Throwing out a whole lot on garbage day.

Monday. Another start of another work week for most people. 

Same old grind.  The same old grind.

Yes, I do in fact know today is Tuesday.  Just another example of deja vu all over again.

Anyway ... 

Amazing is the stuff you see on the social media. Isn't it? I suppose this blog would be included in that somewhat.

Anyway ...

Moving on, some background as to why I will like even the present TA article.  I know, perhaps have done this before.  Yet ...

Taken from what was approved at Town Meeting:

SECTION 1. The Town of Fairhaven shall be governed by the provisions of this act. To the extent that this act modifies or repeals existing General Laws and special acts or the by-laws of the Town of Fairhaven, this act shall govern. 

SECTION 2 (7) Review the annual proposed budget submitted by the Town Administrator and make recommendations with respect to the annual proposed budget as they deem advisable. The Town Administrator shall present the budget to the Town Meeting, incorporating the recommendations of the Board of Selectmen. (Emphasis supplied)

SECTION 3 (B)(13) Submit to the Board of Selectmen a written proposed budget for Town government for the ensuing fiscal year... It shall include proposed expenditures for both current operations and capital projects during the ensuing year, detailed by department, committee, agency, purpose and position and proposed financing methods...

What this means? At least what this means to me?

Well if passed by the legislature in the fall and a STM is held to ratify it, it means easy times for the FY 16 budget from my perspective.  Taking into account all the other little provisions, the fact it passed town meeting, all the representations made by proponents it means your budgets going forward come from the TA.

It means a one person accountability. It means a one person presentation.  It means essentially no more excuses or laments from a whole lot of people, except to the TA that is.

I am kind of looking forward to that. I mean it is pretty obvious the intent of this was not to create a situation where you will have two competing budgets prepared and submitted. In fact from my read of it, the various departments will in fact be governed through the budget process in a funnel up and through process.

Don't get me wrong.  It doesn't mean there won't be issues. For a year or two the same might resulted in a few more floor fights being attempted on budgets than in the recent past. Those will disappear quickly enough.

Come on Boston, get a move on. Wait, they are in recess up there. Well as soon as you get back in session.

Moving on ...

Just an observation, but people should give a long and hard thought to some of the arguments they make. There is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing government, actions, even appointments.  But when you have a track record, no matter how long ago, unless your name is in the record book either be prepared for someone holding a mirror in your face, or preface your remarks above improvements coming from lessons learned.

There will probably be more on that.  Probably the next time I hear the same statement made again.

Anyway ...

Interesting discussion about the thoughts of elected vs. appointed boards/positions during the last TGSC.

What do we have left for elected positions?  Positions being in my mind a singular office. Tree Warden and Town Clerk.  Not going to touch either one of those.

I am more than content to let the TGSC deal with these positions and make recommendations to Town Meeting.

I am assuming it will.  I certainly think it should.  I wouldn't bet much on it though.  No one likes handling hot potatoes.  Even the cooks who are suppose to take them out of the oven.

On the elected boards, because that is where there has been discussion, on several occasions, versus tap dancing for other matters ...

Elected boards we have selectmen and school committee (will always be elected, that be the law).  Planning Board, Board of Health, Commissioners of Trust Funds, BPW (presently and under the new format if adopted). Am I missing anything? Besides TM members (again will always be elected).

Obvious one for appointed vs. elected as far as Boards would be the Commissioner of Trust Funds. Seriously. That should be a no brainer.   Especially given the way that elected board has operated in recent years.

BPW is a non-issue. I would hope.  Given what we just did.  Given the fact that the obvious political decision was made to present an article with an elected board vs. appointed board, and you have pending legislation, why change it?

That leaves Planning Board and Board of Health.

For the Board of Health, might you find better people to serve if you went appointed vs. elected? You just might.  Then again you might not.  We could get into a real good debate on this particular argument. My personal slant, I am at a coin flip for either way.

Same for the Planning Board.

Why? Because I can see the benefit of both methods.  As a resident, and speaking for myself personally, I don't see the end of society as we know it if these elected offices disappear, however neither do I see a path to perdition if the same continue to be elected.

Call it ambivalence about the issue.  Call it what you will.  I just don't care enough to make a call on it. Not sure you will see one from elsewhere either.

Why?  Politics.  You know the underlying principle behind some things.  As in "how do you keep the politics out of it?"  As in, "we have seen some political decisions, appointments."

You will never keep the politics out of it.  You will always see decisions, appointments, even articles present ed and made for the sake of political expediency.

And I say that while at the same time acknowledging that I am no more immune from that disease than anyone else. I learned a long time ago there are battles you fight and there are battles you don't.

Don't think so?

There isn't a town meeting that passes where I am not questioned as to why did you do that? that is the polite form of the question by the way.  Eventually I get around to asking why didn't you get up and speak against it.  Answer is:  I would have lost votes on my article.

Civic duty would be to speak. Politics would be not to poison your own well.

That is what makes politics at interesting while at the same time less than perfect.

That is life folks. Like it or not.

Fin com keeps popping up as a committee to be dealt with.  It should be. The how and the when remains to be seen, but I suspect sooner rather than later.

Number of members, method of appointment, terms, duties are all matters rightfully to be addressed.

One argument for anything that should get tossed right out the door is if we were staring from scratch ...

If we were starting from scratch we would be changing just about everything.  So either that concept does apply to everything, or shouldn't apply to anything.

Method of appointment ... nearly irrelevant to me.  First it isn't going to affect me in a personal capacity. Secondly, the changes coming in other areas have and I will add should reduce the significance of the committee and the evolved function.

If you have listened to my rants and sop box statements I have professed for years fin com's function should be reviewing a budget prepared and submitted in advance of the commencement of the review process.  Not piece meal submissions, with no oversight uniformity and often no votes from those in charge of the departments being submitted.  Suffice it to say, the new process will be a new improvement.

This means rather than dealing with pieces, more attention should be given to the entirety.

You might lament that fact.  But it will be what it will be based on what presumably will be approved.

Do we still need the "precinct" concept?  In 1936 or thereabouts, the anecdotal evidence suggests it was vital. In today's day and age, the honest answer is no.  Some will argue differently.  I don't dismiss the desire or even the fact that some sectional representation can be a good thing.

If decisions are going to be made on the professional standard however, that means priorities based on town wide needs and resources, not simply what about my poor precinct.

Want the moderator to appoint? Moderator and Selectmen? Selectmen, fin com (chair or committee) and moderator meeting? Whoever?  Not a real concern.  Use to think that it was. Don't anymore. Submit me a proposal.  Vote it up or down.  See you later and live with the results.

Number of members.  Seen it all over the board actually.  Seven, nine, eleven, thirteen, fifteen. Make it as big as you want or as small as you want.  Put qualifications for appointment.  Anything you want that Town Meeting will accept.  Doesn't matter.

Why?

It actually should be obvious.  So obvious that it may be hiding in plain sight. Even if you don't see it, it will eventually come to you.

Anyway .. enough for today.

Be safe.