If you saw the meeting, heard the figures and conditions, fill me/us in, would you please?
Absolutely bizarre exchange just a few minutes later by the way. Selectman Espindola discussing the "bill" for the attendance of Selectman Haworth at the MMA winter conference.
The exchange raised issues that have been raised repeatedly in the past with no resolution by the board in charge of oversight of many of the departments that seek funding for such things. What is the reasonable commuting distance for these conferences? What is the policy for "overnight"?
Absolutely an issue that needs to be addressed; but at the end of the meeting during the wrap up closing comment segment? Not sure of the intent of doing this at that point of the meeting.
Getting back to the former schools, or in this particular case school. Some interesting comments nonetheless at the tail end of that segment. Was not real clear to me what the intend effect of the motion was.
Then again very little seems clear to me anymore. Still not clear why the "committee" did nothing at its initial formation. Different time. Different players. I get it. Still .... I don't in a way.
Remember, next Wednesday is the Special Town Meeting. I am hoping, probably against hope mind you but still hoping, the debate on the pot plant zoning article is limited to the plot plant zoning article and does revolve around the pot plant applicant.
This is about a proposed zoning by-law creating an overlay district for RMDs authorized by state law and regs. to operate. It is not about the particular applicant. It simply is not.
I have nothing against the applicant by the way. I think my position of the issue has been made clear in past posts.
However the "who" should be irrelevant to this particular issue. Call it part of my infamous lack of patience, but spending time on the issue of the merits of a particular applicant is simply not germane to the issue of whether you want to create an overlay district to limit the location of such facilities.
We should be addressing the actual reasoning for creating such zones, not whether this zone should be created because we have a "good" (or "bad" depending on your perspective) applicant.
In my mind any talk, presentation or discussion of the existing applicant, as far as the "creating" the zone article is just blowing smoke at the issue.
Well that' it for today I think.
Be safe.
Was the topic of the bill brought up at the correct time? Not sure of the motive? After hearing about it but not seeing it, the topic and timing only seemed a way to bring transparency to something that needs to be addressed. As a resident, I say bravo for bringing it to light, whether it was or wasn't done in the best manner.
ReplyDeleteSmall things like this, $300.00 here, and $300.00 there add up over time. The leak has to be plugged up. Discuss it, vote on it, and live by it. Stop saying, "It happened this time, we'll discuss it later."
Apparently the reason for not driving home in this case was not the distance, but the drinking. Could consuming plain Coca-Cola that night have saved the town $300.00?
This has happened before an scheduled meetings for job enrichment an the like are part of the department budget.Lat minute junkets seem to be a problem.Holiday Inn rates would have been more appropriate,Sheraton Hotel deals are really not.You still have to pay mileage for travel for the second day an that would make up part of the hotel rate.Like the prior blogger said ,discuss it,vote it an live by it.
ReplyDeleteSounds like someone realizes most of the funds requested belong in the legal budget an adjusting the amounts for Art 11 on the STM..
ReplyDeleteWere the drinks 'on the town?'
ReplyDeleteBased on what I know, the same were not "on the town". I am sure had they been, that would have been most definitely pointed out.
ReplyDeleteIf you go to a cocktail event and you feel unsafe to drive home, it would be unsafe at any distance.
ReplyDeleteMany people commute to Boston daily. Maybe the distance should be something at least across the Charles River.
Good point! but you are talking about people who take advantage of any opportunity presented to them as long as it costs them nothing.If any cost was attached to their trip it would probably be cancelled.All MMA INFO IS ONLINE AN FREE TO ALL MEMBERS.
ReplyDeleteIf the subject of the overnight had not been brought up then, do you think it ever would have? If so, by whom? The one who signed off on it?
ReplyDeleteHow about requesting the matter be placed for discussion as an agenda item? How about when discussing the budget? I have several other how abouts but two should suffice. By whom, same person.
ReplyDelete