Another Deja Vu Day, all over again

Okay, well seems it is time for another deja vu all over again story, or perhaps two.

Remember the address 237 New Boston Road. It has been and is going to be on the BOS agenda in the recent past and next Monday. In truth, I don't know anything about this latest reincarnation.

So, I will wait with bated breathe once again for the actual decision on what happens.  

But it has a definite feel of "if at first you don't succeed" ... right?

Which might be a bit ironic, because that concept is being used in reverse for the proposed "new" and "improved" BPW article. For that one see the request from the old and existing BPW to the selectmen.

You might want to also catch a replay of the tape of the meeting which was airing last evening.

What escapes our old board, and indeed many boards, is that even under our "linear" form of government, in certain matters of government, it is simply not equal in authority or decision making to the BOS, and that was never the intent when created.

Like any statutory, special act, or by-law board or committee, as to those matters delineated in its enabling language, the board is independent. As to all else, as to all matters for which authority is given to another entity, they are simply inferior.  There are extremely sound reasons for that. The failure to realize those reasons comrpise one of the reasons for the need for a chain in command.

You may have the town's best interest in mind for your decision affecting your entity, but the failure to comprehend the bigger picture, the need to coordinate things from a town wide perspective, well ... how many times have we heard a board or committee member or employee talk about thier entity as a reason for things, and the rest of the town be ....  well, you get it.

I could tell you an interesting story about how one department was forced to spend thousands because another department refused a request for assistance.  A legitimate request.  One that could be done, but ... well  independence is not always a could thing.

Indeed, despite the turf wars, back biting, and  whatever else you want to add, residents in every community should be extremely grateful that there are fail-safe measures in the law that keep in check the independent authority of those who are not first in line.

It is this simple, even in a linear structure. You are only on the same level for what you are specifically authorized to do.

Nothing else.

The mantra "but we are elected by the people" fails to grasp the concept that the structure that gets you elected is such that you are elected to do what the law says you can do.  Full and complete autonomy for all elected boards or committees has never been, nor should be intended.  Even the first among equals has a number of checks and balances which have to be dealt with.

While I was not, and will not be a fan or supporter of what was proposed and attempted, for reasons detailed long ago, neither do I, ignore the fact that something has to give with the board as it exists and with the new structure coming into place.

Even the repeal of the BPW legislation will not change certain changes that exist as a result of the TA article.  Conflict is inevitable in the near future, and resistance will become futile in the long run.

The smart cookie will not allow itself to go stale and crumble, but rather will seek the right wrapping to last.

The anti-change for the BPW vote was not based solely on universal love for what is.  I have actually lost count for the number of voters I have spoken with who voted no under the mistaken believe that a yes vote would have meant the dismantling of the Department.  Not the Board.  The Department. Most of those expressed no concerns about the Board.

Then there are those who realized the "new" board was just going to be a paper lion and another layer of unnecessary and ineffective bureaucracy.

I could add on a number of other reason that which, had a bit more realistic article been presented, and a more effective explanation provided, could have easily resulted in different results.

So please, you aren't an equal board.  Never have been.  If you think you are or should be, You wouldn't be constantly involved in your associated costs and need to rely on town administration and quite frankly necessary oversight for so much.  You would in fact have your own little kingdom, rather than fiefdom.

Anyway ...

It is another very mild morning. Should be no reason to be thinking about snow, yet snowbirds are somehow coming to mind.

Just as the seasons come and go, so do the snowbirds and the cyclical call for remote participation at meetings. 

First, and this is because of what some think about how this process can be used, once the vote is taken to allow remote participation it applies to all meetings of all public bodies in town.  Everyone.

You cannot use to to gain a quorum.  A physical presence, including the chair, is required to constitute the quorum. 

As such one has to ask just why a community should incur the related costs and hassle so some board member can enjoy the comfort of warm weather while the people they represent are back here dealing with the elements.

The regs. governing allowance of its use, if use is adopted, provide that the chair or, in the chair’s absence, the person chairing the meeting, determines that one or more of the following factors makes the member’s physical attendance unreasonably difficult then remote participation is allowed for: personal disability, personal illness, emergency. military service, or, geographic distance.

Can one envision circumstances where such could be beneficial? Sure.  Like the first 4 reasons for allowed use.  But sparingly.   Geographic distance,  well ... as far as I am concerned that one should not exist.  The other four would cover a legitimate geographical distance problem.

You start using that one though as a sole criteria though, and watch what happens.

If you can't or don't want to deal with living in the New England weather, well thanks for the desire of wanting to help out remotely, but I prefer decisions from people stuck in the same trench I am.

By the way, you cannot carve out special exceptions for specific people. You cannot limit it to just certain people or certain boards.

It is just another step down the very slippery slop of the growing mountain of government of convenience for those in charge.

On the other hand, might make a good campaign pitch for an opponent.

Anyway, it is a concept I abhor.  Personal pet peeve, most definitely.  Nonetheless, it is one thing to be unable to attend a meeting or multiple meetings, for the first four reasons.  It is an entirely different matter when you alter government for simple convenience of those charged with governing.

Just one point of view.

Until next time.