Part III - Conflict

I am going to address the latest comment in the ethics discussion step by step.  It might benefit everyone to review the "Conflicts ... Part I & II" posts for the background points and counter-points which haven been made.

FairAction Fairhaven notes:

there are conflicts of interest and potential conflicts of interest, trying to come up with procedure is not to suit my needs but is open for discussion as your blog indicates.

Coming up with procedure in dealing with conflicts of interest, real or potential, is unfortunately not open for discussion.  The procedure exists.  There is a state agency which administers detailed rules, laws and procedure all ready.  The only thing that you have proposed is to create a local agency to perform an identical function.  

If you want to detail, and I mean detail, your procedure for such a local agency, then maybe you might see some interest.  To date, the only details that I have seen are your initial proposed article on the website, and the amended version submitted for the annual town meeting.  

To make something like your proposal work would require duplicating a structure that all ready exists.  Besides simply repeating your claims of conflict of interest, try explaining why Fairhaven needs its own ethics committee.  

What will that committee do that cannot be done by the existing state ethics commission?

Next point:

Please keep in mind that property value loss is a real hardship with implications for the town budget. This issue was unfortunately downplayed and glossed over as many issues do.

Property value loss is a real hardship.  No one disputes that fact.  What is in dispute is what will be the actual effect?  Yes I have read the opinions from various appraisers, along with the several studies and numerous articles.  

You accuse town officials of downplaying and glossing over the issue because they do not agree with your conclusions. Yet in listening to the arguments it seems the exact same thing plays out on this particular matter as in many points, if the town's position does not agree with your own, it is dismissed out of hand.

I do not dispute there will be some impact.  Anytime anything is done anywhere there will be an impact.  As cold as it may seem to some, to refuse to do a project on the basis of no impact is an impossible standard that cannot be adopted.  

For what it is worth, I hope those in opposition have not neglected to begin to lay the groundwork for a condemnation claim.  

The central issue is what will be the impact. I am not a real estate expert.  I nonetheless have been involved in enough real estate transaction professionally to have a working knowledge of the concepts being argued on both sides.  To argue no impact is flawed, to argue 30 to 40% is flawed.  

I have neither the time nor the space here to presently provide a dissertation on this particular aspect.  You can argue I am glossing over it, however, it is the best I can do presently.

I want to emphasize, as I have in the past, the purpose of this blog is not in support of the turbines.  Like it or not, I started this exercise in "free speech" in direct response to your website and the proposals your group and Windwise have co-sponsored.  If there were a way to completely avoid the topic of turbines I would, but as the turbines continue to be tied into the debate, the points raised have to be addressed.

As to implications to the town budget:

One of the impacts I keep hearing about are legal fees.  Certainly there will be legal fees. I have seen quotes and heard statements from people opposing the turbines that we are talking $500,000.00.  Again, as cold as this may sound, there would be little if any, and most probably no direct impact.  

Why?  The lease payments would go to pay the cost of litigation vs. being used for other purposes.  As such there is no drain on the budget, i.e. no loss of revenue presently coning in.  Do we lose the use of that money for other purposes yes.  Do we have to take money away from present uses, no.

As far as loss of tax revenue due to property value decrease, this is the point you may find hard to realize, but there isn't any.  It is a point of concern for each and every taxpayer, yes, but it won't affect the budget.

Under Proposition 2 1/2 the town is allowed to raise in taxes a certain amount each and every year.  If property values decrease, it doesn't change that fact.  Subject to appropriation, and the Prop. 2 1/2 limit, the town's ability to raise that amount is not dependent upon the value of property.  

The amount to be collected is simply spread among all taxpayers.  Whether the town's total value is $2 billion or $1.8 billion, the town is still allowed to collect the Prop. 2 1/2 levy limit amount in taxes.  The only thing value determines is the amount any one taxpayer has to contribute.  

The only way the budget gets reduced is by town meeting not voting to authorize spending equal to what can be collected under the law.

Cold, impersonal, but nonetheless reality.

Next is the statement that:

We can sugarcoat, deflect, and attack (on both sides)but the bottom line is that town officials represent the people and should listen, respond truthfully, and represent them.

There is not one thing in that statement I disagree with.

I only add that when town officials represent the people, they represent all the people.  Decisions need to be made, and any decision needs to factor in the effect on all the people.

