Okay decision made, here it is:
Envision this scenario: you don't want the tourism department to go into the academy building.
Well how about moving it into the board of health office in town hall, and move the board of health downstairs into the basement or having it share the space with the assessors across the hall.
Then to boot, when apparently the BOH doesn't jump on board, you and two members of the BOH take a tour of town hall looking at and discussing what broom closet you can in fact put tourism in, or better yet build for it.
Envision this scenario: you don't want the tourism department to go into the academy building.
Well how about moving it into the board of health office in town hall, and move the board of health downstairs into the basement or having it share the space with the assessors across the hall.
Then to boot, when apparently the BOH doesn't jump on board, you and two members of the BOH take a tour of town hall looking at and discussing what broom closet you can in fact put tourism in, or better yet build for it.
Forget about the fact you were even thinking about moving the board of health to a location that isn't handicap accessible for the moment, or cramming it in across the hall, never mind the logistics of such a move as concerns the move itself and the continuing operations, or the logistcs and costs of building a broom closet for tourism. Forget about the fact it seems perfectly okay to force two two departments to share space but not have a town department share a town owned building with private entity .
So you meet with members of the board of health, two of them (just two members mind you, and by the way Ms. Lopes wasn't one of them). Was the third even invited? The you being our newest selectman by the way. Say on a Wednesday afternoon at around 12:30p.m. +/-.
I am not even going to touch upon the open meeting law here. Whatever justification someone can come up with for a gathering of a quorum of an elected board, so be it. Not a fish that needs frying here.
Seems to me the bigger issue about this meeting would be forgetting the fact "open and transparent" in the eyes of the public was the mantra in the recent election.
Let's also forget about the fact one of the board of health members is the president of the group currently occupying the academy building which is opposed to having the tourism department move in.
After all no conflict discussing tourism going into town hall rather than the academy building, despite the fact that tourism going into the academy building is the impetus for trying to find space in town hall as an alternate.
Nope, no conflict. No appearance of a conflict. Heck not even a potential conflict. Right?
Depends on whether you decide if the existing laws apply to you or not I guess.
Did it happen? There are three elected officials who can provide the answer, and there is a building full of people who saw them.
Did it happen? There are three elected officials who can provide the answer, and there is a building full of people who saw them.
Just why is it that some seem hell bent on trying to keep the tourism department out of the academy building? The move saves the town money. It is agreed to by tourism and the historical commission. It would cause the least disruption to actual town operations.
Am I missing something on this issue? Oh yeah!
One of our newly elected officials has a personal involvement in the private group occupying the building at the expense of the tax payers. Can't inconvenience that group. Who cares who we move into the basement, or if we put two town entities in the same room or what alterations need to be down in the historical town hall, so long as the "society" is left alone.
I guess what everyone was complaining about before the election is true. Who you are and who you know do matter.
I must be one of those persons out of touch. Maybe I need a scorecard of all the players in the game?
Am I missing something on this issue? Oh yeah!
One of our newly elected officials has a personal involvement in the private group occupying the building at the expense of the tax payers. Can't inconvenience that group. Who cares who we move into the basement, or if we put two town entities in the same room or what alterations need to be down in the historical town hall, so long as the "society" is left alone.
I guess what everyone was complaining about before the election is true. Who you are and who you know do matter.
I must be one of those persons out of touch. Maybe I need a scorecard of all the players in the game?
Just what is it that entitles the historical society to such special treatment; that would cause elected officials to go to such lengths?
Why would elected officials meet to discuss such a matter in what certainly wasn't an open and transparent manner in my opinion.
Why does one elected official, who is an officer of a private group, continue to participate in any discussion tied to that group's continued occupancy of a town building? Discussing where to locate tourism as an alternate to placement in the building your group occupies isn't a potential conflict. It isn't an apparent conflict. It is an actual conflict.
I have seen more actual conflicts, appearances of conflicts and potential conflicts on this one matter in just two weeks than all of the ones people conjured up and listed on the web in the last four months about multiple issues extending back over years.
