subject, since the board did not act. She left, thinking that business was over.
Apparently intimidated by the planning board reaction, though, the town board reconsidered its vote to table Article XV and voted to schedule a public hearing for Article XV and Article VI as well, except for a new Section 88 exempting religious institutions from the maximum footprint limits of Section 77.
That didn't make the planning board happy either. The next day the mayor scheduled a special meeting for Friday to address Article VI again. This morning the town board scheduled a public hearing for all of the changes to Article VI, including the new Section 88.
(According to some townspeople, the new Section 88 is solely designed to alleviate a concern of the church attended by the mayor and his wife I have no idea if that is true). The truth is, it is impossible for a member of the public, by reading the five draft amendments to the GMO or by attending last Tuesday's town board meeting, to have any idea why the proposed changes were drafted, what problems they were designed to solve, or what justification exists for the solutions recommended by the planning board.
Regrettably, the emotions expressed, the misunderstanding of proper legislative procedure and the failure to have effective and transparent communication between the Town Board and the Planning Board has made a situation far worse than it needed to be. Neither did it build confidence among the public that this isn't a scheme to railroad the changes through the system.
I have some ideas about how to improve procedures that I think could go far to prevent this kind of thing in the future. I just looked at the clock, though, and decided to save my ideas for the next post.
At the beginning of the meeting, the board considered whether to schedule public hearings on five separate amendments to the town's Growth Management Ordinance (GMO), the town's zoning ordinance. When the proposal to schedule a hearing on changes to Article VI of the ordinance failed due to lack of a motion and the motion to schedule a hearing on changes to Article XV was tabled because some commissioners wanted to read it before voting on it, one member of the planning board stormed out of the meeting and the other members present expressed displeasure in other ways.
In view of the board's actions on the two most controversial GMO amendments, the subsequent public comment period was devoted entirely to the town dock issue (previous post).
At least one member of the public, who had come to the meeting for the specific purpose of speaking out against the change to Article VI, did not speak on that subject, since the board did not act. She left, thinking that business was over.
Apparently intimidated by the planning board reaction, though, the town board reconsidered its vote to table Article XV and voted to schedule a public hearing for Article XV and Article VI as well, except for a new Section 88 exempting religious institutions from the maximum footprint limits of Section 77.
That didn't make the planning board happy either. The next day the mayor scheduled a special meeting for Friday to address Article VI again. This morning the town board scheduled a public hearing for all of the changes to Article VI, including the new Section 88.
(According to some townspeople, the new Section 88 is solely designed to alleviate a concern of the church attended by the mayor and his wife I have no idea if that is true). The truth is, it is impossible for a member of the public, by reading the five draft amendments to the GMO or by attending last Tuesday's town board meeting, to have any idea why the proposed changes were drafted, what problems they were designed to solve, or what justification exists for the solutions recommended by the planning board.
Regrettably, the emotions expressed, the misunderstanding of proper legislative procedure and the failure to have effective and transparent communication between the Town Board and the Planning Board has made a situation far worse than it needed to be. Neither did it build confidence among the public that this isn't a scheme to railroad the changes through the system.
I have some ideas about how to improve procedures that I think could go far to prevent this kind of thing in the future. I just looked at the clock, though, and decided to save my ideas for the next post.
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.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Problems in Civics Education
The nation's report card in civics is just in. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in civics education has just been released. The news is not good.
We are not doing a good job of educating our students for their role as citizens. And the scores are not getting better.
Take a look at the report card and the sample questions, and you'll see what I mean. We need to do much better.
We are not doing a good job of educating our students for their role as citizens. And the scores are not getting better.
Take a look at the report card and the sample questions, and you'll see what I mean. We need to do much better.
