Fayette controller critical of Zimmerlink
As I read the article written by Susy Kelly in the Herald-Standard about the civil rights suit that Fayette County Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink filed against her fellow commissioners, several very important thoughts come to mind with the two following quotes: “The court diminished the actions of my fellow commissioners as normal politics,” Zimmerlink said. “However, their actions went much further than trivial things and instead actually precluded me from doing the job I was elected to do, resulting in disenfranchising voters of Fayette County and those I represent.”
When one speaks of preclusion, it is implicit in this definition that inclusion was readily sought. During the term in question, and most recent, there has not been a search for participation, nor has there been a search for knowledge.
All of the actions undertaken by this commissioner have been to serve, not the many but the few. Grandstanding, false derisive statements and numerical fabrications are the levels of talent that have been demonstratively portrayed. This being said, is the inclusion she speaks of self-serving?
Inclusions, by elected officials, imply one must become engaged and offer relevant important data to the constituents that they serve. Hiding behind sunshine law, lack of definable skills and pejorative analysis of others is not a case for wanting inclusion… it is a study on ineffective leadership and a culture of negativity designed to hide inadequacies and promote dissension.
As proof of this point, I site several extremely important decisions that inclusion was offered but not accepted. Case one was the change in pension fund managers. Inclusion would have been to attend the meetings and to understand the information that was being presented. Instead she practiced preclusion by disseminating subjective statements such as; “this firm costs $50,000 more than the previous manager.”
Instead of eliciting the potential to grow she shuttlecocked to the position of controversy. For those that chose inclusion, the fund went from $51,200,000 to $61,000,000 in ten months. Managerial fees were reduced from $300,000 to $238,000 and our defined plan is operating efficiently.
Case two is her lack of involvement in the prison-working group. Instead of acting in the interest of the majority of our county residents, she is working against the group with her unique, uninformed perspective. She has offered no rational perspective nor has she made any attempt to learn the positive direction our group is moving in and the work that we have accomplished.
In reference to the prison working group, her actions are defined as motivated blindness, which is when elected officials perceive it is in their best interest to remain ignorant. By so doing, they do not have to face the hard decisions that true leaders must make. Hiding behind others and false pretenses to accomplish singular myopic goals.
Effective management is defined in five steps:
n Pre-analysis- a problem exists, how do we fix it.
n Analytic phase- information is gathered.
n Design phase- options are crystalized to deal with a situation.
n Choice phase- alternatives are evaluated
n Implementation phase- the alternatives studied and selected are implemented.
This model conceptualizes buy in, positive affirmation and planning. In conclusion, motivated blindness has no place in government, nor does a culture of disseminating false information. Our county has a financial crisis with our prison and providing constituents with false information that does not encompass all relevant data and stating that one is excluded when they actually preclude themselves is ineffectual unproductive leadership.
I suggest that instead of stating, but not proving, that she was unable to do the job she was elected to do that she do the right thing and step down.