Remote Control

Growing up, my house had four remote controls for the television, namely myself and my siblings.  Today as a society, just what would we do without remote controls of the more mechanical/technological nature.

How would we manage to open a garage door?  Start up the car on a cold winter day, or a hot summer day?  Forget to set your DVR, not an issue, you can do it remotely.  Need to buy something but don't want to hit the store, just click a button on your computer.

And the latest in remote gadgets, government participation.

Skype, Tango, and a host of other services now make it relatively easy for a member of a board or committee to stay involved when circumstances prohibit an personal appearance.  Got a whole set of laws and regs. on the books to make sure government is able to run without you actually being at the seat of government (mainly 940 CMR 20.10).

The S-T has a follow up story today on the issue raised at a previous Fairhaven Selectmen's meeting.

Something they and you should read, since you cannot reserve a right which doesn't exist:

(2) Adoption of Remote Participation. Remote participation in meetings of public bodies is not permitted unless the practice has been adopted as follows:

(a) Local Public Bodies. The Chief Executive Officer, as defined in M.G.L. c. 4, sec. 7, must authorize or, by a simple majority, vote to allow remote participation in accordance with the requirements of these regulations, with that authorization or vote applying to all subsequent meetings of all local public bodies in that municipality.

In today's seemingly more hectic world, it is a tempting thought when there is difficulty getting quorums for committees.  Once you adopt it, you have it until subsequently revoked.

There are five reasons when attending would be unreasonably difficult for which to allow "remote" participation: (a) Personal illness; (b) Personal disability; (c) Emergency; (d) Military service; or (e) Geographic distance.

Let's start with the last one.  Geographic distance.  As a result of what?  Shouldn't be in there, for any reason whatsoever.  Assuming the inability to get into town for a meeting is a result of something beyond your control (which should be the only criteria for a "distance" excuse), than I think the other four reasons pretty much cover that fact.

All the fifth one odes is allow for advance planning of a remote meeting.  "Hey, I am going to be on vacation for the next two meetings, make sure you have the remote meeting equipment set up.".  

Sorry, I don't buy into this one, not in the least.

The remaining reasons may seen more compelling, especially where there may be a quorum issue.  Yet what they do is in fact continue to perpetuate not only the perception, but the actuality that those governing are in fact removed from those they govern.

Just exactly what is wrong with expecting and requiring that decisions be made by those in attendance at a public meeting.

I have an extremely long lists of reasons why such an arrangement could be beneficial.  Indeed, one can certainly envision specific instances where that might in fact be more than just desirable.  But it is not, and should not be a case by case decision.  On a case by case basis, you now place the judgment outside of the decision making entity on whether a member or members should be allowed to participate remotely.

If adopted, the only decision is whether one of the five reasons applies, with the still subjective standard of unreasonably difficult.

I like the option of watching a meeting remotely, heck I might even by into remote public participation, but not remote voting and decision making.

No exceptions, no special circumstances.

Too many things are done at a distance all ready.  We don't need to take that additional step away from hands on government.  This is the type of thing, in my opinion, that actually encourages more walls being built around public officials and the public.

Shifting gears ....

I miss bulky item pick-up day.  I really do.  I am sitting hear chuckling fondly over what was a town wide recycling extravaganza.  Didn't matter too much if you put something out on the curb that wasn't going to get picked up by the actual "town" truck.  So long as you hauled the items to the curb the day before, odds are it would all be gone, and more often than not before the official pick-up.

At $80,000.00 a whack, in times where you have to decide whether to cut people or options, this one had to go.  The new one item a week policy with the regular trash pick-up seems to work.

But the yearly event was something.  Drive by a house with a mountain of things the morning before and drive by later in the afternoon to see a mole hill.

Nostalgia, nothing like it.

Speaking of trash talk ...

Where the heck are the solar panels on the dump?  I will be honest and note I haven't personally sought an update on this one.  I guess it might be time to do so.  Still say we should turn it into a winter sled park, with luge boarding in the summer.

We would probably make more money off of that than we would under the final electrical contract for the solar energy.

And before I go, least anyone think I have forgotten the "buying land" and water advisory committee, just a reminder that the good folks in one of the town's involved, at there last annual town meeting, saw fit to enact a by-law to seek special legislation barring a town committee from buying land without town meeting approval (See the blurb at the end of the S-T article on June 14, 2012).  Don't know what will happen with the same in the long run.  I do know that it seems I am not the only one who had the thought in the spring that it should be Town Meeting that approves land purchases.  Different committees involved, most certainly.  Same concept, in my mind at least.