Dear Dennis, ……
Dear Dennis,
Your body language and your near instantaneous second of Burnette’s motion last evening betrayed the fact that you were in on the fix.
If that is not the case please explain that near instantaneous second to a speech Burnette clearly did not write and was struggling with,
OR OTHERWISE explain how you came to be in on that fix ?
AND WHETHER we have any sunshine or contaminated silo conversations that we need to be concerned about here Dennis ??
Ted Noftall
Kennedy, Dennis DennisK@port-orange.org via bounce.secureserver.net
10:50 PM
to City, Margaret, Shannon, Ted
Ted,
I doubt that you will believe anything that I say here but I was completely unaware that Don was going to make that speech last night. I must say that I do agree with a great deal of what was said and want to hear further discussion on the situation hence my second. I do take the sunshine amendment seriously and do not discuss agenda items or potential items with other members of the council.
We are all aware that we have had several unfortunate incidents in Port Orange over the last couple of years and I believe that the way that you have handled yourself when dealing with those incidents has at times added additional stress to already difficult situations. This has created a hostile work environment for some and I believe cost the city of Port Orange some good people. I have to agree with Don that you have over stepped the limits of an appointed official on more than one occasion. I assure you that I, as an elected official, would not choose to take it upon myself to single out department heads or employees to point out possible mistakes and call for their immediate resignation or termination. We have found ourselves dealing with the aftermath of your over zealous blame assigning rather than dealing with the issue and responding to resignations instead of pursuing corrections. I will assure you that I have had several discussions with citizens asking why we let you specifically, continue to disrupt the council.
I find this all very unfortunate because I truly believe that you have an excellent grasp of many of the budget issues that the city faces and your expertise could be a benefit to the city as we move forward but instead the way that you choose to present yourself and your opinions just creates more issues.
Dennis
11:04 PM
to Dennis, ShannonThank you Dennis,
After listening to you for all these years I believe it possible that if you tried really hard you could find a third side to a coin.
That is not meant as a compliment, AND if I could encourage you do one thing in the waning days of your stint on Council it would be to clearly state your position on something anything and stick by that position without equivocation.
Ted Noftall
Ted, I have to accept that Kennedy was not forewarned about Burnette deciding to at a city council meeting for your removal from the board as chairman. But can’t the stupid sunshine law be circumvented in a simple way? Does the following sound possible and legal? Blissful Ignorance goes to Burnette and asks him to make a statement requestin the council to remove Ted from the board. Burnette says “OK, I will do that next council meeting”. Blissful Ignorance then goes to Kennedy and tells him that Burnette is going to ask for the removal of Ted and Blissful Ignorance asks Kennedy to second the motion and support the effort to remove Ted from the board. Kennedy say, “ok , I will think about it? Isn’t this a simple, legal way to get around the sunshine law.
I beginning to think that we who want reform in city government need to start contacting on an individual basis all our city council members. I would suppose that city council people hear a lot from special interests (financial) and probably it is about time that they hear from the special interest group which wants accountability and real reform in Port Orange City Government. Let’s keep them busy listening to our concerns. For one city council member, let’s keep him interested by suggesting what next should be built in Port Orange.
Oh a thought just came to me. Let’s ask the Mayor to condemn the area of Riverside Dr. as a blighted area, near where Ford lives, and with CRA people tax money build three 17 story condos, right on the river. Look for the twinkle in the Mayor’s eyes.
Dennis, I’ll bet my bottom dollar that you were one of those kids in high school who went along with anything the popular kids said so that you could be “one of the crowd”, even if it went against your core beliefs. You’ve been doing this right along on council.. Don’t you have any opinions of your own? Shame on you.
Ted,
As we both know there is no third side to a coin however many of the issues that come before the council have multiple sides, few are black and white. I know that in your view there are only two sides to any issue, your side and the wrong side…sitting on the council means that you must always be willing to look at all sides of an issue and make the best informed decision that you can. Sometimes even when your heart tells you one thing you must still look at and decide an issue based on the best interest of others.
I believe that I have been consistent over the years and I have always looked at any issue with an open mind and tried to reach the best possible solution.
Dennis Kennedy
Dennis
Just because you take a long pause before you vote does not excuse that fact that you just voted opposite your commentary. Two meetings ago you stated you can not go against the attorneys advice then voted against her advice. This is just one example of the many times you contradict yourself with votes opposite your comments.
For the record; “Councilman Kennedy took a long pause before contradicting himself, therefore his vote should not fully count as he really wasnt sure if he wanted to vote this way” SAID NO MINUTES EVER!!!!!!!
