What happened: Mayor Harvey Johnson’s transition team for public works is preparing a report for him, this was the public’s chance to give input. Our words would be recorded and the team plans to use our input and data to form their report. They will need more data than they got today. The meeting took place in city hall. The transition team was introduced, with Mr. Matt Thomas at the helm. Other team members flanked him, including the Reverend Damuel Boyd, Tommy Darnell, Calvin Dean, Ruthania Hudson and Waddell Nejam. The event was facilitated by Dr. Bill Cooley. Mr. Thomas opened thanking people for showing, and saying how important it was that people give their input. The public works department operates on a 62 million dollar budget and consists of the road and infrastructure maintenance side as well as the water billing department.
I saw the notification of this series of forums by chance on the Jackson Free Press website. Granted, it was a very high chance that I would have seen it, as I have their RSS feed in my browser, but a chance nonetheless. It did not seem well advertised, as this was only announced sometime the morning of the 29th, with the meeting on the 30th. When I arrived at the meeting, my suspicions were confirmed. There was one news van outside, and the room was sparsely populated.
Originally I thought that there would be more discussion with the transition team. I also thought that the Mr. Johnson would be there, to share ideas and take criticism. This was not the case. Dr. Cooley stood at front with the microphone and invited audience members to the front to pitch their ideas at how to improve public works in Jackson. This felt a bit awkward at first, as I had no idea what sort of thing to say to a transition team, not knowing their background, expertise, or authority on implementing these ideas.
The first speaker was a city worker who bemoaned the shape of the roads where she lived. No sidewalks and terrible condition of streets coupled with irregular, and unreliable garbage pick up made the area a horrible place to live. The transition team looked on in somber silence. This was a good point about garbage collection which was reflected later in comments by an out of towner who commented on the large amounts of sometimes unnecessary waste which the city is paying to have dumped. Perhaps we should deal with our waste more efficiently. Although it was not mentioned explicitly in the meeting, recycling, lawn/tree waste and possibly compost material could be removed from our waste system more effectively, saving, and possibly generating money for the City of Jackson.
A young Mr. Upkins praised the Jackson Metro Parkway as an excellent roadway which was well maintained. He then turned to voice concerns over the long term prospects, wanting to know if regular maintenance, mowing, street sweeping would be taken care of. He felt that the area could do with more beautification, moving utilities underground and adding public green space. Improvements such as these would promote the social improvement and economic growth of the area, he hinted.
Another gentleman stood up to speak. Instead of bringing the hopeful tones of the previous speaker, he came down to criticize the department for their inaction. He brought up past arguments with the department including a burst water main that took three months to be completely resolved, an overflowing creek flooding his and neighborhood properties that took over a year to be seen to. He noted that foreclosures in the area meant that yards were left strewn with the insides of homes and only attention from the news brought any action. He recalled an episode in which “the worst road crew in the world” was brought in to re-pave a road, when they had finished, the road looked “about the same” as when they had started. It was his luck to live in Ward 1, where things actually did get done, he said. He later lamented that he had been told that homeowners were responsible for maintaining their own gutters, but could not believe that he was the person to fix all 35 feet of his crumbling gutter. He highlighted communication and inactivity problems which have characterized the department of Public Works in the past.
Mr. Anderson (von Anderson?) took the floor with three key points. While he was appreciative of the pothole reporting hotline (601-960-POTH) he said more use of online reporting could be made. I would like to point out that there is an awkward comments form that can be used for just that but his idea can be taken further with mapping and response capabilities. Perhaps the online form could map complaints as well as be updated whenever crews fill potholes in. Noting that Jackson was the capital of a rural state, and we have a lot of old trees, he introduced his idea that the Public Works department invest in wood-chipping machines. This goes back to what appears to be a theme of the night on dealing with waste effectively and efficiently. The department could certainly use some new methods, systems and ideas in that area. Finally he proposed rolling dumpster days. Making more regularly scheduled days for a dumpster to be placed in an area for the residents to use. It used to be the case that people could dump off extra waste and recycling at fire stations, but as far as I know, that was discontinued long ago. Rolling dumpsters allow residents to dispose of extra large items more conveniently, as well as promote general cleanliness of neighborhoods. If these were organized more regularly, people could participate more effectively. He also noted that communication problems between citizens, the government and fellow citizens should be addressed in order to make these solutions more viable.
