A late billl posting

In the day late category, I started to write this post yesterday, never seemed to manage to finish it.  Oh well. An edit here, a word there ... and another half a day plus later, not to mention tomorrow morning my be busy with weather related chores.

Also in the day late category (i.e. yesterday), the local daily got scooped by the local weekly on the newest and latest BOH matter.  

In the "blade will dig up grass on the side of the road category", seriously? Kind of appropriate, but very old story, to dig out with the coming weather by the S-T on snow plowing/removal of the bike path.  

A skid steer may be compact, it ain't dainty.  If you intend to operate it so you don't damage the grass, you are also intending to devote an inordinate amount of time and effort to clear a path, or less than the complete width of the path. 

Which would be fine by the way, except I don't think that's what people who want it cleared have in mind. Can you image say a sidewalk width path with bikers and walkers competing for space?    

I can show you first hand examples of just what gets plowed along with the snow by a skid steer. On roads with less than 2" of pavement left to boot.  

I for one am all for the bike path being plowed/snow removed.  Hopefully those advocating for it and the BPW still supporting it can let us know all the details.  Things like expected personnel time to plow it. Capital Cost projection, again, for your desired equipment.

Do we adopted a different standard for sending out the plow for the bike bath than for the roads? Do we plow clear the snow when we let it otherwise sit on the roads?  Less than 3" right? Total width completely plowed? Once plowed, estimated costs for continued sanding and salting. 

Heaven forbid anyone think or imagine of say the option of buying an industrial snow blower attachment for say an existing tractor or like pickup truck.  A power broom option? Yes being bandied about as we speak, and previously bandied about.  But if you what a skid steer, nothing else will do right.

Yet times do change, don't they.  As others have said, and as was part of the sales pitch when the path was originally voted on, come winter time, it would be used for winter recreational purposes.  Granted, even back then that wasn't a big selling point for me. It was nonetheless a pretty well advertised point.

I get it. as mentioned times change. Habits change.  

Absolutely it would be a plus for those who cycle or even walk as a means of transportation to have a 2.5 mile express way cleared and cleaned with multiple on and off ramps to the roads that aren't in the same condition.  Let's be a bit real about that too though.  Unless you live close to the path, are you going to traverse the roads down to the path to use the clear express way to get to where you have to go?

Yes it is a mode of transportation if in fact you do use it to get from point A to point B.  Which can admittedly be a fair distance now.  Unfortunately, the fact remains most people who use it, use it is a recreational path.  It was brought into existence for that purpose at the town level anyway.  It was constructed with that purpose in mind.  

I saw a comment on Facebook that said "Blame FINCOM not the folks at the DPW". You absolutely should never blame the folks at the DPW for what does or does not happen at Town Meeting.

That clearly should rest on the shoulders of the BOARD not the Department.  At least that was the impression I was given listening to the Board before the govt. study committee.  Oh sorry, that wasn't accepting blame for anything, that was for taking credit for the DPW actually being able to function.

And if BLAME needs to be allocated for Town Meeting following a recommendation I will certainly accept the lion's share of it.  Especially since all of the reasons stated in the particular chain on Facebook noting why the snow plowing and/or removal doesn't make sense/can't be done/or alternate suggestions were just as applicable then as now.

So yes, certainly blame me for what apparently those opposed to the proposition seem to agree with, in fact they came up with several points that can be used next time around that the same proposal is submitted by the BPW. 

Must be just another example of the Board, past and present, providing constituent service despite what seemingly most of its constituency doesn't want or feels is needed or will suffer for in other ways for diversion of money.

Enough on that, we can wait for round two to start up after the new storm.

I would be remiss not to comment on all the comments relative to the police contract. Several quick points.  

First, let's be clear.  There is no more "Quinn Bill".  Officers who had it when it existed were/are entitled to the benefits of it, per contract after it was abolished.  Personally, the rationale presented for why the select board agreed to the provisions wouldn't have convinced me as a member sitting in the audience to vote for it.

I would have raised a number of the points that have been raised had I been either undecided, or against it.

Whether the stated reason were the reasons for all three selectmen to support it, who knows since only one spoke. 

Want my reasons for supporting it, find the tape where it was discussed. Don't agree with them, that's fine too.

If you are a town meeting member and are now asking questions after the fact, well  ...

The only precedent setting I am worried about is if the powers that be don't keep it so the education has to be specifically related to the job. 

If you don't want to get up and argue against a compensation package you don't agree with because the standard is the employee risks his or her life for us, perhaps town meeting isn't for you.  If you are waiting for a contract to be presented that you would agree with, good luck.  Contract negotiations have been a decades long issue for me personally.   

Yes, I fully understand the seeming futility of it (i.e. arguing against).  I have tilted the lance at this union once back at the STM to deal with one of the arbitration award we got our socks knocked off.  That's life.

You vote to accept or reject.  When you are presented with a contract, it is easy to say well we shouldn't do this or that, or whatever, I get it.   I have ranted often enough about it.

Simple fact is once the thing is signed, you don't get to alter, change or amend. At best you send a message as to what you are willing to accept. Rejection always carries the real risk that the next one down the road will be even worse.  Don't think so? Then perhaps you need to become familiar with the law relative to arbitration for police.

Will there be one you have to take a stand on, or other contracts for other unions?  Yes.  Have been some in the past.  Some of which I have found myself on the right side of the stand, and some of which TM has decided I was on the wrong side. 

A Town Meeting member told me after the meeting I must be getting soft for going along with the police contract.  May very well be. I have been known to have a very soft spot for things I agree with.

All I can say is I look at every contract on its own merits.  Try to weigh short term impact and long term ramifications.  Yes I know this may have staffing implications.  Well aware of that.  Have made that point myself. Long term, in my mind not having it would have worse implications.  

In the end though ff my scale ends up tilting to a different side than yours, I can live with that. 

I know I for one won't have a problem living with this one. Neither will I have a problem with priorities that will have to be dealt with, nor will I have any concern with this setting a precedent.  Salary increases in the nature of a COLA are one thing.  Bumping total compensation is another.  Not all jobs or positions are equal, and not all circumstances merit an increase, and risking or saving lives is not the sole criteria for the compensation level. 

Because the police got it, ain't ever going to be a sell point in my mind for someone else.  

If the argument that attracting and keeping the best possible candidates isn't a sell point, I can understand that.  It wasn't all that persuasive in the form presented. Long term it should certainly concern you however. Towns get reps. Candidates/potential candidates pick and choose.  We have been very fortunate over the past few years, in my opinion, based on the quality of those who want to work for the town as a police officer.

However, if you don't think poaching happens at the academy, and after graduation, think again; and, don't think over time people won't begin to drift away from applying for Fairhaven for the higher paying communities. What helps us draw quality candidates when the disparity is not as large is not also going to be enough in the long haul.

Yes this is a problem for every position.  We aren't going to ever be top pay scale on the base. But as the disparity between one community paying base only and another community pay base and educational incentives grows, as more and more communities bring it back, if you aren't on that particular bandwagon, you will at some point wish you were.

I am not expecting to convince anyone with anything in here. Actually  no deep seeded feeling that there is a necessity to do so.  It is done it is over, and for this one I feel extremely comfortable with it, even knowing what lies ahead.

Enough for today.

Be safe.