Fairhaven, The South Coast and More

What does Fairhaven Need?

2016-08-11T20:43:00.000-04:00

By the way, if you intend to attempt to answer that question, kindly keep the snark to yourself.

And, please save the generalizations. Please, please, please save them.

Yes, number one on most peoples hit parade will be recommending lower taxes. It is like spitting into the wind, unless along with that recommendation you suggest what to cut. You are not allowed a blanket statement. Back it up with some facts. I personally don't care how tired you are of paying taxes.

Guess what so am I.

But, and a big but, if you feel over burdened, give it a shot, but put you damn name to it, and come up with an explanation of something a bit more than I pay too much.

But DO NOT even think of mentioning or alluding to that damn game.

In a great many ways, I am tired of too many things.

I am really getting tired of having to read and ignore too many anonymous comments.

The people who put their names to a statement have, as far as my memory can go back, have always gotten their comment published.

If this is starting to sound like a rant, consider yourself smarter than the average bear.

You would be very surprised what people try to say under the name"anonymous". I would publish all the ones that get sent to the spam folder, but this isn't some tabloid, with profits that can go to a libel suit.

The other problem with that is if I publish it, the mud you sling sticks to me.

Anyone remember one of the last winter meetings a certain BPW member was able to attend?

Although I will have to admit the mud at that time did in fact involve a commentator who had the guts to put a name to a piece.

But why let facts get in the way of a good story. Heck the whiners didn't.

Absolutely, the decision to do this blog was made by me. No one else. There have been a few of you, willing to put their convictions out there. At times. we have gone tooth and nail. Openly, in full view. No backstabbing. No hiding in the shadows. No complaining about how unfair it is.

You know what, I consider that a damn good thing. I consider it the best example of a damn good form of discussion that people can in fact disagree; and, guess what, it becomes an actual discussion when you can't hide behind anonymous or an invented screen name.

I have always put my neck on the chopping block. I actually at times have to question my own sanity as to why. It has cost me money. It has cost me friends. It most definitely has made me enemies.

Someone asked me the earlier today whether it has been worth it, probably the reason for the rant. The only truthful answer I could give was I just don't know.

Whether you believe me or not,whether it has been worth it or not it is irrelevant. That by the way has to do more with the fact it really doesn't matter. You can't turn back time, so worrying about yesterday is in fact irrelevant.

I don't want your platitudes by the way. If there is even any temptation by a few of you to do that, forget about it. Won't be published, because, and this is a big because ....

What Fairhaven actually needs is more people to stand up and be counted. Not simply when you pet issue comes up, not simply when the cause of the day arises, but to rail and rant against bad government and to be damn consistent when you do.

And folks, there in lies the rub, because in today's world we rant against the decisions that affect us personally, with little or no regard to the greater good.

Forgive me for one weakness. I am damn tired.

I am damn tired about having to point out that someone being a good citizen, former "employee", or just general pain does not entitle them to special privileges, funding, or forgiveness that you will not give to each and every other citizen in town.

I am damn tired of arguing how being a not for profit entitles you to nothing more than we are willing to give to every other not for profit.

And I am damn tired of hearing how fair, open and honest your are going to be when decisions are made where you should damn well be disclosing, if for no other reason than being fair, open and honest, about your affiliation with people or groups.

I have been alluding to this blog disappearing for some time time. It will happen sooner or later. I can't tell you when, but I can guarantee you the last comment isn't coming from anonymous.

Will it ever disappear completely?

Who knows?

We are going to see less and less of the cheap shot anonymous crap though.

Now how is that for a rant?

Patching things up a bit

2016-08-08T09:17:00.002-04:00

Okay, at some point I have to start really blogging again or just shut this thing down. I don;t know if it is just life in general or the whole insanity that seems to be infecting the world, but I just don't seem to be getting to excited about most of the seemingly significant problems that perplex others presently on the local level.

One thing that isn't going to get me going is the bathroom humor in any comment, either attempted here or any other place. But hey keep on giving it a try, who the heck knows? Maybe if you actually put your name to it, I might publish it.

I understand that some think I am a bit too prudish relative to the name calling, the blanket descriptive assumptions, and a few other things. What can I say, I come from the school of thought that it should take some thought to not only express an opinion in an intelligent manner.

It is pretty easy to tick someone off and call them stupid, ignorant, lazy, or just plain wrong. I prefer it be done in a manner a bit more subtle than a school yard tiff.

Anyway, I could could write all day about the issue and nothing is going to change much.

