Politics vs Pragmatism in Government

damnant quod non intellegunt

Two weeks ago I met with a Manatee County Commissioner. The purpose of my meeting was to lobby the commissioner to seek alternative solutions to unpopular tall cell towers. I did not know what to expect when I entered the county commissioner's office.

I was greeted by a smiling affable young man who asked me to sit down. We spent a few minutes becoming acquainted about where we lived and both being or having been commissioners. I then began to talk about alternative technologies to cell towers. As we talked I presented the commissioner with several printed reports and informational materials. My presentation quickly became a discussion about cell phone reception and I soon realized that the commissioner already knew quite a bit about cell towers and the county's involvement in a cell tower litigation at Lakewood Ranch.

We talked about the fact that there are over 200,00 cell towers in America but that there are also over 300,000 Femtocells being used in homes throughout the country to improve cell phone indoor reception.

Our meeting lasted over 45 minutes. At the end of our meeting the commissioner informed me that he would ask his technical staff to research Lucent's LightRadio technology and that he would let me know what his staff learned.  

I left the meeting with the feeling that Manatee County has acquired another hard working intelligent commissioner, who is vitally interested in making the best possible decisions based on facts and knowledge. I will request meetings with several other county commissioners with the same expectations of discussing cell tower alternatives with pragmatic public servants more interested in optimal solutions than appeasing their friends or business interests at the expense of voters.

It takes a lot of effort to do the work that is required to gain a full understanding of the many complex issues that confront elected officials every month. However, not doing the work, and making decisions based solely on the votes of fellow officials, is a betrayal of public office. Too often uninformed decisions are made that adversely impact residents and entire communities, when a little honest work and an open mind could have resulted in policies that are win-win for everyone concerned.

How can anyone make an intelligent decision from a place of ignorance? It is one thing to not know what questions to ask, but in this day of Goggle one need only enter a few words and a wealth of information is immediately available. Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Making uninformed decisions is a disservice to the voters who placed in their elected officials with their trust and faith. From my meeting with a Manatee County commissioner I feel confident that he and his fellow county commissioners will do their best to make informed decisions.

A Modest Proposal

Dear Attorney Persson:

Let me respond unequivocally.  The very first time that I, as a member of the P+Z Board, saw the seventy pages of data submitted as Resolution 2011-01, was when I downloaded it from the Town’s web site on March 4, 2011.  Attorney Stroud had appeared before the Board a couple of times with an overview presentation  --  but no hard data had been covered.  Rest assured that had she done so I would have brought up the same points I am making now.  It now develops that our Town had already submitted another version of the data to DCA for its review, several months ago.

Aside from the overall thrust of what direction the body politic has in mind, I am especially concerned at this time with the matters dealing with density on our island, so my overall review has been limited..

As you are probably well aware, prior to this gambit by the Key Club, the density projections assured those who read the existing Comprehensive Plan  --  that only two single-family homes could be built on Islandside.  As for Harbourside, it was projected that 22 additional dwelling units could be built.

These estimates contributed to the other calculations in the Comprehensive Plan that showed the time for evacuation of our island in the event of catastrophe.  This projected time, which used as a given that a total of 276 new units island-wide, was barely within the allowable limits.

In contrast to this number it has been publicized that the Key Club, by its own estimates, projected that it could build an additional eighteen hundred new units on its properties.

Of course this was not permitted, since our zoning restricted the available units within the PD and GPD, solely to the “development sites.”  However, the Town, in its wisdom, has excised these words  --  thus allowing additional density.  For reference, please see: Chapter 158, Section 158.009, Description of district and district policies, subsection (L).

As to my recent comments, the high-lit with strike-outs Table 3, Page 19 of the Future Land Use Element tries to massage some of the numbers which contribute to “VACANT LAND AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE DWELLING UNITS.” In RM-3 it shows 26.05 acres with 3 du/ac to now have 43 instead of the original 78.  (But 26 times 3 is still 78.)  In RM-4 it shows 26.98 acres with 4 du/ac to now have 86 units.  (But 27 times 4 is 108.)  In RH-6, 10.35 times 6 is 62, not 31 as shown.  But these are minor variances.

In MUC-1, formerly PD, it shows 30 possible new units  --  but this is far from accurate.  I have tried unsuccessfully to ascertain exactly how many units are contained within the limits of the Harbourside development, but there are still 269 acres of non-housing land available there for future Key Club proposals.  So with the above revised  Chapter 158, Section 158.009, Description of district and district policies, subsection (L). the sky seems to be the limit as to what can be built.

