I will never understand the complete failure of people to understand that you can't pick and choose the parts of a recommendation you like and simply ignore the rest.
Last night I watched the absolute complete failure of any speaker to grasp an extremely simple concept.
In its design, a capital program serves as an effective resource allocation tool by enabling officials to direct scarce resources to prioritized needs. Established through bylaw or town charter, it would facilitate a strategic planning process built upon an explicit long-term vision and a multi-year capital plan that embodies clear standards and capital spending priorities. DOR Report at page 16. Emphasis supplied.
Our selectmen have decided we are going to have a capital improvement committee, appointed by our selectmen. What our selectmen don't seem to grasp, nor the people who work for them, is that they don't have the authority to force anyone other than those under their jurisdiction to do anything.
What our selectmen and those who work for them do not understand is that this should be a committee independent of our selectmen and those who work for them. It should be a committee with authority to deal on a town wide basis, and the procedures should have the effect of law town wide.
How does one miss that little statement "Established through bylaw or town charter"?
Selectmen Espindola had it right, yet he just rolls over and plays dead at the first suggestion otherwise.
Do you need Town Meeting approval to form any selectmen's committee. No you don't.
Do you need Town Meeting approval for a committee to have legal oversight over all town capital items. You most assuredly do.
Power grab. I should say an attempt at it.
While we are on the issue of ignoring what's in the report, how does one ignore the statement "We recommend that selectmen and the finance committee establish written guidelines for funding and appropriating from free cash and stabilization reserves". DOR Report at page 16. Emphasis supplied.
I watched the meeting last night, heard the discussion on the draft policy being submitted to the selectmen dealing with this matter, haven't heard boo about the finance committee involvement, indeed involvement by anyone other than the town's executive secretary.
By the way, when you hear the self-imposed recommendation for the amount of that fund, turn to page 17 of the DOR report: "A stabilization fund policy should identify target levels in a total dollar amount or as a percentage of the total budget. Three-to-five percent of the budget is the recommended range by credit rating agencies".
I am beginning to lose all hope that there is any realistic change coming down the road. What I am seeing is an attempt to rule by directive, based on no reasonable or rational policy. What we are going to get is no real thought out plan based on a team effort. We are going to see policy cut and pasted from other town's which fit a personal agenda.
Problems don't get dealt with, they get shuffled. We don't do policy development, we are hand down edicts. We don't communicate, we issue commands. We don't hold discussions, we hold dog and pony shows to hammer home personal agendas (Admittedly those can be pretty entertaining when the performers don't follow the script. Those are the ones worth going to.).
Early betting line on selectmen proposals for town government changes at town meeting: slim and none.
Why? Just wait until you see the proposals and it should be self-evident.
Truth be told, as a resident of the Town of Fairhaven, I have gone from hoping that we could transition into change using the DOR report as a well thought out road map, to realizing no one in charge can read the map, or worse yet is altering the course for their own convenience.
We are lost, and those in charge of setting the course to get to the right destination simply can't read the map.
John, As you know, the town's people had an opportunity last spring and summer to get the signatures to propose the establishment of a charter commission for a town vote. There just was not enough interest in doing this. There were meetings, there was publicity, and only a small group of people interested. It didn't develop because there was not a real ground swell of support behind it. To not get out in front of the report was most likely a missed opportunity. I don't mean to generalize but on the whole, people in this town and many towns like it throughout this region just do not like change or anything different from their zone of comfort.
ReplyDeleteMatt and Dawn:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that the path our town is on to make significant changes to our government structure is overdue and needed. I believe that fully evaluating these changes requires a thorough process to explore all the options and find those that fit our community's needs best. Creating a formal charter commission would take getting over 2,000 signatures in advance of an annual election, which we won't have time to do this year. But a charter commission is not the only way to do this. We can also have Town Meeting approve the formation of a government study committee to accomplish the same goals. A TM article could be drafted to establish the goals of the process, the proposed committee membership (perhaps a representative from current boards along with at-large members from the community) and their method of appointment. The government study committee would take the necessary time to do a thorough review of our government, utilize the procedures and workflows used successfully by other towns and present a group of recommendations to be placed before the voters. While many of the recommendations made by the DOR look reasonable and achievable, I firmly believe that only a diverse, unbiased committee performing a comprehensive study is the best way to get this done. While some recommendations (such as moving toward a strong town manager concept) can and should be started now, I don't believe we should be moving forward with such broad and complex changes based only on our selectboard's recommendation alone. We need to approach this the right way. I plan on speaking with the DOR and our town leaders soon to get clarification on the government study process and I'd be happy to lead the effort to get it started.
Phil Washko
The real question is, how does the town establish "a diverse, unbiased committee"?
ReplyDeleteWould a study committee comprised of "representatives from current boards along with at-large members from the community" be diverse and unbiased?
That all depends on a) who appoints the at-large members and b) if the reps from current boards would bring a completely open mind to the process.
Your first question has indeed hit the nail on the head. I believe it's possible to gather "a diverse, unbiased committee." I think there are still some good, fair-minded people in this town. Exactly who they all are, I don't know.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main obstacles I see is an issue of trust. Some people we thought we could trust to make decisions in "the town's" best interest have instead made decisions to further agendas that are group specific.
Trust is a hard thing to get back once you've lost it.
Matt and Michelle:
ReplyDeleteI hear you and agree on the importance of making sure a committee has the most appropriate membership possible. My notion of including representatives from current boards was based on an assumption that you can't take a look at how our current government works unless you have the insight from those who are immersed in it now. The bad news there is that with their institutional knowledge they may also bring their agendas, egos and perhaps a natural resistance to change. Let's face it: we all have agendas, egos and some degree of resistance to change. That's human. The good news is that those members of the group are only that: members of a group and no more influence on the outcome than any other member of the group. Having the membership be appointed by any board would be innately biased, so the natural tendency would be have at-large appointments done by the Town Moderator. Perhaps we make the number of at-large appointments be equal to or greater than the number of officials. I don't know how you get more diverse or unbiased than that while still availing yourselves of the balance of practical insight and independent thought I think this process requires.
Phil Washko