I started this site with the intention of building on the vocabulary of whoever read it; in other words I meant to focus on words that are not commonly understood by most people. Defining "bureaucracy" may sound counter to that goal, however in examining it's full meaning and nuances I believe it is a word well worth looking at.
Bureaucracy:
1. A body of non-elective government officials; an administrative policy-making group.
2. A government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to strict rules, and a hierarchy of authority.
3. A system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation.
I find these definitions interesting because they underscore the fact that a bureaucracy cannot help you unless your particular problem or situation already falls within the closed set of issues it is designed to deal with. My husband found this out when he tried to straighten out some erroneous water bills we were receiving. He wrote to local politicians--senators and representatives, the county commissioners, the city manager, the mayor, and finally the federal Senators that represent us in North Carolina.
Further Detail (a tad long but concise)
Most of these people did not have the power or jurisdiction to help us and this was a situation where we've been charged for two-month cycles wherein the per-day average water usage was consistently between 250 and 585 gallons per day, everyday! In other words, a good bill would be for a two month consumption of 15,000 gallons and the worst was for a two month consumption of 35,685 gallons. During a "low" cycle the bills claimed we averaged about 250 gallons per day for two whole months and during a "high" cycle our bills were for an average use of as much as 585 gallons per day--everyday!
I mentioned it to my husband (who has finally regained his former clarity) and he became motivated to solve what he realized had to be an injustice. (This is a nice way of saying he was livid!) The bills measure the water in cubic feet, possibly as a means of making the usage look more reasonable and as a means of confusing the customer. Once I had my husbands attention and he did the math (1 cubic foot of water = 7.48 gallons), he realized those bills that said we had used 4600 cubic feet over the course of two months were actually saying we had used 34,408 gallons or approximately 500 gallons a day--every day! He was shocked and could not understand how our water people could pass off such rubbish as reasonable.
He spoke to many newspaper and television people. They would initially act interested but when there were no easy answers or scapegoats they backed off. Unfortunately we found the local news won't bother with an injustice that causes a middle-class family to be robbed of thousands of dollars, over a six year period, unless the victims are able to deliver all of the facts in a neat, tidy, little package.
Otto, my husband, then started by looking for an oversight commission because he already knew that whenever I had complained to the Durham Water Department's billing staff they would simply act like our meter had to be accurate and we were just whining. He found Durham had a Water Conservation Specialist (a person the billing department never mentioned to us). He came out, determined there were no leaks, and after my husband monitored our "supposed" usage some more, the water guy had an electronic meter installed to better track the problem. Our next bill showed a usage of half that of the lowest bill we had ever seen before and that was for an abnormally long period of 71 days! (Less than a 1000 cubic feet in 71 days--about 7,210 gallons or right around 100 gallons perday!)
My husband and I finally felt vindicated, like we would not be hearing from Justin Quesinberry or any other reporter that the water department had explained (incredibly) that 40% of our (crazy) usage is likely attributable to toilet flushing or other such nonsense. Our toilets use 1.6 gallons per flush--they're not even trying to cover their errors and the news ignored it anyway! My husband had been particularly dismayed when Quesinberry had interviewed him for an hour only to later be diffused quickly, after consulting the city, by some general statisticsthey had handed him. (We would have been flushing in shifts, around the clock, to accomplished what they claimed but that is how easy NBC17 and others have been deflected by Durham's bureaucracy.)
Another "newsperson" Teresa Ostuni from WRAL TV gave the excuse that there was no story because our bills show consistently higher use in the summer each year--as if incorrect bills cannot still fluctuate with the normal trends; as if a faulty bill could only show the same exact usage, always, poppycock! I guess newspeople sometimes imagine their viewers are dumb hicks without common sense--this is what you can expect if you ask for help and your story isn't "juicy" enough.
Others, like Diane Wilson, "the Troubleshooter" and Virginia Bridges of The News and Observer, just stopped communicating completely--at least they didn't try to insult Otto's intelligence (even if he does simply find it laughable). Those that feed him flimsy excuses are very transparent to him. while he was glad they didn't tell him stupid lies a courtesy call letting him know not to keep waiting would have been both professional and polite.
One helpful person in all this was a representative of Senator Kay Hagan. He regretted that our situation sounded ridiculous and without any credibility and that Kay Hagan's office did not have the jurisdiction to intervene. He did however recommend that Otto bring our case to the Durham City Council. When a private lawyer reiterated the same advice my husband felt like that was the course to take. By the way it should be noted the Senator Richard Burr also called him (personally) with regret that Durham wasn't within his jurisdiction, as did someone from Beverly Purdue's office. It's a telling situation when your federal Senators and your Governor take the time to tell you what they cannot do for you, while out of all of our State Senators (Floyd B. McKissick, Jr. and Bob Atwater) and State Representatives (Paul Luebke, Larry D. Hall, Henry M. Michaux, Jr., and W. A. (Winkie) Wilkins) that have Durham County as part of their incumbency, not even one bothered to contact my husband or myself--makes me wonder who our local legislature works for. (heavy contributors, perhaps?)
