22 thoughts on “City Manager's Update for 12/12/14

  • December 14, 2014 at 9:30 pm
    Permalink

    Half the work that is done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.
    — E. R. Beadle

    Reply
  • December 15, 2014 at 2:18 pm
    Permalink

    Hank to Compte: What do you think of the third definition of “Truth” from the Webster dictionary?
    truth noun \ˈtrüth\
    the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true
    : the quality or state of being true
    : a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true

    Reply
    • December 15, 2014 at 4:23 pm
      Permalink

      I think that definition is relatively subjective. I am more interested in truth of ultimate reality aas partly or wholly transcendent of percieved actuality and experience.

      Reply
    • December 17, 2014 at 8:12 pm
      Permalink

      To Nisaragata from hank
      I like all the quotes about accountability and trust worthiness. I do not think they should be directed towards this interim City Manager. They are best aimed at the Mayor and this city council which needs to stop this mayor from all the secretiveness he likes to be involved with.
      “It is always the false that makes you suffer, the false desires and fears, the false values and ideas, the false relationships between people. Abandon the false and you are free of pain; truth makes happy, truth liberates.”
      ― Nisargadatta Maharaj
      I am noticing what I deem to be unwarranted direction of suspicion towards our present interim City Manager. I urge the readers to consider if these suspicions should be first directed towards our Mayor and secondly towards the city council which needs to take control of a secretive Mayor acting without consulting the city council. As I understand the relationship, the city manager follows direction from the city council members. Don Burnette stated last night at the meeting held to choose and executive search company for our city manager that we need a City Manager who will lead. I hope Don was thinking of leading city operations and not the city council.

      Reply
  • December 17, 2014 at 8:38 pm
    Permalink

    Too bad you were not sitting in the council chambers at 09:00 A.M. earlier this week during a presentation from the Innovation Association. If you heard what he had to say about Mike Gardner, Ted Noftall, and the citizen activists as well as the travails of him having to be transparent and tolerate citizen activism and participation you would be appalled and lament your licentious and ill-informed agrandizement of his transparency, authenticity, and honor.

    Reply
    • December 18, 2014 at 8:36 am
      Permalink

      What are you talking about. Who was making a presentation and to whom was it being made ?

      Reply
    • December 18, 2014 at 9:55 am
      Permalink

      to Tom Tom from Hank. I have not heard of Harden’s comments made at the meeting you described. I sure would like to know about them. Would you be willing to tell me what Harden said?
      li·cen·tious adjective \lī-ˈsen(t)-shəs\
      : sexually immoral or offensive

      Reply
      • December 18, 2014 at 10:03 am
        Permalink

        Probably not the best word selection but meant in the dramatic sense of a lack of exercise of restraint with no sexual conotations intended.

        Reply
      • December 18, 2014 at 1:14 pm
        Permalink

        Was just advised that the appalling comments were made by Peg-Leg and not by Harden.

        Reply
        • December 18, 2014 at 5:24 pm
          Permalink

          They were made by both. Harden gave them his assent and in essence they were received quite well by the FCCMA/ Alliance For Innovation Rep. What it all amounted to is a very intimate inside view of the pseudo transparency game that Harden is playing and a revelation of his true colors as it pertains muddying the waters and showing his superiority attitude and feeling of disdain for citizen activists. I would not be heaping premature praise on him because I predict those that have done so will inevitably regret having done so and will end up with egg on their face. The only one of the activists that appears to see through this shit is Ted Noftall.

          Reply
          • December 18, 2014 at 9:14 pm
            Permalink

            Hank to Tom Tom, finding out new information to base a change of opinion is no bad virtue. The sin is in not admitting the new information into your judgment. I will keep this information that you provide us in the back of my mind and will take it into account if more negatives about Harden are supplied to me. Thanks,Tom

          • December 19, 2014 at 10:49 am
            Permalink

            Hank to Tom Tom: Mr. Harden replied to me:
            “Anything said was related to the fact that activists create extra work for staff. That is a simple fact, but people who choose to be activists have every right to make inquiries about their local government. ”
            I am requesting a record of the meeting so that I can read for myself what exactly was said.

