I didn't use my computer yesterday, and someone out there is probably hoping I wouldn't use it today. Sorry for those who may be disappointed. Fact is, doing this thing gets kind of addictive. So here is today's fix.
Interesting piece in yesterday's S-T folks related to the property involved indirectly with the recent allegations filed with MCAD. I use the words "indirectly involved" because it is important to remember the fact that, as pointed out in the newspaper, we are looking at an issue, several actually, regarding the wetlands that should not get lost in anything else. Matters that have been on going for several years.
Someone said to me in a conversation after the story broke in the newspapers that the owners of the land were going to get away with the violations for the order of conditions. I agreed that this shouldn't happen. I went on to add I didn't think it would.
Leave out the alleged discriminatory comments for the moment (not forget the allegations, just deal solely with the land questions, as the land questions should be), does the history behind the wetlands issues, ongoing hearings and dealings, indicate that the particular cease and desist, after all that transpired would evidence any agenda other than to insure compliance?
The unfortunate part of the fall out from the allegations of discrimination, be they found valid or not, is going forward Con Com as a whole will have a more difficult job dealing with the situation of the wetlands.
The best way to sum up what needs to be remembered relative to the wetlands is to use the quote in Thursday's S-T story from Select board Chair Dr. Bowcock, "Let's not mix the two issues; we are concerned about the unacceptable comments that may have been made," he said. "The lawyer may try to spin it and say there are issues with enforcement of conservation rules and having to do with conservation wetland specialists, but these issues are completely different."
Indeed the issues are completely different.
The morning is just too nice to work up any more steam. Enjoy the day.
Part of the problem is, of course, the Selectmen's Office, because they are suppose to oversee and regulate their appointed committees and employees, sometimes callously by throwing out the entire body, as was done to the Conservation Commission in the past, or by improper terminations and the resultant damages awarded by prior employees, because they wait too long. Now we have a commission, with all of the best of intents, with no procedures for the benefit of an applicants understanding of an expensive and technical process. If the Selectmen spent more time overseeing the appointed officials and employees under their authority and less time toying with officials not under their authority, who fall under state election laws, they would begin to address the different boards’ needs.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with most committees in this town. Lack of procedures approved after public hearing process. Correct? Some are only in 2012, agreeing to approve board minutes. Amazing! Some are the same people, voting on the same applicants, wearing different hats. The only thing that has changed is the ray of sunshine created by televised meetings so we can all now witness how little has been done over the years. Are boards today better equipped to carry out their duties than boards of forty years ago? Hardly, as they have been stripped and left to die on the vine with no support…
Newly elected and appointed town officials trying to understand and apply rules, containing prior on the fly, self-created policies never scrutinized by law, even of approving minutes, while at the very same time trying to create new rules for future members on the fly. Not recommended, correct!
You can’t fight city hall, but you can now enjoy watching it live!
Ch. §192-7 Wetlands clearly states that in 1988, after holding public hearings, the Commission would promulgate rules and regulations to achieve the purpose of the chapter. Reading the less than half page of text contained in Chapter § 8 Conservation Commission, proves this was never done. I suggest that is how some wanted it.
Watching an applicant, who has assembled an army of experienced consultants, proceeding through a process just waiting for the precise moment to object to a community’s process, is extremely predictable. Unless you have never actually been through it before… An applicant funding and then objecting to a board’s choice of professional consultant on what-ever grounds, should have been sufficient notice to the Selectmen’s Office that this applicant may soon be scheduling an appointment at their next meeting to select the next agreed to consultant, which is their right according to state law. Correct?
I think you are also seeing why residents are reluctant to volunteer for service or run for office in the town. Personally I have been getting many clear messages from across the entire range of town government by too many unconnected and unrelated officials to deny it is a problem. How we fix it will only begin to show once a sufficient number agree to the problem itself. Houston we have a 40 year problem.