Reform government? Make it more transparent and open? Just when is this all suppose to happen? Right after you find a way to keep a special interest group in a building for free and keep a public entity out of a public building?
Before April 2, 2012 there were a whole lot of people out there looking for any real or pretended reason to pounce on officials, using the rallying cry of fair and honest government.
Not one peep from those same people about a newly elected official appearing before a town board to advocate for a private group which she is the president.
This is just one strand of the web clearly being spun now. Apparently the perspective of what is or is not allowed does depend on whether you are the spider or the fly.
Guess what, no matter what you do with tourism, there is no way any one of our three selectmen can any longer excuse allowing what goes on at the academy building to continue.
Quite frankly, it is time to end all the freebies for everyone.
To the historical society I say thank you for insisting on "special nation" status. But for your insisting that you didn't want tourism in the academy building, the whole special privilege issue wouldn't be what it is today. I am sure all will be happy to learn that they now can expect equal treatment.
But why the attempts to provide special treatment? Tell me please. I all ready know the answers but I think the public is entitled to hear the excuses directly from you. By the way, not wanting to have to deal with the telephone calls is not a valid excuse.
We have two selectmen actively working to figure out a way to give the historical society exactly what it wants, despite the fact that by this point they should both be well aware of what they actually should be doing about that society.
We have an elected board of health member who continues to represent and advocate for a private group in its dealings with the town. This one I can also figure out, but don't understand. This one we all are entitled to an explanation from the official. This one may end up being explained to more people then just those in Town.
When somebody gets up on Town Meeting floor to argue why we should continue to pay rent for the tourism department maybe they can answer the questions and provide reasons.
As each day passes, as I hear more and more potential options for relocating tourism, it becomes clear that this not about keeping tourism in the center (and never has been for some), it is about keeping it out of the academy building.
Sadly, it truly isn't even about tourism anymore.
Tourism is just the bug ensnared in the tangled web.
We have an elected board of health member who continues to represent and advocate for a private group in its dealings with the town. This one I can also figure out, but don't understand. This one we all are entitled to an explanation from the official. This one may end up being explained to more people then just those in Town.
When somebody gets up on Town Meeting floor to argue why we should continue to pay rent for the tourism department maybe they can answer the questions and provide reasons.
As each day passes, as I hear more and more potential options for relocating tourism, it becomes clear that this not about keeping tourism in the center (and never has been for some), it is about keeping it out of the academy building.
Sadly, it truly isn't even about tourism anymore.
Tourism is just the bug ensnared in the tangled web.
I think Beth David was the one who suggested that we've just traded one political "machine" for another. The Machine is dead! Long live the Machine!
ReplyDeleteYes, the small potatos of our town's operations are the canaries in the coal mine of what is wrong, and I would like to think a new charter could fix in part though I am beginning to doubt its success if the commission elected ends up being the same old, same old. This is what I tried to bring out in the tree warden's race although I had only rumor and innuendo to go on and therefore stuck to a high ground in the forums rather than go for the jugular--frankly the "we only want to vote for our native Fairhavenites" attitude likley would have made that strategy backfire very badly on me had I gone negative about the incumbent. After all, I only chose to live here, and not here because of an accident of birth. Clearly a second-class citizen.
The flagrant disregard in the Tree Department, in apparent concert with other town departments, for the MGL definition of what the Tree Warden is supposed to do astounded many of my supporters, most of whom are people I don't even know (but I am meeting them now as they ask me on the street if I was the candidate for that post, and I am hearing more horror stories of how the Tree Warden has operated and will clearly continue to operate). So why not have the continued conflict of interest among a tight-knit set of people who got into office because of who they are instead of what they could demonstrate in competency? It's ingrained behavior, seemingly.
I tried to run a campaign based on offering public service in a town in which the local government is really a carcass upon which special interests feast and get what they can, and play ignorant about the laws of the state and the town as they smack their lips over their meal. Only 736 people "got it".