          • December 19, 2014 at 11:40 am
            Permalink

            Yes Hank, but he also said.” Whatever was said by me or anyone else was of so little consequence that I have no clear recollection of it. I believe the representative from AI asked whether Port Orange had activists. There was a positive response from several persons in attendance. Offhand I do not recall names being mentioned, but there may have been. Anything said was related to the fact that activists create extra work for staff.
            So lets revue this:
            1. What was said was inconsequential.
            2. However, I have no recollection of what was said.
            3. I don’t remember whether any names were mentioned.
            4. These activists cause us a lot of extra work.
            5. My record of transparency speaks for itself. (Does that imply that he is beyond reproach and does not need to dignify this with an answer?)
            6. And finally, does he recall saying in that forum that these activists should not be involved as much as they are in the decisions and activities that the city administration is responsible that effects the citizens, or is this one of the inconsequential things he said that his memory fails to provide him clear recollection of?

          • December 19, 2014 at 9:53 pm
            Permalink

            Hank to Tom Tom:
            You make some good points. Harden replied that he will next week ask other attendees remember what was said.
            There is no official record of what was said at this staff meeting.
            I take issue that now that informed citizens are on the scene, and they might be activists, their requests for information should not be considered “extra” work. Supplying information to the public I would think comes with the job and always did. It is wrong to consider such requests as “extra” work, but fair to say that the city has probably not have experienced such a quest for information in the past. But,I repeat, it is part of the city’s job and in no way should be considered “extra work”.
            Harden has replied to me that he would answer direct questions about the meeting if he can. I was not at the meeting.
            Perhaps you can put the direct questions to Harden or send them to me and I will ask him to respond.

          • December 19, 2014 at 11:21 pm
            Permalink

            Hank, listen to the channel nine report. Harden has reprimanded two mid level employees, attributing the flood damage to their negligence in not following a non existent protocol. This is in light of two department heads that propitiously resigned, or in the case of the PW director resigned two weeks after the debacle. The only one that gets this fecease is Ted Noftall, every one else is too busy deifying Harden. Harden waffled to the press regarding the city’s liability and deferred to an engineering consultation that he is in the process of orchestrating.
            A reasonable question is if he has already reprimanded two scapegoats for negligence in the performance of their duties than why is he prepared to spend $50,000 in taxpayer money to have an Orlando engineering firm that he has a history with perform an engineering model to determine whether the berm removal or the failure in operation of city equipment caused the flooding damage in which he has waffled on the city’s liability?
            Why reprimand two organizationally expendable scapegoats when you are proposing to spend big taxpayer money on your engineering familiars to muddy the waters. If you read the city manager read file this dude has more communication with fundamentalists that pray for him, and he talks more about his prayer vigils to city employees than carter has liver pills. Why is he scapegoating two pawns as if he has identified the problem while spending tax payer money to solicit his hand selected consultant to find something else that will limit liability to the city and tell an orchestrated story?
            Watch Harden like a hawk, because it is abundantly clear from numerous technically astute employees that he does not know shit about the nuts and bolts about this flooding issue, public utility operations, or public works discipline. Anyone knows that a consulting engineers model that they run is only as good as the modeling inputs. If those inputs are supplied by QLHA, the public utilities engineer, and any employees that are being threatened than you can expect garbage in garbage out. Harden will orchestrate a model that will tell a story to navigate and mitigate his way through transparency and accountability. The two employees that are being scapegoated are old enough to retire and have worked for the city for decades, so if push comes to shove they will simply retire a year or so earlier than they planned and ride off into the sunset. Six months after this shit is whitewashed Harden will pack it up, head back to Delray Beach, and finish up the woodwork on his Victorian mansion. Same old shit different day, were is our new council that is supposed to bring in real reform?

