Okay, well I figured I would have plenty to write about this morning after I reviewed the Selectmen;s agenda yesterday for last night's meeting. Then several things happened.
First, I missed the beginning 15 minutes of the meeting (well 15 mins. assuming the meeting started on schedule). Next, they went into executive session at about 7:30. Finally, they hadn't reconvened into open session by time I fell asleep.
I guess that blue screen is as good a cure for insomnia as the meetings.
Anyway, if you caught the rest of the meeting and anything interesting happened, let me know.
From what I did see, I would note as follows:
I was a bit confused on the Con Com discussion. I thought I heard several times there could be 12 members. Must be some provision of the town by-laws on that one I can't find. Since the commission is established under c. 40, sec. 8C of the G.L. and provides for a maximum seven members, and the town code section 8-1 says seven members, I must have missed something in the translation.
Anyway, biggest point here is I absolutely agree with several points raised in the discussion. One of which being no matter the need for members, applicants should be vetted. Doesn't mean you hold out for an Einstein for every appointment.
Just a thought.
The fed. government shutdown continues. Most recent local implications as noted in today's The Standard Times concern a stall in the tribal land process related to the casino and cancellation of a speaker at an alumni event at UMass-Dartmouth.
Getting back to the Town ...
If you watch the meetings on a regular basis, any or all of the ones which air or are available on line, can you see the cracks in the "process"? A cohesive process doesn't mean we need to develop a tight chain of command. It does mean we need some level of an actual flow of command.
Certain minor tidbits could be vacuumed up from what I did hear last night. The irritating particles cannot be blamed on the individuals per se. There are reasons minor points of irregularity occur. While there is an old saying that you shouldn't sweat over the small stuff, when there is a whole lot of small stuff spread over a large area, it isn't small any more, it is a big mess.
The reason I note this in general, rather than point out the specific stuff that could be nit picked, is first there are plenty of nit pickers around. Secondly, we all have our pet peeves, and yours are probably different than mine. I can usually life with a few of mine so long as I see the bigger area being taken care of.
I am hearing some stuff that cause me personal concerns about what people want and expect from any changes to be recommended in government. We collectively cannot fall into the trap, the absolute losing proposition that the government study committee exists to deal with nit picking.
Might not be the best analogy, but it will have to do for today.
Anyway, given the light topics for today, open line format will also be allowed.
Be safe.
These Selectmen are beyond clueless when it comes to the Conservation Commission! You are correct that by laws show 7 members. Presently there are 4 with one member only showing up when told. Which leaves 4 voting seats open and 2 associates. Of course life would be easier for these volunteers if we had our own Conservation Agent with a background in the environment. But the selectmen renewed his contract for another 3 years. We get what we pay for huh?! They did appoint a good commissioner last night, an educator from SMAST.
ReplyDeleteBeyond clueless, I would disagree, believe it or not. In fairness, and I am nothing if not at least occasionally fair, we have had radical shifts in dynamics as to board composition in the past two election cycles. It is far from the worse board I have ever seen. At this point it is middle of the road.
ReplyDeleteYour math seems a bit off also. If we have 4 present members and can only have seven, that leave 3 spots. Unless you are saying the "one" is soon to be gone also.
Also, the renewal was not for Conservation Agent.