The other glaring and obvious discrepancy lies in MUC-2, formerly the GPD.  Here the original projection for two (2) single-family units now shows 158 new units.  This entirely ignores the additional 196 tourism (plus the 158) units that have already been approved  for the Key Club expansion development.

So it results that the total effect of the change to the above language in our zoning has opened the door to a massive increase in density on our island.  This attempts to bypass our Town Charter, which is very explicit.  Article II, Town Commission, amended.  Comprehensive Plan for town, Section 22 (b).  The present density limitations provided in the existing comprehensive plan as adopted March 12, 1984 shall not be increased without the referendum approval of the electors of Longboat Key.

In any event, and without any serious attempt on my part to quantify the matter, the massive proposed increase in our island’s population will blow our Evacuation Time completely out of the water.  Absent a new bridge or tunnel directly to the mainland, we will be hazardously impacted. Witness the current traffic on our island, which is so tenuously connected to the mainland through two already impacted islands and two drawbridges, prone to malfunction.  And, watch the existing traffic piling up!

I brought this to our Board in the attached communication to Ms. Simpson and made a part of the background data submitted to the P+Z Board at its last meeting..

I also brought this matter up to Ms. Simpson with the request that the P+Z Board discuss the matter before the Commission takes action  --  and her response was :

The proposed amendments will be brought to the Board for full adoption once they have been transmitted to DCA and the send back their formal comments. At that time Board discussion is appropriate.

For full adoption?  What about discussion?

Why?  Is not the P+Z Board the curator and motivator in the matters dealing with the Comprehensive Plan?  Mr. Person, this is frustrating.  Unless someone explains to me wherein my conclusions are wrong, I would be grateful for a response. It is inconceivable that our Town would proceed along this course while it is so obvious to me, a non-attorney, that these matters are in direct conflict with our existing development controls.

In my humble opinion it is ostrich-like to assume that nobody but me is aware of these details. Maybe I will not live long enough for this matter to be finally adjudicated, but I do not plan to just ignore it.

With kindest personal regards,

Bradford Saivetz

Frog in the Fryingpan

Put a frog in a fryingpan of hot water and it will immediately jump out. Put a frog in a pan of cool water and gradually heat the water, the frog will stay put until it is soup. We are I fear proverbial frogs in a fryingpan. Our community is more and more rapidly being commerciaslized, yet it appears we either do not notice, or we are so disconnected for this community that we simply do not care what happens, just as the frog does not notice the steadily warming water.

I wonder how many Island Side property owners would have bought into the Longboat ambiance and perceived investment security of this island if the Key Club, in its expanded form had been already in existence. Somehow I feel the people who live at Island Side might have looked elsewhere for a more spacious and relaxed environment. A place where their investment would be in more caring hands.

I have several friends in Bay Isles who are worried that the planning and zoning board, in concert with the commission, will legislate a massive expansion at Avenue of the Flowers Plaza that might, if we are lucky, include an assisted living facility. It is not clear what height and density increases are being contemplated by the planning and zoning board. Of course all this is being done without the participation of the owners of the properties in question. It might be a good idea to find out what they want. Has anyone found out why all the businesses at Avenu of the Flowers left?

Blackpoint Partners, who have some sort of connection with Loeb Partners, who are trying to increase the Key Club land value at Island Side, are still planning a 1600 unit condominium addition on the golf course at Bay Isles as Blackpoint Partners states is their intention on their web site:  Blackpoint states they will be able to expand their presence on Longboat by changing the development codes. It appears from the actions of our town government that Blackpoint knows what it is talking about.

I attended a party in the village this evening where people are in shock at the thought of a 7 story mixed-use structure that covers several properties in addition to Whitney Plaza at the entrance to one of the most charming enclave of old Florida homes on the west coast. Wouldn't it be appropriate to ask residents what they want instead of forcing commercial development on them? I have always believed that local government was supposed to be responsive to its constituents. Here the residents are not asked.