Tonight our fearless leaders will address the pokemon thingy, and someone will be seeing evil monster zombies invading our fair haven. Got at it while you can.

It might be motivation enough to get me to start going back to topical blogs just to avoid the topic.

But please, Please, PLEASE, feel free to try and discuss something else, and hopefully in a manner that could get you at least a passing grade in the fifth grade.

New Thread for the Needle

2016-07-27T07:24:00.000-04:00

Last week seemed to pretty much sew up most of the seams on the game thingy. So, lets replenish the eye of the needle and start piecing together some new fabric.

Last night, they had the meeting about the trees. Tonight is the Bell Committee, and tomorrow the reuse rfp committee.

The tree thing, I really do understand the reasoning behind some of the arguments. In truth though, I don't know enough about trees, the condition of the roads, sidewalks, and whatnot to argue for, against, or modified.

One thing I will say, technically it would seem the statute to do away with the hearing, would provide an avenue for doing away with the hearing, but the common reasoning for doing away with the hearing is a bit disturbing. If you have read the statue, perhaps you get the drift.

But the undercurrent seems to be on a point I have raised many times before. Having a right to do something doesn't always make it the right thing to do. No I am not judging the right to cut down the trees. I am questioning doing away with the hearing simply because you can.

We have seen the uproar for the third time now on recent projects. Perhaps at some point down the road, the next time we might see some anticipation of the uproar.

Anyway, if trees don't ring your bell, well there is the bell (2nd version). Then the next RFP review, and I hazard a guess a thing or two that you might come up with.

Have at it. Stitch together an idea or two and let's see what the pattern looks like.

Can you thread the needle?

2016-07-21T06:55:00.000-04:00

Okay, I have to admit that my enthusiasm for blogging is in the lazy days of summer routine again. Seems some reader(s) are determined to rope me into typing away at the keys though, by posting comments to the last edition about other potential topics.

The latest one is that new game app.

My final word one it: You ought to have to pass an intelligence test to be able to have a smart phone. enough said.

So being as lazy as I am at the moment, how about the occasional not yourselves out post anything you want piece to offer your opinions seek input and just do a bit of a rant (keeping in mind this ain't going to extend to any personal attacks).

Submit what you want, take a shot, and see if you can get past the acceptable threshold.

Otherwise, content yourself with back "issues".

I simply don't seem able to generate any level of heat for any of the "heated" topics going on locally.

The door is wide open for you though.

Stay cool though. The forecast for the next few days is that things will be hot enough.

Too much, too little, so what is just right?

2016-07-15T06:18:00.001-04:00

Normally when I read and editorial in The Standard Times, and newspaper, I do a bit of digging (research wise) before accepting the premise. In today's online paper anyway, there is a piece about a matter where we recently raked through a few of the issues.

However unrealistic some might feel it is, and acknowledging one point of contention I foresee, about just how "rigorous" the training should be, I note it is an opinion piece that should be heeded:

With rigorous training, certification, and oversight, armed shellfish wardens should be able to fulfill their duties while ensuring the safety of the public at large, shellfishers, and themselves. The three caveats, of course, must be non-negotiable.

Should there be a full blown police academy, including the drill, physical tests, etc.? No. Whatever aspects of that part of training for public safety officers should be considered, I will leave to the powers that be to debate.

The "classroom aspects", well exercising arrest powers should require one to be well versed in those little issues such a reasonable grounds, probable cause, misdemeanor, felony, when and when not the use of deadly force is authorized.

Please, let's not turn this into the great debate raging throughout society.

I agree totally with the concept of allowing them to be armed. I don't agree that a firearm safety course and some self-defense courses are enough. Nor is adding just a few course on dealing with confrontation.

There are several major considerations at play. Yes, the safety of the shellfish officers should be paramount. In today's world expecting someone to make an arrest and expecting all suspects to go gracefully away with the officer is not realistic.

We all would like to hope and think that the gun will never have to come out of the holster. But we have to give full consideration to the likelihood that it will.

The if and when for that is where the training becomes extremely important. As crass as some may find any discussion about money to this issue, lack of training for public officials authorized to carry firearms in the performance of their duties is very often the determining factor in claims brought.

And money is the only aspect of any argument against the caveats in the editorial cited above.

This is not an issue that curtails a citizens 2nd amendment rights. While on the job you are not acting as a citizen.

I am not going to get involved in a great debate about what should be.

Our officials have to make decisions on the official level about what is.

