Hey, I’m all for industriousness, but if I were still a West Bend voter, I’d be concerned about how invested my mayor was in my community. Heck, his profile picture uses a Village of Elmwood background. Or, for that matter, I’d be concerned about how much he is advocating for taxpayers vs. his fellow municipal employees. #governmentclass
>taxpayers vs. his fellow municipal employees
There are two ways to lead people and drive impact.
One way is by dividing people. Create a mutual enemy and lead a crusade to conquer it. Turn it into a life or death situation ; the sense of urge unleashes unconditional support. Conquering, winning at-any-cost, is all that matters.
Another way to lead is by uniting people. Create a shared ambition and inspire people to build it with you. Turn it into a life quest ; the journey to build something bigger than themselves unites people. The desire to leave a legacy is why people join a mission.
Leaders have two choices — to unite or divide.
https://www.fearlessculture.design/blog-posts/dividing-people-is-the-best-way-to-lead
There are far more ways to lead than that. It’s not a binary choice.
However, my point is about represented stakeholders. Government employees have pervasive access to elected officials and myriad advocacy groups lobbying on their behalf. The general taxpayer only has the power of the vote over the elected official. When decisions are being made, the elected official’s priorities will naturally lean toward the interests of government employees when they are, in fact, a government employee.
As an almost universal rule in human behavior, people will act first in their own self-interests. This is why our governments divide power to balance competing self-interests against each other. In this case, Mayor Jenkins’ self-interest is to further his career as a municipal employee.
As an almost universal rule in human behavior, people will act first in their own self-interests.
Remember, when grousing about “da Union” in the Big Three, that the white-collar employees got exactly the same benefits as did da Union. And, of course, salaries rose in lockstep with wages. Yes, there were some differences, such as the “rubber rooms” available only to Union employees–but health bennies and pensions, the two big ones, were identical.
I’ve never met the guy personally, but to say “Mayor Jenkins’ self-interest is to further his career as a municipal employee” seems to be based solely on an assumption (and maybe some projection?). Perhaps you & friends/family are only interested in your own self-interests, but there are many other people who are altruistically motivated to serve the community in various ways.
For example, some folks join the military just for the benefits but others say they do so in order to serve our country….would you say those gov’t employees in the latter group are lying about the reasons they enlisted?
Also, despite what you seem to be implying, gov’t employees are also taxpayers, and there are plenty of advocacy groups lobbying for the average citizen as well. (ACLU & WILL are the first two that come to mind).
With that said, your concerns about the mayor having a side-hustle is worth the discussion…but that issue could have been addressed without having to resort this us vs them style of fear mongering.
The terms Leadership and Management are often used interchangeably, but they’re really not the same thing. If your organization needs management functions fulfilled, then hire or elect a manager, but don’t expect exemplary leadership skills. That might suit your particular needs just fine. Pay for the skill set you need.
If, on the other hand, you require leadership of your management team you need to find someone with actual leadership skills and a working understanding of management. What did West Bend elect Mayor?
You are saying that Jenkins is a uniter even though:
>I’ve never met the guy personally,
So why are you putting altruism on top of his beliefs with no knowledge of him or the situation? Please present your proof or evidence of his uniting actions and/or goodness.
>You are saying that Jenkins is a uniter
Are you sure about that? As sure as you are about everything else you’ve said about me?
Nope, that is why I asked. He is either a uniter or divider, according to you (you said one or the other). A person driven by self interest is generally a divider and you defended Jenkins as possibly altruistic. You said Owen was perhaps the self interested party. Your last sentence implied that all you said before could have been rot and was just an admonishment of Owen’s style.
So instead of Jenkins being a good uniting leader, you are saying that your entire statement was rot just to criticize Owen’s style, not his content, got it. No other proofs necessary, thanks.
> that is why I asked.
You didn’t ask, you made a statement. And your statement was untrue.
>you are saying that your entire statement was rot just to criticize Owen’s style, not his content
Nope, that isn’t what I am saying either. But given your bigoted outlook towards others it doesn’t surprise me that you’d make such that assumption.
