A few hills, mountains and lots of ruckus

It isn't hard to stir up a ruckus, is it.

Mike Silvia is the president of the North Fairhaven Improvement Association and is also the Chair of the town Select Board.

"Yup, has been for the last dozen years or so! 'Fact he is the chairman! He has an election fundraiser scheduled and the date turns out to be Wednesday, November 16th. While Mike noted that Jeff Lucas (VP) could be here and run the meeting as normally scheduled, I think it was soon realized that most of us (NFIA members) would be attending his fundraiser". North Fairhaven Improvement Assoc. Bull-etin, November 2011. Taken from FairAction Fairhaven website, Spotlight New, "Conflict of Interest" Corner

As noted the above comes from the group which supported the "changin tide" in the recent election.  This was touted as an example of a "potential conflict" of interest. Indeed there were postings on facebook and everything.  You know special privileges to private groups,  how it looks, how it erodes confidence in government.  Things like that.

Change the name and the group and tell me the difference?

Want to keep tourism where it is and out of the Academy Building.  Fine.  Pony up rent for the academy building equal to the costs of the rent for the tourism department where it is.  You would still be getting a bargain.

Whatever your opinion on how the money from the hotel tax should actually be used for, spending money for rent for a public agency when a reasonable alternative exists when you are cutting budgets, and expect to continue to do so, is not doing your duty.  

Want to argue on behalf of the historical society, fine.  And it would be fine with me, if you are open and transparent up front and inform all of the fact you are an elected official, however let everyone know you are appearing in you individual capacity.  

Might even be better if you didn't involve yourself in finding alternate accomodations for tourism in a location other than the academy building (sure discuss the BOH office, but that should be all you discuss).

Whether there are any violations of conflict law found is a decision out of my hands.  What isn't out my hands is to raise the clearly apparent contradiction between a platform by a "slate" of candidates for office and the actions of some of them.  

Applying the standards they touted, using the criteria they applied to those in office, the actions by the "slate" to date in my mind do not meet the standards they touted which were needed and necessary to restore confidence in government.  

Now, after days of ranting, let me temper my outrage somewhat.  

Do I think anyone has gone out of their way to do anything wrong.  Honestly, I do not.  Most of what people could actually be pegged for is, in my opinion, essentially minimal.  Why the rant then?

Because nothing bothers me more than when people say one thing and do exactly the opposite.

I am sure in their minds, they believe they are doing what they feel is in the best interest of the town.  I am sure they feel they haven't done anything wrong.

The exact same belief I hold about those officials many complained of being less than "open and transparent" in many other things previously done.  

I do not automatically equate actions that could be more open and transparent with something automatically devious and malevolent.  Heck all I am doing is raising issues so people can discuss them (that sound familiar by the way?).

I do however get more than just a bit miffed when you don't practice what you preach.  When others have in my mind been vilified for doing no more than what you are doing.

Let me again point out what clearly was the latest less than an open and transparent move.  

A meeting to discuss moving the BOH at town hall between one selectman and one board of health member, during which a second member, who has stated he was unaware of the meeting, walked in on, and for which a third wasn't even apparently invited to.  

If I missed something please let me know, but I am completely unaware of any public discussion by the selectmen or the board of health about the BOH office being located anywhere.  

By the way, if anyone involved wants to state for the record that there was no discussion of any nature about where the tourism department could be located during this meeting, let me know okay.

While I am truly sure Dr. Acksen has the ability to become a valuable member of the Board of Health, I have to question why a new selectmen would schedule a meeting with only the new BOH member to discuss the issue of relocating that office.

This is especially so since that same member is also involved in the dispute about locating tourism in the academy building.  

Not knowing anything else, being an impartial, reasonable person, wouldn't you question a meeting between a selectman who ran on the same "slate" as the BOH member to determine whether it may be feasible to locate tourism in the BOH office as an alternative to locating it in the Academy Building (which that BOH member is on record as adamantly opposing)?

Am I the only one that sees how this appears?  How someone might question this as less than "open and apparent"? 

Seriously, I don't care if you are supportive of my point of view or not on the tourism, I really want to know how this honestly looks to you at first glance, trying to judge this solely on the "open and transparent" standard touted in the last election, leaving out what your personal opinions are about the individuals involved.

For those of you who think I have made a mountain out of a mole hill, so be it.  

I saw a lot of mountains trying to be made out of matters smaller than a mole hill leading up to the election.  

In my opinion, all I am doing is applying the same exact standards I saw being used by others to bring to the forefront what are at least "potential" conflicts.

You know, shot from the hip, take enough shots and you will hit something.

I am kind of starting to like that town ethics commission idea. Might need more than three members, especially if we continue to apply the "open and transparent" standard.