It was here (at 18:18) that we were pleasantly interrupted by Mr. Harvey Johnson himself. In between meetings, the incoming executive stopped by to thank everyone for attending. He promised a more transparent supportive government which would not be a “black box”, opaque to its citizens.
After yielding the floor to Mr. Johnson, I appealed to the committee to work to ensure that this citizen input would continue throughout the administration. Citizen input as well as feedback from all sides of the issue is important to ensure effective operation of the Public Works department. I asked how far the new department would go to solve problems of an increasingly dilapidated infrastructure and possibly shrinking budgets. I would like to see radical steps taken, thinking out of the box and trying solutions which may not have been tried before. It is not easy to tell a crowd of older Mississippians that we must try new solutions, but I tried to go delicately.
There were further ideas thrown about, including a desire to have online water bills. One man called for more transparency and review to contract bids. One suggestion was that department heads piggyback on the COPS community meetings and engage with the citizenry on a monthly basis alongside the police force. The facilitator, Dr. Cooley, amusingly announced that he “Just recieved a tweet! Well, actually it was a handwritten sheet.” Someone wanted discussion on whether or not there should be a rating system on which streets should be attended to first. A slight discussion ensued. Two people speaking expressed partial support for a rating system, but that it should have factors other than citizen voting. I agree, some objective importance of roads should be assessed, in terms of use, economic development, and emergency situation use. There should be more science of traffic control employed.
I again returned to the floor to address the need for proper investment in out infrastructure. I proposed a somewhat modular system for infrastructure, an “infrastructure for infrastructure.” The idea I had was that while water and sewer mains were upgraded, space could be left for fiber optic lines, traffic control devices and the like. Upgrading the infrastructure in such a way as to expand its capability would make Jackson a more appealing location for businesses (especially with improved fiber optic networks). Proper investment is needed to provide quality roads and infrastructure which will not need to be replaced often and will be easily upgradable and pay off in the long run – a time span difficult for the average politician to comprehend.
Mr. Matt Thomas ended with a promise that our input would not fall on deaf ears. The meeting was recorded and notes were taken. The information that we provided would be reviewed as the committee crafted its report for Mr. Johnson. He said that he was “in the book” and we should look him up and get in touch. He would be pleased to meet with anyone. Unfortunately, I was unable to decide who he was in “the book” there being a Mat, Matt and Matthew Thomas, of Jackson, Clinton and Madison, respectively. If anyone does manage to get in touch with him, please, don’t ask him for a job, there are vacancies which you may apply for, but don’t ask him for a job. Also, do not ask who he is hiring or firing, as that is not his remit.
In all, it was a decent public forum. I would have appreciated more input from the transition team, and maybe some substantiation of the idea that citizen input would be appreciated throughout the administration. I didn’t propose any specific ideas in the meeting, but may in a later post.
Posted by jrtaff 
In defense of a hero. Governor William Winter.
November 17, 2010I have said before that Governor William Winter is a hero of mine. Any politician serious about education can win my vote. My dads high regard for Governor Winter forms the roots of my admiration of the governor whose name is on the State Archives building. It is this bias that caused me to investigate further when I found an editorial in the Clarion Ledger claiming that he was ‘demonizing the right.’ What a crude thing to say about such a great person.
Andy Taggart was apparently shocked by a quote of Governor Winter’s in an earlier article. He calls the quotes “really outlandish” and states his disagreement. I find his assertions quite outlandish myself, and like him feel that “his remarks … should not be allowed to go unchallenged.”
