Destination Unknown

Somehow I managed to make it through the viewing of the selectmen's meeting last night, as painful as it was both physically and mentally to stay awake.  If you also viewed the meeting, perhaps you can let me know if it was just me and my altered mindset, or if in fact there were a few truly bizarre moments.

The most bizarre moment, for me, was when they actually were able to work as a cohesive group and get something done.  Unfortunately this involved no more than setting the dates for upcoming meetings.

Right up there, the discussion on the proposed wind turbine siting by-law.  Just what the heck was that all about; and, just what did getting answers to a series of questions submitted to the Board of Health have to do with the submission of a proposed zoning article from the Planning Board.  

Ultimately, there might be some matters that tie into each other over whether the proposed zoning article gets supported by the selectmen or not.  The simple fact is the submission of the proposed article to the selectmen is a procedural step under the law.

Whether there should be a further hearing on the issues surrounding the existing turbines is a matter for the existing board of selectmen to continue to debate.  Whether those issues are relevant to the proposed zoning by-law is a matter for the public hearing on the proposed by-law to be held before the planning board, the entity charged with holding the public hearing on the proposed by-law.

What also bothered me was the attempt to place a member of another board, in the audience on the spot.  Really to say place them on the spot is mild.  No rationale was given as to why the "questions" one selectman has submitted to the Bd. of Health are/were relevant to the the proposed by-law.  In fact, from a viewer's point of view it, at least this viewer, the issues sought to be discussed had to do with complaints about the existing turbines.  

I have no problem with any Board or Board member addressing any issue it has with another Board or another Board member when relevant to the discussion.  Whether it was or wasn't is, at least from what I saw, is impossible to tell.  

Indeed if the selectmen were going to take a vote on the matter that night, it might well have been an appropriate time and place to address the matter.  The strange thing: not one comment by anyone as to the proposed by-law as submitted.  Not one as to the text, provisions, specifics.  

Again, it could be my perception was a bit skewed.  If it is, it is really off kilter in that it seems we have a Board where members are marching not only down different streets, but in different directions.

Even when they appear to be headed in the same direction, it is impossible to tell just what the destination is.  Take the Director of Finance/Treasure and/or Tax Collector and/or no Director of Finance and/or not combine position and/or combined position.

If you watched last night's meeting and can tell me what the consensus was for that "position" is and how to advertise it, PLEASE let me know.  I tried following the suggested language from each of the selectmen for inclusion and exclusion in the description to be published, to be tacked on as an addendum to be somehow inserted and I couldn't get it.

I am not even sure what it is they want.  

First and foremost, is it the selectmen's position that the treasurer and tax collector positions should be combined.  If so, say so.  Then, is it the selectmen's position that the position of Director of Finance be abolished as recommended in the DOR report, if so say so.  If not, than say that too.  

But the whole crux to dealing with any structural change is the town administrator/manger recommendation.  If the Board isn't going to support that, than everything else is putting the cart before the horse.  

The strong town administrator position may be the most controversial recommendation (I don't think it is, but I do know a whole slew of folks worried about how that is going to affect there turf), and if it is, right on its heels is the suggestion that the Board of Public Works be abolished.

There are a couple of people who I am sure are licking their chops over this prospect.  Keep in mind one thing, this recommendation was made with the implementation of a strong Town Administrator position in mind.  

And in this cluttered mind, absent a significant change in operational hierarchy, abolishing the Board of Public Works isn't going to be an easy sell.  When one looks at issues which exist presently, can it be said that there is the ability to shift more oversight of anything to the Board of Selectmen as presently established?

The issue here isn't about whether the Executive Secretary is capable.  The issue is whether the Board is capable of staying the heck out of the way of day to day operations.

Once again I will note, you can tackle all the procedural matters you want, a fair number of which are contained in the report which are not dependent on a Town administrator (and which should have been dealt with a long time ago).  If there isn't a decision on whether to pursue the Town Manager option, you are spinning wheels.

There is time to get things in place for the May Special Town Meeting.  But that time is dwindling and fast.  I am guessing here, but unless you have a specific game plan in place, with specific language as to what you want to do, and unless that is accomplished no later than the second week of March and you hold a series of public meetings, you will be hard pressed to get the votes.

I am going to leave it at that for the time being.  Take care and be safe.