I need to do a bit on the "comment" policy for the blog. I pretty much give people wide latitude as far as trying to stay on topic. I actually received two comments that haven't been moderated on the piece "Clear sailing in stormy seas" published Thursday. I won't be positing them. Both were anonymous and since each seemed to be directly related to the other, I assume from the same source.
One was a question about a specific not for profit group, which then went on to list the information from the Sec. of State's website about the corporation, including a list of officers and directors. I didn't considered it to to on point to the article and saw no purpose (for me) to the list. The second e-mail consisted of several questions related to the group which was subject to the first e-mail. The same were not related to the blog post.
Again, anyone wishing to discuss the issues raised in the blog is free to do so. When you go so far off topic that even I have a hard time connecting the relevance to the piece, I am not publishing it.
I may be way off, but I am guessing both e-mails were an attempt to take a shot at a candidate. Why they couldn't figure out a way to do that within the blog piece discussion is beyond me?
Anyway, just a rather long reminder to stay on topic.
By the way, in answer to the question raised in the first email, if you found the existence of that group I am pretty sure you have to know what it "is". In answer to the questions raised in the second e-mail, don't know and don't know, but I am pretty sure you actually do.
Most of you must be scratching your heads wondering what the heck is this all about. Not quite sure myself, it is just one of those days.
Selectmen are meeting this Monday (tonight). I noticed one of the matters is to address the road work. I hear about roadwork a great deal. I am the first one to admit we need to try to spend more on roads. The fact I can admit that doesn't solve the problem of having the money to in fact spend more on roads.
Can we allocate more money to roads? Absolutely, if you are willing to shift money from other budgets and articles. Everything has to be weighed and judged based on need, best bang for the buck and ability to pay.
One certainly likes to have the opinion of elected officials in making determinations on such matters. Just as one wants to accommodate the wishes of their various constituents. Might be nice to actually judge the roads on actually condition, volume of use, and what makes the most sense.
Once upon a time, there was a policy to spread the wealth. Every precinct would see a road. A fantastic and politically correct procedure, but a very flawed one in hindsight. Being upfront, I would have to admit that I was an adherent to that policy for a time.
The revenue that presently exists no longer allows for this policy to continue, unless one does in fact shift allocations. In addition to being unable to afford to do one road in each of the six precincts, we cannot afford to simply do a road based upon the fact it is unpaved, or in a certain precinct or area hasn't had roadwork done in awhile.
There seems to be various policies on how people decide what roads should have priority.
In the end, the only one that counts is the collective wisdom of Town Meeting.
Shifting gears, specifically heading into reverse one week.
I finally started watching last weeks meeting for the selectmen. I had not advanced too far from my sleep point, when I found myself hitting the back button. Bowcock, the incumbent chair, offers his opinion on why the criticism by one individual against an eight member finance committee was not well thought out.
Folks, this is once again one of those things you just simply cannot make up. It starts a little earlier than 2 hrs. 38 minutes in, however the mind boggling math begins there.
I submit that before one tries to criticize the thought process of another, the one should seriously analyze his argument. The Chair of the Board used the 100 member U.S. Senate as an example of why an 8 member finance committee could work.
The U.S. Senate consist of 100 members. It has always consisted of an even number of members. The Vice-President in the event of a tie is authorized by the Constitution to cast the deciding vote. With the Vice-President's vote, that provides for an odd number of votes.
Bowcock specifically used the analogy of a 4 - 4 vote. He specifically stated the chair would be in the position to cast the deciding vote in a tie. So, on an eight member committee, are we giving the chair two votes? Or are you going to propose a V.P. like position for some individual to sit and cast the tie breaker?
Seriously, tell me how an 8 member committee breaks a tie, if 8 members show up and the vote ends 4 - 4?
If your intent is to create local gridlock, make it an even number, by all means. Save me the present examples of even numbers on committees. I will give you some history on just where that has caused serious issues in the past.
Again, using the U.S. Senate as an example, if every elected senator shows up and votes, and the vote is 50 - 50. The vote cast by the Vice-president is the 101st vote. An odd number.
