Fort Myers, FL
UPDATE
Two weeks ago the board unanimously approved Libby Anderson of human-resources-now to conduct an external review of the district. Last Week three board members announced they had developed nearly instantaneous buyers remorse. The other day Anderson posted a note on this blog that she was misquoted (read below) and that for the record she's for smaller government.
After I re-checked my notes, indeed, they said a CDD "is the next step to becoming a city". So, I requested a copy of the tape of the meeting from the Gateway Services District to listen to that segment again. And, SURPRISE, there is no recording. The district screwed up the recording and they are now trying to reconstruct the meeting from notes and memory.
STORY FROM MAY 21ST
Supervisor Carol Stanley said "after the meeting I didn't feel Anderson even knew what a CDD was. I didn't feel she has the kind of experience we needed". Supervisor Gary Neubauer said "I also don't have confidence in Anderson". Supervisor Ed Sichel said he voted for Anderson, based on cost. "I was concerned about getting anything. Neubauer added "three of us have mixed feelings and I'm not ashamed to admit that".
The problem the board now has which will delay the review even further is that they first have to undo what they did which is why Nielson thinks this will be a P.R. nightmare. District Manager Brian Lamb said "there could be a challenge." The board also made a motion to have 3 of the 4 candidates return to make an in-person presentation. Two of the 4 candidates made pitches over the telephone. The only candidate not invited back was Stoneybrook resident David Lethem who happened to be sitting in the audience when this entire discussion took place.
The difficult thing for these candidates is that we are asking them to give the district a complete examination and, at the same time, they have to be interviewed by the people they are scrutinizing. So if anyone comes in and says "I can see just from your board meetings you are dysfunctional, and changes need to be made" what are the chances Bob and Margaret are going to vote yes for this company? In my opinion, not likely. These two love the district. They think it benefits Gateway residents.
I like to look at last nights change of heart the way they look at close calls in football. 3 of the 5 Supervisors needed to go to the videotape. And upon further review, they decided they wanted to get it right, even if it meant changing their decision. I can't argue with that. She (Anderson) was the wrong person when they voted two weeks ago and you could tell just by the things she was saying:
"Your next step is to become a city".
"The Gateway people have someone looking out for them".
"A CDD, this is sort of a good concept. It makes good sense"
Unless this board gives whatever candidate they choose the specific job description of making the CDD leaner and meaner, getting more bang out of a taxpayer buck, this external review will become just another study that sits on a pile in Knights back office.
The board should also decide on a plan of execution BEFORE the review starts. If they spend the money to conduct a serious study they should also have a plan to implement the results. A specific task for the reviewer should be to provide the board with direction on when this district can and should be dissolved or at the least how to shrink it. And, of course I believe the first thing to go should be employee pensions.
Residents of a small community like Gateway, struggling with too many foreclosures and rising H.O.A. dues, should not be asked to fund pension plans for a glorified H.O.A. It's government insanity and it was all implemented when Gateway residents had no idea a C.D.D. even existed. It's been a month since Bill Knight said he was going to provide factual information on how the savings Gateway residents see in the water bill "more than pays" for the district budget. That was lip service a month ago and not a single Supervisor has done a lick of follow-up since that statement.
By the way it was also brought up, by a resident, NOT THE BOARD, that one of the candidates for the external review was Bill Knight's instructor at that unbudgeted seminar he went to a few months back. That resident, Paul Fish, said all the board members knew this and did not disclose it. He said Knight is the biggest stakeholder in the review and, at the least, gives the "appearance of wrongdoing". You want to talk about a P.R. nightmare Bob, it's unbelievable that this was never brought up and had to be unearthed by a resident. That's a P.R. nightmare.
