A Chilly Sunday?

One of the more interesting things about doing the blog is the fact that people will offer a number of suggestions for future topics.  I also receive a decent amount of e-mail directly, rather than via comments, on topics which have been written about.

Both are perfectly fine with me.  I enjoy the comments either submitted through the blog or just as a personnel exchange.  I like to know what people are thinking about, what their opinions, concerns and observations are.  

I am not looking for everyone to agree with me.  I don't expect it. I do expect differing opinions.  Believe it or not, I enjoy them, at least those that are thought out and based on facts rather than just attack mode.

Someone asked me if I missed the article in yesterday's Standard Times about the upcoming Town Meeting.  I didn't miss it. I didn't see a need to address it at this point.  Still don't.  

Headlines to the contrary notwithstanding, road paving isn't going to be the hot topic. Certainly the same are important for those directly affected; and, it might form the center of the universe for some others, but in the relative scheme of things, not the "hot" topic.

As to Town Meeting itself, in my mind the key articles as previously noted in prior blogs are on the Special Town Meeting Warrant, being Articles 4, 5, 6 and 11.

The easiest one of the four, will be Article 5.  I don't like the language, but it isn't anything that is so offensive to one's sensibilities that it shouldn't necessarily pass. What bugs me the most I suppose  is while everything seems to be driven by the recommendations of the DOR report, this one completely ignores the report's recommendations.  

An obvious technical flaw which someone will eventually pick up, I assume, is once passed and effective what happens to the existing tax collector?

I am guessing the motion to be presented to Town Meeting will deal with that.

Article 6 deals with the make up of Fin Com and method of appointment.  Whether fin com stays at 13 or is reduced to 7 members isn't going to spell disaster for the Town.  You can make strong arguments for either number.  

The one year term for all members is not well thought out. That may be changed from what I have heard.  

Appointing all members at the same time, well again not well thought out.  

You do not want the potential for mass change on any committee based solely on who may be making an appointment at any given time.  

There are significant other reasons for staggering membership on committees, elected or appointed. If I have to go into the details, perhaps the significance is in my mind only.

Method of appointment as proposed has been addressed previously.  As previously acknowledged there are some communities that do in fact utilize the system  proposed.

The "triumvirate" (I have been loosely using the less than correct term "trifecta" I know) proposed is not something I personally would support.

Some may feel politics could come into play with the moderator being the sole appointing authority.  I see it as being just as much in play, if not more so, with a three member appointing authority made up of three separate and distinct "entities".

Perhaps I have too devious a mind.  

Also, I just simply do not believe that the chair of any committee should be involved in picking the entire membership of the committee (or any member for that matter).  Neither do I feel by being chair one gets an automatic bye in the first round, nor should the chair get an automatic seat in succeeding years by managing to garner the votes to be chair.

Anyone besides me see the real potential for politics motivating picks in that instance?

Don't get me wrong.  I understand the reasoning behind the suggested changes. I have been around long enough to see the matters addressed in the report play out over the years.  I have also been around long enough to understand that the present proposal, or even the DOR proposal will not eliminate those scenarios from playing out over time.

Any system is only as good and as strong as the people in place at any given point of time.

Anyhow, despite all of the above, whatever the outcome, the true hot topic should Article 4.  Not sure that it will.  If it isn't, it won't be for all the wrong reasons.

More on that another day.

The several zoning articles will generate debate.  As heated as the debate may get on those articles, and as important as the articles are, the same could flare up to be the true hot topics.

Of course hot depends on one tolerance for heat.

Time will tell; and, time is something I am out of at the moment.

Be safe.