I have been giving some thought to starting a page listing what I see as conflicts of interest. After all, it seemed to be a very hot topic before the election, remains a topic based on some of the town meeting articles, and after just one recent hearing, it seems maybe we in fact ought to give some consideration to the proposed ethics committee.
Believe it or not, I am being a bit facetious. Yet the thought has nonetheless prompted me to keep a log.
In case you couldn't guess, I am still bothered by some of the things that transpired at the selectmen's meeting Monday night on the tourism department issue. It seems to me a bit of a contradiction that people running on platforms of open, fair, transparent government; people advocating leaving politics out of decisions; people backed by those who went to great lengths to try and tarnish the "ethics" of others; at essentially the very first kick at the can, managed to actually fall into the very same practices complained of. I would go so far as to say fell even deeper than anything they tried to allege.
The biggest disappointment would be if they knew what they were doing crossed the very same line that has been complained of. The second biggest disappointment, and a very close second by the way, especially after everything said against others, would be the fact that they actually didn't know. Either way, it is a big disappointment.
Even with that being said, the fact the same occurred is not the end of the world in my mind. People have and will make mistakes. People will have and have had to deal with it.
What really irks me is that fact that there was even any issue at all.
What really irks me is that fact that there was even any issue at all.
Not to worry, a resolution will be forthcoming. Another committee has been formed!
After all, apparently the opinion of the Historical Commission, the actual town entity charged with over sight of the building, which feels this is the right move must be wrong.
As an aside, the Historical Commission is not the same as the Historical Society.
But the people representing the town's interest can't know what they are doing can they, otherwise why would we need another town committee to essentially study the decision of a town committee.
Keep in mind that this is not a new proposal. Years ago the matter was raised. Specifically, why is the town paying rent to a third party when there was space available in town owned buildings. At the time the matter was initially raised there were the same objections. Improvements to the building were made. Further discussions occurred.
If you haven't guessed, I am doing a real slow burn over this issue. First of all, the whole debate makes no sense. The town's first obligation is to the town, no a not for profit organization. You want to throw the tourism department into some broom closet at town hall fine. The fact is we should not be paying rent when we can house this department in a town building.
A broom closet at town hall would make more sense than one at the academy building, which is one of the "compromises" being touted.
Secondly, the issue shouldn't be about whether or not this is okay with the "Society". It does not own the building, it is a private entity and is a guest in that town building, and whatever stretched argument someone will attempt to make that the services provided to the town exempt it from the anti-aid amendments will be just that, stretched.
The issue now isn't whether the Tourism Department goes into the Academy Building, it is whether the Historical Society has a legal right to remain there.
If our selectmen decide that the "Society" is to remain in that building, than our selectmen best dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s.
What really adds fuel to the fire for me though was the fact I seem to have been foolish enough to start buying into the "change" concept. Admittedly, my preferred candidates did not win. Yet I nonetheless accepted that fact, still accept it.
I wanted to believe in the long run however things would in fact change for the better. I still want that. This town needs that.
What it doesn't need is what transpired this past Monday night. If that is an example of what we can expect, I suppose I will need to lower my expectations.
After all, apparently the opinion of the Historical Commission, the actual town entity charged with over sight of the building, which feels this is the right move must be wrong.
As an aside, the Historical Commission is not the same as the Historical Society.
But the people representing the town's interest can't know what they are doing can they, otherwise why would we need another town committee to essentially study the decision of a town committee.
Keep in mind that this is not a new proposal. Years ago the matter was raised. Specifically, why is the town paying rent to a third party when there was space available in town owned buildings. At the time the matter was initially raised there were the same objections. Improvements to the building were made. Further discussions occurred.
If you haven't guessed, I am doing a real slow burn over this issue. First of all, the whole debate makes no sense. The town's first obligation is to the town, no a not for profit organization. You want to throw the tourism department into some broom closet at town hall fine. The fact is we should not be paying rent when we can house this department in a town building.
A broom closet at town hall would make more sense than one at the academy building, which is one of the "compromises" being touted.
Secondly, the issue shouldn't be about whether or not this is okay with the "Society". It does not own the building, it is a private entity and is a guest in that town building, and whatever stretched argument someone will attempt to make that the services provided to the town exempt it from the anti-aid amendments will be just that, stretched.
The issue now isn't whether the Tourism Department goes into the Academy Building, it is whether the Historical Society has a legal right to remain there.
If our selectmen decide that the "Society" is to remain in that building, than our selectmen best dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s.
What really adds fuel to the fire for me though was the fact I seem to have been foolish enough to start buying into the "change" concept. Admittedly, my preferred candidates did not win. Yet I nonetheless accepted that fact, still accept it.
I wanted to believe in the long run however things would in fact change for the better. I still want that. This town needs that.
What it doesn't need is what transpired this past Monday night. If that is an example of what we can expect, I suppose I will need to lower my expectations.
I am trying to understand John if your discussion is to happen at this Town Meeting. Are we trying to solve all these issues in 25 days or less under Article 4? Or are we limited to one or two line items for rent? Are we now having a much larger discussion on the future of the Department of Tourism, part time vs full time, leases, etc?
ReplyDeleteThe only issue to resolve under article 4 is whether there is a justifiable reason to continue to pay rent for a town department when there is space in a town owned building.
ReplyDeleteWhether others wish to share this space, or whether other issues need to be resolved is not, and was not a consideration in the recommendation under article 4.
I think in the near future, after giving proper reflection, the Selectmen will bring the parties together and out of that, a new sense of direction. Thanks to the Finance Committee for bringing the issue to the forefront.
DeleteI see a possibility of two or three figures for Tourism 23B at Town Meeting. Town Meeting cannot somehow direct where a future office may or may not be located, staying within the four corners of the Article 4 Warrant. We vote the requested or recommended service amounts and move on, probably with little discussion. Or we move multiple motions and discuss Academy Building, Historical Society, Historical Commission, Seaport Advisory Council, rents, nonprofits, etc. and then, much later move on. Midyear funding requests before the Finance Committee, for small improvements in moving a department is to be expected.
Why any discussion other than the amount of rent would be appropriate under the tourism budget is a bit beyond my understanding, however I am sure there are those who will be tempted to stray from the relevant matter.
DeleteIf the moderator wishes to allow it, I am more than happy to go down any path people want to travel.
Whatever may or may not happen at mid-year is a midyear problem. As far as what people may expect, well I always enjoy hearing about expectations. I expect by mid-year a great many things will be resolved.
John, I'm sure you have the amount for rents of the Seaport Advisory Council on the second floor, west room and the Community Nurse for their multiple spaces at town hall? Can you post them, because it would not be an easy thing to obtain at Town Hall? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThe only difficulty in obtaining the information Wayne, would be the inability to ask.
DeleteI have addressed the issue of both entities in the past in other public forums and in discussions I have had.
Two wrongs still don't make a third one right.