If you viewed the meeting, and something of note did happen well give a shout.
In a bit of a bigger picture scheme, the train for the area has cleared another tall hurdle. One down and too many to count to go. When the governor comes down to make the epic announcement and it is universally accepted that it will be the next governor's ball to carry, you know that next big hurdle to be cleared, soon isn't something on the horizon.
Speaking of big pictures, what do you think is the big picture, at least from today's view, relative to the town? I still say the most dominant feature on the landscape is the Town Government Study Committee.The end of that process is more than likely a bit too far for most to focus in on at this point.
Seems there are more than a few focal points in town.
But losing focus for a bit, or trying to get some, the Rogers/Oxford study committee had a request for town counsel services. The issue around what to do with the buildings is going to be an interesting one. Tow years ago I would have written a prediction in stone if anyone had asked. Now, who knows.
There have been a few changes to the landscape over time. A definite shift in attitude among segments of the population.
It will be interesting to see how things evolve on that one.
Okay, it is Tuesday, it is chilly, and I have had any coffee yet today.
Perhaps we will leave it with the smattering of nothingness and have an "Open Line" forum today.
Be safe.
What was interesting about the town counsel issue, is that all three selectmen had Tom Crotty on their lists, but have agreed to interview two other firms, one being, of course, Kopelman and Paige. Earlier in the meeting, it appeared the motion was going to be based on interviewing the two firms, until Espindola, in his very nice guy way, threw a snit about trying to save the town money.
ReplyDeleteThis lead to Haworth changing his mind to allow K & P an interview, though he didn't feel it would change his mind. In basic terms, Haworth pulled an Acksen by not supporting his own position.
More dog and pony shows. But, it seems as if Espindola will settle for that show knowing it is unlikely his choice will move forward. I don't understand this. It makes no sense in doing selectmen's work if the work being done is for no reason. So......what's the reason?
What was most ironic, was Espindola claiming his choice came from a place of objectivity. Perhaps objectivity means focusing on only one thing. It certainly doesn't include consideration of decades of good service for a fair price as he has been dedicated to removing Crotty.
Last irony was Espindola reminding that it was Bowcock who recommended using K & P for outside service.
So, in recap on the town counsel situation, Espindola pushed for his favorite attorneys, Haworth messed up a motion, and Murphy smiled a lot.
~Different day, same old snit~
What is the bigger reason? Does he wants to replace Crotty, or does he specifically want K&P? He argues for a new town council to save the town money, but he doesn't argue for K&P because they are the most reasonably priced. So what is his reason for always naming K&P????
DeleteIn 1995 through 1997 the Finance Committee did research the legal line item of the Town as a whole. One for keeping it transparent, the other to keep the masses informed with procurement procedures. K + P was the wish of a certain few, even back then and as it now seems, that any person (s) that feels slighted by the then and current Town's legal counsel, pushes for the removal and replacement of that individual. Just my opinion and observation.
ReplyDeleteChange is good, financial well being is great, local knowledge and experience, PRICELESS. Past experience, unless there is a breach of contract, or lack of professionalism, the purpose of trying to remove a steadfast reliable Town resource for legal representation, is counter productive. Experience is key, just as I remember the futile approach from years ago. Keeping the finances in check though is a necessary procedure.
Government Study Committee, hat's off for a group who seem to be inclusive, transparent, an approachable. What else can you ask for, I wish them the best.
I remember a recent story on the radio about a government body (I think it was the New Bedford school department) who used out of town council. They had no problem with the service that was provided, but the problem was that travel time from Boston was added to the fee. So the (city?) paid for almost 3 hours of council before they got any work done. Something to consider.
DeleteJust keep pouring money into Rogers/Oxford like we are doing with Union Wharf.maybe CPC money can be used instead of buying more useless land.Thought the study committee had its ducks in a row ,now they need town counsel,for what..Doesnt anyone make decisions anymore without asking for town counsel..Its a good thing that FinCom solves their own problems,if not we would still be on fiscal 2008....
ReplyDeleteI believe the committee wanted council to look at the wording of the HHR trust fund. I don't know what they think it says, but I doubt it says anything about spending the money for any other use than the school as a school. Let's see what council $ay$.
ReplyDeleteOpen Line, and I didn't have time to comment all day. Luckily, there's still some time left.
ReplyDeleteThe region's MCAS scores were released this week. Although Fairhaven had a significant gain in 8th grade math, there were losses in three grades of elementary math. When are administrators going to stop chasing their tails? They'll focus on problem areas, and although that remedies the problem, another area that wasn't the 'focus' goes down.
And what difference does it make when they compare an 8th grade one year to another set of 8th grade students the following year? How is the deficient class currently in 9th grade (last year's 8th graders) doing this year? Do administrators think we don't see what's happening?
If our students are up and down with MCAS scores, then what sense does it make to implement the supposedly more rigorous Common Core Standards?
I honestly believe from what I've heard and read that the standards will be lower than what we already have. The standards will be lower and the scores will be higher, making it appear that they have a grip on educating our children.
Sandra Stotsky, professor emeritus and member of the Common Core Standards committee stated that Common Core Standards were not as high as what we currently have. She refused to sign off on them.
She also said that not all students, due to the natural limit of their abilities, will not be able to reach the same level as a more proficient student. It's just a fact. The only way everyone can 'reach the bar,' is if someone lowers it.
Anyone whose read the recent articles about Common Core can see the confusion among the area administrators. Our kids are going to be participating in a situation that's not clearly defined from the top down. I don't understand how people can sit quietly and watch this happen.
If the administrators dont understand Common Core which should be in their area of expertise,how can you you blame the parents for this..Like they said ,all students will not be on the same level ,and like MCAS these tests show were the student populace lies.
ReplyDeleteMany parents (outside of this area) are asking questions about Common Core and can't get simple answers. They're given political answers, if any, but not answers to their questions.
ReplyDeleteThe Common Core tests, like the MCAS tests will show where the student populace lies, but when the standards are lowered, more students will then be in the upper tiers. That won't mean more students have a better grasp of the material, only that they didn't have to demonstrate as high a level of knowledge.
The subject of Common Core entails more than just the standardized tests. It is tied with something called 'data mining' which although described as being a useful tool by educators, may more likely have an undisclosed purpose.