Why Entrenched Leaders Keep Saying the Word "Good" to Constituents

Currently, I am dancing between two books:
Raj Patel’s The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society, and Shelby Steele’s White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era.

I didn’t plan to read them at the same time. It just happened. Ironically, though, they are very similar. Both topics discuss generalized social behavior—one, capitalism/consumerism, and the other, civil rights and the responses to that movement. Where they overlap is that, in the lead up to each of their discussion points, they necessarily describe the power dynamics displayed socially. Both rely on the idea that, in social groups historically, the group in power imposes negative conditions on the less powerful group. Now, these conditions are usually couched in terms that really do NOT reflect the truth about that particular society or situation. But the less powerful group will see the trade off in accepting this “lie” from the power group, and will concede or comply with the falsities, largely because the lie fits in with the context that the power group has created and perpetuates. In the societal situations in both books, the power group’s falsities always rely on enough of a historically and morally truism to provide the less powerful group with enough of a basis to convince themselves that its ok to adopt the power group’s false construct.

Also, interestingly enough, Steele included a comment about when he first realized, on a drive through California, that there was this moral deficiency in the current social construct dealing with America’s history of racism. He was worried that his drive would end too soon. To quote: “It had been a luxury just to drive along in Chautauqua-like contemplation of a paradox.” That statement took me back to a statement published by a Chautauqua resident not so long ago. It seems that a couple of their programs triggered some “religious” blowback, and that Chautauquan took the time to remind his compatriots that that’s what Chautauqua’s did—their programming and speakers were intended to bring seemingly oppositional or incongruent positions or knowledges together, whether in one presentation or in a series of such, and to reveal any overlap, common ground, or compromise.

Although I had been seeing the applications of both men’s writings to the social construct that is Mt. Gretna, Steele’s reference made it imperative that the connection be made. So, here goes.

In discussing the good intentions of the architects behind the Great Society, Steele mentions how politicians and social leaders are a “touchy lot.” Both authors spend ample text showing us how these power figures, being human after all, express an innate drive to be seen, and for their policies and actions to be seen, as “good.” This drive extends throughout their lives, long after the end of the usefulness of their innovations, long after community needs are no longer fulfilled by their innovations, and, most relevant to us, long after their innovations have turned into something that is now harmful to the group.

Both authors also discuss how the power group, in its effort to keep control of its “good” image or moral character, will become blind to their own motivations, to their own humanity. They assume a pattern of making decisions and setting agendas that put their innovations in the best light possible. More importantly here, they also establish a pattern of ignoring any issue or fact that would only serve to challenge or threaten their reputation for “effectiveness” or of “good intentions.”

So, I now learn more abut why Chuck, Peggy, Bill, Linda, etc can’t, or won’t, acknowledge the truth or realities of the needs here or of the finances here—because it would necessarily lead to the possibility that something that they decided or did was not “correct” for this community and that, in turn would erode their sense of accomplishment and contribution to this community. Forget about the fact that the community now has a leadership structure that is not responding to the actual needs of the community, their blind reliance on the concept that something that they once did forty years ago makes even their current behavior “good” and, more importantly, not open to debate. Otherwise, to apply reality as a test of their current effectiveness would be to also erode the perception of their authority, legitimacy, and power in this community today.

Ergo, here in MG, where forty years ago we saw leaders pursuing innovations that truly spoke to the needs of the community, today this same community sees those same leaders continuing to try to rest on those historic laurels. Only, the innovations of yesterday are not enough for the community of today. It simply is not enough to say that Chuck or Bill or Linda provided a great service to the community in the 1980’s and to assume that that applies today. The community has changed in dramatic ways and their “innovations” of the past have taken on such a life of their own as to have become a beast to us.

