I got a few whys of my own today.
The "Our View" in today's S-T encompass many of the whys the people of New Bedford have over the city council pay raise. I don't live in New Bedford. I am not going to get up an arms over the issue.
I in fact personally know a number of councilors, past and present. Over the decades of time I have had becoming acquainted with the individuals, I would have to be honest and say that both on a personal level, and from a non-constituent observation, in the vast majority of cases, the people of New Bedford have been and are being well served.
That being said, whether the position is worth the pay raise or not is a decision ultimately in the hands of New Bedford. While I would tend to be on the side of those kind of scratching their head over the matter, and wondering many of the same "whys" in the opinion piece, I am also prone to leave it at that since again it is the people of New Bedford who ultimately decide the specific issue.
It does make on ponder the whys though.
Another piece in the paper and another why. Fairhaven's own Academy Building. The issue of handicap accessibility is discussed. It has been awhile since I have agreed with Selectman Murphy. According to the piece the selectman is quoted as saying:
"It has to be accessible. There is no negotiating," Murphy said. "Our tourism department needs to be open to everyone, regardless of their mobility."
For the very first time in its existence it has a chance to be too. Ever notice how that tidbit always seemed to be glossed over however when the intent was to leave tourism where it was.
To the extent necessary to bring that building into compliance for the use of an Office of Tourism within the parameters of law, I agree whole hardily, there is no negotiating. Certainly not with the historical society.
But let me be clear on this, I am specifically talking about the building as to be used as an Office of Tourism.
The big why I got is why does the historical society have any input? Could be the article is incorrectly referencing the society over the Commission (the Commission being the Town entity, the society being the 20 year rent free "tenant"). In which case, the Commission certainly should be involved.
The other selectman who "explored" every option under the sun to keep Tourism out of the Academy Building is also mentioned in the article as follows:
Selectman Bob Espindola said the two sides were able to reach a compromise because Richard agreed to use a smaller amount of space. The Historical Society will remain there, as well.
What compromise? Did something happen that I missed? Was there a meeting after the meeting at which the vote was taken to move Tourism into the Academy Building? Why weren't we told a compromise had been reached?
Mr. Richard accepted less than he would have liked, I think. He compromised. If the historical society at some point prior to the vote accepted Mr. Richard, I really missed that one.
It could have saved a whole lot of ranting if this had come out. I feel really bad having missed the compromise. I mean I was under the impression that the historical society was fighting tooth and nail until the vote to maintain its strangle hold over the building went against it.
I really had to have misinterpreted what I heard at the meetings I attended and the ones I watched, because I was under the impression there was no willingness to compromise on the society's part.
My sincere apologies.
Well now that issue has been resolved, let's get to the other why.
Before we do, I will just mention that it has been stated to me that I have unfairly picked on Charlie and Bob on this issue. Whether I have been unfair or not is a subjection determination. Quite frankly, so is whether or not the challenges and questions as to their position and stance on this issue is picking on them.
But to make sure we don't make people feel left out, and to insure you that from this point on all three selectmen will be "fair game" on this topic, my next set of whys is directed at Charlie, Bob and Brian:
Why does the historical society get to remain in the building?
Has a rental agreement been reached? Has a legal opinion been obtained to validate the use of town building, along with monetary contributions by the town for a non-town entity?
Ignoring this other side of the matter is nothing more than a blatant acknowledgement of a sweetheart deal.
It shows a willingness of the Board of Selectmen to disregard, intentionally I might add, its official duties.
Now I am a realist. I realize that one could craft some document which on its face would "meet" the applicable requirements. Wouldn't it be nice that at least that attempt be made, rather than continuing to blatantly favor one group?
There are a few more whys, but something tells me I will have plenty of time to wonder why on this one.
The last one for today is wondering why I would feel there was so much time.
It's ridiculous to think that the Director of Tourism has to 'compromise' with the society. Mr. Richard should be able to design the space, according to his 'needs' which I am sure he is capable of determining. Then, the society can determine if the remaining space is suitable for their needs. If not, then THEY have a decision to make, and perhaps a couple of the town leaders can locate a place for them. Our tourism office, should not be confined to a hole in the wall, or a space that looks disjointed, but ought to be experienced as true place that welcomes, and accomodates visitors.
ReplyDeleteWhen your running a large corporation such as the Town of Fairhaven, the board of directors , especially the CEO (in this case the Selectman) have the obligation to hire certain individuals in different capacities to make their job easier. One being the ability of a department head, Mr Richards, to convey to the Board his needs and objectives to properly serve our needs and services of our community. I have talked to Mr Richards and I find him extremely talented in his capacity. Obviously some on the board feel differently, and appear to be micro managing instead of listening and letting ones talent justify their objectives.
ReplyDeleteI'm in favor of brainstorming when an idea presents itself, discussion is always beneficial, public access is a must, and I commend Mr. Murphy with his stance, but to actually put a productive departmentt head on a level field with a non town entity is without a doubt perplexing . Reach a compromise with who? To lead is to listen, you must follow in order to lead. If you cannot trust the person you have hired to do what his job entails, you have a problem. I would think that the information obtained from a thoughtful and knowledgeable person such as Mr Richards should be enough to make a decision. Does the Society know Tourism? Can the Society perform the duties of Tourism? I believe Tourism can do History, don't you?