Dennis,
I would like to know how many times on Council your votes were the same as the Mayor? Better yet only the critical 3-2 votes that move items forward that are obviously controversial. I can’t remember a 3-2 vote that you were ever on the opposite side of the Mayor. It seems like a 2 for the price of one deal. I appreciate the time you put forth in the community but will happy to see you go. The echo has gotten old over the years. I wish you the best as you return to a life of normalcy.
After reviewing several of the council meeting videos on the city’s web site I noticed that on any vote of major issues Kennedy looks at Mayor Green before he votes. I assume thats for instructions
Dennis Kennedy has never had an independent thought the entire time he has served on the council except perhaps should he have Cherrios for breakfast or Coco Pops.
Dennis,
I have no doubt that you are a exceptionally nice person. In the years I have known you I have never seen any evidence of a malicious bone in your body. You are a giving person and I hope one day you find a place to use your talents because Council is not one of them.
You stated that in my view there are only sides to an issue ‘my side and the wrong side’ and you are correct in that observation because I believe in keeping my views and ideas before the people in an un-equivocal fashion, AND when the people no longer find favor with either, both my views and I need to be discarded, because I also believe that ideas like ships may be safe in harbors that is not what either are for.
This is in stark contrast to Council members who hang around for years like dimly burning bulbs never quite standing for anything content to catch signals on how to vote from a Mayor who has never leveled with the people on any issue in his whole career.
For you to defend your out of your seat lickedy-quick second to Burnette’s intended public lynching of myself with Candidate Laney delivering the final strike without me so much as even seeing the jumbled letter and the purported evidence both of them had concocted before a gleeful audience of Judy Anderson, Greg Kisela and the Mayor’s dependent supporters from the Chamber Because “ you agreed with much of what you heard and wanted to hear more “ tells me you are either blissfully ignorant of due process, OR your personal titillation comes way before any personal principles you possess.
Either way you are in a hole on this one Dennis and you need to stop digging and climb out as best you can.
Ted Noftall
TED NOFTALL = TENACITY Yeah!
From: Ted Noftall [mailto:Ted@TedNoftall.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2014 12:22 PM
To: Dennis Kennedy (dkennedy@port-orange.org)
Cc: ‘Lewis, Shannon’; ‘Fenwick, Robin’
Subject: FW: Dear Dennis
Dennis,
Seems like you are still not getting it. There wasn’t going to be any further discussion – at least not of a balanced and meaningful nature. The intent was to have me and perhaps one or two others in attendance respond in a most un-prepared fashion relative to the coordinated attack of Burnette & Laney and then rely on the predictable Green, Kennedy, Burnette cadre to vote me off the 2 City Boards. That was the intent and it has blown up in your faces.
Descriptors such as “ Detrimental ” and “ Beneficial ” only take on a debate context assuming the underlying action they are describing have precipitated a fundamental change in something. For example the dissent of the guy who complains about not being able to walk at the City Golf course is neither detrimental or beneficial because thus far at least it has changed nothing.
In This Instance however the peaceful and mannerly citizen dissent of myself and others that take up no more that 10 – 20 minutes at each meeting have fundamentally “ changed “ Port Orange government, AND for that to have happened something dreadfully incompetent and deceitful in how Port Orange has been managed must have been right below the surface of some very thin ice. Otherwise the veneer would not have cracked as wide open as it has, as quick as it has, and with suck little pressure.
Now we come to the eye of the beholder and I am not surprised that you consider my “actions” to have been detrimental, BECAUSE they have been ….. to your dismal performance on Council.
You have sat up there for years and not once to my knowledge have you insisted in any meaningful manner that 2 different Managers ever be held to any standard of responsibility or accountability for their own performance or that of their staff. Nor can you plead ignorance for your nonfeasant in-action, BECAUSE you have received troubling information of lax to non-existent internal controls going back to at least 2006 with the HR Doctor’s report and the principled resignation of the then IT Director Tom Fitzgerald. The audit comments of every Internal and Year end Auditor from then to now have detailed one internal control deficiency after another, AND THROUGH all of those disclosures what meaningful action did you ever insist the Manager undertake to safeguard taxpayer interests ??
BTW Council’s failure to insist that the Manager implement meaningful personnel and internal control changes in Finance and IT in 2006 was the direct and proximate cause of the water billing fiasco that cost taxpayers $ millions and that came to light in 2012. But what the hey you were playing nice, no fus no mus ….. defiantly no dissent.
You are mistaken in your opinion that I am not working to better Port Orange government. I am doing that exact thing by advocating for accountability, responsibility and transparency in an effort to eliminate the waste and incompetence that have sadly become Port Orange government’s trademark. Gone will be the Mayor’s back room developer deals that have given us the wasted millions on Gamble, Dock to No-Where, Riverwalk, Well Fields, and the cluster …. you know what that Dunlawton has become compliments of an obfuscating Mayor and his pocket vote councilmen.
