With turmoil foreign and domestic, we pause today to celebrate the living veterans for their service, their patriotism, their love of country and willingness to sacrifice in defense of our country. As important as it is to defend ourselves against foreign threats as our veterans have nobly served, there are some very insidious threats we are facing with America against itself.
Specifically, I am referring to the acceptability—by far too many—of the lawlessness we see happening, as well as the twisted logic behind the lawlessness.
We are seeing the direct contrast of the “broken window” theory versus “progressive criminal justice” model.
The theory of the “Broken Window” holds that addressing minor crimes like vandalism, public intoxication, and minor theft creates an atmosphere of order and lawfulness versus “progressive criminal justice” which promotes reforms such as ending cash bail, not prosecuting misdemeanors, and early release of offenders.
The justification behind this “progressive” thought is ‘because someone told a lie, it doesn’t make them a liar’. Or ‘because someone took a bribe, it doesn’t make them corrupt’. In other words, ‘if a crime is committed and no one is responsible, was there actually a crime at all’?
Famously said, “a great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”
Next July 4th, we will celebrate 250 years of the great American experiment of Independence under a Constitutional Republic from which we aspire to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense.
The Culver Redevelopment Commission (CRC) will be having a special meeting this Wednesday at 6:30. (See the notice to the right.) They are really making an effort to get a good turnout, thus the venue move to the School Admin Building.
The presentation will be from a company called Retail Strategies. They are one of three firms that responded to an RFP the town manager put out earlier this year. As you can see from the announcement, they are proposing to provide consultation on downtown revitalization for Culver, particularly looking at the two downtown corridors on Main Street and Lake Shore Drive.
The discussion at the CRC has been to look into what can be done to make our downtown areas more successful as a first step with future expansion to the rest of the town. This is partially a response to The Dunes and how to provide services for the additional full time residents the town hopes to attract.
I have a conflict, so I won’t be there for this presentation. My two thoughts on what I would have liked to hear are:
The concentration on the downtown areas is fine as a first step, but that shouldn’t be done without also looking at the town as a whole and how everything fits together. Too often Culver falls into a one step back before two steps forward pattern. Inefficient at best. Generally costly too. I know we have a rough framework of what should happen in the town as a whole from the Comp Plan, but making sure any sub-plans fit holistically into the master plan is important. How will this concentrated plan fit?
The thing Culver needs more than another analysis (We’ve been analyzed more than Tony Soprano!) is an implementation plan the town can actually do. Culver did great things with Stellar, but has somewhat stalled since then. The impetus to move things forward has to come from the Town Council. I’m not sure that they have the same fire that was there for Stellar. A restating of the problems we already recognize won’t hurt, but it’s that next step towards action that matters. Will the Town Council be at the meeting and will they step up?
This is meant for the downtown merchants, so I hope they step up too. This could be a major benefit to them, but only if they participate and help work the plan. I appreciate the Town Manager and CRC taking this on. They can’t just do it though. They need active participation and help from those affected. The town can assist in this, but the merchants and property owners have to take the reins at some point and make it happen.
Traditional Pole Barn with vertical steel siding and steel roofing. Image from CMT Components
A few years back, there was an effort to ban post frame (also known as timber frame) housing in Plymouth. A similar ban has been floated a few times in Culver and resurfaced at the August Plan Commission meeting. In both cases, the rational has been that the style doesn’t fit the community. As near as I can discern, (and I could be missing something) it doesn’t have much to do with the post frame construction, but more about the look of vertical metal siding, since these homes can be indiscernible from homes built using standard framing.
Post frame construction is most often associated with the “Shade & Shelter” functionality of Pole Buildings. Where post frame barns are designed to protect farm equipment, post frame homes are generally better insulated, stronger structurally, sealed tightly and have a different aesthetic. It’s just a different framing technique that has recently had a resurgence in popularity.
Post Frame Construction showing below grade piers, posts, girts & purlins Image from Roper Buildings
The main difference in this style of construction is the use of posts (poles) to provide the frost protection and uplift protection in lieu of the footings and frost walls used in standard construction. They are nearly always slab-on-grade (SOG) for the first floor. (Many standard construction homes are SOG as well, but standard homes could also have crawl spaces or basements.) Standard construction will use 2×4 or 2×6 studs at 16″ or 24″ on center to form the shell. Post frame buildings have posts spaces as much as 8′ on center with horizontal 2x4s girts to support the siding. Standard construction will have trusses or rafters at 24″ on center, where post frame buildings space out the trusses to bear on the posts and then use 2×4 purlins to support the roofing materials.