6 story mixed-use structure

What if the present town government gets its way and abandons a comprehensive plan that, up until 2008, has been responsible for making Longboat one of the premier residential retirement communities in America? 75% or more of our residents are retired so let's not quibble about being a retirement community. Do the people on the commission and the planning board believe that people will spend more time on the island if they greatly expand commercial development on the island? One need only look at the percent of part-time residents to see that that is unlikely. Who then will patronize all the new stores and hotels that are envisioned by the current government? If you lived in Sarasota or Bradenton would you fight the traffic over the bridges just to go to a small community with a few more stores and no beaches? If you were an investor would you build a six story strip-mall on the north end with its seasonal sparse population that did not ever support Whitney Plaza? A few people clambering for more development do not fill stores and shops.

Perhaps a decade from now, if ever, investors will take a gamble and build more commercial space on Longboat. Then retailers will have to be persuaded to open business where more than half the people leave for 8 months a year. Businesses on Longboat have not failed because of a lack of store space. They failed for lack of year-round business.

Meanwhile our local government has not introduced a single initiative to expand social amenities in our community to attract home buyers to a more inviting environment.

For an in-depth analysis of what is happening please goto:
 http://lbk-folk.blogspot.com/2011/03/modest-proposal.html

Foot Notes:

Blackpoint: http://www.blackpt.com/portfolio_LongboatKeyClub.html "refinanced property’s $45 million non-performing loan under a new lender, installed new management and developed master plan to add approximately 1,600 new units to density."

Whitney Plaza: "Consensus was reached by planning board members at their Tuesday, March 15 regular meeting in making plan changes that would allow Whitney Beach Plaza to rise from its current one-to-five stories with 65 feet of height in total. The board also agreed that a developer coming forward with a project should be allowed to include plans for a residential component, as long as it doesn’t exceed 20% of the total project." 

Bay Isles: "The board directed town special counsel attorney Nancy Stroud to come back with potential plan amendments that would allow for a residential aspect of a town-center overlay district, which would include Avenue of the Flowers and land east through parcels along Bay Isles Road, such as the Longboat Key Public Tennis Center and the religious institutions. Stroud suggested a policy that would allow the town to provide fiscal incentives for proper revitalization to both areas when funds are available. Although the planning board isn’t looking for a new residential component along Bay Isles Road, consensus was reached to see if developers might come back with a senior-living facilities component." 

A Need for Pluralism in Government

The 2000 census had 65% of our population over 65 and a median age of 67. The median age of homes in Longboat Key was 22 years, with 4% of them rented. 60% or more of the homes on Longboat are not occupied most of the year. An unknown percentage of our homes are homesteaded by residents who summer off-island, which adds to our seasonal fluctuation in population. 75% of our residents are retired.

The 2010 census may show that we and our homes are 10 years older now. The median age may be considerably older. The average home age will most likely exceed 30 years. We already know that Longboat lost more than 2,400 residents between 2005 and 2010. It will be interesting to see if the percentage of non-resident ownership has increased. This will be a good indicator of the direction our community is headed in the next few years. We may want to find some way of reversing these trends.

I grew up in Larchmont NY. I recently returned to my childhood community and found a vibrant prospering community where the average house is perhaps 60 to 80 years old. The homes are well maintained and worth a fortune relative to their size and age. I mention Larchmont to counter certain politicians who tell us our community is aging and we need hotels and more stores to being us back to life. By comparison Larchmont is a fossil compared to the age of our homes.

I believe that certain business interests along with a clique of pro-developer, pro-business expansion minded residents have formed an informal political entity on this island that discourages anyone, who is not of their ilk, from running for public office or town boards.

I have talked to dozens of residents over the past three years, urging them to run for commission. Alas, not a single resident wanted to confront the political colossus that has emerged within our community. Several residents have said that they did not want to put out the effort only to end up as an ineffectual member of the commission or a board, who is ignored or treated rudely by those who are currently in power. The result is that the voice of those residents who do not want to see our residential community commercialized has, for the present, been effectively silenced.

If the current pro-developer, pro-business majority on the commission and the planning and zoning board want to thwart a robust and healthy political process on this island, one need only look at this year's non-election to see that is exactly what is occurring.

My questions to you are threefold. One, do you believe that having elections where no one runs are beneficial to our community? Two, do you believe that having a "politically correct" commission and planning board promotes new innovations? Three, do you feel that increasing commercial development will have a beneficial impact on the value of your home?

We are currently creating a political vacuum on this island as a result of the ascendancy to power of a cohesive pro-commercialization political group. This group of people have effectively choked-off any political opposition to the degree that no one is willing to challenge incumbents. Favored candidates can count on the support of several community organizations and groups.

