Well, I am sitting here listening to the selectmen's meeting. Might take a few sessions to get through the whole thing, so let's start off with something else.
Should the Town ever ignore the law because of who someone is, or what wants to be done is for a good cause? Seriously, because quite frankly there seems to be an extremely alarming trend for people to simply turn their heads about such trivial matters such as the Commonwealth's anti-aid amendment, or by-laws or statutes simply because of the who or what.
As disturbing as that is, and costly at times or even minimal, more disturbing is the plain and simple fact that not all people and groups are treated the same. We have gone on this rant a bit in the past. I probably will never stop ranting over this one, no matter what I may or may not be doing. What goes on is quite frankly simply wrong. Like with most things however right and wrong depends on whether you ant to be the lead or not in the dance.
Point number one from the selectmen's meeting. The appointment of the liaison from the Board of Selectmen to the Board of Appeals. Seriously? the contact person should be the Executive Secretary. That's the problem we have in this Town, a big part of it anyway. We have individual selectmen liaising with different boards and departments.
What happens when the selectmen cease to liaise among themselves? Something they pretty much can only legally do during public meetings.
See the problem with no day to day chain of command?
Point number two. I personally don't care whether a group is not for profit or for profit. Unless it is a two entity, there should be no reason to waive the fee for the use of a public facility or free public services.
Seriously, just because you are raising money to give it away for a good cause, why does that entitle you to support from the taxpayer? You put yourself in competition with businesses who pay taxes when you provide free rental of facilities. You compete with some not for profits who provide free rental with a nominal janitorial service fee.
Look, I have no illusions. Some people have no problem spending other peoples money for their favorite causes, or doing something solely because who is asking. People pay taxes, grudgingly for the most part, for public purpose. They expect either a direct benefit, or a service that the town would otherwise provide. Even if they didn't, the law does.
Point number three - the Board of Health election. It starts about 52 minutes into the meeting. The grades are based on the comments about the issue.
* Selectman Haworth - on the issue gets a solid A. All points dead on.
* Selectman Murphy - gets a B/B+. Mainly because he had to do the Chairperson dance. Not always easy to be in that seat. Misses the A because of the failure to state a firm opinion. Gets the B because of decent explanation of the two sides.
* Selectman Espindola - Gets a D. You don't have authority over the Registers. The matter shouldn't have to be explained by Town Counsel or anyone else.
Watch the video if you want the play by play.
Quite frankly, I am so tired of this issue. You have to wait for the Sec. of State to tell you how you feel? Are you waiting for the report to justify your decision?
Point number four - Southeast Energy Challenge. Let's start from the get go, at 1:18:20 into the meeting +/-. Then stop at the finish, which was at 1:52:00 +/-.
Got the love the way the meeting was run. Musical chairs?
If you look back at how this group worked its way into the position it is in, forgive me but there was less than due diligence on the town's side in signing up.
I am also getting sick and tired of everyone telling us we should do something simply because other communities are doing something. Certainly you look at what other communities are doing, but in the end the right decision isn't whether someone else is doing it, but what is best for you to do.
The best part, wanting the endorsement of the Executive Secretary. Seriously?
Endorsement by the Town?
Work your way through this one, and see the real potentials for certain ramifications which easily could come up with the town as a 'Partner", as an "endorser".
I really wish I had seen this much discussion about switching from the initial group to this group.
I have to tell you, I missed the boat. I should have got myself into the not for profit business.
Bottom line, there is absolutely no way anyone should be allowed to use the official seal for anything but official business. Not for partnerships, not for endorsements, but for official acts of the Town as a specific entity. Kudos for the decision.
Right on the heels of that, is the issue of the Commissioner of Trust Funds, and the essential spend down of the expendable balance of a trust by 90% from its June 30, 2008. Essentially by August, no money to be spent. Based on the statements at the meeting, the Commission hasn't met since some time in 2011. Always a plus to know matters get the attention that they do, isn't it.
When you have uncontested races for such positions, is it any wonder.
Enough for today. Be safe.
I have a concern that Town Meeting has chosen to support a Sustainability Committee, that is evidently been elevated to a town department, on the town’s website, who will now have the ability to raise and spend up to $10,000 per year, from sources unknown, and yet minimal accountability during the year. They violate the policy set by the prior Board of Selectmen about posting minutes and agendas by all committees, commissions or departments on the official website. They are not in tune with the intent of the new open meeting law to inform the residents by multiple forms of media, especially when we levy taxes to provide a website just for that purpose. They also use an offsite web link, which I personally do not like, when traveled from an official page of the town, unless it has been checked and verified. The link brings a “404 page not found error”. Did someone pull the plug to where it led? Are they violating a law? Definitely not. But one of our selectmen, whom ran on a platform of open government, is hiding the work of his department, to the point when votes come up, everyone is in the dark. No link, no agenda, no minutes. Just 100% trust with no verification! It is not sufficient that people with good intentions should not need to comply. In addition, not everyone agrees with their fundamental objectives. They have never been publicly defended because they lack true public visibility. There are few public policies in this area, except the town has resisted the energy stretch code and has refrained from becoming a Green Community. But some are willing to ignore that and act as if we did, like the communities they reference. Every flier with the town’s seal would try to entice a contract to install hazardous equipment in residences by contractors unknown. There are so many regulations and we would become a target if something goes wrong, in hundreds of instances. We have enough exposure as it is. Yet, they sit in total disbelief when the town fathers are reluctant to support them, to the point of begging. And now their work is coming to light and they could be putting the town at risk. The Sustainability Committee can provide a valuable service to the town, but only if they shed some sunshine on their work. What is it they fear? We all agree 100% with them don’t we?
ReplyDeleteAs an FYI and based on my understanding:
ReplyDeleteThe sustainability committee was established by the Bd of Selectmen. The 10k is a revolving fund. Money comes from revenues generated by the committee.
As to your other issues, I feel the need to post a disclaimer, before some other committee or board goes running to the Selectmen:
The views and opinions expressed in the above comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy, opinion or position of this blog, its managing editor or owner.
The income of the Town of Fairhaven Sustainabilty Committee comes in part by the fees generated by the Farmers Market.
ReplyDelete