Most important date for the April Town elections: April 1, 2013. This is the date it will be held.
The Town has an election calendar posted on the website. Take a look at it if you have an inclination to run for office. The one date that seems to be missing is the first day to grab your papers. This has historically been the first business day of the new year. Anyway, if you are serious about running, or are serious about getting someone to run, you will need to know these dates.
The grapevine does have two people running for selectmen at this point. There are rumblings about a possible third candidate, as yet unknown, being actively sought to run. There are a few other names being bandied about. I fully expect BOH to be contested. School Committee will probably again have more candidates than seats. Might be nice if we could get contested elections in all races.
It will be interesting to see to what extent the recommendations in the DOR report that is suppose to be received sometime in the next few days will play in the upcoming elections. From a strictly dollars and cents perspective, I am guessing the Tow will be found to be in pretty good shape. From the commonsense perspective, I think there are going to be a number of recommendations pointing out where we might need improvement.
Let me qualify the use of the term commonsense here. We are operating under a SOP, the bulk of which wast established nearly 80 years ago. That in and of itself is not a reason to look to making changes. From then to now however there certainly have been a number of changes in the how and why things are now done, for which the how and why things were done have not been able to keep up.
I think many realize the need to at a minimum take a very hard look at how we as a Town operate.
I think many realize the need to at a minimum take a very hard look at how we as a Town operate.
Government is now big business. There is no escaping that. Even in a small Town like Fairhaven, the layers and levels of bureaucracy are significant. It is intrusive, sometimes needed and sometimes needlessly. It is cumbersome. It is too often slow to respond when essential, and sometimes to quick to react to a hypercritical. It resists dealing with problems and at times goes out of its way to create them.
If government were an onion, it would consist of so many layers that it could could make the whole world cry.
The biggest problem in our Town, to me anyway, is our government operates on a linear level rather than there being any reasonable hierarchy. We talk about the Board of Selectmen being our Town fathers yet its actual power, authority and oversight is limited. Each and every elected Board, within its own jurisdiction stands on equal footing. Many appointed boards only actual oversight is limited to yearly appointments.
If government were an onion, it would consist of so many layers that it could could make the whole world cry.
The biggest problem in our Town, to me anyway, is our government operates on a linear level rather than there being any reasonable hierarchy. We talk about the Board of Selectmen being our Town fathers yet its actual power, authority and oversight is limited. Each and every elected Board, within its own jurisdiction stands on equal footing. Many appointed boards only actual oversight is limited to yearly appointments.
How to address that linear problem and solve the resulting issues is going to be the debate that will be taking center stage, assuming there are those in power presently willing to look at matters seriously. There are too many fiefdoms, with too many battles being fought, on too many fronts.
Decisions get made, get countermanded, get ignored. Worse yet, there doesn't seem to be an "even" application of policy, or rules. By far, the greatest number of complaints I hear involve the "how come they can but we can't argument".
The report I think will be good in many ways. It will form an independent basis for the framework of how to deal with matters, which is needed. Too often criticism is met with petty excuses about why someone is attacking, rather than any desire for reflection of thought.
The report won't be universally accepted. There will be those who will choose to downplay the significance.
It is a recommending report. We are free to do with it what we will. But the fact the recommendations are coming from "outside" rather than being proposed from within, should lend it a fair amount of credibility.
The report won't be universally accepted. There will be those who will choose to downplay the significance.
It is a recommending report. We are free to do with it what we will. But the fact the recommendations are coming from "outside" rather than being proposed from within, should lend it a fair amount of credibility.
Ultimately the decision on what to do will rest with us. Taken seriously, it will be more than just a discussion piece. Whether we need to tweak, repair or replace certain mechanisms, we need to address everything in it, or perhaps more.
Too often we see lip service paid to a matter, only to see options die out after time. We pounce on circumstances here and elsewhere as a rationale to put a band-aid on a gash, or worse yet, to make feel good decisions.
The report is a real chance to do something constructive. The keys to success: first not take the criticism personal; do not judge how a particular position operates solely on who is in it presently, as personnel do change, be it sometimes too quickly and other times too slowly; the criteria should be what is in the overall best interest of the town, not a particular person, department or entity (i.e. get rid of the "turf war" mentality); and, have an open mind (you don't have to agree, initially or in the end, but need to be receptive to an idea and look at it and judge it on the overall merits).
Don't forget the upcoming Special Town Meeting. It is scheduled for December 4, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. Quite frankly I am expecting a fairly quick meeting. There will certainly be some discussion of a few of the articles, however I think it is going to be a fairly smooth meeting.
Rather than go into a rant on specifics at this point, I will simply state that matters that get placed on the special should indeed fall within that "special" designation. I add that there are certainly some clean-up articles to take care of matters that procedurally should be dealt with sooner rather than later.
Where I get a bit peeved is spending add-ons that shouldn't be there.
