Weekend potpourri

Random ideas worth thinking about.

There is an ethical line between persuasion (the use of facts to make a reasoned argument) and coercion (threaten with injury, not necessarily physical).  Persuasion is ethically permissible, coercion is not.

Alinsky developed techniques to prevail, right or wrong, in the political arena. Are all 12 Rules for Radicals persuasion? Or coercion? Or does each exhibit a mix of both? (Alinsky Rules)

For example, he advises followers to personally attack those you disagree with. Are personal attacks on someone to make them (or others) reluctant to speak out against an issue coercion? Is it unethical?

For example, say a commenter argues against including funds for a homeless shelter in the budget. Is it unethical to call him a “stooge” or an “idiot?” Or is it coercion? Or is it just childish and unproductive?

It's worth a thought.

--- 

Truth isn't necessary or particularly useful

Alinsky denied the need to use truth to prevail in a political argument. Is arguing an untrue premise persuasion, coercion, or something else? Is it ethical? Is it moral?

Is it moral to argue “junk science” theories about climate change to force governments to send more money to undeveloped nations?

Is it ethical to argue that guns cause crime in spite of predominant evidence to the contrary, so that you can force your neighbors to refrain from hunting?

It's worth thinking about.

---

Big difference 

Charity, forced at gunpoint, isn't charity. It’s violation. It’s what makes a rape not just sex and what makes a robbery not just a gift.  So, is taxing productive members of society to support those who are unwilling to support themselves charity or violation?

It's worth a little thought.

---

Another one-percent group

On source states that ". . .one percent of the population accounts for 30% of all health care expenditures, and half of those people are elderly."

Most of that care is designed to prolong life, regardless of the cost, the pain or the impact on the family. A lot of doctors are uncomfortable with this. Some people want the full treatment, intervention at all costs. Others, including a lot of medically-savvy people like doctors and nurses, don't want futile treatment that only prolongs death.

A healthcare proxy or a living will make a person’s preferences known. Often their wishes are taken into consideration in planning care. Sometimes their wishes are overruled due to fear of lawsuits (relatives are disagreeing), or the physician’s belief system.

It’s worth thinking about – and discussing with one’s family and primary physician, before it’s necessary.

---

Socially-emotionally retarded commenters 

While we're in kindergarten most of us learn that we are not diminished when the teacher praises another student. We find out that not everyone who earns praise gets it. And we find that not everyone who misses out on their cookies and milk break gets praised for doing without the free cookies.

A few political commenters must have flunked kindergarten.  (Childish premise)

That’s worth thinking about, too.

Diagnosis for Costa Mesa

We used a Medical Problem Solving model to examine behaviors as symptoms of Paranoid Personality Disorder (Differential). 

If we consider the implications of the disorder we can adjust how we deal with the person. For example,

“Personnel who come into contact with the individual . . . should (be) straightforward . . . Items in life which wouldn't give most people a second thought can easily become the focus of attention to this client, so care must be exercised in discussions . . .”

We can use the same model to analyze positive behaviors, too. The possible diagnosis we find can keep our expectations realistic.

Symptoms that support this diagnosis

From Strengths Based Leadership:

·         She  invests in strengths. (This is like the Good to Great concept of getting the right people on the bus before starting the trip.) (Good to Great)

In 7 Signs of a Great Leader we find “They say an army of lambs led by a lion will defeat an army of lions led by a lamb.” The book lists leadership behaviors:

• Takes the lead (walks the walk vs. talking the talk)
• Sets an example (“If you don’t understand that you work for your  . . . [constituents] then you know nothing of leadership . . . only tyranny.”)
• Shows compassion (supports charities and youth activities with time and effort as well as money)
• Knows where they're going and how they're getting there. Most of all,
• Accepts responsibility

Let’s see if we can find symptoms of “good leadership” in Costa Mesa’s leaders.

Executives are effective

Chief Tom Gazsi is running a department with fewer sworn officers while keeping the amount of patrol time constant – or increased. He’s effective and dynamic, managing resources and leading his department, and getting results in crime control and effective investigations.

Chief Tom Arnold is developing a Fire Department and its top command to meet today’s realities.

Ernesto Munoz runs the infrastructure building, repair, and maintenance for the City with noteworthy excellence. He knows where he is going, and how he’s going to get there.

We note excellence from Bill Lobdell, Dan Joyce . . . the list goes on and on. Excellence is expected from and exhibited by these leaders and managers.

