Plain and simple, right?

I have been asked what are my issues with the TA article and the BPW article.  

The BPW article is just plain and simply mind boggling.  That simple, and perhaps I have that simple a mind.

You want an advisory board, than it should be set up by the people/person to whom advice is to be given. Whatever collective wisdom the present board has gathered from its duties to provide sage advice has come from the collective exercise and involvement of the board through the exercise of its mandate duties and involvement. 

The same duties and involvement being eliminated by the article, the only way it continues to exist is if the present members stay, and for only so long as they stay.

As I have stated numerous times, I have absolutely no problem with eliminating BPW.  I simply see little to no benefit to this proposed structure, and potential for the nuisance a true citizen's advocacy board will cause.  

I am more than half tempted myself to run for such a position to show you exactly what a nuisance a true citizen's advocacy board can be.  If it comes to pass don't be surprised to see that happen either. 

Nonetheless, simple point in fact is assuming this article passes muster with the legislature and the voters in April, it will be the law of the town.  If the voters approve it, so be it.  

As to the TA

Let's talk a bit more about the "90% good".  Heck in isolation, a number of the provisions are certainly that. 

There isn't enough time or space to highlight all the issues in one blog.  

Perhaps over time, bit by bit.

Wish I could say the provisions with teeth, or supposed teeth were all 100% good, but even my favorite provision is not 100%, and I can't even give it 90%.

But before we get to the negatives, let's highlight a positive.  One I am sure every single person and group in town was completely aware of, since the mantra was have you read it.  

I did. For this one, I liked it.  My only issue was with the pat "with the approval of the Selectmen", however for this matter, it does limit that approval enough where I can live with it.

It will be interesting to see how many of the organizations affected by it and their members actually will like the 90% good of the following item under section 3:

(21) Manage and be responsible for the use, maintenance, security, and with the approval of the Board of Selectmen, regulate the rental for all the Town buildings, properties and facilities, including information technology, except those under the jurisdiction of the School Department, unless requested by the School Department.

This really is a favorite.  It corrects exactly one of the things I have been complaining about for years. 

We have people in charge of buildings and properties and facilities with no true experience, no time, no concept of "town" needs vs. individual committee or entity wants, and seemingly no concept of what to do with a budget.  

Certainly I am assuming every committee/entity in town with responsibility for use, maintenance and security will be 100% relieved that these duties are being lifted from them.  At least until such time as the duties are shifted back to them under another provision, when they might not be so enamored with the conditions when so shifted. That is for another day.

By the way, in case you don't get it, assuming the BPW thing passes in April, this means just about each and every building, piece of property and facility (other than school thingies) in Town.  Nearly every single one. Most likely this does not apply to deeded conservation land, and a few pieces that might have certain general law provisions tied to them.  but a whole bunch of stuff certainly.

Yep, even the stuff "belonging" to your little group. 

And as an example of inconsistency throughout, for this one, the "with approval of the Board of Selectmen" is applicable only to the regulation of rental.  

Note the use, maintenance and security provisions are before the "and" and before regulate the rental.  

As a further note the oversight for "use" will affect those who want to "rent". The "use" in the first instance would have to be approved by the TA (which would have to be a use actually authorized by law), and in the second where the law would allow "rental", then your Selectmen get to determine something.

Of course that is just my interpretation.  What do I know?

But if my interpretation is correct, I absolutely love this provision.  I still love it even if I am only 90% right. Gee, maybe it ain't so bad after all.

No more volunteer committees having to deal with maintenance to buildings.  No more entities simply giving out keys to buildings for groups to use.  Certainly not under the presently "its mine to do with as I please policy."

We just have seen a whole bunch of little bits of things controlled by committees and groups now being controlled by  the TA.  

Don't think so.  Wait and see.  

When one's job could be on the line because of something that happens relative to the use and maintenance of anything because they are to manage and be responsible for the same, that one is going to make sure of certain things.

Again, just my opinion. 

If this isn't what it means, well tell me what it does.  Such things are determined on the provision's plain meaning. If it isn't plain to you than perhaps I am reading it wrong.  If you think I am, tell me.

I truly mean it when I say this is one provision I certainly can live with.

So at least for today, I have addressed something good with the article.  Certainly something good for the town as a whole, don't you think?

Be safe.