I present to you today’s situation, and ask you to apply that “Chautauquan” approach to exploring our community situation today. Specifically, to explore how ethical and efficient is it to allow entrenched leadership to continue to avoid the proper scrutiny—Chautauquan scrutiny, if I may. For, if one really cares about this community, they will forego the perpetual mulligan that has been issued to protect anachronistic leadership policies and decisions. Coming soon, you will have the opportunity to ask our leadership:

1. Why this community has a million dollars flowing through it annually yet only reports to us taxpayers a combined expense budget of around $740,000?
2. Why Borough can report to us an annual total budget of around $150,000, yet report to the state an annual budget of $589,000?
3. Why we pay more for Authority services than other participants, who only pay their water/sewer fee and never have to pay for shared labor costs between their Authority and with their Borough or with their homeowners association?
4. Why we have the physically smallest sized municipality in the state and a water/sewer use pattern that never—ever, reaches its capacity, yet we have a staff of 5 full time employees, especially when other municipalities our size have only one full time staff. Do you all really believe that you are getting THAT much “good” service today, or is it that you ONCE got that level of service?
5. Why, with a staff that has four extra full-time staff, our public works director still can’t get the job done without billing us taxpayers for an average of 520 hours of overtime a year? Could it be that its not “Extra” service that he’s delivering, but extra pension and income that he is taking?
6. Why, when the original arrangement is that the Borough is supposed to provide set up and breakdown for the Art Show for free, employees bill overtime for those periods and that overtime is marked as “Chautauqua” or even as “Art Show”?
7. Why a public office and materials paid for by the taxpayer can be diverted for use by a public officer in his private business operations?
8. Why a public government can routinely and regularly bill a private corporation—the Chautauqua, for labor, yet the corporation can deny that it has any labor costs on its IRS tax filings and yet both entities can deny that any contract or documentation of terms exists? And, when that Chautauqua money is used to pay for labor services of someone who is also a Chautauqua officer, the Chautauqua also denies to the IRS that it transferred any payment to any of its officers? More importantly, why is every member of the Board approving the submission of IRS forms in which they know improper answers were given?
9. Why, or how, the Chautauqua Board, can justify, year after year, spending more money (around $150,000 a year) on a non-competitive labor “arrangement” for maintenance of such few grounds and buildings than on its summer programs (around $9000)—which is a required activity under its incorporation document? And why won’t either party provide us with a written explanation of the terms of this arrangement, like how overtime is determined, approved, allocated and paid for?
10. Given the current “arrangements”, how can the Chautauqua Board even justify its continued existence? Either through open or completely obscured and hidden transactions, the corporation as pawned off or ignored almost all of its real responsibilities, and, today, only tangentially serves as the programming coordinator it was intended to be. This Chautauqua’s mission fulfillment pales in comparison to other Chautauquas’, and there is no excuse for it.
11. Why, when LebCo’s transportation profile shows a truck traffic increase on 117 of 50% in the last eight years and a 67% increase to year 2030, and when at least 6 different people from 6 different households in the last 5 years have raised concerns about safety or asked for increased enforcement of traffic laws like speed laws, this leadership sees fit to ignore the reality around us or to denigrate or besmirch either the issue or the constituent. I will never forget Chuck’s curt re-characterization of Mt. Gretna when he told me years ago that newcomers would just have to get used to speeding because, well, choosing Mt. Gretna really was an act of “coming to the harm.” That’s exactly what he said. How is that good service, guys, when your leader pretty much sets up your community to guarantee a tragic traffic death in the near future?

So, yeah, the toilets may flush and the drinking water is drinkable. But that in no way means you are getting “good” service overall or that our leadership really cares about us. Just look at their willingness, Council and Board alike, to figure out even another way to reach into our pockets and take our money to pay for an issue that has never been proven to have any merit—the EIT overpayment allegation. Yeah, they care about us—but it seems only in terms of our wallet and whether we keep it open to their whims and to stuffing their pensions and whether we keep calling them “good public servants.”

As I learned from the above referenced books, just because the power group in this community feeds to us a little of the good thing that they are supposed to be delivering to us, it doesn’t mean that asking for an acknowledgement of our true, present-day reality, you know, for example, asking for an accounting of their present day financial on-goings, or asking for substantive traffic law enforcement when hundreds are violating such laws every day in our community, is “stirring up trouble.” Rather it’s a sign of responsible citizenry, of persons who care about someone other than themselves—their neighbors.