DAVID ISRAEL IS MISLEADING
THE RESIDENTS AGAIN.
After a four-day hiatus from Century Village, I returned to
discover David Israel has, in his desperation to be President for life,
resorted to telling fairy tales about the group who want to iniatiate term
limits for all UCO Officers.
David stated: “The argument against term limits, in any
office, is simple and powerful: once a person gains the knowledge and
experience (and yes, power) to do their job efficiently, they are removed from office,
and a novice has to take over."David apparently has never read the critically acclaimed book of 1969 titled THE PETER PRINCIPLE. The Peter Principle is a proposition that states that the members within an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success and merit will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased; Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." It stated another way, employees tend to be given more authority until they cannot continue to work competently. A person does well in his job and gets promoted until he reaches his level of incompetence. At that time, he is no longer competent and remains there unable to move up the ladder.
David wants you to believe that knowledge and experience is necessary for people to do their jobs efficiently. This ideology is contrary to THE PETER PRINCIPLE which shows that individuals who have reached success have reached their level of incompetence. This is one reason why we need TERM LIMITS FOR ALL OFFICERS. We need to abide by THE PETER PRINCIPLE which further states that the best work is accomplished by people who have yet reached their level of incompetence.
David also had the unmitigated gall to accuse one of the
plaintiffs in the present litigation against UCO of costing unit owners well
over $600,000 while neglecting to tell you the Lawsuit gave the unit owners a
profit of $2,300.000.
Good morning. Welcome back. I was wondering where you were and was frustrated as of course, I cannot post on the other blog and there really were no issues raised on this one. I am not sure that the Peter Principle is always correct in its assumption of incompetence at the highest level. I have seen many excellent top management people, just as I have seen some truly awful ones. I believe that a person needs to move out at the proper time as time away refreshes the mind and gets one out of a daily rut where no new thinking can evolve. It also brings in fresh blood, fresh air, new ideas, new people. It is just better for an organization if there are term limits and they are not totally exclusive. If Dave or others wish, they can run for executive board positions or run at the next election for their office after a break for the limits. What is so bad about that? Perhaps if there were some new blood and new thinking or true non partisanship in UCO where people should have been thinking more about the Village and less about themselves we would have less of this epidemic of lawsuits and certainly we would not be walking around a Village with ugly fencing deep into its heart. Look at the fencing at Golf's Edge. Some of these people open their door and smack their noses on the fence. Why were we not aware that this was going to happen? Have we thoroughly checked that they have not encroached one inch on our property? Are they responsible for the damage to our irrigation lines and if so, are we going after them to repair and/or pay for the damages? And where are the loud voices of that stupid committee Welcome Neighbor? Have they seen the damage done to us or have most of them deserted our ship already? We must be vigilant now at ensuring that RB does not move forward on anything that is still under contention, that we watch Waldman and company like a hawk and we MUST put aside our differences and work together to insure that we continue to have a beautiful and wonderful place to live, whether RB goes thru or not.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI read that book many years ago. As you said, it addresses the shortcomings of merit-based advancement within a hierarchical organization. As I remember, the author proposes, as an alternative to a "ladder" based system, an organizational model which ENCOURAGES members to REMAIN in their jobs at whatever level, and for each member to focus on perfecting and improving their competence in that particular job, perhaps for life.
ReplyDeleteSo, you see, The Peter Principle is actually an argument FOR the ending of term limits. When the book was first published, it was very popular with college and university professors, who used the book to defend their organizational model of lifetime job tenancy, also known as "tenure". Not surprisingly, this book later also became popular with labor union-affiliated teachers, who adopted the lifetime tenure system of Academia into their own collective bargaining strategies at the elementary and high school levels of education.
The expansion of term limits, with novice candidates competing for jobs for which they may or not be competent to perform, or worse, former officers who were turned out of office for incompetence being given endless opportunities to re-compete, is exactly the type of system that The Peter Principle argued against.
