Which track to take?

Tired of the election news?  Tired of the discussion?  Perhaps a little relief today in the way of staying off that topic.

Maybe something regional to start with and they a more local track?

Seems the SouthCoast rail remains on the same track it has been on for decades.  The local house delegation is touting the amendments they managed to get put into the transportation bill passed by the House as some kind of victory.  

To date the rail for the SouthCoast has been a pipe dream.  So long as it is tied into tax increases of the proportion floated by the Governor, it will remain a pipe dream.  What little victory the House members seem quick to claim, isn't going to change that fact.

If going from "it might happen" to "it definitely might happen" is your idea of a victory, perhaps you shouldn't get too upset when the newspaper turns on you.

If this project is still on track, it is a track on a very slow train going nowhere.

Speaking about the potential of going nowhere ...

Let's focus on the STM article for a Town Administrator.  Should it happen?

Absolutely, in my opinion.  Whether it will is going to be dependent on the exact proposal.

There is no doubt in my mind that, if not this year, at some point in the near future this town will make the move to a town administrator.

There is little doubt in my mind that any study committee will reach such a conclusion. 

There is also no doubt in my mind that at that point, the elected Board of Public Works will be gone.

We have two separate, elected entities each responsible for significant oversight of budgetary matters.  Each the master of its own jurisdictions, to an extent.  One of which though is subservient to another on a number of significant maters and dependent on the other for a number of other matters.

Some of that subservience and dependency is by statute, code and special act; some of it is voluntary; and, some of it is self-imposed or adversely imposed, but imposed nonetheless.

History has shown, on numerous occasions that the situation is not one of equal title.

We have, had have, and will continue to have dueling boards.  Whatever real or imagined "kum by yah" state might exist presently, isn't going to last too long.   It will in fact last only until such time as the next disagreement on an issue.

These boards have been at loggerheads for decades, and will continue to be.  

The simple fact is the system, as is, creates the reality.  

Add to the only reality that should matter the fact that elected boards and committees are by nature extremely protective of their respective turf.  In nearly twenty years of "active" involvement of some kind, the one certainty I have learned is that everyone is willing to work together so long as the suffering or decisions affect someone else.

Indeed the fist cry of when any elected board's budget request is cut, decision is questioned or disagreed with, or their turf is even perceived to be invaded, is it's our decision, we were elected.

That is followed closely by: mind your own business, we are elected, you have no right, we are elected, it is our job, we are elected, and on and on.

What gets lost all too often is the simple fact there is an absolute right to question and disagree and it is every person's business to do so when there is an issue.  

The system is in fact set up with a series of checks and balances.

Simply put, if a decision of an elected board should be beyond question, we could simply do away with the whole budget process and any town meeting votes.  

Heck, we wouldn't even need to discuss the number of finance committee members.  After all there are very few matters which are submitted to town meeting which aren't initiated or supported by an elected board.  

No one is infallible   That is in fact why you have a finance committee; and, it is also why the finance committee is only a recommending body; and, it is exactly why decisions and recommendations by everyone in the process must be ratified and affirmed by Town Meeting.

If one assumes they are elected by the people and that gives them "top dog" status, they forget that under the system we operate, if the integrity of the system is to be maintained, the true "top dog" is Town Meeting on issues that must go before it for approval.

I have, I believe, digressed just a bit here.

The only competent argument I have heard presented to date for continued existence of the BPW is what I call the "constituent service" argument.

I do not dismiss that argument out of hand.  

I can understand it and agree with it to a point.  

If one removes that argument though, I really cannot not see any other legitimate need for it. 

What gets lost is the fact the constituents will still have elected officials to complain to or seek some redress from, i.e. the Board of Selectmen.  

Assuming the members of the Board stick to the game plan, they should have ample time to deal with the added constituent service.

The position of Town Administrator does not create absolute rule.  It does not allow for one person to establish policy.  It does not do away with Selectmen involvement, and it doesn't leave citizens without recourse other than through appointed officials.

You may think that isn't enough, and I can certainly understand that.  Quite frankly, in 20 years I have seen too much constituent service and not enough service to one's constituency.   

For me, in my opinion, weighing the pluses and minuses and based on what are legitimate checks and balances and the avenues of redress which would exist, and assessing the long term interests of the Town, I am firmly supportive of the concept of a Town Administrator and abolishing the elected BPW.

Whether the actual proposed plan at this STM will get that support again must what for the exact details.  Until then, I suppose we have to buy an open ended ticket.