A long simmering stew for a very chilly day

This is one of those posts where the read it once, twice, three times rule has been applied. Actually a few more times than three.

The original draft was pounded out early Thursday morning. It has been simmering for a few days.  I have doctored it up a bit. Part of the ingredients include some leftovers, with a smattering of some new food for thought.

I have to say, the inspiration for the piece stems from a line in the editor's letter of the latest edition of The Fairhaven Neighborhood News - "And how he can watch that meeting and not see what I see is something I simply cannot explain."

While the bulk of the opinion piece raise issues from what the editor has seen, it ends with an observation about a different "meeting" that in the opinion of this blogger clearly represents the concept of how people cannot see what I see.

So ... with the above beginning being written at the end ... here we go.

You know, it is easy to pick on the perceived bad guy.  With the perception rule always being in effect, you don't find much better odds out there than being 95% right.

Often times perception turns out to be reality too.

Keep in mind though, even the bad guy can be right once in a blue moon.

Kind of the blind squirrel concept. 

Sure you can shake your head and find the humorous side about someone who owes the town buckets of cash in back taxes and still can come up with the money to sue the FHA. It is an irony that has not escaped this blogger.

What you shouldn't imply, and definitely shouldn't ignore, is the proposed action suggested by a government official for sanctions against a private citizen for enforcing his rights, no matter how ridiculous you may feel the same to be.

The recent opinion piece in our local weekly complaining about and chastising the bad behavior by an official, and which also later addresses the "fence" issue, along with the reporter's articles discussing the two meetings dealing with the matters, kind of highlights the "bad guy premise". 

Now the other opinion piece urges you to watch the on demand tape of the meeting specifically complained about. I also urge you to do so.  More on that meeting in a bit, I also urge you to watch the on demand for the selectmen's meeting from Tuesday past dealing with the fence and other issues, when it becomes available. The cue for the BOS meeting should be at about 30 minutes in, and will costs you about 35 minutes of your lives to view it.

The whole fence blunder would indeed have provided a hearty chuckle if it had just been stated at the BOS meeting the FHA was being sued, who was suing and over what. Not that it had any business being before the selectmen, but I am sure you would enjoy the chuckle.

In fact, a savvy PR person would have done that, nothing more, and left it there.  But savvy isn't at play here. Thinking you are smarter than the average bear doe not make it so.

There was absolutely no legitimate reason to have any discussion of any lawsuit involving the FHA.

NONE.

The selectmen have no say in what the FHA does. The selectmen does not pay the FHA bills. The selectmen do not authorize the FHA legal counsel. The town's sole involvement in the issue would be by and through the Board of Appeals, not the FHA.

The fact that an individual is suing the FHA has absolutely no bearing on whether a license should be renewed. It has no bearing on whether it should be restricted. 

NONE.

Any statement urging that kind of action, even any hint of a suggestion, is no less insidious than any other abuse of position that one can complain about.

Whatever bit of humor, whatever feeling of satisfaction, whatever happy thought may have been flowing through your mind to see a particular individual's issue being aired like dirty laundry, should have been quickly replaced with very sobering thoughts about how such a suggestion could even be made and the implications and ramifications of such a suggestions being followed through on.

Gratefully and mercifully no member of the BOS fell into the trap. Any comment by a BOS member which would have been made relative to tying that lawsuit to a license would have been more than just cannon fodder to counter any legitimate action on a license because of owed taxes.

However humorous you may find the fact that someone who owes taxes but has the money to sue, it should send chills up and down your spine when the chair of a governmental body appears before another board for propaganda smear campaign and states that a lawsuit against his governmental body should be factored into a licensing decision.

That is much, much more than a slippery slope issue folks.

If you accept and tolerate that action, no matter what you think of any of the individuals involved, you line yourself up to be the next one to be pushed off the cliff if you dare question anything. 

To grab the quote from the FNN attributed to the chair of the FHA, "I just want to let it be known that is is going on," said [the chair of FHA]. "Let it be known that he is suing." Shame the rest of what was said wasn't deemed worthy of a quote, or even a mention.

