Historically speaking, it is all about who gets the perks

Are you as sick and tired of the historical society, Tourism Department and Historical Commission triangle as I am?

As old as the story gets, just when we thought we were done with it, it seems the plot line still has enough pull to drag us all back in (apologies to GFIII for the bad paraphrase).

The latest story on the matter in the August 9, 2012 edition of the Fairhaven Neighborhood News is the latest chapter of Fairhaven's own never ending story.  This time it is about a meeting of the Historical Commission (the Town Committee supposedly charged by our Selectmen with oversight of the Academy Building).

Hats off to the Commission members who aren't going to just sit and take it.  

The Commission, not the society, is the true steward for the Academy Building. Yet over the years we have allowed a mere occupant to commandeer an entire building for the purported purpose of running a museum that until recently the majority of residents didn't even know existed.

I am with the Commission member who wants to back up the truck and clear them out.

I for one am not opposed to the idea of a Fairhaven Museum, a real one.  You would think after twenty years you might have one too.  You would think in that time span if you were operating such a thing you would have taken steps to make it accessible to the extent possible.

You have to ask why the mandate for the ramp to allow tourism into the Academy Building.  If you have been willing to let the society run a "museum" without one, what has changed?

Don't get me wrong on that point by the way. If in fact there is a way to make the Academy Building ADA accessible, then we should do it, but I agree with the Historical Commission, do it right  if in fact it can be done (that doesn't equal a blank check by the way).

I am not advocating not doing it.  I am scratching mu head as to why it all of a sudden became an issue.I am wondering if it would even remain an issue if Tourism wasn't going to move there.

Enough of this.  The time for negotiations, supposed compromise, mediation is over.  It is our building, to do with as we, through our properly designated oversight committee, determine.  You made the attempt to deal with the society.  You dotted the "i"s and crossed those "t"s.

Now show them the door, be it the one to the second floor, or the one leading to the street.

Speaking of streets, we are finally seeing the light, or I should say lights, at the end of some of the roadwork in town.  The Bridge and Alden intersection is up and running.  Now all that remains is to get people to understand the green arrow concept and what them "curved" arrow only signs mean.

There have been some significant improvements in Fairhaven, traffic wise, recently.  Last big one needed, Bridge and Route 6.  

While we are on the concept of lights, what do you think about camera tickets for red lights.  I know it is a time honored tradition in Massachusetts to see how many red lights you can actually run before you get pulled over, but seriously, it is getting a bit out of hand.  

I have actually had someone behind me flip me off because I wasn't in the mood to play dodgems and actually stopped while the light was just yellow.  Not just turned yellow mind you, the all ready three cars through yellow.  Must have been a really important person on a mission too, because them seemed additionally upset by the fact that they had to interrupt there cell phone conversation to address my driving.

The whole issue of cameras is a touchy subject for some.  It is seen as an invasion of privacy.  A step closer to Big Brother.  Me, I don't buy it.  Whether you are being viewed by a camera while on a public street, or get caught running a red light, I don't see the invasion of privacy.  

Caught a letter in the S-T today.  It brought up an interesting point.  No, I am not talking about the 44% raise, that one is pretty obvious for most.   Health insurance and retirement benefits for elected officials.

How many 20 year career  politicians would there be if there were no health insurance benefits?  Should elected office be looked upon as a full time job? At certain levels I would have to reluctantly say yes. The President, V.P. even Senators and U.S. Reps.  Governors of States.  Mayors of cities, at least those with functions similar to New Bedford.  City Councilors, might be worth the debate over it.

On the town level, sorry but no elected official should be entitled to get on the plan.   I do add I can see that perk for the town clerk.  The person elected is expected to be there on a full time basis.

The retirement one is a no brainer for me too.  Now the old and new laws are a bit complex with this one,  and really no need to get into them from my perspective.  No elected official should be entitled to a pension or creditable service toward a pension based on holding an elected office.

Let them contribute to social security if you are inclined to not "penalize" them.  Might be the surest way to make sure something is done to keep that retirement net healthy.  

Can you imagine the brain power that would shift to making that fund healthy and solvent if the elected officials had to rely on it, rather than a public pension?

Just a thought ...