Wednesday's Challenge

In response to yesterday's post, FairAction Fairhaven issued a reply.  Please read the post and comment chain for Fairhaven, The South Coast and More: Part III - Conflict.  It is important you read everything in its entirety.

I had an alternate piece written for today.  After receipt of the response mentioned above, and further reflection, I decided not to run it.  It was a bit more confrontational than this piece, and would have accomplished nothing but to let me blow of steam.

I am always perplexed by the responses from FairAction.  I think that stems from the fact that it seems to me there are multiple persons doing the writing for the group.  There certainly appear to be different styles from comment to comment.  Could just be me. Anyway ....

I for one am content to let Town Meeting have its say on the proposed articles submitted by that group, as apparently so are they.  If need be, I can wait until then to hear the explanations, the specifics.  

What bothers me are articles that "are not bullet-proof but they are reflective of the distaste that reasonable people have to this mistreatment."  If you are serious about making changes, you might in fact want to submit articles that are bullet proof.  They may not pass, but at least if they did, they could be enforceable.  At least something then can be debated on the actual merits alone.

As far as addressing the specific points raised about "potential" conflicts of interest, I can do that.  I can do that fairly easily actually.  Is it going to change your mind?  Doubtful. 

For today, I will simply address the hypothetical questions posted about town employees.  Let's start out with the "implied" solution within the question, the never ending secret ballot proposal.  You want a secret ballot all you need to do is get a 2/3 vote.  You aren't going to be able to change that, even by a new charter, unless you completely revamp the representative town meeting. The law doesn't allow it.

As to adopting the Lexington, non-binding resolution, I have no problem with it.  If you intend to try and make it mandatory, well I am not sure if that can be done in the first instance; and, even if it could, at any given meeting on any given issue how are you going to enforce it unless you have an open vote?

Based on your analogy, this year every single money article will impact town employees.  It is a distinct probability that jobs will be lost this year.  Thus, every town employee, every spouse of a town employee and his or her child and parents who are town meeting members, using the Lexington code should not vote on any spending article.  There are enough small money articles that if defeated, would save someones job.  There are enough big money articles that if defeated will save a lot of jobs.

My question to you, how do we handle this if in fact that code was a binding reality?

I have no problem with you raising issues.  My "bafflement" is based on the fact that for the most part you throw out a whole bunch of stuff using words like potential, may and could. My bafflement is that there is a whole bunch about the problem and very little on the proposed solution.

I too get it once in awhile.  You feel that there are conflicts of interest.  If so, report them.  You or anyone can report them anonymously.  No repercussions, no political payback.  

If I am wrong with what I am about to say, let me know, but it becomes clearer as this discussion goes on that what is desired is an expansion of the existing laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest to prohibit those things which some feel are conflicts but may not be under existing law; and, an entirely different enforcement mechanism.  

If I am correct, is it unreasonable for me or anyone to ask for the details of what it is you are proposing?  What matters do you wish to see added to the current conflict laws?

The ethics article does not provide little as to specifics details except that we elect three people and they draw up a code to be submitted to town meeting.  You must know what you would like to see in such a code?

But if that is the extent of it, okay just say so specifically.  Then the article gets addressed as is.  

You reach a point in every discussion, debate, argument (whatever you want to call it) when the statements, points, and sound bites all simply become redundant. On this particular issue the debate has reached that point.