Special Edition

There is an old saying, made in various forms, that truth is stranger than fiction.  I couldn't agree more.  Not completely relevant to the rest of this piece, however a thought that just comes to mind.  Now speaking of truth and fiction ...

To claim that there was not a vote on the wind turbines article, as FairAction Fairhaven has done on its facebook page, can only be viewed in one of two ways.  The first, that FairAction Fairhaven is totally unaware of the workings of Town Meeting.  The second, that it has chosen to intentionally misrepresent to the public what occurred.  I personally think this is one of those rare cases where both would actually apply.

The turbine article was indefinitely postponed by a vote of 134 to 80.  That 1/5th margin, as FAF stets it, put another way was a 61% to 39% vote.  In an election that would be considered a landslide.

For those of you in support of the turbines who think this is a mandate, think again. Had this been an article to determine whether or not to authorize the project, i.e. the original vote in 2007, the vote most probably would have been not to do it.  Quite frankly I personally have serious doubts if I would have voted to authorize the turbines, if that was what the article had in fact been about.

Despite all efforts to make it that, despite the fact that the proponents of the article did everything but speak to the article itself, at the end of the day the article sought to terminate an existing project, not whether to authorize it.

It was a vote on an article seeking to terminate a contract (and until a court rules otherwise that is in fact what it is).  It was an article looking to have the town breach an agreement negotiated by the selectmen under the authority previously given to them by town meeting.  

Put up all the smoke and mirrors you want, but the prior vote authorized the selectmen to negotiate and enter into the contract, it did not approve a contract.  The selectmen are unlikely to get that authority ever again, but that is in fact what was voted.

The STM result on February 15th was a vote by a substantial number of town meeting members who made a decision, after the proponents made their presentation, after town meeting members spoke.  

It was a vote against breaching a contract.  

Cloak it in any terms you want, ignore the reality of the outcome, spin the i.p. motion however you wish, but there was most definitely a vote on the article.

Here is the tidbit you apparently refuse to acknowledge and accept, the effect of a motion to indefinitely postpone is to reject the main motion.  In this case to clearly reject the main motion to adopt the article, after debate.  We had a vote.  

It was a vote on a matter that the people in opposition presented, and by insisting on proceeding with a course of action that could not happen, they also squandered and threw away a golden opportunity to make a resounding statement.  One that I know a fair number of people would have joined in on, myself included, with the right article.

That opportunity is now lost to them because those apparently in charge failed to realize the fact that they had a chance to grab the brass ring.  By the time the next kick at the can comes around in May, it is going to be much to late.  

And you know what, I am not going to tell you how you messed up.   Because you should be able to figure it all out by yourselves, and if you can't, perhaps you should seriously consider finding new leadership for your group.

It will be extremely interesting to see how some of the FairAction Fairhaven candidates handle the turbine topic if they get elected.  Despite my personal opposition to the proposed ethics committee and impeachment articles, there is a part of me tempted to push both of those through.

Why might you ask?  

There are several candidates who have publicly stated they will be directly affected by the turbines.  There are a couple actually involved in actions against the town or seeking hearings before town boards.  

As individuals personally affected, if they become elected officials, they are not going to be able to take any official action regarding the turbines.  If they did they would be prime candidates for action by the proposed ethics committee and for impeachment, not to mention the state ethics committee.

Imagine running for office in hopes of affecting a project which if elected you cannot act on.  They will be prohibited by the state laws regarding conflict of interest.   

In addition to being prohibited from acting on turbine issue, there are probably a good three or four other areas where they are going to have to tiptoe down the sidelines or actually sit on the bench.

But I am sure everyone thought this out before putting together a slate of candidates to run.

Just as I am sure if you are opposed to this project and are going to continue the fight, you will give serious thought to electing someone who cannot represent you on the issue.