Good morning.

Thursday in Whitewater will be sunny with a high of 50. Sunrise is 7:12 and sunset 4:20 for 9h 08m 25s of daytime. The moon is a waning crescent with 28.9% of its visible disk illuminated.

Whitewater’s Board of Zoning Appeals meets at 6 PM. 

 On this day in 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy carries out a surprise attack on the United States Pacific Fleet and its defending Army and Marine air forces at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Japanese forces simultaneously invade Shanghai International Settlement, Malaya, Thailand, Hong Kong, the Philippines, and the Dutch East Indies.

Embedded above is a video of the 12.5.23 meeting of the Whitewater Common Council. Yesterday’s post addressed the negligence of this council president on agenda Item 16 about basic council self-governance. See The Council President’s (Willful) Negligence. 

Two other parts of the meeting stand out. 

Individual Requests. Some members of the council care more about an issue than others, and will express concern when they (as one or two members of a seven-person body) don’t receive the answers they want when they want. One or two members’ expectation of individual service on larger projects is a (chronic) misunderstanding of collective governance. About a requested study of salary comparatives, this misunderstanding arose yet again.  The discussion begins at 28:24 on the recording above. Here, as in the past, Councilmember Allen will sometimes speak in the plural (“So we’ve asked you for we’ve given you the list twice now”) when “we” refers to one or two and not a majority of the council. Of individuals requesting as a mere faction, see Scenes from a Council Meeting (Representations) (“what we’re looking to do here” emphasis added) and Micromanaging the City of Whitewater’s Human Resources Work (“Many years ago, a conservative councilmember rebuked a colleague for expecting that individual members have the authority to assign work or projects to city staff. That conservative councilmember was right — it’s a collective body, and individual members aren’t empowered that way.”)

Lack of Support for Claims. It’s odd, but now also a recurring oddity, that one or two council members will make a claim, but when asked will lack information to support their claim. They’re the ones who will present the claim, but then be unable to substantiate it. 

At the Tuesday night session, Councilmember Allen contended that some communities requested as part of a salary comparison were omitted from a city-supplied list, but when asked if he had examples of omissions (“Could you give me a specific example?”) Allen’s reply was “Right now, no.” Video at 29:55. Allen’s quick attempt to supply a few omissions mentioned only cities that had, in fact, been included on the list. Video at 30:00. 

Later, Allen suggests to Councilmember Gerber that she, Gerber, had not received some salary information Gerber had requested. Here’s the discussion beginning at 50:09:

City Manager: What Rachelle’s saying is that she provided that information. 

Finance Director Rachelle Blitch: That was provided on October 25th. It’s in the agenda packet. 

Councilmember Allen: Jill, there’s other information that you have not received it. 

Councilmember Gerber: I don’t remember. I don’t recall not saying she hasn’t, I just don’t recall. 

Method. 

Earlier at 30:27, the city’s Human Resources makes the point that any reasonable person should grasp:

So one thing I just want to mention, that’s hopefully what the metrics will help us look at, given that information. And then we can use that to determine who actually which communities are the most comfortable based on not only population, but shared revenue, spending, all of those things.

Honest to goodness, isn’t that obvious? The best practice is to complete a wide study and narrow it after reviewing that study’s data. Cherry-picking now invites errors later by idiosyncratic inclusion or omission. 

We’re a beautiful city of thousands who properly grasp the concept of collective governance and the need for evidentiary support for one’s own claims. Whitewater’s residents can grasp these concepts quite well. Any misunderstandings are, so to speak, more specific and particular. 

Fly through James Webb Space Telescope’s view of 5000 galaxies in 3D visualization:

 Good morning.

Wednesday in Whitewater will be cloudy with a high of 38. Sunrise is 7:11 and sunset 4:20 for 9h 09m 26s of daytime. The moon is a waning crescent with 37.6% of its visible disk illuminated.

 On this day in 1917, Finland declares independence from the Russian Empire.

Yesterday’s post linked to the agenda of the Whitewater Common Council session for 12.5.23. 

Here’s Item 16 from that agenda:

Discussion and possible action regarding the timeline of a council action plan to address Common Council self-governance — Common Council/HR.

