Time does make a difference

Well, it has been a bit between pieces.  I realize some were expecting a blast last week after TM.

I actually did a rather lengthy piece last Thursday night and Friday morning relative to a different meeting I watched.  Reading it once, twice, three times, well instead of hitting the publish tab, I have decided to leave it in the draft section for now.

No need to publish it at this point.  It would just have been some heavy piling on. Not that the same would be unwarranted after listening to some of the comments made during that recent meeting.  Just what would it accomplish?

This piece will considered a bit of that piling on, but it is definitely on the light side.

The majority of you, indeed apparently the vast majority of you, understand what happened at TM and why it happened.  There was a crescendo building for months. The first notes sounding after the announcement last September that the "charter" wasn't going to happen and in truth the finale was played out on the first Monday of April and not the first Saturday in May. That date was just a repeat performance in a different venue.

The attempt to resurrect and rectify last year's one panned piece was not the best choice to be put into this year's program.  TM didn't like what it heard last year, and even after mixing up the arrangement a bit, it was received the same way.  

After watching the live committee meeting last week, all I can say is when you take it one the chin at TM; when you go 0 for 4 big time; when you sit around the table essentially rationalizing it by saying it wasn't us, it was them; well, thankfully for all of us who comprised "them", the one decision we can all agree on is your disbanding.

The minute the selectboard voted against the IT article a month before TM, it was over. You should have realized that. Not for any of the reasons you lamented about, but because you are suppose to be a committee of seven knowledgeable people in Town affairs. 

The fact that you have a number of members who have publicly stated, and put in writing, that at the time they joined the committee they weren't, well that fact doesn't get lost on people. Neither does the outcome of last April's ballot question on one of your successful pieces from the 2014 TM.

Two years of research comparing us to them doesn't make you knowledgeable about town matters, nor what matters to the town. Completely ignoring the concept of compromise while complaining about the lack of compromise is a bit perplexing. How onerous would have it been to accept or make certain tweaks to keep the 90% and jettison the 10% that caused the wholesale crash?

The term limit mandate, well might have held more sway if the mandate was based on the actual proposal. Some of us do not see it as a term limit solution. Others also don't see it as a problem.  You can argue about certain individuals being re-elected time and time again.  Simple fact is incumbents have been unseated, and most of the repeaters repeat unopposed or win against essentially token opposition. 

Guess what? Not everyone believes creating vacancies is the best way to get qualified candidates. Opportunist certainly.

Uncontested races, and offices with no candidates are things that do not highlight a need.  Sending it to the voter? We might disagree on this however a legislative body has an obligation to weigh in on what is in fact being proposed to be sent. A fair number of people felt that both of last year's major wins should have been sent to the voter's, not just one. What should or should not go to them when a vote of TM is required, was in the same province of TM this year as it was last year. 

And if in fact there is so much overwhelming citizen support, for this particular article, well there is a way to get that shown.  That takes work, like running a serious campaign against an incumbent takes work. 

Anyway ... I don't feel any less a supporter of democracy based on how our representative form of government functioned May 2nd.

The other two articles. For one we can argue the drawbacks and benefits of geographical representation all we want.  This writer would have supported one of the articles with a simple provision limiting the number of members from any one precinct rather than one from each precinct.  

Call me a conspiracy nut, but I can see several present issues and some issues coming up, not to mention one or two in the recent past where weighted representation from certain sections of town would have an impact, and the lack of representation would have denied a voice to certain areas. It ain't simply about the specific vote. That in a nutshell is exactly why it is needed.  

Yes, a good moderator will in fact attempt to obtain diversity.  Yes, good members who serve at large will understand the obligation of being "at large". Yet, there is a reason we create rules and regulations.  

Not all people, at all times do what they are suppose to do.  I could go on. If that simple statement doesn't sink in though, nothing will.

TM quorum.  Any high ground argument was lost with the written statement that anything less than 1/2 was determined by the committee to be statistically inadequate, followed by the written and oral statements of going from 1/2 to 40%. 

That being said, the 1/2 was not going to fly.  Everyone knew that. Thus the attempt to lower it a bit. However when you are willing to accept less than adequate, it at that point truly becomes a personal decision as to what level of inadequacy is truly unacceptable.

Biggest shame for the fin com and the town meeting articles was the fact much of the other stuff in the articles was worthy of consideration. The unwillingness or inability to figure out how to separate the wheat from the chaff  was a bit perplexing.  Maybe it was thought someone else would do it.  

I had toyed with the idea myself to be truthful.  But I asked myself simply, were either of those articles of such a pressing "need" so as to add and amend to out disjointed special acts and by-laws? A whole lot of people were asking that question about all the articles.

Apparently all or nothing was more important than the 90% good argument.  TM certainly wasn't buying that concept this time around though. Can assess that one to the residual affect of the votes in 2014 and April's ballot question results.

You know what bothered me most about watching the meeting. 

The "that was wrong" comments and laments. 

I have to tell you, one piece of knowledge I have gained over the years is that critiquing the decisions of town meeting gets you one thing only, and that is self-pity. Spending about 30 minutes doing it with the camera rolling, well we all live and deal with what that digital "tape" now. 

Having been on the wrong side of a vote or two over the years, I can understand the sting sometimes. Especially on the close ones.  When it ain't close however, the sting always involves the personal side of it in assessing how I was so far off base, not how I was wronged. You see, I actually believe in the collective wisdom concept. 

Thinking you deserve more time doesn't entitle you to more time. Being held to the very time frames you were proposing, is wrong how?  

Perception folks as always is 95% of the battle. Simple fact of the matter people had been paying attention.  People had read the material. People had heard and watched. Perception changed entirely from last May to this May. It changed radically.

One of the most inconvenient truths about living in a system that involves voting is you can feel you are 100% correct, yet unless you convince enough people you are, the results tell you that you aren't. 

If you think Town Meeting has wronged you because you didn't get all the time you wanted, what's wrong there is not Town Meeting. 

Amazing how last year's wins were followed by praise for the wisdom and intelligence of Town Meeting, how members paid attention and must have read the recommendations and agreed with the conclusions; and, this year's Town Meeting was apparently exactly the opposite because it didn't vote for anything you wanted.  

I will leave it there.  Because to go any further shouldn't be needed.

Be safe.