The city council meeting was interesting to my husband. Otto found himself feeling slightly underdressed as everyone else in the "work session" was in either a suit or a dress. He had expected a buttoned shirt, tucked into newer jeans, with nice shoes would be appropriate for a meeting with the name "work" in its title and with him being a representative of the middle-class citizenry. Despite this misjudgment, he said he felt very much at ease. He was facing Mayor Bill Bell and the City Manager, Tom Bonfield. He had publicly admonished their non-willingness to return his communications through online media and email complaints yet neither official seemed to have taken the matter personally and all of the council seemed genuinely interested in our problem. Otto told me that day that the reception he got was actually a bit warm--though some people there had a municipality to defend they all seemed invested in getting to the root of our troubles.
It was agreed that the newer water meter reading would be monitored for consistency over the next two cycles and from there it would potentially (no promises as of yet) be a matter of consideration as to whether we would have a refund coming. My husband came home very happy. He felt like he had finally gotten past the bureaucracy to a core of officials that actually wanted to determine whether we had been, and were being, billed fairly. Otto tries to maintain a positive outlook but after months of non-assistance he had walked into the meeting refusing to think in terms of expectations and with the attitude the no matter how it went he (and we) would figure out what we needed to do next. In other words he was avoiding negativity but had not really expected the interest that seemed to be there.
On a final note, Otto was particularly pleased with the mayor. An official said she would discuss with him in the hallway about leaving the current electronic meter in place or perhaps returning the older mechanical meter that had since been bench-tested and determined to be accurate. My husband appealed to the mayor saying he'd really rather monitor the next two cycles with the electrical meter--one he actually trusted. Mayor Bell asked the water official if that would be okay. She was non-committal and tried to avoid giving an answer. The mayor seemed to champion my husband's cause when he pinned her down to a yes or no answer and had her agree to leave the new one in place. Otto was relieved. He believes that if the old meter did in fact test as accurate then there is probably a fitting that was wrong for the old meter and right for the new one. This would explain the previous overages and the fact that seasonal fluctuations still occur. (Someome should explain that to Teresa)
How Our Story Relates to the Definition of Bureaucracy
When I read the definitions that were given for bureaucracy I saw how they fit into my husbands experience. Most of the people he had contacted via email or phone message were bureaucrats. As such they often had no say in what could be done about a system that was possibly flawed by inaccurate metering or incorrect fittings. Such public officials are accustomed to dealing with people who find their answers unsatisfactory and sometimes enraging. Most employees--especially those who are defined as "bureaucrats" aren't elected and must adhere to "Fixed rules." They do not want to deal with a citizen who is understandably upset and whom they are not able to assist. While it can be maddening, it is understandable.
Then there were Senators Hagan and Burr and Governor Purdue. They could not help us but as elected officials they are not a part of the bureaucratic machine and therefore keeping citizens content with what they do can be important to them. I would really like to believe they actually called because they cared about us though, after all, if my husband were ignorant of it, their inability to personally do more for us could have been viewed negatively toward their election efforts but then I personally think, "How much trouble is a vote or two really worth?" I know that whenever I see Beverly Purdue speaking I genuinely feel like she cares about our state and its people. Furthermore, Richard Burr and Kay Hagan's associate took their time with my husband and seemed genuinely interested in our troubles.
Albert Nelson was the conservation specialist that helped my husband and our family--if you suspect an issue with your reported usage he is an excellent resource. As a bureaucrat he had loyalties to his department that he had to honor. As a public servant he had a duty to help us with our difficulties if he could. He was helpful and communicative toward my husband throughout the troubleshooting process; however once Otto started broadcasting on youtube, writing blog articles, and doing what he could to attract real news coverage, that changed. My husband was briefly annoyed but then thought of the bureaucracy involved. He understood that Al could serve us anyway a conservation expert does but that once Otto became vocal he naturally needed to avoid him (while still doing his job) out of loyalty to the bureaucracy he serves. Al did a great job of juggling his loyalties while attending to his responsibilities--furthermore he showed a repeated, sincere, interest in the temporary loss of our family pet. Many bureaucrats are good people despite their sometimes unenviable roles.
This is a description of bureaucracy--an extended definition of it. There are many things we all dislike about bureaucracy. In a way bureaucracies are like dealing with the automated menu on a so-called "help-line"; the result and satisfaction that can be had are often limited and inflexible. However, bureaucracies do serve us as well. They act like massive human machines that are often capable of addressing and fixing the needs of the masses--in a way that an automated system alone can't. My husband, Otto Ladensack, found problems with the way our water bills were being calculated (and yes the exact nature of that is still being investigated). As a result he challenged the bureaucracies that exist in the Durham Government. He found them frustrating and downright maddening at times but eventually, as is always the case, he found a way to be heard. By finding those that help execute the bureaucracy--the Durham City Council, he found people that seem to care about us citizens and who seem to be doing what they can to get to the bottom of our billing disagreements.