In closing, note this:

1. I agree they should be armed.
2. I absolutely agree that certification and oversight should be key components of the policy. I fail to see where there should be any debate on this.
3. It seems the level of training is a sticking point. A full police academy type program. I will go along with the "no" and say that would be too much. A simple firearms course, the type the average citizen takes to get a license to carry. Way too little.

Whatever the "in between" point is, is debatable. There has to be a whole lot of emphasis placed on the "when" part. When you should and can draw that gun. When you can fire that gun.

I don't think that is unrealistic. I don't think proper training for any law enforcement officer is unrealistic.

The only argument against such training is not wanting to pay for it.

Someone asked, so ...

2016-07-13T05:34:00.000-04:00

"Harbor master, Shellfish warden, Guns? Thoughts?"

This was a comment received for the last post which was posted.

Thoughts? I have a bunch of them. I will however provide just a few.

First thought - a decision should be made as to whether this is necessary (yes, an obvious thought).

Next, if it is necessary, than how does the necessity apply to the various deputies?

It seems clear everyone would be in agreement that training is most definitely in order. If so, what training and to what level. As to that, the training should be that as required for the state environmental police.

This course is an intense 20 plus week basic training program for newly hired full-time entry-level municipal, University of Massachusetts, and Environmental Police Officers.

This course combines classroom instruction, practical exercises, and scenarios designed to provide the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to excel in the police profession and be an asset to the community. This program emphasizes integrity, professionalism, and community service is under constant review to make sure topics are updated, to address emerging trends in policing, and to take advantage of technology. For example, large-screen computer simulations are used to teach and test force response. MPTC academies utilize municipal and state police officers as Staff Instructors. These outstanding police professionals act as role models and mentors to the student officers and guide them towards becoming exemplary officers.

If the position is to take on full law enforcement aspects, then serious consideration should be given to placing oversight under the Chief of Police.

NOTE: Keep any thoughts, comments or remarks directly related to the issue of whether the position warrants being armed.

It often starts with a pebble

2016-07-01T06:38:00.003-04:00

Well, it seems, like an eternity since the keys have been tapped for another page. It might have never occurred but for two related things.

The first being the STM last night. The second being a comment made last night on what was I believe the last post.

The writer felt he or she lives in a village of idiots. Presumably because of the outcome of the vote to sell the old Oxford School. However accurate that opinion is of course depends on your position on the outcome.

I for one have no difficulty in saying I would be one of the village idiots based on the way I voted.

I will admit the proposal is not the ideal version of what should have been done, or at least my ideal version. I will go on to add that my ideal version would have been would in fact have been the wrecking ball the commentator mentioned. A wrecking ball for everything on site by the way. While I am at it, that wrecking ball can then be moved to the center to take care of the two other "problem" buildings in town.

Now feeling a bit better with that somewhat cathartic dose of rant, I would add that some would find that solution just as idiotic.

However you feel about the winning vote, it happened. Its over. The deal progresses. If you need something to still hold on to, it ain't over until the developer gets the tax credits. So, there is still a chance we end up retaining that bit of history.

The most surprising aspect of the vote, was just how little opposition there was. Don't get me wrong, the vote was not close. The debate most expected just never happened.

But if that vote was idiotic, it was no less so than the other two articles voted on.

Next up was to install sewer to the little building. The one that should have had it a long time ago. The one we own. It is that one little detail, that "we" own it, that let that one go without a comment. There could be pages of comment on that one, but to what point. I would just need to do a subsequent blog to get the cathartic relief needed after getting worked up.

As to the other article, I extend my personal apologies to each and every citizen who has petitioned for roadwork during the years of my past tenure. I will go so far as to recommend to anyone and everyone who wishes to have roadwork done that they petition, and show up at town meeting to be able to make their plea for their article.

Furthermore, if at first you don't succeed, wait for the next special town meeting. Sure you have to get moire signatures to get on the article, but ...

a. A majority of the selectmen will more likely vote to yield to you rather than make a recommendation like they should; and,

b. STM is always an easier sell for articles outside the budget; and,

c. Once TM members hear how much cash is in the kitty, you pitch becomes even easier.

In the relative scheme of life, it isn't someone petitioning for something they feel they are entitled to that disturbs me. It isn't the vote that bothers me, nor the outcome. It is the rationale.

When you hear a selectmen make the statement that perhaps going forward we not do this, but in this cause well ...

When you hear arguments about paving a road because of past service or pulling on the compelling reasons ...

When you factor in how many roads do not get recommended, how many people who have adhered to the process, have accepted it, and have essentially be told they are the idiots for not pulling such an end run.

