I rather be lucky than good

After a few days off, I would like to say I am well rested and eager to get back to it.  The reality is I am not. That be said, having taken a few days off to let thoughts about certain matters fester, turn, simmer and run their course, I am beginning to see a game plan formulating on several fronts for a number of matters.

So, here we go again.

With the deadline approaching to take out papers for office (February 7, 2013), there appears to be some activity.  If everyone turns back their nomination papers, we will now add Board of Health to the contested column.

Curt Devlin has taken out papers for that office.  He will compete with Peter DeTerra who is seeking re-election.  This match up would turn out to be the one with top billing on the marquee for the election.

Mr. Devlin is a vocal opponent of the wind turbines in town.  Mr. DeTerra has been Chair of the Board of Health throughout the process of the last several years.

The importance of such a race should it materialize cannot be underestimated.  

I have heard of several other people seriously considering running for BPW and Planning Board, and also toying with the idea of running for Selectmen, so we may end up with healthy races in those contests.   Not holding my breath on those races though.

For everyone interested, remember the deadline to pull papers is February 7, 2013 and the papers must be returned by February 11, 2013.  

Normally I would be inclined to think anyone pulling papers this late out to think seriously about making the move.

Of course we live in anything but normal times.

There has been little activity by  announced candidates.  Additionally, I am more inclined to believe that with the advent of social media, internet explosion and an uptick, be it a slight one, in active involvement, the ability to get the message out quicker and easier has made things easier for someone to run.

Don't get me wrong, early planning and organization and getting your personal network established before the New Year isn't ever going to hurt anyone.  Incumbents should have those areas pretty well covered.

The changing realities are nonetheless such that it has become much easier for people to get organized and run effective campaigns in a shorter time span, not to mention we are seeing people from organized groups running.

Not that there is anything bad about a shorter cycle.  Outside of the drawback that political pundits may lament the lack of chatter material, nice compact election seasons are overall a welcome thing.

As long as we see some competitive action.

Moving on ...

Choices.  It is what we face every single day. Some are easy, some are hard.  Some make you shake your head and wonder.

It seems every year around this time I get into a funk about things.  Some of it comes from the mind boggling process that goes on in this town during budget season.  Some of it comes from wondering whether there really is any point to it.  

I think the only thing that is going to get me through this season is the hope that we are going to see a number of articles for the STM that will in fact be worthy of every one's consideration.  Note the use of the word consideration, and not support.  

I don't expect universal support for any of the anticipated proposals.  I do expect, and every person has an absolute right to anticipate, proposals that merit sincere debate.  

If we are to embrace the concept of the benefit of continuity in governmental operations and officers, if we are to accept the concept that it is indeed a good thing that persons in charge have an accumulated institutional knowledge, if we are going to accept the concept that government exists to serve the people, than that acceptance and faith has to be based on a solid foundation of proven performance.

Good government is more than just ensuring solid finances.  Indeed you can attain solid financial status in a poorly run operation.  We are living proof.  

As I have said before, it is easy to play the blame game.  Everyone likes to be a Monday morning quarterback, and I readily admit I do more than my fair share of that. 

The fact that it is easy to criticize does not make the criticism unwarranted.  I will again note that the DOR recommendations, with the exception of the first four, deal with matters that are very long standing, most of which have been complained about for years by numerous people.  

Some matters addressed which need attention cannot be excused away by simply trying to lay blame on one person.    

When you line up to take the credit for what is right, you cannot skip the blame for what is wrong.  If it has been a team effort to get the right things done, it has most definitely been a team failure to allow the less than good things to happen.

The biggest problem this town has, and I truly belief this is a lack of communication.  I see it over and over again.  I have attended to many meetings called to try and resolve issues only to see sandbag moves and bombshells dropped.

With apologies to "Cool Hand Like", the problem we have is that "What we got here is failure to communicate".

It exist.  It is getting worse.  There is a smoldering fire that if not doused will erupt and engulf this "well managed town".

If one continues to put forth budgets that max out the tax rate, then one must clearly be able to articulate just what it is you are planning to do for the tax payer.

The quest for the  absolute best bond rating for borrowing that cannot be done within the tax rate, that will have to go out to debt exclusion votes might be appealing in the event you get the vote.  I am not so sure you will find much more appetite for the extra borrowing through another tax increase any time in the near future.

While the maintenance of a bond rating becomes extremely important on borrowing on matters all ready approved, one has to wonder what success would result in obtaining approval if a plan is laid out to the voters telling them that this quest will drive reductions in operating budgets.

If you continue year after year to take the maximum from the tax payer, doesn't he or she have the right to expect the most bang for the buck?  

Does not that tax payer have the right to expect you to continue to provide services?

Wasn't the pitch in the first place that you needed more money to do something over and above?

Are we now seriously asking them to also accept less, and after the fact?

The most disturbing thing I continue to find, is the lack of any clear game plan.  If past practice is any indication, if there is in fact one, it will be pulled like a rabbit out of a hat at some point in time for dramatic effect.

Well I like magic acts as much as most people.  I also have done some rudimentary acts of prestidigitation over the years.  I have also learned that magic acts, are just that, an act.

You can change the packaging for something all you want, the bottom line is if you don't alter what is in the package, it is just more of the same.

Okay, I am starting to just get up on a soap box here without necessarily giving any specifics.

There will be time enough for that later.

What else might interest you?

Selectmen meet tonight.  I am going to try and catch it on govt. access.  Some interesting tidbits in the notice/agenda.

One the piqued my interest is of all things, believe it or not, mail procedures in the selectmen's office.  It interested me only because someone gave me a call last week to discuss a "rumor".  It being a rumor, I am not going to get into details because I haven't found anyone to confirm it.

Having an idea of what it is about though, one has to wonder why an office that has been in existence for hundreds of years has to discuss mail procedures.  You would have thought that wouldn't need time at a selectmen's meeting.

But this is the type of heavy hitting they do.

I am guessing there will be some jabbering over the amount to use for gas and diesel for the budget.  If one is inclined to use the existing amount budgeted for next year, then I fail to see any issue as to what one will be submitting as a recommended amount for next year.

I fail to see any long discussion as to what, why or how what anyone else may or may not be doing presently affects one's ability to put together a budget that one feels is needed to provide level services.

But then again, I have a different philosophy on how budgets are suppose to be done.  You prepare one for what you need, you submit it, you fight for it if need be, but you don't look for others to validate your work for you.

I can probably write the full script for this discussion right now, along with the one for the discussion on financial policy, including the "facts" that will be left out. I can pinpoint the info from the various reports that will be given, and the info that will be ignored.

The matter that should be discussed, which will probably be avoided at all costs is why the deficiencies highlighted in the various reports have not been addressed in the past.

I submit that with the exception of the "change of government" recommendations in the DOR report, the vast bulk of the policy and procedure items are matters that one would think would in fact all ready be in place in any sound financial policy.

But perhaps this one is off in left field.

Smoke and mirrors will accomplish the magic act, and never underestimate pure dumb luck.

At some point when I really feel the need for a great rant, I will bring up 700,000 reasons as to why dumb luck factors into it, and why at times it is clear that no one really has a clue.

On a positive note, it is just February 4, 2013 and the board is going to pick the interviewees for the financial director position.  Who knows, in less than a month and the position could be filled.

Might as well end on that positive note.

Take care and be safe.