Thankfully, there is usually more than one way.

The few remaining grumbles I have been hearing about the TA choice revolve around residency. Let me start by saying that I have never been a believer in any strict residency requirement. That plain and simple.

Sure all things being equal, I too would agree that preference should be given to a resident.  Here is an example however where all things to be considered were not in anyway equal.  

Acknowledging any choice is a risk, Mr. Rees in my humble opinion was the best choice to minimize the risk. Experience municipal manager, solid credentials, passed the paid consultant's background investigation.  

Truthfully doing the research I have been able to do, which again I as noted in the past for the sake of disclosure is limited to the same stuff any of you could do, in my opinion he would have been the clear choice no matter who locally you wanted to throw into the mix.

The crux of the argument against, because of residency, seems to revolve around the "if he is going to make decisions affecting the town, he should live in town."  I won't completely dismiss such an argument. I have to point out however that such an argument is very far off the mark when we look at the "job".

Certainly the TA is going to have great influence in what we spend on and in what amounts, or what things get done or not, hiring and firing.  This is no different than any type of general manager anywhere.

The primary characteristic needed is ability, not residency.  The next most important thing is just how much interference and/or oversight and/or benign neglect will the "owners" wish to put their own imprint on, or lack thereof.

The concept that a resident is going to somehow be much more concerned because he will be a "taxpayer" really has no bearing in my opinion.  Just how much money have the residents on the town's payroll making decisions saved you?

The only budget cuts I ever hear proposed are from someone else's budget to be spent on another budget or item.  

Don't get me wrong, any competent and professional TA is going to factor in local attitude about taxes and local circumstances. But your TA is a manager who is going to manage based on the policy and directives from his BOD which is your BOS.

Hiring a TA because he lives in town and therefore will be somehow more magically concerned is not a real argument, anymore than it is when you see some departments/and elected officials complain about other departments and spending, except when it comes to their own department.

How well has the poor taxpayer done in the last twenty years?  I use to hammer home the poor tax payer argument.  A long time ago managed to be part of a real team that did something for the poor tax payer. 

The sad reality became however the policy became spend every penny you could raise, because if you don't raise it, it is lost forever.  

So one's focus shifted to making sure the tax payer actually continued to see some real benefit rather than simply paying to operate a sinking ship. 

But I digress ... and before I digress into the just what I feel about past attitudes ...

Personally, someone new coming to town, starting this process should be a very good thing. Someone new may actually point out the various and continuing, shall we say quirks, in how we do things in a certain way, or for certain people.  

The fact he will not know "the Fairhaven way" should be a definite plus in more matters than not. Of course the fact so many know no other way, well that's where the problems unfortunately will arise.

We can deal with those when the bumps in the road start appearing.

Anyway ...

Outside of a few localized locals, reaction to the choice for the one former school decided upon seems to be running 2 to 1 in favor. Even stronger for the other matter dealt with this week.

Near universal agreement that Christmas is in fact occurring tomorrow.

Still a fifty/fifty split on half full or half empty.

A big smile doesn't fill an empty shirt.

Okay, just filling space here.