Very simply, the question for any new spending should be whether this is a matter that you would be inclined to call a STM for in and of itself. Until such time as our Town developers a policy of regular, twice yearly meetings for the purpose of spending, any new spending needs to be dealt with as part of the establishing of an operation budget.
Last year total spending, from all sources topped out at just under $53,000,000.00. Latest figures I have heard had us finishing the Annual with just under $4,000.00 of our general levy capacity. Throwing something on the warrant, no matter what the amount, to make one feel more comfortable about what ifs isn't how we get to balancing a budget.
Heck, if you want to take about dealing with what ifs on an isolated basis, you can give me just about any budget, scenario, and request, and I can come up with a reason and excuse as to why it has to be done right now and shouldn't be judged with other articles.
The report is a real chance to do something constructive. The keys to success: first not take the criticism personal; do not judge how a particular position operates solely on who is in it presently, as personnel do change, be it sometimes too quickly and other times too slowly; the criteria should be what is in the overall best interest of the town, not a particular person, department or entity (i.e. get rid of the "turf war" mentality); and, have an open mind (you don't have to agree, initially or in the end, but need to be receptive to an idea and look at it and judge it on the overall merits).
Don't forget the upcoming Special Town Meeting. It is scheduled for December 4, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. Quite frankly I am expecting a fairly quick meeting. There will certainly be some discussion of a few of the articles, however I think it is going to be a fairly smooth meeting.
Rather than go into a rant on specifics at this point, I will simply state that matters that get placed on the special should indeed fall within that "special" designation. I add that there are certainly some clean-up articles to take care of matters that procedurally should be dealt with sooner rather than later.
Where I get a bit peeved is spending add-ons that shouldn't be there.
Very simply, the question for any new spending should be whether this is a matter that you would be inclined to call a STM for in and of itself. Until such time as our Town developers a policy of regular, twice yearly meetings for the purpose of spending, any new spending needs to be dealt with as part of the establishing of an operation budget.
Last year total spending, from all sources topped out at just under $53,000,000.00. Latest figures I have heard had us finishing the Annual with just under $4,000.00 of our general levy capacity. Throwing something on the warrant, no matter what the amount, to make one feel more comfortable about what ifs isn't how we get to balancing a budget.
Heck, if you want to take about dealing with what ifs on an isolated basis, you can give me just about any budget, scenario, and request, and I can come up with a reason and excuse as to why it has to be done right now and shouldn't be judged with other articles.
What if everyone had the same concern and put in the same effort into the budget as a whole? Imagine what could be accomplished.
What gets lost in the moment is that every isolated transaction does have an impact on the whole. Budgets do in fact get balanced on the backs of numerous small spending requests. Not just in dollars and cents, but in attitudes and policy. There are at least a half dozen other spending requests that could be on this special that aren't. Each could be argued for under criteria that would justify the need in isolation. Each aren't on the warrant as a result of an understanding and willingness to work within a system that must squeeze every available nickle.
Personally, I am fully aware of the fact there may be a vote other than I prefer on a very small spending article. To keep a record intact, it would be easy to justify support. It isn't about winning and losing. There is a much larger issuer involved. The sad part is that those who should be able to see that don't. They will excuse actions based on what ifs. They will justify votes based on what has happened elsewhere. They will put a band-aid on a gash out of fear of what may be.
I have said it before, I will say it here, and I will continue to say it: every decision made has significant ramifications. Every vote for or against affects what does and does not get done, not only by the immediate ramifications, but also by the consequences to others as a result of a vote.
I never underestimate or ignore needs and necessities at the expense of policy and procedure, but neither should one ever underestimate the cumulative effect of chipping away at policy and procedure.
Remember, we role the dice with every decision we make. We apparently even roll the dice for long periods of time without realizing it.
What gets lost in the moment is that every isolated transaction does have an impact on the whole. Budgets do in fact get balanced on the backs of numerous small spending requests. Not just in dollars and cents, but in attitudes and policy. There are at least a half dozen other spending requests that could be on this special that aren't. Each could be argued for under criteria that would justify the need in isolation. Each aren't on the warrant as a result of an understanding and willingness to work within a system that must squeeze every available nickle.
Personally, I am fully aware of the fact there may be a vote other than I prefer on a very small spending article. To keep a record intact, it would be easy to justify support. It isn't about winning and losing. There is a much larger issuer involved. The sad part is that those who should be able to see that don't. They will excuse actions based on what ifs. They will justify votes based on what has happened elsewhere. They will put a band-aid on a gash out of fear of what may be.
I have said it before, I will say it here, and I will continue to say it: every decision made has significant ramifications. Every vote for or against affects what does and does not get done, not only by the immediate ramifications, but also by the consequences to others as a result of a vote.
I never underestimate or ignore needs and necessities at the expense of policy and procedure, but neither should one ever underestimate the cumulative effect of chipping away at policy and procedure.
Remember, we role the dice with every decision we make. We apparently even roll the dice for long periods of time without realizing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Prior to posting a comment, please review "Comment Rules" page.