One of the chief complaints going around presently, and that was made during the new school debate, and a complaint that has been made for as long as I can remember, is and was that Town Officials were denying people the right to be heard.
Many of you have heard me say repeatedly that perception is 95% of the battle. It can also be said perception that is 95% of the problem.
As to 95% of the battle, the perception is there most definitely could have been a better job done of keeping the public informed about the progress of the wind turbine project. I would even agree with that. This is not to say, however, that I agree with the allegations that the ongoing project somehow became s deep, dark secret that only moved forward under the cloak of darkness. Also, because they could have done it better, does not mean they did not do their job.
Too often we become complacent. If it isn't constantly flashed before our eyes on a computer screen or television we seem to forgot about things.
Hand in hand with the "right to be heard" is the "duty to stay informed". I find it hard to believe that all opponents were in the dark over the project when you can find posts as far back as February, 2010 monitoring the project; and posts in September, 2011 (two months before the digging) urging people to take up the fight to stop it.
I digress a bit though (something you will need to get use to).
If you are opposed to the project, or just plain jaded about government, the perception is because there was no extra effort to advertise meetings beyond on the issue beyond the SOP for providing notice, somehow we have been misled. From purely a PR perspective, yes it would have been best to keep this project in the forefront. Yet the lack of more notice does not equal no notice.
Arguments that notice of meetings are only posted on the bulletin board at Town Hall, or legal notices are published in a weekly newspaper somehow deprives the people of their right to know are, to put it mildly, without merit. We all lead busy lives. We all have pressing things that need to be done. We all have an obligation to stay informed, and not on just the issues we feel are most important to us. It may be inconvenient to stay on top of issues, but inconvenience is not a reason to argue I didn't know about it.
Nonetheless, when a governmental body having jurisdiction over a matter is presented with a citizen's request to be heard, significant weight should be given to that request. This is not to say I advocate repeated hearings over the same topic. Nor is it to say that I advocate the right of an individual to say or do what they want at any meeting of any governmental board or committee.
The fact of the matter is I am left with the impression that the chief complaint isn't so much I am not being heard, as it is you are not listening to me (this applies to just about anything nowadays).
I will pose this question to everyone out there: Assuming we could find a panel of three neutral people agreeable to both sides (on any issue), and both the pro and con positions were argued, would you agree to accept the decision of that panel on what to do?
Time to go now. There will be more on this at a later time. I have to shoot my cat (FYI she is diabetic and needs her shot).
Also, any thoughts for the next topic? I was thinking maybe term limits.
Beyond the legal requirements for the public posting of meeting and hearing notices on the Town Hall board and in the local newspaper, I think anything else becomes "public relations." If that PR were issued by government officials--by various boards and committees themselves or by a central government PR office--it could be claimed the information is biased. Then again the press, which is usually completely independent of official government, is often called biased, too. (People will claim that anyone saying something that they don't agree with is somehow biased.)
ReplyDeleteThe legal public notices, limited though they may be, are at least neutral. Unedited televised meetings are neutral. Minutes of meetings are records of what was voted on and also include materials related to the hearings or discussions that took place.
I did hear recently, though, that Town Hall is charging $40 for each DVD of a televised board meeting. That's pretty steep considering one can buy a DVD of a major Hollywood release starring much bigger name personalities than our selectmen for much less than that. Should it cost either a resident or a member of the press that much--and who, exactly is getting that $40?
Personally, I've been on both sides of the press. When I send out Office of Tourism press releases, there is no guarantee that the editors of the media with publish my material. Even if every board in town were churning out press materials, it would be impossible for all of it to get prominent play in the media.
I have also had--after I've sent out press releases, paid for ads, and posted notices on the Fairhaven Events web page--people say to me, "Oh, I never heard that event was taking place." I wonder sometimes if we're supposed to knock on everyone's door and let them know when the Homecoming Day Fair is taking place each year. . .
Anyway, I think we might do a better job of making information available without charging residents an arm and a leg for it, but I don't think Town Hall should have a PR department churning out officially sanctioned news.
I agree with you, John. Ultimately the public must be responsible for keeping itself informed of the latest issues.
Regards,
Chris Richard