The stuff that comes up when you least expect it.
A two to one vote on whether to allow the use of town counsel for clarification of town by-laws and enforcement of the same. Extremely interesting, especially when you consider everything involved and everything everyone knows that wasn't said.
Catch the meeting on this one, let me know your thoughts on whether there might have been the need for someone to disclose not an actual conflict, but the appearance of a conflict as required by the law. Assuming that is if a reasonable person might think a not too distant professional relationship might influence one's position.
I was not per se bothered by the arguments relative to how the by-laws should be enforced. I actually agree that if in fact the underlying act relative to the wetlands has been in an area which has been used historically in such a manner by many individuals than the focus shouldn't be on any one individual, but on stopping future encroachments.
However, the issue being addressed wasn't seeking counsel to enforce the by-laws. The issue was seeking counsel in the first instance to determine whether enforcement could be applicable. An important distinction. Absolutely nothing wrong in finding out if there is in fact the means for recourse.
You cannot direct or tell a committee how to perform its duties, so I fail to see why it is necessary, or proper, to speak with the committee or any member about what it intends to do in a specific instance.
Just curious. Could be I might be a bit overzealous with my new found respect for open and transparent government.
What the heck, I suppose we can let this one slide no matter what.
And the issue of reappointment to committees and absences was just a tad interesting, with some tentative jockeying for a replacement.
And the theater company. Put it on the shoulders of the fin com chairman as was done, paint it as the most charitable purpose in the world, argue anyway you want, you are not suppose to give away the town assets or allow the use of those assets for gratis.
It is not that hard a concept, except apparently it is.
The law of the land doesn't change because you like the group, it doesn't change because of who you know in the group, and it doesn't change because you have been violating it in the past.
As has been stated numerous times by numerous DOR interpretations and court rulings, the kinds of expenditures barred by the amendment are those that substantially benefit or aid private organizations in a way that is unfair, economically or politically.
Just as couldn't prohibit the Democrats from holding a rally in the auditorium rent free after you have allowed the Republicans to do just that, if you are willing to rent out the auditorium to groups, for profit and not for profit, you can't make one pay more than the other, unless the Town is benefiting somehow differently by that.
What I really can't wait for is the day some less deserving group is denied the same privileges and then turns around and sues the pants off the board.
You know, if it makes your job easier, keep referencing the fin com chair for why you got to make these poor groups pay, but do your job; and, for once, stop grasping at straws as to why you can do it.
And try to keep in mind the gripe isn't all about money. It is in the very biggest way about doing what is right under the law, and for everyone.
And the gripe isn't from the fin com chair. It is from an individual of this town. When the gripe does com from the fin com chair, you will have absolutely no difficulty understanding the difference.
When you talk about consistency, remember it means the same application for everyone. Being a not for profit does not entitle any group any special privileges, no matter how worthy the cause.
The gripe isn't a commentary about anyone one group, or this particular group either. When you hang your hat on the not for profit concept, you best be willing to leave it hanging for everyone. In which case if may very well start becoming very much about money.
If the size of the crowd determines whether you need a police detail or a fire watch, every group that reaches that minimum size should pay. If any group is required to pay for BPW services than all must pay. If any services is denied to any group, then it should be denied to all groups.
Cutting into the profit margin of an event is not a reason to waive a fee. Is the same rental fee for rehearsal nights and event nights warranted. Maybe not. Is a fee for rehearsal nights warranted, absolutely.
When you have a policy and waive it, just exactly what are you doing if not granting a special privilege?
There are specific criteria that have to be satisfied when dealing with such grants, donations, freebies, however you want to state it.
If a production by a "traveling company" of "The Wedding Singer" has reached the point of where you can look someone in the eye and seriously argue that it can be classified as serving a legitimate public purpose to the extent necessary to meet the exception to the law, well I am willing to throw my hands up and walk away.
By the way, I will be looking for that "proof" alluded to during the meeting that this is a not for profit group. Didn't find it myself reviewing the Sec. of the Commonwealth and the A.G. databases, but it organizations do at times register under names other than their d/b/a.
Nonetheless it is something that should have been in front of the board before then vote, not something to be submitted. While the talk was about a conditional vote, the technical vote, from my limited listening skills was not.
At some point the whole not for profit concept is going to be worth exploring on these pages. That is for another day, in the meantime ...
Fear not though, because every cloud has a silver lining. If you ever wanted to be involved in show business, your wish has come true. In my opinion, the tax payer has just become a financial backer of an off, off, off Broadway musical. You can now ad producer credits to your resume'.
Maybe we can produce a version of "Oklahoma" and do a little re-write to a song. Instead of using "I" in the tile call it "We Caint Say No".
One other tidbit from last night, the DOR has apparently has come down for the first round of the technical assistance audit. Seems they have talked to all the major financial players in town, the paid ones anyway.
Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for some of those meetings, all most as much as being involved in one.
Bubble gum, duct tape, paper clips, and MacGyver deserve as much credit for this town staying afloat as does the concept of "sound financial planing". Well maybe not bubble gum or MacGyver. As for the other two, never discount the true value of duct tape and paper clips.
Okay, enough of the fluff piece. I have saved my "tad upset" rant for our Governor. Whether he actually signed the sentencing bill since the last news report I read or not, whether he vetoes it and sends it back in time for the legislature to override it today or not, whether it dies for this session due to inaction or not, his failure to have inked that law one way or the other when it first hit his desk is perplexing.
If you think it is a bad law, don't go running to the SJC to find a legal loop hole. You really didn't get one, and you probably knew you wouldn't. At best you get to highlight the problems you see, but you most likely knew that anyway.
The Massachusetts "three strikes and out" sentencing proposal is a pussycat in a "clowder" of lions and tigers when compared to most similar laws.
I do believe in fair sentencing. I do believe in a certain amount of discretion along the way. What I don't by into is the idea that you get 20 kicks at the can for violent offenses, and should thereafter cry foul because it has been decided, finally that enough is enough.
As far as clogging up the courts with automatic appeals, the easy solution to that is do away with the automatic appeals. Heck, you want to be fair to everyone with past convictions all ready, fine. Make it count for convictions only going forward. One's personal history may excuse a first offense. It might even mitigate a second offense. Three times or more?
And least I forget the legislature and all avid supporters. When you do something like this, I certainly hope you got a plan in the back of your mind on how you intend to house everyone sentenced under the law, and in fact pay the added costs associated with it.
Putting teeth into a law is only as effective as the funding to make it work, otherwise the pussy cat in the chowder will never be anything more than a paper tiger.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Prior to posting a comment, please review "Comment Rules" page.