Worse mistake of the start of an early day. Watching the discussion of November 23, 2015 BOS regarding remote participation.
Statements of past precedent aside by past selectmen about past errors, this is nothing more than a request to accommodate one individual. You do not establish a policy for one person. You don't.
When you do, you will end up with no policy at all. Once you open the door, you cannot shut it for anyone else who wants to come through it.
The regs. ain't that complicated, but apparently they must be hard to find.
Do it, you do it for all boards. Period.
You cannot do it case by case. you can;t limit who can access the right.
You can impose certain restrictions, but not loop holes.
Real easy here.
Yes the selectmen can revoke it, but the revocation would be town wide. this ain't one of the things you should say let's give it a whirl because of one person. Your comfort level in doing this should be based solely on a belief this is a good thing.
Doing it for the personal convenience of an official who is absent by choice is not and never will be in my way a good thing.
Feeling comfortable about this if you can revoke it if it is abused is all warm and cozy, and provides you the easy out. Making it work is not as easy as saying you can simply do it.
Whatever ... this is not going to be decided because it is a good policy. The law and regs. were developed to provide an option, not mandate it and not with the intent to allow an elected member to be absent for three or four months.
You want to understand just a part of why this is not the way to go, listen to the reasoning of Selectman Espindola why he was not supportive. Whether he stays the course or not, the points he made are more than valid enough all by themselves to believe that using this as SOP for any length of time is not a good thing.
Taking a quote from the BPW minutes of November 2, 2015:
People elected me for a three year term. We bought a house in Florida and I can do this over the phone they can’t get me out of here they are the people who would have to get me out.
That is a simple cut and paste by the way.
Now would the official had been elected had she made that representation when running? In this town, probably.
I for one would have written in Ma Bell however if I were inclined to want to be represented by an official who intended to phone it in somewhere between 25% to 33 % of the time.
The law is an option. It is not a mandate.
Within the regulations detailing the provisions it is stated:
However, the Attorney General strongly encourages members of public bodies to physically attend meetings whenever possible.
Even in this sometimes crazy state, I cannot envision the intent behind this law to have encompassed a self created impossibility.
Everything about this law and the regs. and the procedures adopted where it is allowed attempt to limit the use, not make it a three month running SOP.
The reasoning by a prior board for turning it down was sound then, and is sound now. Assuming the reasoning was based on principles rather than the principals then involved.
Granted a bit of a different board presently. So who knows. If one of the members then involved has a presently different view of principles, than well hey, we are all entitled to change our minds right. My guess it has more to do with principals though.
The principle here is do not establish a policy because of a specific individual. You want to do something because you honestly believe it is in the best interest of the town and can articulate a better reason than I have heard so far, well heck, say it and do it.
The only arguments made to date to support the policy are about the principal involved and have nothing to do with principles involved in good government.
Well perhaps my antiquated notion of what good government should entail.
In the end, if done according to required procedure, it will collapse under its own weight. The members who show up are going to find it extremely tedious. The chair is going to find it extremely onerous.
Well either those things will happen or it will be someone will be looking over every single set of minutes as to every single vote to make sure every single i has been dotted and every single t has been crossed.
Until next time.
As to remote participation for town boards, if you accept it, then we all have to offer it. We have looked at this matter in years past and the permitting boards were not in favor. The problem is we have to refer to blueprints, plans, documents, easements and property lines on every application. An engineer bringing in amended plans to the meeting is unfortunately the norm today. Those devices are referred to continuously during the public and we regularly recommend changes on the fly. It’s a very fluid environment that includes the public’s input and each and every member. A member sitting offsite cannot properly engage tough decisions with possible print amendments. We also must sign the print mylars and the ten copies at the meetings and I wouldn’t want to hold up applicants unnecessarily. I also believe I have a few on the board that are very busy people and I fear they would take advantage of this many times a year. It could become the norm for their attendance.
ReplyDeleteI feel if you want to take part in town government, then you should give it the respect it deserves by representing the public, face to face. I also can tell you that if I were to vacation four months every year, I would resign my seat and allow proper representation by others.
This matter is not one that sits well with the operation of the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals or Conservation Commission as they have similar duties. Please do not allow one or two committee members to jeopardize the entire town’s well being. While the BPW may be in agreement, I doubt they considered all the other board’s jeopardy when they discussed this. I strongly object to remote participation by town officials.
I concur! Accountability.. if you can't be on the Board you put yourself on because you vacation 4 months out of the year in another state, then resign your seat.
ReplyDelete