I caught some of the selectmen's meeting. When the assessor's office was being discussed. If this is an example of how things are going to go over the next year we are in deep, deep trouble.
Let's talk about anything that remotely changes the makeup. We just spent months spinning our wheels on reorganizing structure. Presumably we are going to be spending a whole lot more effort.
Additionally, I know the issues in the background aren't new. You might ask what issues? A fair question, because all we seem to get at the meetings are cryptic references. References to deal with department issues after the May Town Meeting. References in past meetings about new positions. References about ideas and such things.
Shouldn't there have been some light going off months ago when the employee shift was allowed? Shouldn't there have been some inkling that someone wanted something to be done months ago?
Not sure what the issues will be that become public. I am sure of one thing. There is a budget in place, and someone better have some very, very creative thought process as to an explanation as to why there should be any alterations to the budget, or the department for that matter.
This is another example of why a hierarchy in structure and administrative authority for day to day operations needs to be centralized. The meeting segment was yet another example of why selectmen should not be involved in these things.
Individual selectmen shouldn't become entangled in these matters. Indeed I am going to guess part of the problem and the timing and what not is a direct result of the policy of assigning individual selectmen to deal and act as liaisons with individual departments.
For what it is worth, and it may not be worth much to some, but Selectman Haworth hit the nail squarely on the head. You cannot keep studying things to death.
Adding another 2 cents to the matter, this isn't an issue that merits/warrants extended debate at this point in time. A new person is not reason enough, not remotely reason enough, to justify any change in operations. Whatever problems in operations that exist should have been brought to the table publicly a very long time ago.
It is amazing how some issues seem to get dealt with at the snap of the fingers (i.e. review and approval of contracts and letters at a meeting), and some languish (too often usually issues that need to be decided quickly). Either way, some other parties' time table shouldn't be your timetable.
NOTE: Yesterday's blog appeared to be of some interest. A bunch of page views. Published comments - nine. Those note published - one. Folks, the minute you make your comment personal against another commentator, odds are your comment won't be published. Very, very few exceptions to this.
You want to take a shot at me, I usually will let it slide. I usually enjoy the opportunity to shoot back so I don't mind. If you direct your comments at an individual, and the comments are reasonably related to the issue, and within the "Town Meeting" standard, that is fine. If you have comments about observations of conduct at a public hearing, so long as you can phrase your comments within proper standards, fine.
You personal opinions about the personal character of an individual, their individual habits or life, you can keep to yourself.
When you think about your comments, think about how you would present your argument at town meeting, and whether you would be ruled out of order.
As a general note, everyone, and I do mean everyone, not on just the turbine issue, should have a reminder stamped somewhere that they have to look at before they say or write anything: "winning the battle, only to lose the war."
No matter what side of an issue you are on, remember one simple fact, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Everyone. The fact they don't agree with you doesn't make them stupid, ignorant dumb, nasty, mean and a whole lot more. It definitely doesn't mean people are not entitled to express their own views.
What cracks me up at times is the absolute exclusive right some people claim relative to having the only opinion.
There is an old adage used in one form or another by that notes every complex question has a simple answer to it, and it is wrong. Another thing people need to keep in mind.
What cracks me up at times is the absolute exclusive right some people claim relative to having the only opinion.
There is an old adage used in one form or another by that notes every complex question has a simple answer to it, and it is wrong. Another thing people need to keep in mind.
Another story in today's S-T about the board of health election. A preliminary hearing will be held next week. May have to go to that hearing. Will be clearing my calendar if possible, and if I remember. If nothing else, it is always a true learning experience to watch a session by the judge in question.
Piping Plovers. Constituent service on this one is in the long run going to costs this town a whole lot of effort, if not money. Personally, I am betting on both.
Enough for today. Stay dry and be safe.
Enough for today. Stay dry and be safe.
One thing about the wind turbines. The resident abutters to the wind turbines have been complaining until they were blue in the face.
ReplyDeleteLocal and state officials have painted the people who live around the wind turbines as crazy,anti-wind nuts that just don't like the turbines.
The term anti-wind people was used so much by local politicians that the news media started using the term.
The point here is the residential home owners were there first and are the original stake holders .They even bought their homes in a residential zone. Many of these people only have one savings account and that is the value of their homes.
On the Board of Health election process I've read at least 10 or more stories in the Standard Times that refer to many mistakes in the election. An unknown number of ballots issued to polling locations, unknown number of ballots that were returned, voters not checked in and out of poll locations , unsealed ballots ,envelopes marked as spoiled in wrong envelopes, recounting ballots twenty minutes after the first swearing in, three total recounts when there should have only been one,an elected official filling in for an absent voter registrar during the recount, town contractor advising registrars what their vote should be and the list goes on. It looks like an election from some Central American country.
This isn't the first time Fairhaven had an election. When you add up all the small mistakes it adds up to a system failure
Personally, I definitely do not believe that the majority of abutters are anti-wind. I'm not sure that's really been an issue, to me at least. While there are abutters who are anti-turbine, it would be unwise and simple-minded to characterize all as such. I completely agree with you that abutters have the most at stake. No doubt about it.
ReplyDeleteWhat concerns me is that there is - with absoutely no doubt - a NATIONAL anti-wind lobby at play here. Windwise is not pro-wind. The fact is not lost on me that there is also a hugely profitable pro-green energy industry that adores making money. The thing is however, the anti-wind lobby reportedly says they are not "anti-wind" (they are for "responsible siting" of turbines) , but I am sure as hell unable to find an instance where they actually supported a turbine.
It strikes me as odd that in editorials, that we see a lot of blantant anti-turbine activists a lot of time from out-of-town, pushing their agenda on us. There are routinely people from Falmouth, Mattapoisett and Rhode Island commenting on Town issues that are unabashedly anti turbine. Furthermore, if you spend time doing research and visiting forums, it becomes apparent that people use psuedonyms or completely rehash OBVIOUS talking points made by other blatant and outspoken anti-wind activists.
It's got to make you wonder, why have so many outsiders have an interest in Fairhaven goings-on. Of course, they remain completely silent on other issues, other than turbines.
Something that jumps out at me... Your points seem oddly famililar to another post by another an
http://www.topix.net/forum/city/fairhaven-ma/T73ATAL38559KK7JG
Third World/Columbian, calling abutters anti-wind... It just seems so... You get the picture...
Another thing... Why the interest in the BOH election, and why is it so very closely tied to the turbine issue? Shouldn't that raise a red flag to most people? Why are the same people against the turbines the same people behind the election debate?
Personally, I'm fine with the courts handling the issue, even though I personally think that the results have been confirmed. There's no debate that there were big missteps. But how would a challenger victory change anything? Does not the "conflict of interest" issue occur to anyone? To a "reasonable person" the relationships made at this point obviously cause some concern...