Positions on the commission and the various community boards look like a game of musical chairs. Commissioners reach term-limits and return to positions on boards they had previously occupied. We have ex-commissioners returning to office a second time. It is difficult to find a new face in the crowd.

For perhaps the last five years an island clique has been forming a miniature Rolodex of political players who all think along similar lines. Our community has reached a point where no one, who is not in the group, wants to occupy positions on the commission or the various boards.

Anyone who is considering running for office is confronted by a unified group that now controls our community's politics. If you do not agree with the group then you will be confronted by a daunting opposition that has proven to be quite effective if one looks at recent elections and board appointments.

Is having in effect a single political party good for Longboat? If people with intelligent new ideas are discouraged from participating in local government, then how will beneficial change come about? Are we better off having a small group of like-minded people control who is allowed to serve in local government? Does it trouble you that no one offers to run for office, election after election? Last year was different. The Key Club played a major role in our election process. The results demonstrated that commercial interests have finally managed to gain control of town government.

The next mayor of Longboat Key should be, by tradition, Bob Seikman. However, Comm. Seikman does not appear to be part of "the group" and more than one columnist has written about who the next mayor may be. If commissioner Seikman is denied being mayor then all I have written in this piece will be in a sense prophetic.

I feel I need to repeat that I believe the town government needs to focus on the issues that confront our residents such as public amenities and activities, better utilization of public spaces, improving our community image and better community marketing instead of the interests of a few business owners. Certainly businesses on our island need as much help as we can give them. If the commission wanted to immediately help our local business owners, they would not force them to pay taxes for beach dredging as if they were located in the "A" beach tax district, when all but a few are located east of GMD in the "B" tax district. If I owned a business on Longboat I would feel singled out.

Where is our commission when it comes to our taxpaying residents? I see most of the commission's efforts directed towards the Key Club and expanding commercial interests on Longboat, while the rest of our community is left to languish in economic despair.

The Wizard of PIC

Everyone who has been on Longboat Key for any length of time knows about the Public Interest Committee of Longboat Key or PIC. I moved to this island in 1985, the first full year of PIC's existence. The late 80's were contentious times on Longboat and PIC became the voice of the island residents in the struggle between ARVIDA and everyone else. PIC quickly acquired quite a few members. Because of this public support, PIC was able to become a formidable force in island politics.

After the developer wars had ended and Longboat created its current Comprehensive Plan that reduced density on Longboat from the original 75 thousand to 25 thousand, PIC still was an active and strong voice in island government. PIC was created as a voice for the residents. If you were a real estate sales person you were ineligible for PIC membership.

The late 80's and 90's became the golden age on Longboat. Residential real estate values increased pleasingly. Longboat Key became one of "the" new places to have a second home or retirement home. Little by little PIC became less and less relevant. There was an almost perfect balance between tightly regulated development and residential paradise. The American economy was booming and new wealth fueled a booming real estate market on Longboat that continued unabated until the end of 2007, when the meanies on Wall Street ruined everything for everyone.

2008 saw the resurrection of PIC as a voice in Longboat politics. Prior to 2008, PIC's main function was to anoint a PIC member to fill any vacancies on the town commission. I recall they took a position on the wrong side of the ill-fated reclaimed water project. I believe PIC also took the wrong stance on the airport noise struggle.

Anyway, in the hard times that started in 2008, a few residents, along with the Chamber of Commerce and the Key Club were able to reconstitute PIC, not as a resident advocacy group, but rather as a pro- development organization.

At this time PIC has 116 members that include the manager of the Key Club, one of the attorneys for the Key Club, the Chamber of Commerce LLC, a member of the board of the Chamber, one active and one retired real estate sales agent, one commissioner and one member of the Planning and Zoning board. 13 PIC members list off-island addresses. Of the 14 members contributing more than the basic $40 membership amount are the Key Club, the Key Club lawyer and a board member of the Chamber of Commerce.

The PIC board has 10 members. Talking to a long time PIC member, the PIC board does not poll members about political positions supported by the PIC organization. It appears that PIC, as a political activist organization, is controlled by as few as 6 members. To me this is less than a representative body to be advertising itself as an independent group that "communicates an independent citizen-oriented point of view." As  far as I know PIC has never advocated community surveys including the one recommended by the original Vision Plan director. I do not believe that the 90 members of PIC, who are not part of the board, or who do not have special interests, have much input into what PIC supports.