Budget discipline and more importantly budget planning, requires first and foremost discipline. $28k +/- may seem like nothing more than a pebble added to the top of a $50 Mil + budget, but many an avalanche has started when that pebble slips down a slope.

Having just spent the $25K on the sewer thingy didn't help any mind you. But ... there was the luck of the draw so to speak.

A bit dramatic, maybe. From my perspective there was nothing far or honest to the public at large here. That is unless we now are consistent in applying the same standard to the public at large.

As far as I am concerned. everyone is entitled to the same consideration going forward. Any and all arguments about following recommendations as to which roads should get done are off the table. Ditto for staying within the "budget".

That applies to any article by the way, not just roadwork.

Go for it folks. Do not be intimidated by arguments against from your officials. The BPW is more than willing to accept the largess of a STM as we heard.

You certainly have one less against vote going forward. Despite any assertion that yesterday perhaps should be an exception to the rule, there is no exception going forward for this TM member.

Everyone single petitioner is entitled to the exact same consideration. If the budget doesn't apply less than two months after May, this commentator cannot see why we should be constrained to adhere to the recommendations in May.

Heck about the only thing you should be worried about is where the article comes up in the draw.

Least you think this rant is a bit too extreme, or even contradictory to prior principles, I have always adhered to the principal what you do for one you do for all. In my book that is what fairness and honesty entail.

So with all that being said, it is time to end it. The vote is in the books. The precedent has been set, and this TM member intends to follow that precedent going forward.

This village idiot is signing off.

Lickity split

2016-05-08T09:13:00.000-04:00

Well another record breaking year.

For spending and for the time it took to spend it. Not a bad thing per se.

Finally heard publicly what had been written about previously relative to the TA raise.

Little to no real controversy at the meeting. Except our friends in the Historical Society and the Historical Commission are yet again involved in a dispute.

Believe it or not, there are a fair number of people who believe these two groups are one in the same. Two separate groups folks. One is town appointed. One is private. One does the vast bulk of the work on the issues. The other ... still not quite sure what the other one actually does.

Outside of that bit of head scratching debate, not much to do about anything.

Most people seemed please with the new format and especially the presentation for the budget. They seemed to like the idea of being informed by the administration of just what was available, what we were spending and why we weren't spending everything we had available.

Indications are that going forth we will be seeing even more detailed information. I always said, give TM a good reason to support a plan and you won't be disappointed. It is when you add a bit of confusion or smoke is where you run into the problems.

Anyway, it was extremely short for an annual with a special. Under three hours. The doing away with the reading of all the line items definitely is a time saver. Now we run a fiscal year seeing if giving departments some added free reign works. It certainly can work. It works in many other communities. It most definitely should. No doubt we will see a glitch or two, but shouldn't be any worse than the glitches that have constantly come up under the old format.

With the removal of the sale of the school article and the auto/boat zoning thingy, it ended up mainly smooth sailing for TM (with a minor rogue wave here and there as noted).

That was the beauty of the thing. The beast of course is that at some point the beast will make an appearance on the issues. Certainly for the school sale anyway. One thing I think many members were thinking, this better be the last consultant's report we absolutely must have to solve the issue of what to do.

Not sure how I really did with the over/under and the odds. It was an exercise to kill some time yesterday morning. I do know I was definitely off with the number of members for the start time. What did I say? 250? I think is was like 200. I know it crept up to like 228 at about 10:00 A.M. Not sure if it went higher. That is the number of people who checked in by the way. Not the number in the room at any given point in time.

In truth it was a fitting start for the new way of life. Minimal discussion on operations. A rather sound vote of support for placing oversight of day to day affairs into the hand so four new TA. We may very well see mostly speedy Town Meetings where the debate will be relegated to the big things. Sale of old buildings, zoning battles, borrowing issues, the stuff the law still requires a separate and distinct vote by Town Meeting.

Some will lament the loss of involvement, but involvement has been disappearing for a long time. Not just in our fair haven but across the realm.

Solid support for the concept though. The issue of a raise, not so much an issue with Town Meeting. The attempt to defeat the legal fee increase for essentially hiring labor counsel, pretty soundly defeated.

People kind of get the concept I think. It seemed that they embraced it fully, most that is.

Will we miss it down the road? Not really. You cannot embrace the concept of moving forward but also insist you follow the old owner's manual. Some seem to be trying. Some always will. This is one of those buses though you better get on, because it is the only mode of transportation to get down the road.

