Last chance, last rant

I am going to start out by asking those of you who haven't read yesterday's piece, Reminders and Things to Remember, to take the opportunity to do so.  If you are a regular to this blog, you have probably guessed that Article 35 on the warrant is a bit of a sore spot for me personally.

Last rant on this one, so if you have all ready had enough, you might want to skip today's post.

When we dealt with the same issue last May, it was defeated by 4 votes.  It was defeated only because it needed a two-thirds majority to pass.   

At that time there were two things that had me opposing the article.  The first being the money part.

I realize the increased fee is in fact a small amount.  What bugs me most often amount small amounts, is the argument it is only a small amount.  People can afford it.  You know the "cup of coffee per week" argument.

In truth, depending on how much water you use and the type of coffee you buy, it won't even come out to a cup of coffee per month for most people.

What gets missed in that argument is that for some people, that cup of coffee is the only luxury they give themselves.  Just because you or I can afford to do something, just because the cost of doing something is insignificant in your mind, doesn't make it so for everyone else.

Ever stand in a grocery store checkout line and see someone having to dig through their pockets because they miscounted their purchase?  Someone you know.  Someone who is struggling.  

On any given day, at any given time, for far too many people, the cost of that cup of coffee is something they simply cannot afford.

The second thing was my gut feeling.  No my got feeling is not simply some ESP talent, gift, whatever you want.  My gut feeling is based on a whole lot of experience over the years about how things get done, how things are presented and then how comfortable I am with the concept.

This article just caused me to have a bad feeling.   The two thirds vote requirement set off a little alarm.  There is usually a reason behind requiring more than a majority vote on anything.

I hadn't done the homework on it.  Unfortunately, this does happen.  I just wasn't comfortable with it.

The money part aside.  The article itself aside, i.e. what it is for.  What bothers me most is the fact that I, or anyone of you, should not have had to do the type of homework on this issue/article to discover what in fact had been done under the special legislation in 2010.  

We should have been told, up front what had changed.

Now maybe I am being a bit picky here, but in my mind when you have special legislation that significantly changes the powers of an advisory committee, or changes anything that significant, you should make people aware of what the heck is going on.

Could be changing the requirement from obtaining town meeting approval to forcing the need to call a meeting to disapprove wasn't significant for some.

that being said, no one should have to go digging for that type of information.

I did my digging right after the town meeting last May, knowing a 4 vote margin wasn't going to dissuade anyone.  I expressed my dismay last June to some.  

What this article has come to represent to me is exactly what is the chief complaint of many people right now.  Open and transparent government, or the lack thereof.

What becomes most disturbing about this article is the fact that no one  on the local level seems to want to claim responsibility for the insertion of the borrowing provisions I have discussed; and, and no one seems to have even known this was being done.  

You have to wonder exactly what the people in charge are doing when we have special acts passed affecting our town that no one apparently asked for and that no one was aware of.  This does not seem to bother some people.  To me, this is something we should be extremely concerned about.

Sometimes it is hard to argue against things like Article 35.  The underlying principle behind the article is water protection.  People want safe water, people are reluctant to taken any action that might even remotely put a safe water supply in jeopardy.  A fact I think someone or some people are actually counting on.

Several points to keep in mind.  

First, there is currently funding in place.  It isn't as much as some may like, and more is always better, as we hear year in and year out from multiple people looking for funding. Everyone is behind the eight ball right now financially.  so the argument goes approve the money and then get the legislation changed.  Kind of like locking the barn door after the horse escapes.

As far as this article being an all or nothing proposition for the communities involved, that was the choice of the advisory committee or whoever submitted the article.  There is nothing in the special legislation that requires each community to approve the extra money before it can be charged in a n individual community.  It is up to the individual communities to do so.

Convenient that Fairhaven is first in the process.  I know that the argument is that this is just how the town meetings happen to be scheduled.  I also know if you can get Fairhaven to pass the article, it becomes a much easier pitch in other communities to sell it. "Hey, we got a chance to buy land and it will only cost us this, because Fairhaven pays over 50% of the money."  

Next, the argument made is about the need for speedy action sometimes.  Well if it is perfectly all right to require the town to call a special town meeting to disapprove something, why wouldn't it be perfectly all right to require the advisory committee to seek a special town meeting to approve something within the same exact time period.  The borrowing can't be effective until the 45 days pass anyway.

I mean if there was a purchase that was urgent to make, why not require the reverse procedure?

There also seems to be some confusion about this advisory committee being the same committee that oversees the regional water district which we appropriated money for under our own water budget.  It is not.  It is a separate entity.

If we want a separately empowered regional committee, set it up that way.  If there are those that want to rely on the powers and duties of statutory regional districts, than set this one up that way.  If you want to create an independent agency, then put that out to the voters to see if that is what they want.

If you are not disturbed by the fact that neither this advisory committee, nor your board of selectmen were apparently aware of what was done when the latest version of the special act was approved on our behalf, then you can accept this as a reality, and approve the article as is.

If the whole process disturbs you, including keeping everyone in the dark, you can vote against the article and send a message to whoever decided they knew what was best, and tell them we will decide in the first instance whether we wish to participate.

It may be that my personal points of view are out of touch.  It may be I allow myself to get to wrapped up in the little intricacies of how a people should be governed.   

It may be I am reading just too much into what I see as another example of a slow erosion of local control.  

I can tell you what though, if this does go through, it creates one heck of a precedent for getting things done the way someone wants them to be done.