PIC has traditionally backed certain candidates in town elections and has traditionally backed PIC members over non-members most, if not all, of the time. This past election was no different except that the Key Club expansion application was at that time before the commission. At least one candidate, who appeared before the PIC nominating committee, was surprised to find the Key Club manager and at least one commissioner part of the interviewing group. The candidate also met a Key Club attorney leaving the Longboat Chapel sanctuary as he was entering for his interview. I leave it up to your judgment to decide if PIC is really representative of the residential community as they profess. And if so why was the Key Club present during the candidate interview?

I recently became a condominium representative to the Longboat Condominium Federation which represents perhaps 50% of the taxpayers on this island. If there is a truly representative organization, the Condo Fed would be the winner hands down. Yet the Condo Fed is a-political and I do not believe takes positions on any civic or political issues. Yet we have an organization of fewer than 100 members, if we subtract those members with special interests such as the Key Club and the Chamber of Commerce, that asks for special recognition by the town and wraps itself in the mantle of a populist citizen's organization.

There are those who will say I have a less than positive assessment of PIC because they did not anoint me as their pick when I ran for commissioner against Bob Seikman. I would not have won against a strong incumbent commissioner even with PIC's endorsement. Likewise, I defeated PIC's incumbent candidate the following election by a strong margin. There may be residents who rely on PIC to tell them who to vote for, as there are some who ask for marked-up ballots in national elections. I feel that any citizen who votes from a place of ignorance is lazy and doing a disservice to the community they live in.

In and around 2002 there were no fewer than 5 PIC board members on the town Planning and Zoning board. As PIC board members, a majority vote on the Planning Board met privately on a regular basis. To me this is too close for comfort. I prefer to see an unentangled town government. Unfortunately PIC has had a close relationship with our commission and major boards for too long. Remember PIC has a small membership and an even smaller controlling board. If Longboat Key was booming like the Villages and other Florida communities with robust real estate markets, one might not pay too much attention to the presence PIC has in our own government.

I believe that PIC supports some really worthwhile causes. While on the commission, I strongly supported the efforts of Landau and Younger to fix the broken town budget process. Hopefully my efforts furthered those efforts. I also feel that at times PIC represents the interests of a few, and that  detracts from their stature in our community. I also believe that PIC can serve as a cover for a small clique of residents with their private agenda. Wouldn't it be better to see a truly representative organization such as the Condo Fed weigh-in on community issues, after polling their members and reaching a broad based consensus.

Finally a Cell Phone Solution for Longboat Key

Telecommunications infrastructure maker Alcatel-Lucent announced this week new technology that will help wireless carriers expand their networks to keep up with the explosive growth in mobile data. Alcatel-Lucent is the largest supplier of equipment to the cell phone industry.

The company announced this week a new compact cell phone antenna system called lightRadio, which incorporates radio technology and base station technology in a single box. The entire system, which can fit on a lamp post, is a fraction of the size of today's cellular equipment. Current cellular networks require massive and power-hungry cell phone towers that house the antennas with a separate base station at the bottom of those towers that control the antennas.

When carriers have needed to add capacity or improve coverage, they've had to deploy these massive cell site towers. Alcatel-Lucent's lightRadio system, which will be ready for carrier trials later this year, allows carriers to deploy new cell sites much faster and less expensively than they have been able to do in the past. It also means that carriers can reduce the electricity used to power the cell phone towers and base stations.

All in all, wireless operators can reduce the cost of deploying and maintaining a new cell site by almost half of what it is today.



That has huge implications for the wireless industry, which is struggling to keep up with demand for more data services from smartphones and tablet PCs. In fact wireless data traffic is expected to increase 26 times between 2010 and 2015 according to Cisco's latest Visual Networking Index Forecast. Cisco conducts the survey every year to track network growth.

"It's clear that the explosion in mobile data will continue," said Wim Sweldens, president of Alcatel-Lucent's wireless division. "The architecture that Alcatel-Lucent is proposing will help avert a potential wireless crisis. If carriers don't move in this architectural direction then the problems we are starting to see today will only get bigger. And growing the networks will not be economically viable."

Wireless carriers have been preparing for traffic increases by adding more capacity to their radio networks as well as their back-haul networks that carry the traffic from the radio towers to the Internet. The wireless industry has been pushing the Federal Communications Commission to make more wireless spectrum available so that they can increase capacity. But getting new spectrum into the market takes time.