Certainly, we are still early in that journey. Perhaps the ultimate destination will not be as appealing as the brochures highlighting the spot. Time, as with all things, will tell. We are for the most part beyond the point of no return so kick back, relax and enjoy the trip as much as possible.

And while you are traveling, remember ... Be Safe.

Odds with no end

2016-05-07T07:21:00.002-04:00

Just some odd thoughts mulling over the day under the gloomy clouds of the early morning:

Over/Under for Town Meeting attendance - 9:00 A.M. start: 250.

Over/Under for number of times someone puts a foot in their mouth: 3.

Over/Under someone gets up to speak about an article previously voted on: 2.

Over/Under for the number of times the name of HHR is used: 6.

Over/Under the number of times we hear we should do it for the children: 3.

Over/Under for after lunch attendance: no line (the optimist in me is hoping for a repeat of last year).

Over/Under for after lunch attendance (pessimist betting line): 127.

Over/Under one of the many paper lions in town get up to speak: 0.

Over/Under for attempts to discuss manufacturing: 2.

Over/Under for items held when addressing the operating budget: 6.

Over/Under for number of groans from TM body during a presentation (total for day): 3.

Over/Under for number of times I start to nod off: 4.

Over/Under for number of TM members who sit at home, watching the meeting in an attempt to time when they have to actually show up so they can deal with their specific article: 7.

I could go on and on with the Over/Under but then it would violate the spirit of the rules to specifically reference an individual by name when discussing TM matters.

Odds the zoning by-law for the bond for a special permit pass: 1 to make five.

Odds it fails: 2 to make 1. (No judgment here, simply odds).

Odds some comic tries to work in a feel the Bern line: even.

Odds town meeting finishes today: 3 to make 1.

Odds we hear complaints about the new format: Even.

Odds lunch will be served at TM: no line.

Odds some member tries to speak on an article to be passed over: 1 to make 1 1/2 (should be an even money article, but being in an optimistic mood, I am hoping people realize discussion is for articles to be voted on).

Odds some simple article turns into the biggest debate of the day: 2 to make 1. It would be odd if it did not happen.

Odds I am going to find the motivation to get it into gear an actually show up: Even.

There will be a bunch of other odd things happening today, however with a limited bank, can't lay down a line for every oddity.

Things to be grateful for holding a May 7th Town Meeting:

No real opportunity for any Cinco de Mayo jokes or May the Fourth be with you jokes.

Both the weather and the obligation provide a guilt free excuse for not cutting the grass today.

Hey, I know it ain't much today, but with the really big stuff being yanked from the line-up, not much to stoke the fire for the day.

Be safe.

Untitled

2016-05-05T05:45:00.001-04:00

Not quite sure what the heck is going on, but I had another post that didn't get posted yesterday. Be nice if I could blame a technical difficulty, but it seems I keep forgetting to hit the damn publish button.

Anyway, it was kind of a preview of the TM preview. The precinct meetings and article run through.

As usual the night was a bit enlightening, however and unfortunately there were no occasional entertaining moments.

The biggest news is that the big show on Saturday has gone from a potential marathon to a shot at a new record for a sprint.

With the auto.boat zoning thingy to be passed over, we took a good hour off the meeting. The other Planning Board article that will get some time I think is going to be the bond for the special permit.

Interesting little banter on that one last night, driven mainly by the explanation as to why the Selectboard has changed its vote from a yield to petitioner to indefinite postponement.

Not making any statement here as to the merits or demerits of the article. Just noting that there was the banter. Poorly articulate reasoning for the IP though. Again, not commenting on merits.

Applying the prognostication setting for the cracked crystal ball, outlook on the article: passage will be tough.

The most interesting point here though is the discussion that tried to break out on the auto/boat article to be passed over. Kind of unprecedented.

Take it for what it is worth, because I understand an explanation for what something is worth depends on who needs one or wants one, no good comes from any discussion involving an article you won;t be voting for. Not in a TM setting. TM is to discuss an vote on articles someone wants passed. It isn't for discussing what is now essentially a nonexistent article.

Nonetheless, as frustrating as it was to sit through it, is had some revealing moments. Apparently there is written confirmation as to who started the whole ball rolling. Also, somehow the Town Planner got a bit upset and attempted to get a moment or two at the podium for an explanation of something after the Planning Board Chair had made his statement.

The long and the short of this, and several other points a few tried to make on this and other articles that mercifully were either eventually cut off or immediately cut off as not being germane to the articles, as compared to the marathons of old, this one was a good sprint coming in under 1 1/2 hours.