New Town Dock Project
It was a good turnout last night at the town board meeting. Standing room only. Almost every attendee spoke during the public comment period. All but one were in favor of the project and that one wasn't vehemently opposed. The Board voted unanimously to go forward.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Protect Polluters
Monday night's County Commissioners meeting addressed, among other things, a request by Commissioner Mele for the board to pass resolutions of support for three bills now before the legislature concerning environmental regulations. The bills, attributed to drafting efforts of local real estate mogul Missy Baskerville and introduced by Senator Preston, were as follows:
Senate Bill 323, An act to create an exemption to the riparian buffer requirements for certain private properties in the Neuse River and Tar-Pamlico River Basins.
In brief, the proposed act "grandfathers" any parcel platted and recorded prior to August 1, 2000 from current riparian buffer requirements;
Senate Bill 324, An act to require greater notification of and ability to attend hearings for rule making.
In brief, the act amends present law to require the rule-making agency to notify the governing unit in each county and publish notice in a newspaper in each county that will be impacted by the proposed rule and to schedule public hearings within 60 miles of each county affected by a proposed rule;
Senate Bill 325, An act to provide additional requirements to apply to the adoption and implementation of any proposed administrative rule that is an environmental rule.
The most significant requirement is that at least 80% of any "stakeholder" committee created to consider a proposed rule be made up of persons employed in the private sector, residing in the city or county affected and essentially be in the industry regulated by the rule.
In a nutshell, these three bills are intended to obstruct agencies responsible for developing regulations to implement public law and delay or outright prevent them from doing their job.
Who in all this is going to represent the interest of the public?
Senate Bill 323, An act to create an exemption to the riparian buffer requirements for certain private properties in the Neuse River and Tar-Pamlico River Basins.
In brief, the proposed act "grandfathers" any parcel platted and recorded prior to August 1, 2000 from current riparian buffer requirements;
Senate Bill 324, An act to require greater notification of and ability to attend hearings for rule making.
In brief, the act amends present law to require the rule-making agency to notify the governing unit in each county and publish notice in a newspaper in each county that will be impacted by the proposed rule and to schedule public hearings within 60 miles of each county affected by a proposed rule;
Senate Bill 325, An act to provide additional requirements to apply to the adoption and implementation of any proposed administrative rule that is an environmental rule.
The most significant requirement is that at least 80% of any "stakeholder" committee created to consider a proposed rule be made up of persons employed in the private sector, residing in the city or county affected and essentially be in the industry regulated by the rule.
In a nutshell, these three bills are intended to obstruct agencies responsible for developing regulations to implement public law and delay or outright prevent them from doing their job.
Who in all this is going to represent the interest of the public?
Monday, May 2, 2011
A New Town Dock
Last Thursday's agenda meeting of Oriental's Board of Commissioners revealed that Tuesday's meeting will discuss building an additional Town Dock at the end of South Avenue.
This parcel, to which the town won the rights in a case decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in 2009, gives the public direct access to the harbor. One appropriate use of the parcel is to build a simple pier extending about 100 feet from shore, for use by transient vessels.
A recurring complaint in some circles is that Oriental isn't sufficiently friendly to business. Otherwise, some contend, we would have more businesses and they wouldn't keep failing.
I wonder how many businesses a population of 875 (latest census) can support. Even the "greater Oriental" population of 2,000 can't support many. We are at the end of the highway.
On the other hand, from 14,000 to 20,000 (estimates vary) boats cruising the East Coast via the ICW each year pass less than two miles away. That represents more than 40,000 potential customers. The best thing we can do for Oriental businesses is to attract more boats to stop here. That would be good for every business.
Last Thursday, one commissioner opposed additional free dockage, on the grounds it may compete with nearby commercial marinas.
This misses the point. Cruising sailors select where to stop based on the reputation a town has as a hospitable place. Availability of transient docks and free anchorage space is among the factors affecting this reputation. The goal is to improve Oriental's brand. The better the brand, the more boats stop. The more boats that stop, the more will come back. Some even stay.
As I contended almost two years ago, the question of what to do about South Avenue is about the future, not the past.
Those of you who support the new town dock project and the effort for Oriental to become even more welcoming and hospitable to cruising sailors, please come to the meeting of the Town Board at 7:00 pm Tuesday, May 3 at Town Hall. And bring other supporters.
