Pages

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Today's jumble

Well I didn't get a chance to watch the selectmen's meeting Monday night, nor last night, and I don't have enough time this A.M. to view the recording.  The local daily had a story about the treasurer/tax collector discussion in yesterday's paper, but nothing else it seems.  

I don't want to comment too much on that story either.  Often, stories have a way of altering much of what transpires.  No, I am not taking about misquotes or bad facts.  It is just that seeing the actual meeting gives one a much better perspective.

What I don't see reported is any decision on the matter.  Hopefully there was one.  Will have to find time to catch the meeting I guess.

Certainly, if Town Meeting action is needed to combine the positions that puts a bump in the road (note a bump, not a brick wall). Again not wanting to get to far ahead of the matter, and not knowing the particulars of the discussion, I will suffice it to say that it is not an insurmountable problem.  Nor one that  should require any gut wrenching debate.  

Set out the parameters.  Make known the intention and the the subject to.  Understand that if TM doesn't go along with it you need to structure the position in such a fashion that you don't end up promising the moon via compensation in the event the matter doesn't pass TM.  Reasonable goals with reasonable expectations.

More on that perhaps once I see the tape.

Less than a week before Christmas.  The New Year right after that.  What will 2013 bring?  Will we all start the year with a plunge?  No, not into the icy waters (although knock your shocks off if that is your thing), but over a fiscal cliff.  Don't think so.  Too much too loose politically by both sides.

Will be see yet another U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts?  Very likely, assuming there isn't another move to keep an interim appointment out of the hands of the voters.

Will we see actual change here in Fairhaven?  Most probably, but definitely most hopefully, and certainly most needed.

Hiring a treasurer aside, a concerted effort needs to be made to delve into the town administrator proposal.  Quickly, but with a sincere effort, we have to deal with this recommendation.  Much of what is in the DOR report is tethered to this.  If we as a town do not want a town manager, then it means we have to pay particular attention to many of the other recommendations within the report.

The primary key is going to be a willingness of the present Board of Selectmen to support such a change. Without the support of at least two of them, enough roadblocks can be put in place to seriously hamper, if not out right prevent, such a proposal.

Of course we always have to answer the question of whether it is needed.  I believe it is.  Others have expressed an opinion to the contrary.  It has been suggested to me that instead of changing to a Town Manager/Administrator (the same thing actually), we should expand the Board of Selectmen to 5.  When asked how that solves anything, the answer is it gives people broader representation.  A true statement, but I fail to see how it solves any problems.

I do get the broader representation argument, and could support the concept.  But it would have to follow a town manager/administrator and the role of the Board would have to be along the lines suggested in the report.  Otherwise we simply expand the cast of characters in our fractured fairy tale.

As an aside, and not meaning to pick on any other community, but as an observation, looking at surrounding communities that do have five member boards of selectmen, one can easily argue that the same does not significantly "improve" the representation, and the cynic might even argue that from an observational point of view, it creates more division.

Newspaper editorials and opinion pieces to the contrary, the fact that the town still only has three selectmen is and should be a matter of town preference.  Fairhaven's population has remained flat for decades, and using the 1970 census vs. the 2010 census has decreased.  Would more eyes in an oversight capacity be good, one can certainly make that argument.  The simple fact that we are in 2012 have still only have a three member board is however irrelevant.

The same premise applies to all the recommendations in the DOR report.  The simple fact that we do things differently than other communities is not in and of itself a compelling reason to change.  It is however a very good reason to look at what we do, and what is done elsewhere to see if we can do it better.  The report itself recognizes this.  Indeed the recommendations are based on observations made here, and recommendations were made based on what is done and works elsewhere.

Again, we need to seriously look at and study the report.

What has changed since 1970 and now, is the complexity of government.  To the point where day to day operations cannot wait one bi-weekly decisions, or even weekly decisions.  There are two ways to deal with that.  Assign actual decision making power on day to day matters to a member of the board (or divide up sections), or give the power to to an administrator.

Some may argue for the first option.  I could spend hours arguing against it, as I also could arguing in support of the second.  The point is that argument/discussion needs to take place and an option or even options presented to the Town.

Enough said on that at this point.  Moving on ...

Seems no one is happy with the settlement being proposed between EPA and AVX.  The record $366 million.  The proposed settlement and comments will now be reviewed by a federal judge.  To me, the issue of whether the settlement is fair, so take into account something more than the sole fact that AVX seems to be the last party standing with any money.  But hey, what can I say, I am a radical fiscal conservative who is a stooge for the wealthy and big business.

While I am at it, hopefully this time around, all the money goes to actual clean-up first, not restoration projects, hurricane barrier walks.  Heaven forbid we actually clean up the mess before we start spending clean up money for other things.

Moving on again ...

Someone actually asked me the other day if there were any plans in Fairhaven to raise the selectmen's salary.  It was suggested since New Bedford's council received such a big raise, perhaps we ought to consider increase the salary for selectmen.

Now, while I am not opposed to an occasional COLA, someone has to define for me exactly what the rationale is behind any significant raise.  We should pay what the job is worth is often said.

The higher the pay, the more likely the career politician aspect, the more likely the true need for term limits.  No elected office, and I mean none, should be salaried based on "what it is worth".  If you try to do that, any elected President of this Country is underpaid by at least $20 million, and you would probably have to triple the selectmen's salary.

I realize some may find any suggestion that we elect to many people to too many positions to be counter to the proposition that the more representation the better.  The will of the people.  I get that.  What has been lost sight of in this country is that an elected office was and should be looked upon as a public service.  It shouldn't be viewed as a job.  The compensation level should be adequate to meet certain levels, it should never be set to be competitive to full time employment, or even a decent paying part-time job.

I always have a problem with the argument I am not being paid enough for the office I chose to run for and that no one makes me seek re-election to.  You can argue all you want about an individual or individuals in office being worth it.  Will those who eventually succeed them also be worth it?  While better pay for most employee positions will normally result in a higher caliber and qualified applicant pool, it does not equate to such in any elected position.

Yes periodically, every paid positions should be looked at, even elected ones.  COLAs or even actual increase might be warranted, but the criteria should not be the standard one uses elsewhere in the employment market, be it the private or the public sector.

Just a thought.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Prior to posting a comment, please review "Comment Rules" page.