For a pole building, the big advantages are the ease and speed of construction. The construction is very forgiving. It is generally a big box to provide the most cubic feet of storage with the minimum of effort. They tend to leak and creak over time, but provide the basic shelter function needed. For a post frame home, there are a lot of enhancements:
In standard home construction, the frost wall is insulated, in our area, down to 3′ below grade. In post frame home construction, insulation is added under the slab extending 3′ – 6′ from the perimeter to provide a similar thermal break.
In standard home construction, there is continuous sheathing, generally OSB or plywood spanning the studs and providing the exterior diaphragm framing stiffness. In post frame home construction, this is provided by the wall girts which also support the vertical metal siding. Sheathing would still need to be added if a horizontal finish such as traditional siding or a brick veneer is used.
In standard home construction, interior wall finishes such as drywall or wood paneling can be applied directly to the studs. In post frame home construction, it will be necessary to add interior girts to provide support for the interior finishes.
In standard home construction, the wall depth is based on the stud depth, so in general there is a cavity of 5-1/2″, if 2×6 framing is used. Each stud is a thermal transfer point as there is no insulation between the interior and exterior at stud locations. In post frame home construction, the exterior wall thickness is determined by the post thickness (6″ or 8″) plus the 2×4 girt thickness on the interior and exterior, giving a wall cavity of 8-1/2″ or 10-1/2″. Unlike studs that create a thermal transfer from top to bottom, post frame construction reduces the transfer points to just the locations where the girts bypass the posts. This allows for super insulation, more than doubling standard exterior wall R values.
In standard home construction, the roof framing is generally webbed trusses with OSB or plywood decking to tie things together and provide a substrate for shingles. In post frame home construction, either the trusses need to be moved closer together (generally requiring a collar beam) to allow sheathing on the trusses or the sheathing is installed over the purlins.
In standard home construction, interior walls are often load-bearing. In post frame home construction, interior walls are non-bearing, allowing doors without headers, allowing standard slab thicknesses and often, greater stud spacing.
While some of these homes embrace the barndominium style, such as the one to the right that even includes a simulation of a silo, they often are hard to distinguish from their neighbors. It’s not the framing that determines the exterior aesthetic, and in many cases you wouldn’t know the framing style if you didn’t see it under construction. Three of the apartment buildings at The Paddocks have a definite barn aesthetic, yet they were stick-built.
Stating that the style doesn’t fit the community seems a particularly curious thing to say about a home in Culver. Culver has a myriad of building styles ranging from traditional to bungalows to A-frames to geodesic domes. Culver has exterior finishes ranging from siding to painted concrete block to limestone to fieldstone. The siding breaks down to various styles including vertical, horizontal and diagonal. We have buildings with vinyl, steel, aluminum and wood siding. Culver is allowing new construction to expand in size to the point that they encourage replatting/combining of small lots to accommodate the larger construction.
Some communities establish aesthetic requirements. Culver doesn’t have these. As it stands, they’re zoning decisions are based mostly on safety. Post frame verses traditional framing is more of an issue for building codes and as of this time it is allowed. Many would object to the use of vibrant colored residential standing seam roofs as not fitting the traditional aesthetic, but nothing has been said about banning those. Personally, I’m fine with the diversity. Culver shouldn’t stoop to the level of a group of Karens. A flock of Karens is known as an HOA. Culver shouldn’t go there. (Neither should Plymouth…)
Hard to believe it’s been 10 years since Becky decided that she could provide better service to her patients on her own than through her previous employer. At that time, her employer began dictating maximum 20 minute appointments, not understanding that a hearing test takes an hour. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. She is not able to spend the time she needs to with her patients. It’s not nearly as lucrative, but she’s pleased to be able to provide better care.
Jamie Fleury did a nice article on Dr. Becky’s Berger Audiology 10 year Anniversary Open House last Thursday. Somewhere around 34 attended. She is planning a second event for Physicians and professional colleagues next month.
At the last Culver Town Council meeting, Greg Hildebrand, President of the Marshall County Economic Development Corporation (MCEDC), made a presentation on 2024’s accomplishments and some overall accomplishments through the last several years. Culver’s representative to the MCEDC board turned in his resignation that night as well. Greg told the board he was researching their question about public officials as MCEDC representatives.
As Culver’s first MCEDC representative and as such, a founding member of the MCEDC Board, I found the question surprising. But then I checked the MCEDC website and there is only one board member still there from the early days. Greg is the 6th person in the staff leadership role, so he has no knowledge of the start-up.