They have effective bosses

Their boss, CEO Tom Hatch, then, is clearly surrounding himself with the right people; they’re on board and the bus in en route.

And his boss, the City Council, led by Mayor Jim Righeimer, is surrounding itself with strong executives. 

Supports a diagnosis of  

So, Costa Mesa earns a tentative diagnosis of “effective top leadership.” We can identify more behaviors that support that diagnosis, as well. That means that we can comfortably expect Costa Mesa to grow and thrive, knowing that the reins are in good hands whether or not we agree with any given policy or program.

Therefore 

This suggests that there will be no excuse for anything short of excellence from our City government.

How criminals get to Costa Mesa

The June 4 post stated: “overcrowded prisons send overflow prisoners to County jails...”

The responsibility for incarcerating low-level prisoners was transferred from State prisons to county jails by (bill) AB109. Prisoners themselves aren’t transported from their prison cells to county jails; they’re just never transported to prison in the first place.

Wait for a prison cell -- or not

Convicted criminals usually wait in County jails for transport to prison. However, many of those convicted of nonviolent, non-sexual, non-serious (non-non-non) crimes now remain in County jails for their entire sentence.

 

It’s essential to know that many of those arrested on multiple charges, some very serious, are allowed to plea bargain to a lesser charge, and the serious (and more time-consuming to prosecute) charges are dropped. Then the perpetrator can serve his (or her) sentence in a county jail.

It happens like this

For example, as reported February 24 in the Santa Clarita County Signal, an easily-identified parolee ripped a smart phone off a store’s stand and ran away. He was arrested for second-degree commercial burglary, carrying a concealed weapon (a stolen and loaded pistol), possession of meth, taking a car without permission, and receiving stolen property.

He pleaded no contest to driving a car without the owner’s permission and all other charges were dropped. He was previously convicted, he violated parole, he had drugs and stolen goods in his backpack, he was armed – but he became a “non-non-non” offender for the purposes of AB 109.

Current sentencing guidelines allow him to be released, without probation, after serving half of his sentence.

And in Costa Mesa

Criminals like him who were released from OC Jail used to be routinely bussed to Costa Mesa. The idea was plenty of food and services are available here. Now the prisoners are distributed to local cities more equitably.

In the meantime, criminals who serve their sentences in prison may be picked up by friends or family upon release. Then they return to Costa Mesa. This is a consequence of having crime niduses in the city.

Others gravitate to Costa Mesa after release from prison. If they are convicted sex offenders they can camp in parks near schools, and be as close to playgrounds as they desire – as long as they list their address as “homeless.” Homeless sex offenders simply wander over to the City building to register every month.

Livin' the good life, street version

With storage facilities, free food, medical and dental care, and plenty of lawn available, they camp in the City parks. Cash for drugs, booze and other desires? Panhandling or stealing will do.

Up to us -- completely 

Community involvement, focused patrol, and eliminating the crime niduses will reduce crime in Costa Mesa.

It’s our responsibility to reduce crime. If we don’t report graffiti and suspicious activity we get the crime we deserve.

It’s our City Council’s job to rid the city of criminal attractants. If they don’t, since they work for us, we still get the crime we deserve.

Don't confuse me with facts, I want more cops

Science is ignored in debate about City affairs. The Council’s Budget Study Session Tuesday afternoon was a reminder of that.

But first, we’ll note two events--without comment. 

A frequent speaker was “appalled and opposed.” She was appalled by the low turnout – which seems to imply low interest among Costa Mesans – in the budget hearing. She, as usual, opposed something; this time it was the funds allocations in the proposed budget. She departed the chambers before the allocations had been debated.

And, the Mayor frequently reminds speakers at Council meetings that the answer to their question was in the staff study that accompanies the agenda. This time the reminder went to a Council Member.

Tell me the ratio of apples to chickens

Later, a Council member doggedly pursued numbers about, apparently, the number of “full-time-equivalent” positions our consulting expenses represented. In other words, how many more people would have City jobs if we didn't use consultants?

Our consultants work under different pay schemes, don’t enjoy City benefits, especially retirement benefits, and do jobs outside the job descriptions of current employees. So, the number of City employees that the use of consultants displaced would be a meaningless number. We could compute just as productively how many firefighters that each City swimming pool displaces in the budget.

To their credit the Finance Director and CEO kept their cool. We would have been tempted to provide a number which couldn't be disproved or effectively disputed. Let’s call it 47.3 FTEs work done by the consultants this fiscal year. Or, 113.74 if you prefer.