Both sides can be argued, but the real truth remains in the middle - as usual- with reasonable people. Some people are promoted past their point of competence, some people meet the challenge with expertise, and others, while good, have an expiration date and we all need to recognize that for past that due date the competent can turn incompetent or worse, harmful. Tenure is a great idea, but also a terrible one. It protects the talented against personality conflicts and politics, but it also protects the incompetent and as someone who was on both sides of the desk as teacher and administrator I saw it all. Thus, no one is all right or wrong on this issue.By the by, the Peter Principle was mainly directed at male incompetence. Hmmmmm.....
ReplyDeleteDon,
ReplyDeleteRegarding David Israel and the Peter Principle, David proved himself incompetent in his present position; i.e. Road Paving, giving Roger Carver a $5,000 a year raise and extending his contract one year before expiration, allowing Ed Black to run amuck when he was treasurer, having mixed views of the golf course development, misleading the delegates in order to achieve HIS goals rather than theirs. The list goes on. Of course, he was fully competent in his LAST JOB at the National-Security Agency where he achieved his proficiency in computers. This is where his ability stagnated, and this is where he should be for the rest of this life. HE MUST REMAIN IN FRONT OF A COMPUTER ALL DAY LONG.
Another example pointed out in the Peter Principle, was that Adolph Hitler was a consummate and superb politician due especially to his charisma and oratorical skills but reached his “level of incompetence” as commander in chief of the Wehrmacht because of the rigidity of his decision making. Does this sound familiar?
well Olga, in my long association with Century Village {believe it or not, close to forty years], I have indeed grown accustomed to residents making casual comparisons between Village life, rules, politics and political figures, with German militarism, national socialism, adolf hitler and, eerily, given the ethnic makeup and personal histories of many residents, the Holocaust.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that in this place, whenever an argument reaches an impasse, or whenever a certain
level of frustration is reached, it is a matter of time before someone calls someone else a Nazi.
Esther makes two points which I find interesting. The first is the idea of the "sabbatical", a feature of the American education system that I believe would work well in other types of organizations and workplaces, The other is the idea of a 'Middle Way". In my opinion, the moderating force in Village government is the Delegate Assembly. Elimination of term limits would allow officers the opportunity to learn and perfect their competence in their jobs, using the terms of the book that you cited. If and when those officers prove incompetant, the Delegates will show them the doors and bring in "new blood".
Don, the only problem is the fact that there is the factor of inertia. If someone is there, in place, they have the incumbency edge which is seen in politics all the time, why we have Senators in office in Washington who should have been long gone from the scene. And yes, we also have younger idiots in office, but it seems to be easier to get rid of the new than the old established ones. As for the Delegate Assembly - I am not so sure of their ability to be proactive or reactive even. So many do not show up and if they do, many leave after a very short time with the typical impatience of older people. Why? Who knows? The baby isn't crying and the car will drive just as well a half hour later. But that is the way it is and I believe that is why we have the problems we do in CV. And what I believe was the vacillating position of Dave and his government with support for the protesters of RB and then the remarks about accepting the inevitable (not in so many words) and see what gains and benefits come to us (like really!!!)have led us to this bad place in time where a building at Golf's Edge is literally bound between two fences with tiny alleyways to walk and grassy areas that all believed belong to us now seem to belong to them. Benefit???Yeah, some people benefitted but not us.
ReplyDeletee
esther, I do not agree with your view on the importance and efficacy of the Delegate Assembly, and if I did, my solution would be to fix the Assembly, and more specifically, the Meeting, rather than weakening the power of the Assembly to decide Village-wide issues. I know many of these Delegates, many are Presidents of their own Associations who manage their own affairs responsibly and prudently. if they appear impatient or innattentive, it is because they are tired of watching the same old blowhards disrupting Village business simply for the sake of disruption. These are serious people, and when serious issues come up for decision, I have watched them act with brutal efficiency, The delegates voted down UCO funding for the legal battle against Reflection Bay (twice), voted for funding wifi (and will have a second chance to approve it soon), and were involved in every step of the paving and drainage project. If I were able to propose two fixes for the Delegate Assembly, this is what they would be: first, only Delegates should rise and address the Assembly, non Delegates should be barred from speaking. Second, only Association officers should be permitted to be Delegates. if an Association does not consider a Resident competent enough to manage Association affairs, that resident should not be permitted to vote on, disrupt, or otherwise influence the conduct of Village business. there is no better measure of competence than the placement of fiduciary trust to a Resident by his or her neighbors.