Every institution, whether public or private, must evolve. Unfortunately though, when institutional memory is lost, that evolution can involve back-tracking, repetitive spending, and potential repeating mistakes. In the case of MCEDC, the original representatives met for nearly a year before actually forming the corporation and hiring staff. We met with multiple existing Local Economic Development Organizations (LEDOs), which were set up with various structures in order to try and determine what was best. These ranged from local government departments to quasi-government /private partnerships to independent private corporations. We met with site selectors to determine with which form they preferred to work. We met with the State economic development arm, to get their take on what was most effective. Once we determined that the private corporation structure was most flexible and preferable, we researched various corporate forms before deciding on becoming a 501c(6) corporation. Then we hired Ice Miller, one of Indiana’s leading law firms in the area of economic development to help craft our by-laws. Three key take-aways from this:
Many site selectors and companies considering a move do not want it public until a decision is made. If the LEDO is a government department or has government representatives on the board, there is a concern about required disclosures that make the potential new business squeamish. For this reason, MCEDC prohibited public officials from holding board positions.
A public funded LEDO has more strings attached due to direct tax payments covering costs. MCEDC was set up with service contracts to the various government bodies, so that the services are provided on a consulting basis. This has allowed funding by local Redevelopment Commissions. (It has also caused a few problems regarding flexibility due to government bodies specifying deliverables… not something included in the original contracts.)
501c(6) status makes the corporation a tax exempt entity, but with different abilities and restrictions. This allows contributions from private corporations and individuals to be tax deductible. One other key benefit is a 501c(6) is allowed to lobby government representatives.
The decisions made and the reasons for making them were lost with the retirement of the original board members.
The loss of Institutional Memory has been demonstrated to me in the past from other boards on which I have served too. A new board member has a “new idea” or one they’ve used elsewhere. Institutional Memory could demonstrate how something similar was tried in the past with the associated success or failure. That doesn’t mean the idea may not be worthy of implementation or in the case of past failure, trying again, but maybe it can be improved by past experience or there may be unique reasons why it didn’t work in the past. It could even have left a bad taste in the mouth of donors/supporters and that alone is a reason to avoid it. Board turnover may prevent that experience from moving forward. Sometimes with strong-willed, long-serving staff leadership, the Board gets overshadowed, deferring to staff leadership when staff leadership’s tenure exceeds that of any board member. The Staff becomes the Institutional Memory for better or worse…
I don’t have a great solution for this. Board minutes would be the first line of defense, but there is a wide variety in the way organizations keep minutes, ranging from the bare minimum required by Robert’s Rules, to copious detail on every side conversation. Each has its uses and there are differing schools of thought on which is appropriate for different organizations. Minutes rarely catch everything though.
So here are a few suggestions from my experience on multiple boards:
Minutes should be digitized and searchable. They should be easily available to current board members as a reference. They should be searchable by dates, names and key words. (When I was Secretary of the MCEDC Board, I kept a running to-do list of board decisions that I included at the bottom of the minutes and updated it monthly with new things directed by the board and removing things that were completed in the last month. The Executive Director hated that, but it was useful for accountability.)
Along with board minutes, institutional history should be kept. This can be in a narrative form, added to monthly and included in total, attached to the first meeting of the year’s minutes covering the previous year. This should include successes and failures, in enough detail for a new board member to easily understand what happened. This should also be easily available to current board members in a searchable form.
Board members should be encouraged to provide a summary of their time on the board with the associated highlights and missed opportunities. What stands out when looking backwards can often provide insights and direction for what comes next. This should also be easily available to current board members in a searchable form.
Paid staff should be encouraged to provide their input since they are the day-to-day face of the board and have invaluable insight into what is happening. That said, they should be reminded when necessary that they are not board members, do not have a vote, and are charged with carrying out the board’s directives. (Most of those I have worked with understand this and use their influence judiciously, but I have worked with some that abuse this or balk at taking direction from the board when it doesn’t go their way. They and the board must understand that if this happens too much, it is time for a parting of the ways…)
The searchable sources under 1 through 3, should be consulted anytime there is a new project, staffing change, board reorganization or other activity that could be positively influenced by what came before… This should be a staff function, but should also be considered by anyone suggesting something new or a change in direction. Learning from the past is invaluable.
I believe strongly in refreshing boards and the regular influx of new blood. I think term limits are a reasonable approach to allowing board members a way out as well as a way to encourage new blood, even though this is at the expense of Institutional Memory. But that doesn’t change the fact that the loss of Institutional Memory causes mistakes to be repeated, costs to be repeated and some people to be re-offended. There is a balance for which we should strive, else like MCEDC above, we lose the benefit of the work done in the past.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905
