Another chapter of you can't make this stuff up

Well, I actually caught a selectmen's meeting. Via live broadcast mind you. Probably a very good thing. Easier to bite your tongue during a meeting if you are not at the meeting.

First, let's note the positives.  No negatives per se relative to the first meeting with the TA in the former Exec Sec chair, although it does appear the TA has decided to replace the old chair.  Could just be memory though.

Hard to get critical about anything with the TA this early in the process.  Oh I am sure if nit picking were the order of the day one could find a few nits to pick. Truth be told, if we were another month in, I might be tempted to take one of those fine combs and go through the strands to glean an egg or two. This early in though, let's stick with the positive side, concerning the TA that is.

When discussing the economic committee proposal of Selectman Haworth, it was again refreshing to hear positive statements from the guy in essentially the captain's chair, as opposed to the tone of comments we are all to familiar with hearing.

Yes in fact the town's ability to do certain things is indeed limited.  But economic progress in this town has been severely limited by a whole lot of tunnel vision, and too many proposals being conducted inside a tunnel.

The bright spot from the TA was a reminder he in fact has been involved in matters similar to the proposal from the incumbent Selectman and sees it as a plus. No cautionary comments, no negatives down playing expectations. 

A positive to hear positive talk about doing something.

With that said ....

Let's get to the irritation of the day. 

As short as last night's meeting was, it should have been at least 25 minutes shorter.

At some point, this grandstanding by entities and public officials to use the selectmen's meeting as a PR stunt has to stop. The dilemma being you keep the off the agenda, well the whine and cheese party takes place elsewhere.

First, everyone in that room that struts around using a moniker of "town" official knows or should darn well know the selectmen have nothing to do with the water rates.  The only conceivable rationale for that segment is quite simply face time in front of the public.

Trust me when I tell you, long term, I simply cannot wait until the state takes over the whole housing authority concept. It is not an if. If is a when.

But we will deal with that the next time that rears its head at the state level.  Which should be right after the next budget crisis.

We wade through the water issue, we have the BPW super in attendance, the chair of that Board, over the woe is me we are in tier 3.  Your complaint is with the BPW.  You know it. Deal with it. 

As far as the playground argument about how the town charges the schools and what it does to the poor Housing Authority, doesn't even deserve the world's smallest symphony playing "My heart bleeds for you". 

When the town votes on your overall budget then start complaining. When the bulk of your revenues go into the general fund, then you can complain. When what you spend, how you spend it is subject to town oversight, then start complaining about the town charging you.

And despite what some think, the schools are subject to a heck of a lot more financial oversight by the town then believed, and essentially 100% more than the FHA. 

You have options.  The argument that putting in more meters only creates more work for the BPW, somewhat laughable. The function of the water department is for what? 

Somehow that whole conversation did not leave me feeling that the concern had anything to do with over burdening the BPW. 

As far as not operating on a subsidy, well you may feel that way, but you seem to keep coming to the town with your hand out. You keep piggy backing on the town more and more. 

The state and feds aren't providing you and "additional" subsidy, but from my way of thinking, every dollar you get from or through the town, well ...

Seriously, I probably would have just shook my head and chuckled over the whole thing, but for that statement about what do we charge the schools.  The same thing we charge town hall, the police, and fire, and whatever else real town buildings are hooked into. 

You aren't entitled to be treated equal because you aren't equally accountable to the Town.   It really is that simple.

But lets consider this one water under a bridge we shouldn't have had to cross.

Next was "we want to manage the new PRIVATE senior housing".  Why?  

Any wrench thrown into the gears of any impending deal for the Olde Oxford School building because of any attempt to strong arm a private entity into requiring the building be managed by the FHA should be left out of the tool box.  If the private company is looking for a management company and feels the FHA can do it, okay.  

Want to put a line in the contract saying that the FHA will be considered, okay, I can live with that. But the choice of management should be left solely to desecration of the company. No given first consideration. No nothing really.

Enough said. On that point, well mostly enough.

Moving on to the "if two wrongs don't make a right, three or more certainly ain't going to make it right ..."

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that's the only reason you put up a fence with the good side facing you.  Even before our town by-law requiring the good side to face out, the vast majority of fences had the good side facing out.  

Because ...

Let's start with what some say is the common courtesy rule, being a good neighbor.  Even if your neighbor isn't good to you, common courtesy let's you know two wrongs don't make a right. It also dictates you don't face the ugly side to the world. Let's not forget the ease factor in erecting the fence. Kind of one of the reason when you put the bad side out, so you don;t have to move it further into your own property line.  

But, and even more importantly, how in heavens name you don't know the code, or hire a contractor who doesn't know the code is well beyond me.  Seriously. 

Then to go before the selectmen, lament about being sued, discuss the damn case, and make the statement that because someone is suing you, the selectmen should considered that fact when dealing with a license?

Tell you what, nothing about that fence instills any confidence in me that this a a top notched managed operation. The fact that the license was mentioned, well ...

Fortunately, all three selectmen managed to zip their lips. They didn't bite on that bait.

There is no cat being let out of the bag here folks.  

None.  

If you know the player involved  you should also know he knows everything being written here about the foot in mouth episode last night, and is well acquainted with dealing with such issues.

And if you know the player involved, you also know there is no love lost by this blogger. 

At a purely personal level, the whole discussion was high on the S & G scale. But that scale has no application or use in making any decision or argument by any public official.

The point here folks is one I have tried consistently to emphasize. Government isn't about making it personal. No decision should be driven by the who. 

Any license action based on legitimate reasoning will now a very real potential for meeting the threshold necessary to be challenged. Because someone went to the selectmen trying to get leverage. Well not someone. A public official.

Quite frankly it should have been obvious to anyone with a modicum of exposures to the SOP of do's and don't's of government, not to mention the actual law, that you don't ask (in your official capacity no less) another governmental body to essentially sanction a private citizen for exercising legal rights.

Especially when no matter what you want to argue, you were wrong in the first place. Yes, you were wrong.  Blame your contractor all you want.  Having heard the arguer argue about owner's responsibility in the past on an occasion or two when chastising said owners for not following the code, the by-law or the law, that issue is pretty moot.

Outside of the management request, and even that would be suspect, this was nothing more than hi-jacking another board's meeting for PR.  The shame of it all is this could very well end up with ... wait for it ... the town having to carry the load created by the FHA.

I absolutely throw down the gauntlet to anyone even remotely thinking that there was any justification for discussing a license in the same breath as the fence lawsuit.   

The suggestion to factor in retribution for exercising a legal right, that type of government abuse, isn't going to happen and go unchallenged. Using an old expression, not even to my worse enemy.  

Two wrongs don't make a right. Neither does the statement made. 

It shows just how wrong government potentially can in fact be.

Until next time.