You have to seriously ask the question as to what legitimate reason exists for that statement. 

Oh yes, absolutely there was a reason for it, but in my opinion the reasoning had nothing to do with anything but petty retribution.

Let it be known, we are being sued!

Let it be pointed out, the fact you had to get a variance, after the fact, establishes the fact YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG in the first place.

The fact you received the variance from our local candy store doesn't mean you deserved to get it. It means our fair haven continues to hand out variances like candy.

Do not act like you are the poor aggrieved party.

However "woe is me you feel" though. buck up, the lower courts often apply the candy store concept too. Most people, even stubborn ones, seldom appeal such decisions to the level where a variances is overturned 99 out of a 100 times.

I said it in my prior post, there is no love lost between this blogger and the individual whined about before the selectmen.

I actually have been enjoying a chuckle or two over the whole tax thing and ongoing license thingy. I don't have one ounce of sympathy for the individual on those fronts. And there is no sympathy even on this front. Where my sympathies lay here are with what government, form around the after affects of what happens when such proposed action is even suggested.

I too found it humorous to discover the lawsuit. Until the humor turned to disbelieve over crossing the line. I found it unbelievable with the press in the room, no one caught that little tidbit.

Two wrongs do not make a right, and there was nothing right about that dog and pony show the FHA orchestrated in front of the selectmen.

But there is not doubt that the "bad guy" perception is at play in this particular matter.  

Now as to the other thing. The statements made in a meeting that were complained of.

How someone can't see what you see is not unexplained at all. If this particular meeting in its whole is what you rely on, well I will have to agree to disagree with the suggestions in the piece.

Before I go any further, I will note that I do not view the planning board tapes with any regularity. So admittedly, I really cannot comment about general observations relative to continuing conduct.

But we are encouraged, we are urged to watch a particular tape and that is what I did.

Now most of you are not going to spend two hours plus to do so.  While you should, let's be honest, you won't. So, reading the point/counter-point pieces, and the article on that other meeting, your cue for the tape starts 1:35:00 in.

As noted in the news article, the "ladies" comment is not on the audio. It appears to have been made after the meeting.  Since the rebuttal piece doesn't deny it, one proceeds that it was made. So, preceding on that premises, a point to the editor.

As to the flair with the water bottle thingy, nothing new there.  Nothing invented solely for the new members.

I have had the water bottle action applied "in my face" on an occasion or two in the past. concerning a discussion or two in the past. So nothing invented or used which was drawn up specifically to intimidate or harass the newest members in my mind, based on my experiences.

But watching the "sub-committee segment" and the "Rogers School segment", well I don't see a different quality as to how members were treated during the meeting.

In fact, and especially as concerns the sub-committee, the heat of the discussion and pointed jabs seemed to be between the chair of the main and the chair of the sub.  The bulk of the testy comments directed specifically that way.

Again, whatever post meeting and/or past meetings would support the assertions made, well you either have to dig through those or rely on the observations of others.

As far as this specific meeting, I have to say sorry, this one doesn't show the complained actions during the meeting. 

Now if you want to knock his conduct as to all the members based on this meeting, well knock your socks off.

Was the dead horse beaten a bit vigorously with the stick on the minutes issue? Yes, I would agree it was, just a bit.

That doesn't negate the validity of the points made about the minute being valid. One can also say the arguments for not having the minutes best summed up as "what's the big deal" and "didn't have time to get to them" can easily be found to be extremely frustrating.

Like it nor not, wrong is wrong.

Who you are, does not make it right.

It doesn't excuse you from criticism, but I absolutely agree that it should not subject to you a different standard.

Any decision or action based on the who someone/some entity is wrong.

If you feel anyone is being subjected to a different standard because of who they are, you should absolutely take that into consideration. You should in fact be outraged. You should most definitely express your opinions and thoughts.

Before the stew burns ... until next time.