I like their uniforms

A Council member ignored the science behind crime control to demand “more police, we need more police because our crime rate increased.” Studies suggest that involving the community reduces crime, and adding police officers beyond a minimum effective number does not. For example, Oakland and Detroit have both high crime rates and high police to populace ratios.

What has been shown to work, through statistical analysis, pilot programs and broad grant programs, is community involvement.

What works

Community pride, often triggered by removing blight, erasing graffiti, 

and rebuilding the infrastructure, decreases crime rates. The concept often carries the label of “the broken window theory,” based on James Q. Wilson’s studies around 1982. The concepts have been expanded and extended, as well as tested, since then.

For crime reduction, good police leadership, effective intra-officer communication and patrols focused on crime niduses have good support in Police Science. So, Chief Gazsi’s leadership and management, our graffiti removal, the code enforcement, and especially infrastructure rebuilding are major factors in crime control.

Rational approach works best 

If valid, peer reviewed studies indicate one approach works, and experience in Costa Mesa, Oakland, and throughout the U.S. suggest another doesn't, why insist on using the approach that hasn’t worked? 

Dealing with those people

MDs and DOs learn a “medical problem solving process” to address medical problems. It ensures a disciplined, rational and repeatable approach.  Over-simplified, the process is:

• Define the problem (chief complaint)
• List the ailments that could cause that problem (differential diagnoses)
• Rule out (or prove wrong) every item on the list – what cannot be ruled out is the working diagnosis.

A workup narrows the list

Physical exam, imaging, and laboratory tests help test the differential diagnoses, which are called “the differential.”  

Helps deal with probable neurotic disorders 

We can start a list, or differential, by observing a behavior. We can’t make a diagnosis without further studies. However, we can sometimes use the “suspected diagnosis” to deal with that particular person. 

Statesmen use highly-trained teams to plan negotiations with a foreign leader based upon the most likely causes for his behavior – his differential diagnosis.

We can do that too. If someone’s comments seem to meet the diagnostic criteria for a certain personality disorder we may be able to plan our approach to that person. That is, if the diagnosis of a type of psychosis called “Schizophrenic. . .” fits, then we plan to allay her suspicions, and reorient her to reality, early and often when talking with her.

This one is easy to find locally 

Let’s try Paranoid personality disorder. The disorder is characterized by at least three of the characteristics listed below. Several frequent commenters and/or local bloggers exhibit some of these characteristics.

1.     excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs;

2.     tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights; (Hate-filled commentary and blogs over a period of years qualifies.)

3.     suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or contemptuous;

4.     a combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping with the actual situation; (An example might be insisting on non-existent “rights” such as “my constitutionally-protected reproduction rights” or demands by speakers at City Council meetings for “rights” when they mean  privilege – privilege is a granted exception to rules, not a right.)

5.     recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual fidelity of spouse or sexual partner;

6.     tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a persistent self-referential attitude; (We might consider a pronouncement like, “I’m not convinced [about the Mayor’s sincerity]” since it implies that he considers himself an authority on the Mayor’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.) and

7.      preoccupation with unsubstantiated “conspiratorial” explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large. (The accusations of underlying and unsavory motivations in the Mayor and Mayor Pro tem fit here.)

Can't diagnose but can use the info

Even if the person has three or more of these behaviors we can’t diagnose Paranoid Personality Disorder without testing and interviewing them. But we can remember to take her pompous pronouncements as probable reflections of her personality disorder. 

We, like the intelligence services, can benefit from using a differential to understand “where he’s coming from.” We’ll use this technique in the future to help understand other behaviors we observe in Costa Mesa, both the healthy behaviors and those not so healthy.

More illumination, less smoke

The Fairview Park Advisory Committee meeting, unfortunately, modeled City government. Fortunately, also, it modeled City government.

The positive aspects were the preparation by the staff, the staff support, and the interest shown by both City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission representatives. The mandate for the Committee was to develop a vision for the Park and establish priorities for moving the Park toward that vision.

Too much time was spent quibbling about details, some that are irrelevant to the Committee’s purposes. For example, there were efforts to debate the amount of money allocated to a proposed project (parking lot lighting); we elected the City Council to manage our money. Councilwoman Genis said she believed the Parks portion of the General Plan would have to be amended. Checking the requirements before commissioning an in-depth study seems prudent; arguing dollars doesn’t.  