>You didn’t ask, you made a statement.
Ooops, you misread something bub. Of course, formatting of the text on these blogs is a contributing factor… the real question is are you big enough to apologize?
>Ooops, you misread something
Are you sure about that? As sure as you are about everything else you’ve said about me?
My question from above:
>So why are you putting altruism on top of his beliefs with no knowledge of him or the situation?
Usually the word ‘why’ and a ? indicate ‘question’ to most people, what do they mean to you?
If you can’t tell us what your statement means, I guess we can all agree that it was senseless to everyone but you. Sigh…Another interesting conversation with Penquin.
>Are you sure about that? As sure as you are about everything else you’ve said about me?
Yes. Yes.
> the real question is are you big enough to apologize?
No.
>My question from above
That question was preceded by a statement. A statement, which when asked if you are sure if I actually said that, you answered with “Nope, that is why I asked”
But you didn’t ask if I said it – rather you said I said it, And the question which followed was phrased in a way which relied upon me having said what you said I said, but say it not I did. So since what you said I said was not said by I, your question was/is moot.
If you’re still confused about the concept, look up how the word “so” is defined when used as a conjunction (which is how you used it)
>If you can’t tell us what your statement mean
clears throat
I could tell you, but you’re a wawn. And I don’t explain things to wawns. Over 40 years ago I tried to show some other wawns they were wrong but they didn’t listen to me so I don’t even bother trying anymore. Besides, you only posted that to try to make people feel bad & sad, which makes you evil. Some wawns are intelligent, which is why I talk with them. But you’re an evil wawn who is only trash-talking in this thread, so no need to waste time on you. Just another interesting discussion with Juerqas
BRUM URBI NTTAWWT
rolls eyes
Is that how this game is played? Hard to tell when you keep changing the rules all the time…
“…over 40 years ago…”
So he’s an OLD waiter at a Madison bar & grill.
You can say my statement was false (without initially identifying which statement as usual), but if your prior two statements were sincere, it was not false. You said there were only two types of leaders and then you admonished Owen for assuming he was divisive putting self interest first (without knowledge of how much Owen knows about the Mayor of his own city). With your defense of Jenkins you certainly implied that he could be a uniter at the very least and since you condemned Owen for implying he was divisive (based on your terms) it logically follows that you were saying he was or could be a uniter. I wonder if your reaction would have been different if I had said ‘You are saying Jenkins could be a uniter…’.
Anyway, at the very least you are presuming that Owen does not know Jenkins when you attacked his words the way you did. Ever since, you have retracted, which is understandable as you already admitted you never met him.
So, all you really just proved again is that what you wrote in your first and second comments was rot, no truth, just a ‘what if’ construct (unconsciously?) designed to undermine Owen’s post. Thanks for confirming. It is the only way your words make sense on this thread, so it follows.
>Is that how this game is played?
I don’t know what game you are referring to. So I can say that I have not intentionally changed a single rule of it. If you would like to lay out the rules, I would try my best to follow the them if it is entertaining.
>You can say my statement was false (without initially identifying which statement as usual)
As usual, you are starting off your comment with a falsehood. Your untrue statement was quoted¬ed in my comment posted at September 14, 2022 at 1:55 pm.
The rest of your comment is just more silly nonsense & lying bullshit, as well as proof that earlier statements made by you in other threads are also false.
Oops, you are right on that one, sorry.
The rest of my comment still stands, however. That is why you don’t try to dis-prove it, you just call it names.
Knowing the guy and his family a little bit, the mayor is one busy guy who seems to outwork anyone. Look, the mayor in wb is a part time job, he’s got 5 kids, has three of these government jobs, a side gig doing powerwashing, runs a theater company, sits on some nonprofit boards, and he still finds time to show up at events and talk to people. Idk, thats what i want in a mayor IMO. Add to that, I know hes conservative as hell but sounds like hes been dealing with the most leftleaning city council in over a decade. Good for him for hustling.