By the centuries old senate rules by the way, the V.P. doesn't cast a "no" vote in a tie. A tie vote, in most civilized bodies, equals a "no" vote on the matter.
The V.P. only votes in the event of a tie. A tie occurs only with an even number voting in the first instance. His vote makes the odd numbered tie breaker.
Someone out there want to take a guess why the founding fathers inserted the provision about the V.P. casting the deciding vote in an elected body comprised of an even number?
You think they might have wanted to provide for an odd number, realizing the chaos that even numbers in voting bodies can cause?
By the way, I know I was the commentator at a meeting who pointed out the issue on the number 8 with the DOR reps. One DOR member who happens to be a town moderator, with an even number on the finance committee he appoints, also was a bit critical of an even number.
To our Selectboard chair, think this through okay. First actually look at the law and rules as to when the V.P. vote can be cast. Then do the math. When the presiding officer of the senate breaks the tie, he is the odd vote, i.e. he comprises an odd number.
For the chairperson of a local committee to break a tie, the eventual total with his vote has to be an odd number voting. Tie vote = even number of votes. Tie breaker vote = odd number of votes.
Seriously, not really a hard thought process to grasp.
I still have about an hour to view of that meeting. I am told there are some tidbits worth watching, so I will get to it.
That's it for today. Be safe.
Shifting gears, specifically heading into reverse one week.
I finally started watching last weeks meeting for the selectmen. I had not advanced too far from my sleep point, when I found myself hitting the back button. Bowcock, the incumbent chair, offers his opinion on why the criticism by one individual against an eight member finance committee was not well thought out.
Folks, this is once again one of those things you just simply cannot make up. It starts a little earlier than 2 hrs. 38 minutes in, however the mind boggling math begins there.
I submit that before one tries to criticize the thought process of another, the one should seriously analyze his argument. The Chair of the Board used the 100 member U.S. Senate as an example of why an 8 member finance committee could work.
The U.S. Senate consist of 100 members. It has always consisted of an even number of members. The Vice-President in the event of a tie is authorized by the Constitution to cast the deciding vote. With the Vice-President's vote, that provides for an odd number of votes.
Bowcock specifically used the analogy of a 4 - 4 vote. He specifically stated the chair would be in the position to cast the deciding vote in a tie. So, on an eight member committee, are we giving the chair two votes? Or are you going to propose a V.P. like position for some individual to sit and cast the tie breaker?
Seriously, tell me how an 8 member committee breaks a tie, if 8 members show up and the vote ends 4 - 4?
If your intent is to create local gridlock, make it an even number, by all means. Save me the present examples of even numbers on committees. I will give you some history on just where that has caused serious issues in the past.
Again, using the U.S. Senate as an example, if every elected senator shows up and votes, and the vote is 50 - 50. The vote cast by the Vice-president is the 101st vote. An odd number.
By the centuries old senate rules by the way, the V.P. doesn't cast a "no" vote in a tie. A tie vote, in most civilized bodies, equals a "no" vote on the matter.
The V.P. only votes in the event of a tie. A tie occurs only with an even number voting in the first instance. His vote makes the odd numbered tie breaker.
Someone out there want to take a guess why the founding fathers inserted the provision about the V.P. casting the deciding vote in an elected body comprised of an even number?
You think they might have wanted to provide for an odd number, realizing the chaos that even numbers in voting bodies can cause?
By the way, I know I was the commentator at a meeting who pointed out the issue on the number 8 with the DOR reps. One DOR member who happens to be a town moderator, with an even number on the finance committee he appoints, also was a bit critical of an even number.
To our Selectboard chair, think this through okay. First actually look at the law and rules as to when the V.P. vote can be cast. Then do the math. When the presiding officer of the senate breaks the tie, he is the odd vote, i.e. he comprises an odd number.
For the chairperson of a local committee to break a tie, the eventual total with his vote has to be an odd number voting. Tie vote = even number of votes. Tie breaker vote = odd number of votes.
Seriously, not really a hard thought process to grasp.
I still have about an hour to view of that meeting. I am told there are some tidbits worth watching, so I will get to it.
That's it for today. Be safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Prior to posting a comment, please review "Comment Rules" page.