Nothing matters more than the essential nature of one’s work: baking for a baker, sewing for a tailor, medicine for a physician, etc. The rest is secondary. Performing the essence of one’s work is the least that others should expect. 

And so, and so, if a councilmember will not embrace self-governance as the essence of his work, then he is unsuited to governing others.  

And yet, and yet, for the second time in a row, Whitewater’s council president has skipped over this agenda topic, requiring others on the Whitewater Common Council to remind him of his negligence.

See previously The Complaint Against (Some) on the Whitewater Common Council and Puzzling, Ongoing Irresponsibility. 

About Allen’s first omission of this topic until others reminded him:

One would imagine that having listened to the early November statement [on 11.7 about committing to self-governance], Allen would remember its significance only two weeks later [on 11.21]. One would imagine that an agenda item on 11.21 that plainly reads “Discussion and possible action” would cause Allen to prepare for discussion and possible action. Apparently not. 

Instead, Allen tried to push on without discussion to Item 28. When he was reminded that he was skipping an item that directly addresses this council’s self-governance, Allen replied “My bad.” See video at 2:15:46.

Now, a second omission in a row on 12.5.23:

Allen: Oh, missed one. 

As it turned out, other councilmembers caught the omission and there was then general agreement on an action plan for this council. 

To lead, however, is to go first, to take the initiative, and to guide others in that initiative. No one leads from behind, being pulled along by others. 

Worse, of course, is to hold leadership only to neglect the essence of one’s work. That’s what happened last night.

Later, when asked about a motion to approve a timeline for a self-governance program, Allen replied: 

No, it was just an understanding. 

Other councilmembers rightly and properly saw the need for approval of a concrete timeline and made a motion to adopt one.

By the second omission, Allen’s negligence looks willful. 

Whitewater is, and always will be, deserving of more.

Here’s the solid plan others remembered when this council president didn’t; here’s the specific plan others saw as actionable when Allen saw only a nebulous “understanding”:

Atmospheric river soaks Pacific Northwest bringing floods, mudslides:

 Good morning.

Tuesday in Whitewater will be cloudy with a high of 37. Sunrise is 7:10 and sunset 4:20 for 9h 10m 29s of daytime. The moon is a waning crescent with 47.1% of its visible disk illuminated.

  The Whitewater Common Council meets at 6:30 PM. 

 On this day in 1879, the Humane Society of Wisconsin is organized in Milwaukee. Inspired by Henry Bergh, a New York City philanthropist, and his Humane Movement, the state Humane Society was formed to protect both animals and children.  However, with the formation of child protection laws in the early 1900s, the Humane Society of Wisconsin began to focus primarily on animal protection.

Linked above is the Whitewater Common Council agenda for the first council meeting of December. Embedded below is the full agenda packet for the session.

A few remarks this morning on yesterday’s comments. 

1. Several readers last night and this morning emailed me to ask what I thought of a comment yesterday criticizing the evolving present in favor, presumably, of the (stagnant) past in Whitewater. There are differing views in this city. It’s a town of fifteen thousand people, not fifteen old men. One encounters all sorts of views with sangfroid. An uncharitable gift is still a gift. 

2. It’s true, as commenter New Attendee notes, that imitation is a form of flattery. I am also reminded of the venerable account of conjurers’ imitation serpents being devoured by the original.  

3. If it should be true that someone in the city cleans up alone, then the critical commenter could improve that situation by helping. 

4. Whitewater’s problems did not begin a year ago, as anyone not sadly confused would know. Holdovers from Whitewater’s failed past policies never want to look back further than a few months. Oh, no: these gentlemen led the city to her present state over a generation. They should look first to themselves, and not those having arrived more recently. This old guard is blame-shifting and excuse-making.

If they want to see who put Whitewater in difficult straits, they need only look into a mirror.

See Chronologies (‘In the case of bad politicians, however, the objection to a chronology is clear: to be reminded of their past errors and delays is a reminder they don’t want their constituents to have’) and Boo! Scariest Things in Whitewater 2023 (‘One sits and listens to this common council president, on council or the community development authority for decades, as he blames others for the lakes project, why certain types of stores are in town, and ignores why so many other businesses have over the years gone under or left for other communities. Where does he think he was all these years?’). 

