Talk and More Talk

I was going to take today off.  Might have too, if I had actually looked at the Monday's Selectmen's Meeting Agenda last night.  That would have motivated me to do the piece in advance.  

Three of eight discussion items listed can be directly tied into the never ending Tourism Department move, or rather the raging war to keep it out of the Academy Building.  

One can try to argue that is not so, however, it would be like saying that water is only a little wet.

The town has received a structural engineering proposal for the Academy Building floor load.  I am tempted to say take the money and run with this one, all $960.00.  If the second floor is safe and sound, (haven't heard one peep from anyone up to this point that it might not be), should be no reason not to cram the free loading historical society onto the second floor, which we can now do with confidence that it is safe enough to continue to carry that extra burden for free.

If it is not safe, than what better reason to toss the all ready burdensome entity out of the building completely.  

If anyone thinks the engineering study is a way to save the historical society's continued free occupation of the building, well go for it.  

Another item is glaring not for its inclusion, but for what else has not been included.  The expiring contract for the Community Nurses use of facilities at Town Hall is up for discussion.  Every contract looking to be renewed should in fact be reviewed.  No problem with that.

If you are going to review the ones you have, shouldn't you be discussing the ones you don't?  Despite the long, way too long, discussion about the historical society's use of the academy building, I see nothing about discussing the terms for its continued unlawful occupation.

Step lightly on this one gentlemen.  Very, very lightly.  Seems someone has laid out a minefield without bothering to map out where the mines have been placed.

Then there is the handicap access report on both the Town Hall and Academy Building.  Whatever access problems exist to run a tourism department, exist for the historical society.  

Can you hear the explosion?

Speaking simply as one resident of the Town, and trying to find the silver lining in all of this, I am extremely optimistic about the creativity and effort being put into such an unsubstantial matter on behalf of a private group in need of storage space to open a "museum" once a week to the public, for three hours, during the summer time.

Can you imagine what could be done if efforts were directed toward real town problems.  The ones we have.  The ones going on.  

If this issue has become a mountain made out of a mole hill, ask yourself why.  

The only remotely legitimate reason I have heard is that the Historical Society needs all the room.  Well based on what I have found out, it only really needed the room after it found it tourism would be coming.

You want that building, than make a legitimate proposal to continue to have it.  If the terms of the Community Nurse agreement are subject for discussion, why not actually getting an agreement from the Historical Society?

I am sick and tired of this town laying down and playing dead every time somebody raises the specter of history.  

There are things most definitely worth preserving in this town.  The Academy Building itself is one of them.  

But it is a town building to be utilized for the benefit of the town, not for the privately run Fairhaven Historical Society.  Not for the benefit of the limited number of people with a selectman's private telephone number.  

This whole thing continues to escalate to the point of absolute absurdity.  Had it been decided that tourism move to the academy building, life would have gone on.  That simple.

We are talking about a proposal that has been in the making for a very long time.  A proposal which has in fact over the years been a significant reason leading to funds being expended (town funds) for improvements and support of the academy building.  A proposal which has the support of the Tourism director, the Town Historical Commission which is suppose to have oversight of the building, and seemingly every town official, but for two Selectmen.

But no.  A private group decided it is its building.  It decided the it was unfair of the town to ask it to share the building it pays no rent for, contributes nothing financially to.  The simple fact that it, and those on the board backing it, seemed clueless about the fact its continued occupancy and use of town assets, not to mention the lack of paying its fair fair of the bills, was in violation of certain pesky provisions of the law should be a pretty good indication of part of the underlying problem here.

Old records are dug through, a proclamation found, while other less favorable documents seemed to have been undiscovered.  Well as as been said before, the Historical society has, in my opinion, completely and utterly failed to live up to its share of the explicit and implied bargain.  Even if you assume the bargain was a "contract", it expired the year after it was issued.  

We as a town, as do many communities tend to turn a blind eye as to what gets done in some instances.  But when somebody throws mud in your face, you have no choice but to wipe the mud away, or walk straight into that proverbial brick wall.

This whole thing has morphed into finding a reason to keep tourism out of the academy building.  

Does anyone realize that some of the issues being raised right now would be more applicable to why the historical society shouldn't be in that building at all?

Now I realize I have a tendency to get more information than the average person.  Most readers of this blog will understand why that is. 

The time and effort being put into this problem is beyond understanding.  The rationale as to why the Historical Society gets to call the shots is not known. 

You are probably as sick from reading about this as I am from writing about it.  But this foolish matter exposes just what is so very wrong no matter who sits in what chair.

We have an individual selectman going out and requesting proposals for engineering services.  We have private groups and citizens making phone calls to protect the status quo for a situation that should not exist.  We are going to look at an expiring agreement, while there seems to have been no effort to negotiate one that should exist, or even start to.  

People want open and transparent government.  Fine.  Maybe I need to check whether someone tinted my glasses, because I just cannot see it on this issue.

Do not talk to me about where tourism belongs from this point forward without explaining to me in detail the reasons the Historical Society gets to remain in that building, without a written agreement which meets the requirements.

Don't go after another group simply to benefit the last mentioned one.  Because no matter how you sugar coat it, that is exactly what you are doing.

I heard one selectman lament about the cost to be incurred by moving tourism to the academy building.  

Has anybody looked at the costs to play musical chairs at town hall?