Should they listen, absolutely?  Listening does not equate however to agreeing with the speaker.

Should they respond truthfully?  Yes.  Help me out here and list the untruths.  Please, not the disputes based on differing opinions.  Because you have an expert that says one thing and they decide to follow an expert that says another, does not mean they are not being truthful.  it means they don't agree with you.

What exactly are the facts of what has been said that you can prove they have lied?

Represent them?  Yes, they are suppose to represent the public.  Yes they are suppose to take in account not only supporters by those in opposition.  The fact that their decision does not agree with yours does not mean they are not representing the public.

You can argue they have made a bad decision, and that their decision is not in the best interest of the public (everyone), but the fact they made a decision does not mean they have neglected their duty to represent.

Officials are elected and appointed to make decisions.  Many have been made I don't agree with.  The fact that I don't agree with them doesn't mean those who made them aren't representing the people.  There have been very few decisions I have seen where someone hasn't claimed they weren't being represented when a decision comes down against them.

Next stated:

Town officials shouldn't lie and deceive or use the limits of laws and regulations to get what they want passed by the voting public.

The lie and deceive claims goes hand in hand with being truthful.  Again, point them out.

If they are not suppose to use the limit of the law and regulations to get what they want passed, what are they suppose to do?  I personally would have proceeded differently in pursuing this project.  They choose to proceed in a different manner.

But the fact they took the course they did may be a reason to vote them out, it may be a reason to advocate a change in the law or the regulations, but it is not a reason to propose much of what is being proposed.

This one I don't quite get.  Unless your intent is to argue that they had a "moral" duty to do more?


Next:  When they are called on, they should respond and be accountable. Not sure on this one either.  I agree with the underlying principal, however, the fact that someone stands up at a meeting and demands something be done that exact moment, or a decision be made right there doesn't fly in my book.


The rights to be heard and to free speech are not absolute.  This is not a new concept and it is not unique to Fairhaven.  


I have seen some pretty, how to say this, unreasonable requests made not only lately, but over time at public meetings and of public officials. I rather not get into specifics because all that will do is throw gasoline on the fire.  

There are going to be a bunch of new people in office come April.  Everyone of them is going to learn real quick just how fickle their supporters can be.  Each of them are also going to learn that there is a need for rules and procedure at meetings.  Each one is going to learn that they cannot simply deal with every request or demand made on the spot.

Should someone who wants to be heard on a matter pending be given time?  Unequivocally I answer yes. should someone always be able to get up and demand an immediate response, or that certain things be done right then and there, unequivocally no.

You may feel otherwise, and that is fine.  I may actually be misinterpreting what you intend by that statement. 

In two big town projects over the past year we saw the public trust abused. Certainly you have an opinion on this.

Again, I may have handled things differently.

The school project, I simply don't see it.  Were their mistakes, yes.  Were they intentional, no.  Did anything equate to an abuse of the public trust, not even close in my opinion.

For both projects, the fact I may have handled them differently does not mean that I agree that the public trust has been abused. That standard to me would imply serious violations of the the laws and regulations.  Serious to the extent that the projects should be invalidated.

There is currently a court case pending on the turbines where depending on the outcome we may in fact see a decision that would alter my opinion in that matter.

I suppose I really need you to explain what you consider to equal "abuse of the public trust".  Not trying to toy with you, but we clearly have differing opinions on meanings of a number of terms.

Final point to be addressed:

Politics in this town can be fair, transparent, and open but not with smoke and mirrors. Unless this can be addressed, there is no real common ground to work toward improving government collectivity

First, it seems to me you continue to demand a standard that cannot be obtained.  You seem to equate politics with government.  One cannot not argue they aren't intertwined, neither can one argue that they are identical.

Just what kind of "politics" rule book are you proposing?

Replace the word politics with Government and I agree with your first sentence in the above quote.  That simple.

Keep insisting on a "political" concept that your group, in my opinion, fails to follow in its own political tactics, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Most disturbing, however, is your statement that "there can be no common ground to work toward improving government collectively."  Seems just another way of saying your way or no way.

But guess what, I can live with that.  You don't want to try and work toward a solution unless your demands are met, fine with me.

It is certainly going to make my blogging life much simpler.