Changes, in three parts and two pieces of fruit

I often use a three part "test" for things.  I have previously discussed the head, gut and heart litmus test; the 1/3 rule; and, today I mention the same question from three different people in a span of a week concept.

When three people manage to ask the same question within a week, being brought up in different settings, by people of differing opinions/backgrounds/slants/etc., it is usually an indication to me that there are probably a number of others with similar thoughts/questions.

What has been asked deals with why the fin com would be making recommendations on the Town Government Study Committee recommendation articles since the recommendation articles do not seek any money?

The Town by-laws do state the Fin Com duties are to investigate all articles that call for the appropriation of money.  If that was the extent of what the enumerated function was, there would certainly be a point to argument lurking behind the question. The by-laws however also provide that the committee is also to investigate and make a recommendation on all articles which in any way may affect the finances of the town.

Taken to is fullest extent, the last provision noted would mean each and every article.  One can easily connect the dots to any article and town finances.  Sometimes one may have to connect a whole bunch of dots to do so, but it can be done.

Historical practices/precedent has meant that Fin Com has to make a determination as to a somewhat more immediate connection.  Zoning matters are seldom provided with a recommendation.  There are other similar "categories", however hopefully you get the connection as to what may or may not be recommend.

As to the specific articles in question, my response is the most apparent rationale is the fact all three articles relative to the "government" have a direct connection to the recommendations made by the DOR "Financial Management Review" done for the town.  So if a recommendation from a committee springing forth from a financial management review does not provide a close enough connection, i.e. does not affect the finances of the town to a significant enough degree for some, we have to simply agree to disagree on whether it is in the province of the finance committee to offer a recommendation.

I could enumerate a number of other reasons, indeed one need only look at the detail in the articles and the documents issued in support of the same, to see one can easily connect the dots in one or two steps to matters that will greatly affect the town finances.

Moving on ...

Tomorrow is town meeting.  A gathering that will spend a great deal of time on the prospect of change.  Not to mention a great deal of time on changes to be made. Numerous articles to be amended, and some more at this point potentially amended.

Someone posed an extremely valid point yesterday to me.  Why do we even have a warrant?

Sometimes I have to wonder about that myself.

We have special town meetings where matters that don't belong on a "special" warrant are given preferential treatment.

We deal with proposals that fit into the four corners only because we accept replacing the original square containing the contents with a much larger one.

There are times were the square is reduced to the point of something absolutely not be worth more than nothing.

The difficulty, the often at times quagmire that all involved face is that when stuck in the middle of such things, which side do we head to in an attempt to extradite ourselves from the enveloping quicksand.

If all you are talking about is fruit, who cares whether it is apples or oranges, right?  Well, we all should care.

Ever try planting an orange tree in these parts?

Enough for today. Seriously.

Be safe.