It was another interesting town meeting. Went a bit long compared to the previous two years, but still Town Meeting members were able to tackle the annual and special warrants in one day.
The issue of the rent for the tourism department was resolved by a substantial margin. I would hazard a guess that if there was a vote as to what town building the department should be located in, that would have been resolved by a very substantial margin also.
I was a tad surprised there was very little discussion on the article. I had expected a number of people to get up and make the same arguments to Town Meeting that they made at the selectmen's meeting as to why the department should stay where it is.
So the unknown going forward is where do they put the department. I think most people know where they should put the department. I think most people know exactly what is wrong with the whole issue. I know most people at town meeting knew.
No one should be kidding themselves into thinking that vote was solely about paying rent either. the next step in this saga will, I hope, will be carefully thought out.
The additional funding for the Mattapoisett River Valley Water Protection Advisory Committee failed to get the two-thirds margin needed for passage.
The wind turbine moratorium failed. The article was indefinitely postponed. If memory serves me, the vote was 180 to 102 in favor of indefinite postponement. For the record, I voted against indefinite postponement. Not because I was in favor of that particular article. I preferred a vote on the article itself to do away with the argument of that an IP isn't a vote on the article.
In the technical sense one is absolutely correct in making that argument. In the practical sense, in the minds of those voting for IP, they have in fact voted against the article. Perception being what it is, I nonetheless would have much rather seen that vote occur on the moratorium to adopt vs. the motion for IP.
I cannot support the adoption of an article that in my opinion would not be enforceable. Neither can I support such an article clearly intended to have the effect of law, but being defective, and then being submitted to obtain a consensus of town meeting.
I do not know how an amendment to the article making it a resolution only might have been dealt with. I cannot guarantee that it would have been accepted, but any attempt to deny a vote on such an amendment I think would have been vigorously argued by many, including myself.
But there was not such amendment offered. Which is a shame really, especially it you really did want a consensus of town meeting.
Instead town meeting was left with the choice of whether or not to adopt a clearly unenforceable moratorium code provision. Town Meeting spoke. Very clearly I might add.
So what can we learn from yesterday's gathering?
Well let's all think about it a bit more.
Would love to hear your thought's on it.
Because of a couple inaccuracies in today's Standard Times, I'm writing to clarify my statements at Fairhaven'sTown Meeting regarding the school department's FY13 budget. I made a motion to approve a level funded budget using the FY12 figure. When I spoke regarding the motion the first statement I made was that I am not advocating for staff cuts. Instead, my message to the school department Saturday and at their April 11th Public Hearing was that, instead of reducing their already ineffective MANDATED services for special education services which also impact typical students in the classroom, the time has come for at least partial user fees to fund NON-Mandated services such as extracurricular activities and kindergarten. My reasoning was spelled out in letters to the editor I submitted to the Neighborhood News during the two weeks prior to Town Meeting, which can be read at www.neighbnews.com, the sole forum I chose to use as this was strictly a Fairhaven issue. The gist of my letters was that I do not want more of my tax dollars going toward funding at 100% the non-mandated programs that service only a fraction of our students, while mandated services that would benefit 100% of our students are slashed and teaching positions cut. I stand by my position while I respect the vote of the elected Town Meeting Members who approved the Selectmen and Finance Committee's recommended budget, which was less the the school departments original budget figure.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I think you made a very good case for what the problem was in regards to the Mattapoisett River Valley Water Protection Article. I hope concerned folks may be able to petition the General Court to get some of the legislation wording changed.
ReplyDeleteWhat worries me are the "What If?" commentators in the crowd. Protection of our drinking water is totally taken for granted and overlooked by most people who use municipally-distributed water. What these folks do not understand is that they are one gas tanker, or one fuel delivery vehicle accident away from potentially NOT having drinking water at all. To re-activate the Town's source (Nasketucket River Basin), or to get water from another source would cost so much money, it's unthinkable.
I think it's extremely shortsighted for the Town to not consider funding additional protection for those lands - for the SECOND year in a row. Furthermore, the explanation from our BPW chair was simply asinine, and I now question his ability to understand the importance of our water supply, sources, and distribution. I get the issue with the Committee having unprecedented authority, but if that's the major hang-up, it needs to be dealth with or you'll find other Towns following suit and voting down articles becuase they see us as the bad player in the group.
NOTE: I am pretty sure the BPW Member who spoke is no longer the Chair.
DeleteWe are in fact one gas tanker or one fuel delivery truck away from disaster, one that can occur at any of the existing homes in the area.
I get the rationale behind the request. I understand it and I actually would have no problem supporting the fee but for the mechanism created and the method of creation and the essentially free rein the committee has. This isn't solely about borrowing.
Want special legislation to create a regional authority, no problem. I got a real easy fix. Take the fee, give it to the existing water district, not the artificially created autonomous ADVISORY committee. Give it to an existing entity over which we have some actual oversight.
Does anyone actually wonder why we need two regional water entities? Might it have to do with the fact that one actually can be held accountable and one can't?
As to promise not to do something, forgive me, but I Have been around too long to accept that as a guaranty of anything.
If this comes up again, in the same form, I will fight it again. In addition to what has been laid out in opposition, there are numerous additional points which will be brought up. Including what in my mind where serious inaccuracies presented in support of the article.
I think it is shortsighted to ignore the granting of what you acknowledge as "unprecedented authority". By ignoring it, in my mind you assent to future action.
This advisory committee has grown exponentially since its creation.
Yes shame on us for not catching it sooner. Shame on everyone responsible for the expansion of its powers for not actually telling us back in 1998, and last may.
As to how other towns see us, that will never be a reason for me to support anything.
So today's real simple solution, transfer the fee from the advisory club to the actual water district the people actually voted to join, limit the spending to acquiring land, I will be happy.