Straightening the Skewered

If you are a follower, you know there was no piece yesterday morning.  I didn't do my normal morning reading and wasn't in the right frame of mind to deal with the significant issues, at least not properly.  It was a case of having to count to 100 too many times on some things.

About mid-morning yesterday someone brought to my attention a letter in The Standard Times concerning the seemingly never ending, and at this point absolutely ridiculous, issue of the poor historical society and its ill treatment by being forced to share its space.

If it is so ridiculous you might wonder why I continue to deal with it.  What can I say, at times my sense of humor is just a bit warped.  But I digress ...

Let's start out with another version of setting the record straight.  

By establishing a Historical Commission in 1971 by adopting G.L. c. 40, Sec. 8D, sponsored according to the writer by the historical society, the Town of Fairhaven recognized the importance and need for a Town entity to oversee "the preservation, protection and development of the historical or archaeological assets of such ... town" (see. c. 40, Sec. 8D) as governed by state rules as the letter writer points out.  

I will also add, one should be very, very careful when invoking state rules.  Because in my mind, there are a whole bunch of state rules being ignored here.  But again, I digress ...

Now unless I am being fed a whole bunch of misinformation by a whole lot of people, the Historical Commission is presently in support of Tourism moving into the Academy Building, and has been in favor of the move for years; and, there is nothing new about the idea for the move either, with suggestions for such an arrangement having been made back in 1992, or thereabouts, for that to happen if and when the Town did in fact establish a Tourism Department.  

Listening to the members of the Historical Commission at the several Selectmen's meetings and reading news articles, it seems to me that the people charged with the duties of preserving and promoting history in Town, can see a real benefit to the arrangement.

So, simply based on a strict reading of the state "rules", assuming one has actually read them, the debate should be over, but it doesn't seem to know how to be.

Let's talk about that 1992 proclamation that the historical society continually brings up.  "The museum will operate hereafter as a cooperative endeavor of the Historical Commission and the Historical Society."  

First, let me again state, as has been stated time and again, that no one board can give away by lease or otherwise town property forever, without a vote of Town Meeting.  Couldn't be done then, can't be done now.

So the proclamation did not grant to the self-admitted private group the right to occupy the building rent free forever.  

Neither did it grant to the group the right to dictate terms, nor the right to exclusive use and control of the building.  

Neither did it state the historical society, and only the historical society, runs the museum.

Had that been the intent, what need would there have been for the phrase "a cooperative endeavor".

I dare say from what I have been able to gather, the relationship between the Historical Commission and the historical society over the past twenty years has been anything but a real cooperative effort.  Decisions by the powers that be have been more influenced by politics than any actual concern over the preservation, protection and development of the historical or archaeological assets of the town.  

The best interest of the Town has had very little to do with the past decisions regarding the use of that building and the once strangle hold by the society over it.

I will state that the artifacts and displays in the present Tourism Office will do more to enlighten the public "on several key points of our town's history" than any "period room" similar to any other "period room" located in anywhere U.S.A., period.

Over and over again, it has been asked of this private society to establish for us exactly what efforts and resources have been used to benefit the Town; to establish that the "services" to the Town justify the benefit of the bargain.  Heck, I will even bite onto the line thrown out in the letter and ask the society that it detail the "time and efforts for the public to educate and enlighten them on several key points of our town's history."  

Not your periodic presentations, lectures and the like mind you.  You don't need a two story building to do that.  I mean in operating "The Museum of Fairhaven History". Remember I said I would bite, but not that I would be blinded by self-serving statements.

Please, let us know exactly what endeavors it has undertaken to honor the "agreement".  What assets have been purchased and donated to "The Museum of Fairhaven History"?  What real improvements have been made by it to the building housing that Museum?  Please, detail for me and others exactly what has been given, rather than simply taken.

A cooperative endeavor means more than "give me your building, you continue to pay everything, I pay nothing, and get to do as I want.".  

I am all for legitimate and reasonable governmental assistance and aid to the concept of preservation and appreciation of history in furtherance of a legitimate public purpose.

I am not for totally bankrolling the existence of any private group unless there is a real benefit to the bargain.

The only fuel the "finance chairman" threw on this fire was the simple fiscal reality that it makes no sense to pay rent for a town entity when viable options exist.  Some may not consider all options viable, however it was pretty clear what Town Meeting members thought about a town entity paying rent.

The gasoline this writer is now pouring onto the fire, that others are unwilling to let it die out, is by the belief of an individual citizen that is is truly ridiculous and wrong to let a private entity dictate how the Town can use a Town building. 

No one actively sought the removal of this private entity until it, and its representatives and supporters, refused to budge an inch on the move by Tourism.  The refrain from the society was, and continues to be, the building somehow magically belongs to it, and it alone.

The only thing I agree with in the letter is the question presented at the very end. "What has happened to the honor of an agreement?"

Of course first you have to have an actual agreement.  Then you have to decide whether the other party has honored its part of the agreement.

For my part that answer is very easy.

This is one of those issues that just keep reminding me of seagulls, and the fact that refrains of "Mine, Mine, Mine" sound amusing in Disney movies, but ridiculous in reality.