Okay, I would like to know who out there is actually reading the posts in the wee hours of the morning? I am starting this one at 5:00 A.M. and as I am prone to do, I check the stats first. Seems I am not the only early riser.
I usually start out scanning the e-editions of the papers. Of course today, the local morning daily isn't available online. One would think that a morning paper might do its servicing of the on line edition at a time other than in the morning. Must be one of those technical difficulty glitches.
Someone asked me if I am going to make the same offer to candidates that was made last year to post something on the blog. As succinctly an answer as possible, no I am not.
Why? Last year's attempt was not an overwhelming success. Additionally, the more I think about it, I don't want this turning into a bulletin board type dialogue. Besides, candidates have plenty of options to post elsewhere, and critics have just as many options to trash them.
I keep getting asked what I think about the DOR recommendations relative to the make up and appointment of the Finance Committee. I have personal opinions relative to the size of any committee. I have noted them before in prior blogs and in public.
What is the magic number for a fin com? Whatever Town Meeting decides. I have found communities with 15 member committees, i have also seen a lot of 7 and 9 member committees. It comes down to local preference.
Thirteen members can and in fact does work. The difficulty, historically, is the membership change. But that is a problem you can have with any size committee. If there is an true issue it is in fact with replacement of members.
Fairhaven seems unique in its method of appointment to the fin com. Two members from each precinct (not so unique), appointed by precinct chairs (very unique), with one member appointed by a vote of the chair of the Board of Selectmen, Fin Com and Town Moderator (a bit unusual).
As per the report:
The number and manner in which committee members are appointed falls outside common practice and does not lend itself to carrying out responsibilities effectively. From what we understand, it is difficult to get people to serve, some members are not active participants, and a high level of turnover exists. At the same time, we contend that the way in which members are appointed can build adversarial relationships in which special interest groups or regional agendas can control the committee.
I honestly can't agree with all of that. I think the "regional agenda" argument actually ignores the inherent appeal and probably the reason for having two members from each precinct appointed. Specifically by requiring two members from each precinct you prevent any one area of town from being "over" represented.
In fact, based on admittedly anecdotal evidence, the set-up was put in place back in the 1930s to make sure each area of town had representation on the committee, to make sure certain faction in town didn't dominate it.
The adversarial relationship argument is interesting. I suppose the fact you do have members representing precincts does create that potential, potentially pitting precincts against each other. I have seen it happen, but rarely and that was a number of years ago.
I have had the distinct pleasure and honor of serving under the appointment of chairs who have not attempted in any way shape or form to exert any pressure or influence over position or votes. I know of one or two examples, and again a number of years ago, when members where in fact not reappointed because of votes taken which were in opposition to the stance of the members appointing chair.
The fact is though, changing the appointment method from individual precincts to say the town moderator doesn't eliminate the political element. It just concentrates it.
While I honestly believe our present moderator would appointment people he felt best qualified, one cannot make a change based on who is in office at the time. Officials do in fact change. With new officials come new beliefs let us say. There is a local community recently that elected a new moderator, who was empowered to appoint fin com members. Significant change was made to the make-up of that committee.
One suggestion I have heard was having members appointed to the committee by various elected boards. One appointment from the Selectmen, one from BPW, one from the School Committee. I could not support that concept. That definitely has the potential for puppet appointments.
If the number stays at thirteen, I think the only things I would change would be first the method of appointment of the at large member. I would give that appointment solely to the moderator. Quite frankly I don't see where the chair of the finance committee should in fact have a vote in the matter.
The other thing I would change is method of appointment language. You would be amazed at how many people in fact do not realize the decision rest in the precinct chair. The fact he or she may put it to a vote of the members is irrelevant. The vote is solely a recommendation which when done is usually followed.
But if that is how someone wants to exercise their authority I don't have a problem with it. Where I do have a problem is when a vacancy occurs. In the absence of a precinct chair, the vacancy can exist for years ( and has).
How does this happen you ask? The precinct chair resigns, dies, moves out of town. At the next precinct meeting there isn't a quorum. No chair can be elected. Without a chair, no fin com member is appointed. If the issue is whether an existing member is reappointed, the law provides that an appointed member continues to serve until replaced or resignation or ineligibility to continue to serve.
When a member has resigned or becomes ineligible, then there is a problem. Simple enough to fix to be honest. Just needs a provision relative to alternate appointment for the unexpired term in the event the chair doesn't act within a certain time period.
As far as the "effective" carrying out of responsibilities, well I don't see how method of appointment derails that. Certainly there is always room for improvement. that can be and would be best accomplished by giving the committee some actual authority over the budget process as to preparation, presentation and information that must be supplied.
Just some rambling thoughts on the matter. In the end, any committee, elected or appointed by any method, is only as effective and good as the people who serve.
Okay 6:30 A.M. and after feeding the animals, several cups of coffee and taking care of other necessary business, I am about ready to wrap up. Somewhere between the start time and now, the local daily came on line. No real time to leaf through it, although the lawsuit judgment against a local union in Westport is interesting. One has to wonder where a local will get the money to pay a judgment with interest in excess of $500,000.00. Can you say dues increase?
Anyway that is enough weekend wandering thoughts, at least for today. Enjoy the day and be safe.
The Town of Plymouth has 15 Finance Committee members for five precincts. They have 50,000 residents.
ReplyDeleteSince there are a few who may remember, would a few local precinct meetings, by the Finance Committee (not another darn town meeting), be worth looking at. I remember much more debate, by quorums, about only items needing clarification, which can be better, but not always. Like to know if you have a current position on that form?
All major oversight of town government, appointed by a few at the top. The “pyramid” effect as one Fairhaven selectmen coined it. I hope Fairhaven merely ends up with a “strong” CEO and not a “pharaoh”. Pharaohs, admirals and queens; It seems the direction of “modern” town government is heading to more appointed authority and less elected, as in biblical days from past. More “executive orders” and less discussion. Since anyone can seek to get elected, with no special documented skills, to do the appointing of the ones with the documented skills, I wonder if we indeed improve our lives.
But it is perfectly clear to me now; we need more efficiency; move the wheels faster when it makes perfect sense to do so. “More and Better” as I like to call it on the job!
Stop the endless indecision of late. Minutes of meetings to discuss dates to hold future meetings to clarify minutes which are tabled, but contain little decision is a waste of good recording secretarial skills at premium dollars.