Director's Cut: There is a Difference You Know

Over the course of time you have read on past pages for this blog the old saying, "Having the right do to something does not always make it the right thing to do."

There is another old saying, about good intentions. Actually, several such sayings.

The Board of Selectmen last night had the right to implement the remote participation law. The majority of the Board did the right thing, despite have that right.

The one member in support, if I understood last night's statements and prior statements, based the support primarily  because it could be done; because the Board could revoke it; because the Board could implement restrictions. I must have missed the why this is in the best interest of the town.  I also missed why the benefit to the town would be greater than not implementing it. I definitely missed the "restrictions" or "conditions" or any recommended policy for its use.

Two of our Selectmen articulated their reasoning for not supporting the implementation of the policy. Let me give you the Director's cut here:

Government work's best when official are present, dealing face to face with the issues and having to make difficult decisions in person, and policy should not be based on any one individual.

Selectman Murphy's motion to implement failed to gather a second.  It suffered the procedural result it deserved.

This is indeed the 21st century ladies and gentlemen. We have the technology to build it. That doesn't mean we have to, or should.

Going deeper into the 21st Century, if the support of one audience member for this is indicative of a position on what our government should be, well ...

Think this through ... the BPW voted 3 to 1, with the member seeking remote participation abstaining,  to support the request, to allow for it to be used only by one member during any meeting and designating that right to a particular member only, during the stated prolonged absence,

What does that mean? If no one else can use it while first dibs are in effect, who is truly served by this policy.

also, think about what this does mean about a board that argues it is equal to the BOS, that its five elected commissioners provide vital and essential services?

I don't know about you, but if any selectmen decided to be gone for three months and participate remotely, I don't think that would be deemed acceptable.

Perhaps the BPW members in support of this proposition can explain how "equal" and "necessary" they are if they are able to do their job by phoning it in.

Maybe you would accept this from a selectman.  Maybe they might accept it from a selectmen.  So be it.

But if you wouldn't accept it from a selectmen, but would for a BPW Commissioner, that kind of pops the equal/necessary balloon as far as I am concerned. Kind of proves there is in fact a difference, doesn't it?

There is a difference between having a right and doing the right thing.  There is a difference between facing the crowd while making a tough decision and making the politically expedient one. There is a difference between sound reasoning and let's give it a whirl.

Until next time.