This first instance appears to be a classic case of a quote taken out of context. Governor Winter did indeed compare “the mindset of the tea party movement of 2010 to that of the segregationists of the 1960′s.” It is the next sentence in which Taggart goes completely off the mark. Taggart says that Governor Winter was suggesting that “people in the tea party are just not willing to recognize the rights of others.” However, if one were to read the entire quote, it would be obvious that it is a refusal to compromise that is linking the two mindsets. Governor Winter does not say anything about denying people rights, Taggart is the only one making this insinuation.
This is an appropriate comparison, it seems, as House Minority Leader John Boehner said himself “This is not a time for compromise.” So Governor Winter is comparing the mindset of people who would not compromise to the mindset of people who say they will not compromise. Sounds pretty fitting to me.
One could still say that it might be a bit insensitive to compare people in the Tea Party to segregationists (as this clearly offends the sensitivities of Mr. Taggart). One might ask, why would Governor Winter make that particular comparison, why not compare it to a more recent example of Democrats and Republicans refusing to compromise? Well, we have to look no further than the same quote from Governor Winter “When I ran for governor in 1967, anyone who suggested a compromise toward desegregation just couldn’t win.” There is your answer. Governor Winter suggested that comparison because it was incredibly relevant to his experience running for… Governor. We don’t call him Governor Winter for nothing, after all.
Mr. Taggart should be ashamed of taking that quote even slightly out of context. He should be doubly ashamed of insinuating that such a respectable statesman as Governor Winter was only trying to denigrate those who did not hold his opinion.
Taggart next takes umbrage with this quote: “We had a civil war in the middle of the 19th century because we couldn’t compromise.” Here Governor Winter is putting a little dramatic illustration to what can happen when people don’t compromise (see also the 1995 Federal Government shutdown as a less dramatic example). This could be taken as a statement of fact. We probably all agree that there was a civil war in the middle of the 19th century. It is fairly clear that this war was the result of some problem in between two groups, neither of which would budge enough to come to mutual agreement. This is pretty much the definition of “not compromising” seeing as a compromise is generally an agreement reached when both parties make concessions. Unless Taggart believes that war was the concession that both sides made, then we should all be able to accept that Governor Winter was making a pretty uncontroversial statement of fact.
I see that Taggart is shocked that one can compromise on the issue of slavery. “Really, Governor? Where is it, exactly, that one compromises on the issue of slavery?” Well, Taggart, there are a lot of places that one could have compromised on the subject of slavery. Of course, from the perspective of 2010, this does sound ridiculous, after all, we do not have slavery here in the United States. To say that we should “compromise” on the issue is absolutely ridiculous. I am sure that Taggart is saying “there is no compromise on slavery – we simply do not have it.” And he is exactly right, in 2010.
But we must keep in mind that Governor Winter was not talking about 2010. He was talking about “the middle of the 19th century.” That was a time when there was slavery. There were, in fact, compromises on slavery up until that time when “had a civil war … because we couldn’t compromise.” Starting with the 3/5s compromise in the constitution, continuing to the Missouri Compromise, and then the slavery compromises in 1850. These were all compromises revolving around the issue of slavery. If Mr. Taggart is unfamiliar with the history of the civil war, I can recommend a few excellent teachers of high school history who could probably fill him in.
I am not saying that we should have kept on compromising over slavery and maintained that peculiar institution any longer – I am simply saying that it was a failure to agree, a failure to compromise which led to the civil war. (I do not speak for Governor Winter, but I do not think that he supports slavery either). This shouldn’t be controversial at all. Governor Winter made a statement of fact about the civil war, which Taggart seems to have felt indicated that Governor WInter thought the end of slavery was a bad thing. There is no element of opinion in that statement, any conclusion drawn from that about Governor Winters opinion is purely speculative.
Taggart then claims that Democrats plan to compare Conservatives to people who caused the civil war. Well, that sounds pretty silly, but we shall see.
Mr Taggart was correct though, there were some “really outlandish comments” that “should not be allowed to go unchallenged.” (You can check out the original post to see how nicely these out of context quotes go together).
In the interest of keeping this post shorter than it could be, I’ll reserve all that excitement for the next post. Coming in a few minutes.