It also seems there will be a withdrawal of the article for the Oxford School sale. That one going off the vote list should help as far as the length of meeting.

As to Saturday ... well a bit more as to Saturday ...

It has been a very long time since I attended a TM as simply a TM member. I have to try and remember to bring a seat cushion. The only thing worse for comfort than the folding chair on stage is the auditorium wooden seats.

I am thinking about starting a few betting pools. You know the type of stuff: over/under for some speakers getting up and speaking on anything but the article we are dealing with; attendance; number of hand counts; number of times someone blindly calls for a hand count because they lost; number of people arguing for more money for their concerns but than motioning a lower department budget to prove a point.

Yes, I know (and I agree) that TM is very serious business. But let's face it, you really do need somewhat of a bit of sense of humor to deal with some of what transpires. Well, either that or you are a masochist.

Yesterday I was asked again whether I am going to miss "it". Well, to say that there won't be some tinge of ... what? ... nostalgic reminiscence? ... would be a bit of a lie I suppose. I know though that I haven't missed the phone calls, the mounds of paper, the run around, the half-stories, the excuses, the yammering and the never ending laments about how unfair and cruel the "rigged" process is.

Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

Do I have any regrets about walking away? Absolutely none.

The one undeniable aspect about the whole TA thingy, is that the whole thingy has now changed. the structure is such that if given the chance to work, much of the prior structure truly is outdated, inefficient, if not actually ineffective.

It was a good time to go. It was probably overdue a bit. But even this very first budget from the TA, which isn't truly his per se, but certainly has his mark on it, reveals just what we can expect and should expect, and should have been having all along but for competing and differing philosophies.

There definitely will be some "glitches". New formats will confuse a bit. New will be a problem for some. It now looks however that the waters are not going to be as choppy as it seemed. If it isn't smooth sailing, at least the ship should have no problems cutting through the waves.

Anyhow ... or anyway ... or whatever ...

Be safe.

V is for?

2016-05-03T08:41:00.001-04:00

This very easily could have been a one word post.

However, since brevity has not often been a hallmark for selectmen's meetings, and despite promises to make it so, is destined to be remain the exception rather than the rule ...

Some observations relative to the BOS meeting, mainly as it applied to the BPW:

This was one of those meetings where I wish I were up to speed on tweeting. Seriously, the potential for the live feed was way up there.

Hats off to some of the BPW member points, note the word some because if you watch the tape and are aware of what has transpired in the not to distant past, you will see and hear for yourself how one member's take was note even remotely appropriate.

The concept that one should not be voted onto the BPW because one lost an election for a different race, say the BOS, might be a reason not to appointment him to the BOS. However if losing an election for the BOS is statement of the public speaking about not sitting on any other board, well that kind of disqualified someone else too.

Raising the issue about having been on the committee which attempted to abolish the BPW was something that needed to be addressed.

The tap dance about why someone who voted to get rid of a board as it is should be appointed to that board, arguing that the someone wasn't really getting rid of the board as is, well it would have been quaint if it hadn't been so well worn.

I suppose you can argue it is still the same dog once you have it neutered, right.

Let's talk about experience. I am guessing the BPW members who spoke hoping for experience were looking for practical rather than the ivory tower. Well all but one anyway.

Another excellent point was the issue of stability, and there was another tap dance about stability.

Trust me when I say, stepping stone was, is and will be on everyone's mind. It certainly wasn't dispelled by the simple inability to commit to a run for BPW seat next April. Yes, everyone is knows it is impossible to know what may come next May (more appropriately April).

I for one could have understood the statement, my present intention is to run but ultimately I will base my decision on this little test drive.

The fact that most in the room and a few out in TV land are aware of the yes I am, no I am not running again position of our current BOS chair, coupled with the clear political ambition of some in the room, gave the concept of stability was extreme validity. The former selectmen was responsive and to the point in his answer. The wannabe selectmen, not sure where that play is in any playbook, but evasive doesn't work.

Now I am not sure everyone caught all the innuendo in some of the comments. Some of the stuff was as blatant as could be though

Best question of the day, when the BOS was asked whether they had made their decision (individually of course) prior to the meeting.

Our chairman did the best tap dance of the night. If the birdies chirping out in rumor land are half correct, and those birdies usually are at least that, it may in fact be that the decision who to vote for was not made, but there was absolutely a decision on who note to vote for. Of course if the chirping birdies are correct, one could ask why he was even in the seat making a decision, but that is for another day perhaps.

