It should never be optional

It is Friday (I know, another brilliant observation on my part). Always worth noting though. The end of the traditional work week.  

I forgot to mention yesterday the amazing bee chronicle at the Millicent Library.  Some nice pictures in the Fairhaven Neighborhood News of the guests which were removed.  Oh if it were only that easy to remove those who have overstayed their visits at Town buildings.

Today's Standard Times has a story on the drama evolving from New Bedford over the City Council Pay raises.  The Council took a vote to override the Mayor's veto, 9 -1.

Measure the salary in today's dollars, the council raise isn't out of whack for an inflation adjustment.  Politically speaking, if you are going to do it, do it in a non-election year for the council.  Fortunately, or unfortunately, voters seem to have short memories on such matters.

Are they worth it?  It certainly can be justified in an hours put in argument. 

There were a lot of arguments made by the council to support the raise based on the job.  But there in lies the dilemma.  Should it be looked at as a job? 

Bottom line, the ultimate decision will be had by the voters in New Bedford about 14 months from now, assuming it remains the same issue it is today.

The other piece in the S-T that I found really puzzling today was the "Our View" concerning the Governor's Council. It really was a bit confusing, in the end.

I absolutely agree that the Governor's Council as an elected body should go.  I agree with the underlying premise that no candidate should avoid a debate or the press. 

One could get a finger cramp typing away about how the the Brothers Cipollini run their campaigns.  Pretty reminiscent of "old time" politics actually.  The political junkie should have no doubt it was a political move to miss the debate.

What baffles me are the last two paragraphs.

While The Standard-Times continues to believe that the Governor's Council is both expensive and obsolete and needs to be disbanded, we also recognize that a lot of voters will continue to vote in this silliest of political campaigns. 

And, if you are one of those voters who believes you must vote to put someone from District 1 on the council, it's really as easy as ABC: Anybody but Cipollini.

No bafflement about the ABC statement.  A catchy old time pol thing. 

But is it just me or does this read like an endorsement not to vote for the office period?  

Sorry, but those are the kind of statements that actually allow those old time political moves to work.  I know a lot of people who think the Governor's Council is expensive and obsolete and needs to be disbanded, again myself included.  

Until it is though, we need to continue to encourage people to actually go out and vote for the actual candidate we think best suited to sit.  

I mean you just told people it is actually okay not to vote.

When you encourage apathy, you shouldn't complain about what you get.

As a self-proclaimed political junkie, to me such statements do more harm than good. 

When should any elected office be looked at, even by implication, as one you don't really need to vote for?

On the whole, as much as I might gripe about the rates, coverage and opinions, I like the S-T.  I am extremely glad this area is able to maintain a daily newspaper. I get ticked off at myself on the days I actually don't read the hard copy and solely rely on the web version and dread the potential in the future that the actual paper may in fact disappear.

This is the first time I can honestly say I think a true disservice to all readers, and voters, has occurred.  I don't think I have ever before been so dumbfounded by something in the editorial section.

It shouldn't be about whether a race is worthy of your vote.  

As obsolete as many offices and positions are in the Commonwealth and its political sub-divisions, who gets elected to those offices is extremely important.  If this was not a fact, what would be the point in the piece about a candidate skipping a debate in the first place?

The actions of our elected officials in whatever antiquated position can indeed have a profound affect on us all, as somewhat noted in the S-T.  

When you go to the polls the ABC lesson you should bring with you is an informed decision to vote for All the Best Candidates.

No X or Z, just a Y or 2

I got a few whys of my own today.  

The "Our View" in today's S-T encompass many of the whys the people of New Bedford have over the city council pay raise.  I don't live in New Bedford.  I am not going to get up an arms over the issue.

I in fact personally know a number of councilors, past and present. Over the decades of time I have had becoming acquainted with the individuals, I would have to be honest and say that both on a personal level, and from a non-constituent observation, in the vast majority of cases, the people of New Bedford have been and are being well served.

That being said, whether the position is worth the pay raise or not is a decision ultimately in the hands of New Bedford.  While I would tend to be on the side of those kind of scratching their head over the matter, and wondering many of the same "whys" in the opinion piece, I am also prone to leave it at that since again it is the people of New Bedford who ultimately decide the specific issue.

It does make on ponder the whys though.

Another piece in the paper and another why. Fairhaven's own Academy Building.  The issue of handicap accessibility is discussed.  It has been awhile since I have agreed with Selectman Murphy.  According to the piece the selectman is quoted as saying:

"It has to be accessible. There is no negotiating," Murphy said. "Our tourism department needs to be open to everyone, regardless of their mobility."

For the very first time in its existence it has a chance to be too.  Ever notice how that tidbit always seemed to be glossed over however when the intent was to leave tourism where it was.  

To the extent necessary to bring that building into compliance for the use of an Office of Tourism within the parameters of law, I agree whole hardily, there is no negotiating.  Certainly not with the historical society.  

But let me be clear on this, I am specifically talking about the building as to be used as an Office of Tourism.  

The big why I got is why does the historical society have any input?  Could be the article is incorrectly referencing the society over the Commission (the Commission being the Town entity, the society being the 20 year rent free "tenant").  In which case, the Commission certainly should be involved.

The other selectman who "explored" every option under the sun to keep Tourism out of the Academy Building is also mentioned in the article as follows:

Selectman Bob Espindola said the two sides were able to reach a compromise because Richard agreed to use a smaller amount of space. The Historical Society will remain there, as well.

What compromise?  Did something happen that I missed?  Was there a meeting after the meeting at which the vote was taken to move Tourism into the Academy Building? Why weren't we told a compromise had been reached?

Mr. Richard accepted less than he would have liked, I think.  He compromised.  If the historical society at some point prior to the vote accepted Mr. Richard, I really missed that one.

It could have saved a whole lot of ranting if this had come out.  I feel really bad having missed the compromise.  I mean I was under the impression that the historical society was fighting tooth and nail until the vote to maintain its strangle hold over the building went against it.

I really had to have misinterpreted what I heard at the meetings I attended and the ones I watched, because I was under the impression there was no willingness to compromise on the society's part.  

My sincere apologies.

Well now that issue has been resolved, let's get to the other why.

Before we do, I will just mention that it has been stated to me that I have unfairly picked on Charlie and Bob on this issue.  Whether I have been unfair or not is a subjection determination.  Quite frankly, so is whether or not the challenges and questions as to their position and stance on this issue is picking on them.  

But to make sure we don't make people feel left out, and to insure you that from this point on all three selectmen will be "fair game" on this topic, my next set of whys is directed at Charlie, Bob and Brian:

Why does the historical society get to remain in the building?

Has a rental agreement been reached?  Has a legal opinion been obtained to validate the use of town building, along with monetary contributions by the town for a non-town entity?

Ignoring this other side of the matter is nothing more than a blatant acknowledgement of a sweetheart deal.

It shows a willingness of the Board of Selectmen to disregard, intentionally I might add, its official duties.  

Now I am a realist.  I realize that one could craft some document which on its face would "meet" the applicable requirements.  Wouldn't it be nice that at least that attempt be made, rather than continuing to blatantly favor one group?

There are a few more whys, but something tells me I will have plenty of time to wonder why on this one.

The last one for today is wondering why I would feel there was so much time.