Just this and that

I think today it is important to draw a distinction between the chatter in Fairhaven over the DOR report and the recommendation that we move to a strong town manager, the what is clearly becoming in my mind the misunderstood and/or misused chatter about the Town of Dartmouth looking to get rid of its "town manager concept".

Indeed there are some in Dartmouth longing for the good old days of a Board of Selectmen reigning supreme.  From my reading on the topic, and discussions with Dartmouth residents I know, the "some" are a minority and are those who find that, how shall I say, the political wheel doesn't turn as smoothly with the town manager concept.

The louder chatter in Dartmouth is whether to abandon a town meeting concept and adopt a "council form of government, presumably with a mayor.  

The fact the Town of Dartmouth is considering the change is not relevant to the Town of Fairhaven.  Dartmouth is not a peer community.  You are trying to compare a community with both an operating budget and population nearly double that of the Town of Fairhaven.

Additionally, it seems many people are simply picking up blurbs they see or hear on what Dartmouth is supposedly doing.  As report in the S-T in an article on the matter, the Dartmouth Selectmen voted to support a "nonbinding ballot question would ask residents if they approved of the town's department heads reporting directly to the Select Board and not the administrator."

An again I note, that the talk related to doing away with the Town Administrator there is to do so and switch to a city form of government, not a simple turn back the clock.

Keep one thing in mind.  Any town that changes its government is going to hear the repeated refrain about "the good old days" from some.  Heck, I hear about it every year.  I am constantly asked why we can't do things the way we use to do them.  

Statues, rules, regulations, arbitrators and court decisions are why you can't. The complexity of government, even on the most local level, has reached the point that the process cannot continue to remain the same.  

Does that mean everything must change? No is the simple answer.  

Again and again I will say, the fundamental key to the future well being of the town as a whole is the town manager concept.  This is not a new refrain for me.  It is one I have been using for a number of years.  It is something long over due in this town in my opinion.  

Whether something happens at this May Town Meeting or not, will depend significantly upon what is proposed.  Nothing earth shattering with that assessment.  

While I will acknowledge the concern by some that we might be rushing the issue, I don't agree with it.  Change has been the mantra by so many people over the last few years.  Presumably people have been considering exactly what that change should be, if not in detail certainly in concept.

To call for change, without considering the goal is an exercise in futility.  

When the detail is proposed, then will be the time to determine whether it is a rush job.  

If you can draft a Constitution in about four months and a Declaration of Independence in about four weeks, I think you ought to be able to whip together a town manager proposal somewhere in between.

I was copied on a letter sent to the selectmen by a Town resident.  It was mentioned that the writer had spoken to a number of people and they were unaware of the report from DOR.  A very unfortunate but true statement.  

While it is indeed unfortunate that many people are unaware of the report, that misfortune is self-inflicted.   It is on the website.  Its existence has been discussed a number of times by the selectmen.  There have been numerous references to it in the press.  It has been discussed by other boards and committees.

The letter writer was also correct in stating that, "It is incumbent on town officials to let people know what is proposed and the potential impacts on town management."  The debate that will ensue over whether this has been accomplished will be most interesting.

I believe I outlined a "notice" plan a few days ago.  In my mind that would be an adequate process.  That doesn't mean it cannot be expanded upon.  But if I didn't make it clear previously, I will here:  people also have the obligation to stay informed.

People should not expect a knock on the door every time something is proposed, even something as significant as this.  A contributing factor to many of the ills in today's society relative to government, is the absolute day to day apathy of the general public on the matter of being governed.  

Too many people simply don't care about it unless and until it affects them specifically.  

Too many people are also going to expect that their personal preferences should dominate every point.  

It simply isn't going to be that way.  

Shifting topics ...

Interesting piece in today's S-T about a proposed ordinance where landlord's will get held liable for "problem" tenants.  Hopefully the ordinance is also going to provide a requirement that police notify the landlord when a tenant hits a "5th" criminal offense.  Better yet allow landlords the right to run criminal record checks on prospective tenants.  Make it grounds for eviction anytime a tenant allows someone to move in without such a check.  Quite frankly why use the number six.  Make it three strikes and out.  

You want to really take care of the problem.  The time the police show up for #6, take all discretion out of the landlord's hands.  Make it automatic that a moving van shows up, and the occupants are moved out and the locks are changed.  

When you talk about issues like this, you best be looking at some of the underlying reasons as to why these things occur, not the least of which is the sometimes maddeningly long and frustrating process it takes to get rid of a tenant.

But more interestingly, why limit the law to landlords? What about single family residences?  Bars?

Watch the nightmare this one starts.

that's it for today.  Stay warm and be safe.