One way to add more capacity to the available spectrum is to deploy more cell sites that are smaller in area. Splitting cell sites means that wireless operators can serve more customers or provide more bandwidth to individual customers in each cell site.

Carriers have already begun using a mix of a smaller and smaller cell sites in their networks. For example, femtocells provide personal cell sites that can be in a home or business. The smaller cell sites are connected to a home or office broadband connection to improve wireless indoor coverage.

But splitting cell sites on a macro level in a metropolitan area is a little trickier if the old cell tower and base station architecture is used. Getting new cell towers approved is time consuming. And putting up those towers is expensive. It's also expensive to run these towers, which means long-term this architecture isn't viable.

That's where Alcatel-Lucent says it's lightRadio technology comes in. It would allow wireless operators to deploy smaller cell sites much more quickly and at a much lower cost.

This is where Longboat needs to be headed. Finally the new technology has become available and our community needs to become pro-active in creating an island-wide cell phone solution that serves the entire island and not just a small area at the north end.

Link to more information: http://www.thomson-webcast.net/uk/dispatching/?event_id=8b6ec5993b492ac6c37d5045edf26554&portal_id=cd2e2cfc37c987fa20cd04f5cff6dea4&language=en



Skeptical Advice

This article is based in part on concepts expressed by Michael Shermer

I want to begin by thanking the entire commission for all their hard work and commitment to our community. Believe me when I say it is a difficult arduous task not without the slings and arrows of resident discontent and inescapable pluralism. I wish our community had many more dedicated, civic-minded residents willing to do the hard work that comes with being a town commissioner. I wish many more residents would become actively involved in the day-to-day politics of our community. At times, I feel like our island newspapers could carry a headline stating "the town commission has revolted and beheaded the town manager", and not a single resident would submit comments or a letter to the editor. Compared to other communities where I have lived, this community seems to be content, if that is the right word.


I want to talk about what is called "the argument from ignorance". This is most often manifested in thinking that says "it must be true because it has not been proven false". Or "because I cannot imagine a viable alternative, there cannot be one". I believe that our town government frequently finds itself making these sorts of assertions when they are confronted by large or complex issues, where the commission has to choose between several courses of action. Further, I believe that the argument from ignorance prevails through no fault of the commissioners, but rather because the commission lacks the necessary tools and adequate information to make truly informed decisions.


How do we avoid the argument from ignorance? I want to look at the current beach bond conundrum and look at some alternative scenarios that might have occurred, if more information and more input from professionals had been part of the process. Reading comments in the newspapers, and talking to residents, it is apparent that voters are unsure, confused and unclear as to the actual condition of the island's beaches, the future course of beach management and the financial implications of our current and future beach policies. At this point, I would refrain from forecasting the outcome of the beach bond initiative. Looking at the upcoming $16 million bond referendum, along with future beach management bond initiatives, I see confusion and a lack of understanding on the part of the electorate. Perhaps this is simply a reflection of the commissions actions over the past few months. I personally am unable to discern any clear direction going forward that offers any relief from escalating costs.

To anyone who has followed the tortuous course of actions that has led to the current bond referendum, one cannot help but see a conscious effort on the part of the town and the commission to limit discussion about our beach program. For instance, when the town manager held a special workshop on beach cost containment alternatives, no one advocating alternatives was invited to attend. Instead, the discussion was restricted to two "experts" who categorically stated that there are no alternatives to ever more expensive dredging. Since then a respected contractor has presented an example of an alternative to dredging that has been working well for many years. I do not believe many commissioners have understood the implications of a viable alternative, since the town manager blasted the working beach sand alternative for being site specific, and certainly not appropriate for Longboat. Personally, I worry about policies based in inference rather than experimentation and analysis.

If there are alternatives that contain costs, I fear our commissioners will never be open to examining them since the town manager will once again bring in his experts to convince the commissioners that the world really is flat. Not playing with a full deck of facts seldom leads to best conclusions.

As a commissioner, I tried to advance the need for special advisers to the commission. These experts would answer only to the commission and not be hired by or part of the town bureaucracy. I believe the commission makes decisions based on incomplete or politically colored information. These experts would be retained as needed and would advise the commission without being part of any other town business. Each adviser would be an expert in a particular area of interest to the commission. As the town is confronted by increasingly more complex issues we need to avoid "the argument form ignorance".