ReplyDeleteAs to your ideas on "inertia", I agree, this is a double edged sword. there is no substitute for experience, but with that experience come entrenchment. this is where my faith in the Delegate Assembly to moderate both forces comes in.
ReplyDeleteDon, there are many officers of associations who do not come - check the list for attendance. However, you are right in your statement that for the most part only delegates should be able to speak but there must be a forum for other residents to air their views with strict time limits. It is done in many town meetings and district meetings so why must we disenfranchise people who are not officers. The fact that they are not officers does not mean they are unworthy. There are other people perhaps in their association who have the positions at that moment in time and that is all. At our building association All residents are invited and allowed to speak, thus making sure everyone feels a part of the association and we have one of the best buildings in the Village. I also do not agree that the assembly was in on the paving contract from soup to nuts. There are too many questions and lack of transparency as to where money went, how payment was planned for and for the crappy job that was done. By the way I also believe that the Assembly voted down legal funds because no one ever told them the extent of the invasion of RB property into the Village and that, my friend, was or should have been Dave's responsibility as President of UCO. He should have investigated, sought answers to questions he never asked and transfer that full extent of knowledge to the assembly and Village in general. That is where inertia came into play and I hope nothing else with even more nefarious causes. I wonder what that Assembly thinks now or will think when everyone is back and shocked at the extent of the invasion. Why are we not hearing from our officers of UCO as to what they intend to do to remedy the situation or at least alleviate it to the best that they can. Why do they not spell it all out, fess up as to what they should have done and need to do now. This is our home and it is being attacked and our elected representatives are not living up to their responsibilities.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteStill have no life, do you? So sorry, but you are probably so pathetic that no one wants to deal with you so you resort to trying to get negative attention. Yeah, I have dealt with immature kids before but have no patience with you. At least they had a face and a name. You are just a sniveling ,miserable low life misbegotten coward. Like your adjectives? Anyway, this is the last response from me to you. You are just hopeless and cannot waste any time, even a nanosecond on you anymore so here's an idea - take a hike!
ReplyDeleteIf you look at history, there was no such thing as term limits in the USA until after 1945. Presidents until FDR had not won or really tried for a third term let alone a fourth. The Republican party rallied and got an amendment passed to limit the President to two terms, thereby cutting their own throats because had Eisenhower wanted to run for a third term, he would have easily won.
ReplyDeleteThere are no term limits on senators or congressmen, and frankly, it would be STUPID to do so.
With Century Village the removal of term limits would allow THE VOTER to keep the needed experience and knowledge in place when THE VOTER feels it is the best thing for our village.
THE VOTER AKA Delegate is and should be represented for each association in the village. If not the Delegate, then the Alternate. Should the association choose someone that does not go to the meetings, then they are at fault, not the other associations, hence the next subject which is trying to put a hold on the vote until the "snowbirds" come back. Another Stupid suggestions.
Why do the rest of us have to put everything on hold because they choose not to be here? Once again, each association has a delegate and an alternate. If both are not here in the off season, who's fault is that? Poor planning on their part doesn't constitute putting the lives of the rest of us on hold.
p.s. ....Washington started the tradition of only two terms when he refuse to run for a third....he also turned down being the King...
ReplyDelete"lets wait for the snowbirds" - at Delegate Assemblies, this call is usually a last ditch delaying tactic used by Delegates or attending residents who are opposed to a particular issue and who sense, usually correctly, that a vote on the matter will not go their way.
ReplyDelete