          • December 26, 2014 at 12:40 pm
            Permalink

            Hank, I noticed that your second inquiry on the read file to Harden was not responded to. You will find if your inquiries of him drill down to a level that penetrates his pseudo-transparency and canned answers his next line of defense is not to dignify your inquiries with an answer.
            The city would have been better off hiring Richard Dreyfus to do a “Moon Over Paramour” rendition of an interim city manager. At least that dog and pony show would be humorous, entertaining, and have some redeemable value. Stay tuned for a reality shock, and be ready to drill down with questions that penetrate the facade of this orchestrated illusion of transparency and see just how unresponsive this puppet becomes.

    • December 18, 2014 at 11:11 am
      Permalink

      TomTom–Manager Harden brings to his position some qualities that I find admirable mostly BY COMPARISON to what we have had in the past. I always keep in mind that he has been successful for a lot of years in a system that breeds wheeling and dealing in the shade and has been shaped by that process. How else can you rationalize a seminar about government innovation presented by ICCMA–the last-gaspers of the good ol’ days?
      I think innovation will occur, not because government wants to change but because it will have to change. It is simply getting too hard to hide things theses days. (Think what it will be like in a very few years when everyone is carrying personal audio/video recorders.)
      Mike

      Reply
      • December 18, 2014 at 12:57 pm
        Permalink

        I understand exactly what you are saying. You would think that govermental officials and city administrators would see the handwriting on the wall and surf the new current of open governance instead of raging and swimming against it. I say invite the public in and showcase your accomplishments and also be transparent about your weaknesses and invite the public to partner with you to correct those weaknesses and help you institute genuine reform. Unfortunatly they
        still choose to not get the message and spend an inordinate amount of time putting on a dog and pony show with psuedo transparency and double talk.

        Reply
      • December 20, 2014 at 11:35 am
        Permalink

        Hank to Tom Tom: I appreciate your points. Yes, we should watch Harden closely along with city council members.
        You wrote: ” Harden has reprimanded two mid level employees, attributing the flood damage to their negligence in not following a non existent protocol. This is in light of two department heads that propitiously resigned, or in the case of the PW director resigned two weeks after the debacle.” —- I would offer that resignation of two departmental heads was appropriate and then Harden turned his attention to two mid level employees. Seems fair to me.
        You wrote: “Why reprimand two organizationally expendable scapegoats when you are proposing to spend big taxpayer money on your engineering familiars to muddy the waters” ——- I think the city council directed Harden to find an independent engineering company to look into the berm issue and flooding. Am I incorrect?

        Reply
        • December 22, 2014 at 8:19 pm
          Permalink

          Hank, I and a number of people understand exactly what TomTom sees and knows. Like him, we are tired of putting ourselves on the line and trying to educate people like yourself to no avail. It is really a thankless and apparently hopeless endeavor. We can connect the dots for you but it appears at the end of the day nobody would take any positive action to effect reform. I suppose we will just sit back until the imminent implosion and than interpret the aftermath in retrospect. You will then realize the constraints that are an imposition at this time, and we can both lament your inability to see through the present smoke screen. I lament your misguided empowerment of what amounts to be the calm before the storm.

          Reply
          • December 26, 2014 at 8:24 pm
            Permalink

            Hank to Fool Me Once and Tom Tom.
            It is true that Harden did not reply to my second request to him which had the anonymous post from this web site about his faults. I do take note of that. It can be that he does not want in any way to respond to anonymous comments.
            Sorry that you think I am somewhat gullible, but in truth, I do not have access to the wealth of information about Harden which your two seem to have, or are you really one commentator with two anonymous names.
            There is not much more I can do for you unless you give me more info. I understand your points about some seemingly negative comments about Noftall,Gardner and activists, but it seems I can not verify your anonymous reporting.
            If you like, I can speak with you by phone, or perhaps meet you in person for me to become knowledgeable about your assertions. At this time, you have the disadvantage of being anonymous,and without verification from some real person, and that may be you, I have to keep little faith in your assertions. A hundred anonymous comments will not prove your assertions to me unless something or someone leads me to something real and not anonymous. Since I find you at a disadvantage, I think it best that we end this dialogue. sincerely hank

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.