There is an old saying that goes as follows: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
I truly would like to believe that everyone, whether I agree with them or not, has ultimately nothing more than good intentions when discussing and putting forth ideas. I start out with that assumption with every single argument that is presented to me.
I can see the allure, the initial appeal of an elected ethics committee, as is being proposed by FairAction Fairhaven and Windwise. I can also see the excesses and abuses, the potential for many ills and ill advised actions.
If you have followed previous posts, as far as the practicality of the article, it is enough to say that it would not be legally binding. I will not delve further into those details.
If you have followed previous posts, as far as the practicality of the article, it is enough to say that it would not be legally binding. I will not delve further into those details.
Simply addressing the concept, I would note that in an ideal world, in ideal circumstances, we would all like to be certain that we are protected from the abuses and excesses of others.
However we neither live in an ideal world, nor under ideal circumstances.
Do we truly want an ethics committee, three elected persons, to be empowered to investigate any conduct which appears to them to be unethical or illegal (see FairAction Fairhaven website, under Town Meeting Articles 2012, Articles stated to be co-sponsored by that group and Windwise)?
Do we want a committee to be unilaterally empowered to essentially do what they want in the name of an investigation started by them, on issues perceived by them to be wrong?
I am sure we will hear arguments that this is not the case, that this is not the intent. I could spend hours pointing out to you exactly what is in fact wrong with such a proposal. I would hope I need not too. I would also hope that after you read the proposed article, it is readily apparent exactly how dangerous an article this would be to the whole concept of the democratic process.
In the end, I leave it to each of you to review the proposed article and judge for yourself.
I again reference that old saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
If the direction in which we would be taken by an article such as this is not apparent, if it is not obvious that this would be the first paving stone for that proverbial road, then I truly submit that there is nothing I can say here that will change your minds.
As most of us know, there is already a State Ethics Commission, charged with doing exactly what the petitioners want, and having legislation to back it. Any resident may report activity they feel is unethical directly to an impartial state body. This is confidential as far as I know.
ReplyDeleteAs a municipal employee, I'm required to pass an Ethics Commission test on conflict of interest. I also have a folder in my filing cabinet that is about an inch thick, filled with regulations and explanations. There are different sets of rules regarding different public offices and jobs. There are rules that some officials are held to even after they have left their municipal positions. These rules and regulations have taken years and years to develop, amend, expand, etc. They are what all paid and volunteer, elected and appointed officials in every city and town in the state are bound to abide by.
If a local witch-hunt--excuse me, ethics committee-- is legal at all, how are their rules and regulations going to be developed and approved and how will those rules and regulations differ from those the Commonwealth of Massachusetts already has and already enforces? What courts in the state will uphold any decisions made by this local ethics commission? Under what legal mechanism could this committee actually force town meeting to take action against an elected or hired town employee?
Have those who came up with this warrant article thought about any of this at all?
It seems this Fair Action group is actually trying to develop some entirely new form of government that is somehow to be applied to the Town of Fairhaven to the exclusion of any outside oversight or regulation.
How scary is that?
Obviously we have two town employees posting here, evidently with insider knowledge (where did you read the articles) poisoning and trying to influence before anyone else has read the articles. I am not even going to bother reading the article now. I am against it thanks to you. What else should I think?
ReplyDeleteI am going to do my best here to maintain an even keel.
DeleteFirst, the articles I have been referring to and commenting on are those referenced in the newspaper for the upcoming STM, and those posted by FairAction Fairhaven on its website.
Your accusation on using insider knowledge is completely without merit.
In my opinion your statements are an extremely poor attempt to deflect attention away from the serious flaws of the proposed articles, which the proponents of the same have publicly posted and invited all to see.
Also, if you are the same anonymous individual who sent several e-mails containing the language of the articles, thank you for sending them, but as noted, I all ready know where to find them, and it is the same place anyone with computer access can find them.
But I suspect you all ready know everything I have just said.
Found article on http://www.fairactionfhvn.org/.
ReplyDeleteNo special insider information on my part. I read them on the Fair Action site you just linked to.
Delete