You know I’ll bet the majority of Volusians are thinking right about now that if Halifax Health had received citizen activist oversight similar to that in Port Orange, taxpayers might not be out the near $150 million recently spent defending the incompetent management practices of the hospital.
As for you insight into the election process remember two things. You were elected in 2010 with 50.1 % of the vote meaning that 49.9 % of voters wanted you replaced 4 years ago, AND YOU ARE NOT seeking re-election this time because you know the same result would await you as befell Bob P in his bid to seek re-election in 2012.
Ted Noftall
****************************
—–Original Message—–
From: Kennedy, Dennis [mailto:DennisK@port-orange.org]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2014 7:30 AM
To: Ted Noftall
Cc: Kennedy, Dennis; Lewis, Shannon; City Council; Roberts, Margaret
Subject: Re: Dear Dennis
Ted,
As I am sure you already know there are vast differences between you and me. I had a great deal of respect for you in the past because I was impressed with your abilities and knowledge but I strongly disagree with your methods of implementing them. When Don made his speech the other night by the time that he finished I had heard enough to know I that I agreed and knew that we needed further discussion. I feel that your actions have been detrimental to the city of Port Orange for too long. I have had literally dozens of citizens call or stop me to talk and ask why we have allowed you to continue, what they feel, is an effort to destroy the city. I had a caller today who told me that he was sick of the way that you and your “band of supporters” seem to highjack the council every week and he wanted to know how to stop this from happening. He felt it was disruptive and wasting the council’s time, that we should get back to the job at hand, running the city and as he put it undoing the damage that has already been caused. I have to agree that we have spent far too much time and effort working to undo the damage that has been done.
I should remind you sir that you gave the citizens of Port Orange the opportunity to elect you to council, something they choose overwhelmingly not to do. I on the other hand won my election and was subsequently re-elected not once but twice…obviously I was doing something that the citizens approved of. You may judge your views and ideals against that standard.
Again, I am saddened by your continued actions and wish that you could put your passion to work trying to better the city rather than tear it down. You could be a strong force for change if you could only learn to work with people instead of bullying them in an effort to get them to do or see things your way.
Dennis Kennedy
Sent from my iPad
Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It
A growing body of psychology research shows that incompetence deprives people of the ability to recognize their own incompetence. To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it. Similarly, unfunny people don’t have a good enough sense of humor to tell.
This disconnect may be responsible for many of society’s problems.
With more than a decade’s worth of research, David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, has demonstrated that humans find it “intrinsically difficult to get a sense of what we don’t know.” Whether an individual lacks competence in logical reasoning, emotional intelligence, humor or even chess abilities, the person still tends to rate his or her skills in that area as being above average.
Dunning and his colleague, Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now at New York University, “have done a number of studies where we will give people a test of some area of knowledge like logical reasoning, knowledge about STDs and how to avoid them, emotional intelligence, etcetera. Then we determine their scores, and basically just ask them how well they think they’ve done,” Dunning said. “We ask, ‘what percentile will your performance fall in?'”
The results are uniform across all the knowledge domains: People who actually did well on the test tend to feel more confident about their performance than people who didn’t do well, but only slightly. Almost everyone thinks they did better than average. “For people at the bottom who are really doing badly — those in the bottom 10th or 15th percentile — they think their work falls in the 60th or 55th percentile, so, above average,” Dunning told Life’s Little Mysteries. The same pattern emerges in tests of people’s ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess. “People at the bottom still think they’re outperforming other people.” [Graph]
It’s not merely optimism, but rather that their total lack of expertise renders them unable to recognize their deficiency. Even when Dunning and his colleagues offer study participants a $100 reward if they can rate themselves accurately, they cannot. “They’re really trying to be honest and impartial,” he said.
If only we knew ourselves better. Dunning believes people’s inability to assess their own knowledge is the cause of many of society’s ills, including climate change denialism. “Many people don’t have training in science, and so they may very well misunderstand the science. But because they don’t have the knowledge to evaluate it, they don’t realize how off their evaluations might be,” he said.
Moreover, even if a person has come to a very logical conclusion about whether climate change is real or not based on their evaluation of the science, “they’re really not in a position to evaluate the science.”
Along the same lines, people who aren’t talented in a given area tend not to be able to recognize the talents or good ideas of others, from co-workers to politicians. This may impede the democratic process, which relies on citizens having the capacity to identify and support the best candidate or policy.
The ultimate takeaway of the research is the reminder that you really may not be as great as you think you are. And you might not be right about the things you believe you’re right about. And if you try to joke about all this, you might not come off as funny as you think.