The important competition is between Oriental and other towns along the waterway.
This parcel, to which the town won the rights in a case decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in 2009, gives the public direct access to the harbor. One appropriate use of the parcel is to build a simple pier extending about 100 feet from shore, for use by transient vessels.
A recurring complaint in some circles is that Oriental isn't sufficiently friendly to business. Otherwise, some contend, we would have more businesses and they wouldn't keep failing.
I wonder how many businesses a population of 875 (latest census) can support. Even the "greater Oriental" population of 2,000 can't support many. We are at the end of the highway.
On the other hand, from 14,000 to 20,000 (estimates vary) boats cruising the East Coast via the ICW each year pass less than two miles away. That represents more than 40,000 potential customers. The best thing we can do for Oriental businesses is to attract more boats to stop here. That would be good for every business.
Last Thursday, one commissioner opposed additional free dockage, on the grounds it may compete with nearby commercial marinas.
This misses the point. Cruising sailors select where to stop based on the reputation a town has as a hospitable place. Availability of transient docks and free anchorage space is among the factors affecting this reputation. The goal is to improve Oriental's brand. The better the brand, the more boats stop. The more boats that stop, the more will come back. Some even stay.
As I contended almost two years ago, the question of what to do about South Avenue is about the future, not the past.
Those of you who support the new town dock project and the effort for Oriental to become even more welcoming and hospitable to cruising sailors, please come to the meeting of the Town Board at 7:00 pm Tuesday, May 3 at Town Hall. And bring other supporters.
The important competition is between Oriental and other towns along the waterway.
The Wicked Witch is Dead
The television scene of a wildly enthusiastic crowd dancing and waving flags in Lafayette Square last night across from the White House reminded me of nothing so much as the dance of the Munchkins in the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy's house fell on the wicked witch. The enthusiasm was understandable, but at the same time, there is something unseemly about it.
So I was relieved to learn that the military force that killed Osama bin Laden and retrieved his body treated his remains with respect. That is in keeping with an older military tradition.
An example of this older tradition occurred during the Battle of Santiago during the Spanish American War. The Spanish fleet, which had been bottled up by the US Navy, attempted a break out. They had not gone far when the battleship USS New York engaged the ships in a withering fire from her big guns. Spanish ships burned and sank, to the cheers of New York's sailors.
"Don't cheer boys, the poor devils are dying" New York's skipper, Captain John W. Philip, a Civil War veteran, chided his seamen.
Ninety years later, in July 1988, USS Vincennes, an Aegis cruiser, shot down Iranian Air flight 655, killing 290 passengers and crew. The aircraft was in Iranian airspace in an international civilian air corridor. A television crew on board to film the ship in action recorded the crew on the ship's bridge cheering the shoot-down. I'm sure those crew members later regretted their cheers.
War is a solemn business, not like a football game. Save the cheering for later.
At this writing, it appears our Seals successfully limited collateral damage to civilians. We should be very thankful for that.
So I was relieved to learn that the military force that killed Osama bin Laden and retrieved his body treated his remains with respect. That is in keeping with an older military tradition.
An example of this older tradition occurred during the Battle of Santiago during the Spanish American War. The Spanish fleet, which had been bottled up by the US Navy, attempted a break out. They had not gone far when the battleship USS New York engaged the ships in a withering fire from her big guns. Spanish ships burned and sank, to the cheers of New York's sailors.
"Don't cheer boys, the poor devils are dying" New York's skipper, Captain John W. Philip, a Civil War veteran, chided his seamen.
Ninety years later, in July 1988, USS Vincennes, an Aegis cruiser, shot down Iranian Air flight 655, killing 290 passengers and crew. The aircraft was in Iranian airspace in an international civilian air corridor. A television crew on board to film the ship in action recorded the crew on the ship's bridge cheering the shoot-down. I'm sure those crew members later regretted their cheers.
War is a solemn business, not like a football game. Save the cheering for later.
At this writing, it appears our Seals successfully limited collateral damage to civilians. We should be very thankful for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