A pertinent section states:

Lighting

 Pedestrian scale security lighting should occur only in the developed parts of the park site (the neighborhood parks on the north and south, the entrance and picnic areas on the west side, and the parking lot and train station area on the east side). The parking area north of the bluff on the west side, the restored areas and botanic garden should not be lighted and should be closed to the public after dark. Light fixtures should be chosen which repeat the sandblasted exposed aggregate concrete and wood materials of the other park furniture.

Jumping ahead -- again

The debate led to discussion of more playing fields in Costa Mesa, especially some not beholden to the school system (which takes our money without giving us. . . etc.) If the Planning Commission believed more fields were needed it would task Parks and Recreation to develop a plan. The information they supplied to the Fairview Park Committee would help decide what could, and more importantly, what should or shouldn't be done in Fairview Park.

He's got a hidden agenda -- or maybe it's her

There were several instances of outright hubris. We heard intimations of hidden agendas as we hear at Council meetings and see in newspaper commentary. A few accused Mensinger of wanting to use the Park as a sporting annex for Estancia (he’s an Estancia sports booster). Others accused Genis of wanting the park to be a weed patch, nothing more. Some accused Committee members of being shills for the model railroad or for youth sports. Some accusations were outright, some sotto voice, and perhaps from the visitors' gallery.

How did these people develop such insight into others’ motivations, feelings, thoughts and beliefs? Not by asking or listening or knowing, that’s for sure. Just by assuming.

Manners forgotten

Some people may need a refresher on the manners they should have learned in kindergarten or in their homes. People of integrity and intelligence serve on the Council and on advisory committees. It’s easy to disagree with others about the City’s direction or the Park’s priorities. There’s no call to label and insult good people, unless you're assuming you have infinite knowledge and wisdom.

Are we great?

Jim Collin’s graduate classes researched the question, “what makes a company great instead of just good?” They found companies with good financials through at least fifteen years and matched them to similar companies to give each entry a control. Those that did considerably better than their industry – and their control -- were investigated for common attributes and behaviors. The results appeared in the book From Good to Great. 

Maybe the seven characteristics below, developed from the "how to" part of the book, can be used to see if Costa Mesa is “going great.”

Culture of persistent excellence

At the heart of those truly great companies was a culture that rigorously sought active, even driven, people who think and act in a disciplined manner. Our CEO, Police Chief, Fire Chief, and major department heads are certainly disciplined and effective. They demonstrate “can do” attitudes and service excellence even in their “free time.”

We've personally had business contacts at non-City Hall hours with Dan Joyce, Ernesto Munoz, Sandra Genis, Steve Mensinger, Jim Righeimer, and Jim Fitzpatrick. They aren’t “nine-to-five” employees. The top executives have not yet failed to respond to our calls or emails. Their “buck stops here” attitude hasn't completely filtered down through the ranks yet, though.

The City’s advisory committees seem to be chosen with service excellence in mind. In Collins’ words, they “get the right people on the bus.”

What do you think about the executives who are governing our city?

The seven key charistics that separated the “great” companies  from their controls were:

(1) CEOs combined "personal humility and professional will" focused toward making a great (City);

(2) They started by eliminating weak people, adding top performing ones, and establishing a culture of top talent putting out extraordinary effort (they got the right people on board);

(3) They focused, continuously, on the hardest facts about the (City's) situation;

(4) They used facts to develop simple concepts that are iteratively reconsidered to improve performance;

(5) They established and maintained a corporate culture of discipline built around commitments, with freedom about how to meet those promises;

(6) They used technology to accelerate progress (only) when it fit the (City’s) concept of what it wants to become; and

(7) The (City) is now building momentum from consistent efforts that are reinforced by success.

So, where do we stand?

We've heard a lot over the last year about how “great” Costa Mesa is, but the comments have been based on pride and feelings, not objective, much less scientific, findings. 

If Collins’ classes examined Costa Mesa’s government, would they consider us on the road from “good to great?” Or not?

High wages=successful? Nope.

A recent article on Costco’s success implied that high employee wages caused a happy and effective workforce leading to a profitable company. That’s like saying that good health motivates people to exercise.

High benefits don’t cause success, as California cities like Stockton and San Bernardino attest. Good leadership leads to happy followers, which leads to successful operations. Successful operation leads to higher wages.

Missed the important hints

The article noted that that Costco’s costs are well-controlled. In fact, the executive suite described is austere. But the article didn't address leadership.

Consider a U.S. Army combat unit. Members train to face pain and death by practicing skills and tactics in uncomfortable and exhausting routines – over and over. Their wages are low; a commander of a unit with personnel strength of around 800 and a multimillion dollar equipment inventory earns about the same base pay as a police officer, firefighter, or a mid-level administrative worker in Costa Mesa.