5. These policy conflicts over the last year are about much more than someone new at city hall. This conflict is about the effort of a few tired old men to perpetuate their manipulation of public institutions for another generation. That conflict will not end until they stop. A critique of their actions will not end until they stop. They’ve overreached, fumbling and stumbling about to keep this town in their grip for another generation. 

That’s not a conflict merely between city officials. An aged ilk has precipitated a conflict among residents. That ilk might have left well enough alone. They didn’t. They bear the responsibility for this conflict. No month or season, no election, will end this conflict. It will stop only when their unmerited overreaching ends. Not a moment sooner. 

There are many twists and turns ahead. Whitewater is the adventure — and the work — of a lifetime. 

Here’s tonight’s full council packet: 

Amazon announces 2 new robots: Digit and Sequoia:

 Good morning.

Monday in Whitewater will be partly cloudy with a high of 38. Sunrise is 7:09 and sunset 4:21 for 9h 11m 38s of daytime. The moon is a waning gibbous with 57.4% of its visible disk illuminated.

  Whitewater’s Police & Fire Commission meets at 6 PM. 

  On this day in 1971, during a concert by Frank Zappa and The Mothers of Invention at the Montreux Casino, an audience member fires a flare gun into the ceiling, causing a fire that destroys the venue.

The agenda of the Whitewater Common Council session for 11.21.23 had 36 items. A post here at FREE WHITEWATER on 11.22 considered Item 27. See Puzzling, Ongoing Irresponsibility. Today’s post will address a few more items from that November meeting. I’ll call on figures from history, heavy metal, and master planning to help me out. 

Item 12 was an Immigration Roundtable Update and Item 16 was the Resolution Adopting the 2024-2025 City of Whitewater Municipal Budget. The discussion of Item 12 begins at 1:26:51 on a recording of the session and a portion of the budget discussion involving police staffing begins at 3:37 on the session recording. 

The council approved additional funds for a staffing study and technology additions to the police budget. See video @ 38:10. 

There’s a link between the two items, as in both there are discussions of changes to the city’s demographics. For Item 12 that’s necessary categorically; for Item 16 it may not be. It’s a small point but one the city has time to consider: immigration necessarily involves talk of immigrants, but staffing may be needed for many reasons, some of which may not involve immigrants. 

If a study on the matter points to the need for more officers, and if the method of hiring requires a referendum, then (but only then) the question of staffing becomes an electoral & political matter. There’s sure to be a desire, from city staff and the department, to address all of this now. Choosing among justifications, however, has political implications. 

How to present a referendum is a matter that can be addressed when the city is closer to a vote (likely spring 2025). 2025 may seem close, but there’s plenty of time. No reason to take my word for it — the Duke of Wellington explains it well:

Another part of Item 16’s budget discussion involved Councilmember Gerber’s desire to ensure specific percentage targets for city employees (e.g., 70% to goal, 80% to goal, etc.). As it turned out, however, it’s not possible to set a percentage-to-goal target unless one knows what goes into the targets. Seventy percent to goal, as against for example eighty percent, only matters if one knows what comprises the goal. Video @ 27:00. 

The council sensibly held off on percentage goals until it knew the substance behind those percentages. Video @ 30:00. To have done otherwise would have left the council in the unfortunate situation of Nigel Tufnel from Spinal Tap, who thought a number mattered more than (and indeed determined!) what it represented:

Item 16 had a portion for public comment reasonably limited to three minutes per person. A community-minded official could afford to be patient with his fellow residents for three minutes. Indeed, he should be patient with them under that limit. This council president, who often speaks nebulously and vacuously, saw fit to remind others not to be repetitive. Video @ 17:20. If there’s a time limit for each person to speak, then that should be enough for this council. A time limit and a reminder not to be repetitive is what someone says when he condescends to others. Sure, maybe Dalton Russell never repeats himself, but then he’s a master planner:

The rest of us aren’t like that. It’s either an unmerited arrogance or unacceptable laziness that would cause an official in local government to think that he needed to remind someone about repetition over a brief three-minute period. A timer is enough; no one should be following this council president’s words of caution on supposed repetition by ordinary residents. They should be able to speak within that period as they’re able. 

Whitewater is a small & beautiful city where all residents deserve respectful opportunities from their local government.