At least the other two were honest and said heck yeah.

Let's also award the "are you serious" head scratch prize to the four year commitment comment at the end by the one candidate with no support. After that comment, no wonder no one motioned him.

Oh wait, there was the platitude that could have, shall we say, been phoned in for all it was worth made by the sole BPW member expressing a rather zealous position. Not so sure that was as much for him as against one of the other guys.

In the end the Board appointed the "newcomer". Let's be clear, his professional background most certainly will be a plus. An understanding of what is involved in the workings of the BPW.

And as much as I tend to disregard the ivory tower, I will say this, it will be very interesting next year if someone has an itch to go after the present chairman's seat.

I am going to leave the whole Oxford School thingy alone today. That received a whole lot of attention. Watching the end of that meeting last night just highlights the baffling mentality out there about what the town owes to anyone.

Someone also might want to remind those sitting at the table that the microphones are on (would have been perfect to tweet "Did you hear that?").

Anyway, Be Safe.

A day late and what happens when you forget to click the publish button

2016-05-03T08:41:00.000-04:00

Okay, show which show do we want to preview?

The annual extravaganza know as Town Meeting is next Saturday. The soft-opening is next Wednesday (precinct meetings and Town Meeting preview), and there is a Board of Selectmen meeting for Monday.

Now the selectmen get somewhat of a break with the pass over expected for the used car/boat repair/sales zoning thingy that was to be submitted to Town Meeting. Not so much of a break will be the former school articles.

No matter what happens with the Oxford site proposal, we are being asked to wade further into the money pit relative to at least the Roger's school site. Another consultant to the tune of $33,000.00. Another $8,000.00 for both sites for another year of costs in keeping the sites as is.

All is good right? History is priceless.

Now we are definitely in for a learning curve on a few other matters. Skimming over the warrant. I see a few interesting Town charges being sought in the STM. Could be there is an explanation out there somewhere. Could be at some point I will look for it too. Could also be it might be worth a high curiosity rating to just sit back and see if there is any other, shall we say, questioning mind.

Anyway ... definitely some interesting tidbits.

More interesting to me will be how the BPW seat gets filled. If you look at the agenda, you will see the candidates. Rumors mill was pretty accurate. Well, completely accurate actually.

Be interesting to see just what form of political payback the payback is paid with.

Absent the disclosure of a complete epiphany, and quite frankly a public admission that the proposed dismantling of the existing BPW structure and proposed replacement structure were wrong, not sure how one of the persons seeking the seat should be appointed.

You ain't ever going to convince me however that should should be appointing an individual to a board who essentially led the movement to dismantle the board.

But I don't get a vote. I won't be shocked by any outcome on this one. Especially given the dynamics of the election just past.

And if the rest of the rumor mill is half as accurate about what is going on here, this one could be a sub-plot in, well pick your political intrigue show.

What about?????

2016-04-28T07:36:00.001-04:00

Well, reading a tidbit in the local daily, it seems we probably shaved about an hour off the upcoming Town Meeting with the decision by the Planning Board to pass over the zoning article involving the used car/boat zoning article.

Is there an issue in need of being addressed? Sure. I for one however am happy to see the decision to be made to review the address to be given to the problem sought to be corrected. No doubt that in the end there will still be some unhappy campers out there. When we vote on the end product sometime in the future, at least the notice and input arguments will not be there to taint the proposed solution.

One of the bigger, but even more under the radar matters that will be addressed by a board will be the filling of the vacancy on the BPW created by the election of our newest Selectman. This is going to be an interim appointment. The person selected will serve until the next election.

If you are interested, you have until 4:00 P.M. to apply. More info can be found on the town website.

Now there are two ways to look at how this seat should be filled. First way would be to consider this a simple "caretaker" seat. Find some individual willing to fill the seat until the next election with no aspirations to run. It has been a method that was preferred in the past. Personally, I do not think that is the way, but I also can understand the rational. Why give someone a leg up in the election.

It would be definitely a leg up by the way. While the elected BPW as presently empowered, and as seemingly to be empowered for the foreseeable future, is an extremely important board, not all vacancies filled in this manner have, shall we say, be filled with qualified candidates.

Very admittedly, the only qualifications in an election are town resident, 18 years of age or over, and getting more votes than the other candidate(s), filling vacancies should take a bit more into consideration.

