Saturday's withering heat and continuing walk in the muck

Well, despite the current heat, it appears that some feel the need to add one or two more logs to a raging fire.  Why are some seemingly hell bent on doing things that just are inexcusable?

This is piece is about the questionnaire sent by the Board of Health.  See some of the comments to yesterday's piece and the piece in The Advocate  for the details.

In all honesty, the questionnaire itself is not inexcusable.  The reasoning given as to why and the distribution "mistake" however are.

If your intent is to receive statements from the citizens at a public hearing, do you not in fact defeat the purpose behind a public hearing by attempting to "weed people out who have opposed the turbines from the beginning." (see link to article in The Advocate).

As to the questions asked, let me say this.  If you have worked up a lather over the questions, take a minute and rinse off.  Seriously.

First, they are not innocuous. After the article referenced above, you could hand over the questionnaire to a group of high school students in a moot court exercise and they could tear to shreds any arguments made from the results of such a "survey".  Clear evidence of contrary intent will wreck potentially valid defenses.

Most of the questions asked do have some bearing in the long run.  But let's leave that aside, because given the stated reasons for sending the questions out, as reported, well that is where you have a right to be getting riled up.  Quite frankly, that is where everyone should get riled up.

Was it an act of intimidation?  Sorry, can't agree with that.  Dumb, not well thought out,  etc., would be hard to argue against, but intimidating? Don't see it.

Are the questions slanted, i.e. prejudicial? Somewhat.  Does it appear an attempt to sort out people? Absolutely. Who can argue with that anyway, since the Chair of the Board of Health is reported as saying so.

That reason alone is why everyone should be riled up, and I mean everyone; the stated attempt to "weed out" speakers at a public hearing.

The one thing every person in this town should be uniting about is getting our elected officials and boards to conduct themselves properly.  

Where is the impropriety here you might ask?

Mr. DeTerra is noted in the article as stating the board sends out e-mails all the time.  That being the case, presumably the board knows how to send out e-mails. 

Yet at the end of the article Mr. DeTerra is noted as further stating that the e-mail addresses of people sent the questionnaire were suppose to be confidential.  Disclosing the addresses of people who have made complaints to only other people who have made complaints doesn't quite fit the "confidentiality" standard that I am aware of. It does not negate your admitted mistake.

It creates a slew of other problems though. 

If "the board" sends out e-mails all the time, "the board" has to authorize the e-mail in some fashion.  Another member of "the board" is reported to have said she knew nothing about it.  No reference is made in the article discussing how "the board" voted, agreed or acquiesced in the drafting, approval or sending of this survey.  

This is a big problem folks.  A significant and a long standing one.  Individual board members, on many boards, acting individually.  

When will board members understand that the authority to act on an individual basis is extremely limited.  In fact, it is so finite it is just one very small step above one board trying to issue orders or direct actions by another board.

Which is exactly why I am very tempted to comment a bit more on that concept, but discretion being the better part of pure common sense, and for fear on getting lost on an entirely different rant that came to mind from reading the article, I won't.

By no means the last example of impropriety, in my mind at least, is the attempt to weed out any speaker at a public hearing.  Seriously, you want to weed out speakers at a public hearing and you want "neutral" people testifying?

First, you know the players involved.  You want different opinions, see who wants to speak, and pick those people. One of the few perks of being chair.

You want to get other people to attend, what would have been wrong with an e-mail to them letting them know about the meeting, stating you were looking for as much input as possible from those affected who had filed complaints. encouraging them to come forward to be heard.

Secondly, someone must be using an entirely different definition of neutrality than the one I use.  Under my definition, I would think lining up a bunch of "neutral" people to make statements would be pointless.  It certainly makes handling a public hearing an easy task though.

I seriously doubt that this questionnaire was thought of, drafted and sent out without some consultation with "the board", be it the complete board or an individual member.  Since Mr. DeTerra seems to have been able to explain the reasoning behind why town counsel wanted the survey and why it was prepared, it doesn't take a big leap in reasoning to assume which board member knew about it.

If you can read the article in The Advocate and tell me that the reasoning stated therein is justifiable, I would submit to you we need not hold any further discussion on the questionnaire, because while I can think of some very valid reasons for such a thing, I cannot under any circumstance reconcile the potential validity of something done, when the stated motivation is clearly for other reasons.  

If "neutrality" is your goal, I could rattle off about 20 names on both sides who are going to be pretty ticked off because they aren't going to be able to speak.

But the hearing isn't about anything other than whether the renewed operation of the turbines between 7 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. under a mitigation plan will constitute a continuing nuisance. This is where the crash is going to occur, because absence evidence of fact to the contrary, "the board" is going to be hard pressed from a legal standard to deny at least a trial operation under the mitigation plan. 

Absent an agreed settlement, those blades will be spinning come July 16th, or we will be in court by then end of the month, or sooner.

This is also where, believe it or not, the bulk of those questions very well could have been relevant.

Pre-existing conditions are relevant to a nuisance complaint.  Absence of pre-existing conditions would have been relevant. Indeed, if anyone gets around to filing those individual lawsuits we keep hearing about, they best be prepared for disclosing their lifetime medical histories.  Attitude is relevant, at least in numerous studies out of Europe, most of which have been relied upon by opponents and supporters alike to bolster their arguments.

Questions intended to weed out speakers at a hearing, absolutely never relevant.