Starting point is leadership 

Instead of wages, we should consider leadership as a determiner of employee morale. Military officers are trained in leadership at every stage of their career, and are graded on their effectiveness as leaders. Two rules they learn are: Leaders set the example and Leaders keep their followers informed.

A quick look around your local Costco will reveal a list of the top performers and how many checkouts they perform each hour. These employees are informed.

Ask a supervisor a question and she will accompany you to what you are seeking, even if she was involved in a task when you interrupted. She sets the example. Her subordinates will generally demonstrate the same helpfulness and enthusiasm – even if the shoppers interrupt their paperwork.

Compared effects and implied they're causes

The article compared Costco wages and “employee happiness” to those factors in competing Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has lower wages. It also exhibits less extreme cost control and a different leadership model.

Employees in the local Wal-Mart seem to fall into two categories; happy and helpful, and glum and evasive; it’s unlikely that their wages differ. It is likely that their different immediate supervisors are setting different examples for them

High wages don’t cause success, they follow success. 

Leaders aren't just those in management; leaders include all who influence the people who do the work.

Costa Mesa’s employee’s association is continuing its lawsuit although the reason for the suit has gone; it’s trying to bleed its opponent. Association pundits attack council members personally.

That’s setting an example of self-centered, pugnacious opposition. It shows pride in increasing the cost and decreasing the efficiency of operations. Gullible followers mimic the behavior.

Good leadership thrives, poor leadership flounders

Good leadership leads to efficient operations, which leads to increased wages (and benefits). Setting humble, even selfless examples helps followers develop devotion to excellence, which leads to long term success.

Poor leadership does the opposite, in the business, military, and government worlds.

Oops: Two ways to get your way
corrected

Political skills are critical to get your way. Blatant power and mis-applied science work too.

During the last City Council meeting Councilwoman Genis Leece, the Council's liaison to the Senior Center, demonstrated one political maneuver. And, she capitalized on the Mayor’s drive to complete Council meetings in a rapid and orderly manner.

 Genis Leece nominated three people at once for positions on the Costa Mesa Senior Corporation Board of Directors. With an immediate second the nomination moved to vote.

Not according to Hoyle this time

Leece chose to present the Council with” three names, take them all.” (Or else take time to deal with the openings on the board one at a time.) Her maneuver avoided the risk of losing control of the nomination. As the Council's liaison to the board she could control the nomination this way.

Leece apparently mustered support early since the motion was seconded immediately. Genis’ Leece's nomination passed 4:1 with Pro Tem Mensinger voting no. Her maneuver left two candidates out: they weren't nominated nor discussed, whether that was good or bad.

A Mayoral maneuver 

In another level of political maneuver at the same meeting, Mayor Righeimer eloquently explained his resolution against a South Coast Air Quality Management District, or SCAQMD, decree.  His resolution passed unanimously and his argument was recorded on TV.

The Mayor used his position to promote resistance in the City and in the county to the misuse of political muscle. SCAQMD is using crappy science and cherry-picked numbers to weigh in on a political issue by redefining it as a health issue. This is becoming a popular way of influencing laws and regulations.

Same technique in State venue 

An example is the proposed ban on lead bullets because “they cause endangered wild condors to die of lead poisoning.” The assumption is that the condors eat bullets when they feed on offal of game killed by hunters. In reality, most of the lead that kills condors comes from ingested wheel weights and solder drops (from outhouse vents). Some of it may originate in the carcasses they are fed, since the dairy cows’ diets can be high in lead products.

Further, the condors are a wild population only by twisted definition. They are unable to sustain a population without considerable food support which must be trucked to their habitat.

The real goal isn't condor health. It is probably banning hunting, but that goal isn't politically or tactically acceptable.

Phony health concern

Similarly, SCAQMD’s concern about the health of seashore residents rings phony. The particulate matter increases when there are fires on the beach, no surprise there. Does it approach the normal everyday levels on I405? No. Does it stay concentrated long in the onshore breeze? No. But, using health as an excuse will help SCAQMD help Newport Beach ban beach fires – and force other cities to do the same.

Both ways work

Deft political maneuvering can help a Council member achieve her goal. Brute power and dishonest statistical support are less savory ways to impose personal preferences on citizens. Sometimes both techniques work.

This post erroneously listed the nominator as Genis; it was Leece. Sorry to Genis and Leece and to the readers. See the meeting video to watch the nomination at about 1:47:06.