Okay, just a quick note about our own elections coming up. The candidates who can appear on the ballot are set. Three contested races.
Selectmen, School Committee and Housing Authority.
What will happen going forward, hopefully if ambition meets actual motivation, we will take a look at the various posting, literature and statements of the candidates.
One topic I intend to keep harping on is whether any of the selectmen candidates intend to push the failed agenda of the TGSC articles from last May. I have seen a post where it has been stated that the "term limit" article is going to reappear.
Well I for one damn well want to know if any candidate is supporting the article going forward. I specifically want to know why, especially after last years resounding "no".
Let's hear it. Not just on term limits either.
Even the suggestion to bring this one back up is perplexing. It is going to be a pain in the ...
I am going to have dig out the "tapes" to those excruciating meetings and listen to the "logic" all over again. Not to mention try and find the less than convincing literature. Believe it or not, there are some out there who think we didn't pay attention. We didn't read. We didn't educate ourselves.
Well the we is actually you. I hear I am just a lot of things that even with my relaxed rules of comment can't be retyped here.
Anyway, we apparently are going to be asked once again to "Do the right thing". I am betting we will once again resoundingly do the right thing. That assumes the "talk" actually becomes the "walk".
Start paying attention folks. Start asking the real questions.
Well start doing that if you are going to vote based on issues.
Anyway, all the time there is today.
The last failed Town Meeting article referred only to select, elected officials, because “they set policy”, is what was commented on the floor. I note the paid Town Clerk’s office was left out. If an employee should ever refuse to issue a marriage license, is that not a town-wide policy affecting our legal budget?
ReplyDeletePoint 1. Appointed standing committees don't set town-wide policies? The appointed Community Preservation Committee doesn’t direct future policy in spending, which cannot be amended on town meeting floor? The actions of the Green Committee and the Cable Advisory Committee don't help set town-wide policy, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the taxpayers and ratepayers of the town? They don’t expose the taxpayers and ratepayers to future fees in providing those town-wide services with proposed changes to town recycling and violation fees? Town negotiated electrical service which must be expressly opted out from? They don’t have appointed Green Committee budgets and fees, reviewed by town employees? I submit they do, when a new video facility is proposed to be built and staffed by town employees, through a franchise fee, when they need future assistance by the town budget in defending a first amendment lawsuit or medical insurance assistance, provided by town departments. They also do present their own individual articles for town meeting, town-wide adoption, merely as an appointed committee. The appointed Historical Committee long term appointees present articles for funding all the time. The appointed Waterways Committee influences our public waterfront decisions. The Capital Planning Committee doesn't set town-wide policy? I suggest they absolutely will. In addition, we have thirty year members sitting on ZBA, but they don't set policy by their actions or inactions? Elected officials, being subjected to automatic disqualification for longevity under the term limit proposal, should then be restricted from making the same appointments to committees, over and over, decade after decade, in my opinion. The failed article did not address these issues.
Point 2. Why it is that paid town municipal employees are rewarded for 30 years of well paid service, farewell parties plus perks, helping to set policy, but 30 year unpaid special municipal employees, whom are elected, some whom are unpaid, should be disqualified and shunned, even though they have to succumb to public scrutiny during their election cycle? Why is their free service so undervalued if we truly desire to control costs of the Town of Fairhaven? If a person was elected and then compensated for his or her time, would they then become as valued as the appointed paid officials at town hall? I suggest the taxpayers are getting state mandated services at little costs to the town, by the volunteers who have taken years of their lives to run for office, to give back to their community. They serve the town while being televised at public meetings, whereas the appointed committees mostly do not, and don’t receive much public scrutiny either, because evidently they don’t set town-wide policy if you believe the argument. I always wonder why people clamor to get appointed to town-wide committees, left and right, that supposedly do not set public policies, but it is rare for the same to run for an elected seat, who supposedly are the only ones charged with setting town-wide policies. I would suggest any future article solely address appointed officials, as the elected officials are already subjected to term limits every time they run for office.
Lets look at another push by the EMA to improve their presents by tying into the cable TV studio building. Albeit they are there now,but should have been put with the police and fire ,which is there primary purpose .ThE REC CENTER was built with the help of a senior center ,day care to spread the cost..Seems like this same ploy is being used again. Oh! another brain storm by the town ,lets use tax credits to rectify the Rogers school fiasco. What group might be wanting this little giveaway.Only time will tell , but the demo thing seems like the only cost effective way to rectify the situation.
ReplyDelete