Well with the dust settling after last week's elections ...
Somewhere along the line, on the local, regional, state, and national level the lesson about perception seems to be completely lost. Yes, we are back to that perceived battle about anything. The matter which in early stages often determines the final outcome, whether justified or not.
Somewhere along the line, on the local, regional, state, and national level the lesson about perception seems to be completely lost. Yes, we are back to that perceived battle about anything. The matter which in early stages often determines the final outcome, whether justified or not.
I have seen just a few posts elsewhere, heard just a few comments from some, read just a few articles, about how shortsighted it was to do this or that on a whole host of "votes".
We often lament the number of voters who stay away from the polls. Certainly the losers in every election, especially close elections, shed buckets of tears over that fact. One of several reasons people do stay away from the polls, like it or not, is that while they can't bring themselves to vote against you, they simply can't vote for you either.
I know, the lesser of two evils concept should always be in play, right? For some people the fact is there is no lesser evil.
Anyway ...
At least we have a modicum of time before the next national cycle begins. Hopefully. On a local level we get to gear up, probably no more than a very low gear, for the April elections.
From the pundit's point of view, and as previously noted, what a year ago seemed potentially to be a hectic election, this one I think is going to be a near sleeper. There will be the BPW vote in April certainly. That might generate some interest. Overall though the chatter is at very low volume right now. With the cold air expected this weekend, who knows? It might just pick up.
From the pundit's point of view, and as previously noted, what a year ago seemed potentially to be a hectic election, this one I think is going to be a near sleeper. There will be the BPW vote in April certainly. That might generate some interest. Overall though the chatter is at very low volume right now. With the cold air expected this weekend, who knows? It might just pick up.
Enough on that though ... kind of. Quite frankly, the whole BPW issue could have been more non-issue, had there been a more respectable vote at TM. Yes, if they had only voted ... not in the slant the outcome would have been different, but more in an indication, potentially, of sentiment.
On this one folks, for this blog, it isn't about the outcome of the vote either. It is about the sentiment of how people can seek an office such as Town Meeting member and stay away in droves. Being generous from a statistic basis, roughly 10% of members would have what most people consider a legitimate reason. What of course that would mean is 40% simply didn't bother to show up.
The problem is not however isolated to our fair town, as is obvious by meetings held in other communities. Lack of quorums, barely making quorums, discussions revolving around lowering quorums (except here where we potentially look to raising quorums, like that works to encourage attendance).
It is however an example of the continuing and growing apathy that infects us at all levels.
How do you perhaps change that? Truthfully, I am not sure. Just as truthfully, I am not inclined to believe that fewer members will result in better attendance. Publish an attendance list after each town meeting? Maybe. Publish an attendance record prior to each election. Might help.
The surest way to end up losing the quaint New England tradition, and a very good tradition by the way, is to have the current situation continue.
Rambling thoughts really. I don't see any real change on the concept coming anytime soon. Of course my eyesight isn't what it use to be on a whole bunch of things.
Which is a nice lead into another thought, being better focus. The natural response to any new idea, desire for service, or problem with something that is, is to study, explore and propose. Good stuff in concept. In practice it tends to lead to the too many irons in the fire scenario.
Recent discussions about certain things seem always focus on the exception to the rule, rather than why the rule isn't being followed. Yes, there are always exceptions to any rule, but the same should be rare, extremely rare.. When every instance is a justified exception, you have to take a hard look either at the validity of the rule, or the reasoning for exceptions.
Just another midweek rambling thought.
Less than four weeks to the special town meeting. We have previously discussed the perception for that one. what makes something special is obviously dependent on the individuals involved. We all know the land purchase is driving this particular meeting.
There actually are some very valid reasons on the economic development theory front. Real shame that was not how this proposal was initially presented. Certainly there are valid concerns and needs that need to be addressed by the police and fire departments. Just as certainly is the fact the same are not present emergencies, are not presently going to be or able to be addressed, and when the same are will be dependent on a debt exclusion vote. A significant contingency that has to be factored into the process and present decision making.
In the end this one is going to have to be sold to the STM to the tune of a 2/3 vote. It will be interesting indeed to see who steps up to the plate to try to get this one done.
this also gets back to a point raised in the past just a few times, i.e. just because you have the right to do something, doesn't always make it the right thing to do. We certainly have the right to buy this land. Whether it is the right thing to do is another story. One that has to be written in clear and understandable language for those who have to decide.
Okay, enough for today. It is a bit of a slow week, so this is just a bit of a piece.
Be safe.
How do you perhaps change that? Truthfully, I am not sure. Just as truthfully, I am not inclined to believe that fewer members will result in better attendance. Publish an attendance list after each town meeting? Maybe. Publish an attendance record prior to each election. Might help.
The surest way to end up losing the quaint New England tradition, and a very good tradition by the way, is to have the current situation continue.
Rambling thoughts really. I don't see any real change on the concept coming anytime soon. Of course my eyesight isn't what it use to be on a whole bunch of things.
Which is a nice lead into another thought, being better focus. The natural response to any new idea, desire for service, or problem with something that is, is to study, explore and propose. Good stuff in concept. In practice it tends to lead to the too many irons in the fire scenario.
Recent discussions about certain things seem always focus on the exception to the rule, rather than why the rule isn't being followed. Yes, there are always exceptions to any rule, but the same should be rare, extremely rare.. When every instance is a justified exception, you have to take a hard look either at the validity of the rule, or the reasoning for exceptions.
Just another midweek rambling thought.
Less than four weeks to the special town meeting. We have previously discussed the perception for that one. what makes something special is obviously dependent on the individuals involved. We all know the land purchase is driving this particular meeting.
There actually are some very valid reasons on the economic development theory front. Real shame that was not how this proposal was initially presented. Certainly there are valid concerns and needs that need to be addressed by the police and fire departments. Just as certainly is the fact the same are not present emergencies, are not presently going to be or able to be addressed, and when the same are will be dependent on a debt exclusion vote. A significant contingency that has to be factored into the process and present decision making.
In the end this one is going to have to be sold to the STM to the tune of a 2/3 vote. It will be interesting indeed to see who steps up to the plate to try to get this one done.
this also gets back to a point raised in the past just a few times, i.e. just because you have the right to do something, doesn't always make it the right thing to do. We certainly have the right to buy this land. Whether it is the right thing to do is another story. One that has to be written in clear and understandable language for those who have to decide.
Okay, enough for today. It is a bit of a slow week, so this is just a bit of a piece.
Be safe.
Again ,the only winner in this land purchase seems to be the land owner again.the land in question has received preferential chapter land tax reductions.He can now sell it to the town an let them pay the development costs,sell off any unneeded parcels ,and have a balance of wetlands an other unbuildable parcels which are untaxed..And of course another spare building aka ,public safety complex with no future use to the town..of course we could give it the same treatment that the old schools are receiving with no end in site....Just saying....
ReplyDelete