There should be some consideration to experience in at least one of the areas of BPW services. Yes, we want concerned citizens. Certainly there is the ability to effectively provide constituent services. Those qualities alone may be stellar qualifications for a citizen advocacy board, but need to be measured up against the practical side. Some background in the three prime areas the BPW deals with, or some other skill set that would be applicable to the operational aspects.

First and foremost, one should be known to be a strong supporter of the board as it exists. Seriously, say this writer threw in an application. I admittedly have thrown out a hint or two that as far as I am concerned, the BPW special act most certainly could be jettisoned. My opposition to the latest attempt for that was the ridiculous alternative being proposed.

For my part, I would take no umbrage if the Board of Selectmen would pass on my application though, because my past opinions about this Board should be strongly considered. I say this despite the fact that I honestly feel that I could diligently and faithfully discharge the duties of a BPW Commissioner, and advocate for the Board in an effective manner.

But, I completely get and would understand being bypassed. I mean why would you want to appoint someone to the Board who has expressed opinions in the past that you don;t need the board.

I certainly can say that I am a realist. Based on the last vote, the BPW is here to stay. I could add that given the acceptance of that reality, I believe I could make it a better and more effective board. Those would be honest statements by the way. But I think people should be entitled to a more dedicated prior supporter of the board.

Just my opinion by the way. But seriously, on an interim appointment, the public shouldn't have to be wondering about real dedication (another argument against care taker seats). I mean, imagine if someone from that government study committee was appointed to the board. I mean how would you explain that. All the arguments made against the BPW as is, but I want to join the team now.

What the heck, stranger things have happened in this town. That's way politics drives people nuts folks.

Nope for me, and of course I don't get a vote and neither do you, not til next April anyway, I think the appointment should go to a BPW supporter, most preferably someone with BPW background rather than some caretaker or nonbeliever.

Now the pundit in me is chomping at the bit for and entirely different result. I can imagine the fun we could have tapping away at the keys. But until the hypothetical becomes reality, we will leave it at that.

Just a quick thought or two today folks.

Until next time.

Weekend, but is it an update?

2016-04-23T07:38:00.002-04:00

I have been in the mood to try and tap out some words of profound wisdom. The biggest impediment to doing that is probably obvious. the wisdom part.

Of course trying to provide and profound insight to the matters we are facing is also a bit of a snag in the line of thought.

In truth, what deeply serious problems are we dealing with as a town at the moment that would require such deeply serious thought?

Some certainly might argue the fate of the old school buildings. Our deep affection for our deep history seemingly impedes any practical solutions.

Funny thing about history. It does seem to get a bit twisted here and there.

Before I go off on that rant, let's try to get back to the immediate future.

The near immediate future, two weeks from today in fact, may provide some serious insight. Sooner or later even TM is going to tire of the let's do it again, and by the way you need to pony up more money so we can do it again, mentality.

The biggest impediment to the housing proposal is really the parking issue. Let's face it folks, a 62+ housing complex isn't going to impact the traffic flow there to any significant degree. The in and out is going to be spread over the entire day, rather than in peak periods, say like when the gym if it stayed was used, or classes held, or some of the other stuff for the alternate.

The real issue is parking. While I think the immediate residents have some concern over parking, that is actually kind of an easy thing to take care of in truth. Other communities have found a number of solutions to insure resident parking on side streets. The overflow to the proposed park parking lot is easy too. Ban overnight parking. Go in there a few times and tag every car, see it stop real quick.

The parking issue here I think is be driven by other needs. Indeed the issue itself is being driven by other needs. But this is Fairhaven folks. We have a long history of making sure we take care of other needs.

We also have a long history of a bit of the "pendulum swing" reaction to a problem. Do I agree there should be set limitations relative to use and intensity? Absolutely. Reading the latest proposal for such a thing however I am a bit perplexed how the latest proposal doesn't apply to presently existing facilities in town. Sure they have certain grandfathered protections. But ... well I am not going to deal with the buts, at least not all of them.

But I am sure we will get the explanation we need.

I imagine the TM could be extremely interesting this year. First, the new budget presentation format might result in some discussion, confusion and essentially resistance to, well being new.

The most controversial article on the annual warrant, well from the pundit's view, is going to be the zoning change. Note I said annual.

Anywho, or is it anyway?

I have been hearing a few chirps about the sewer rate increase and how that relates to the sewer articles. Not sure we will see any huge raging debate though. A couple or rants, maybe.

The Special Acts clean up language might have some questions. Not sure why you wouldn't do it at this point. Might be one or two out there still looking for a kick at the can for another abolish the old and bring in the new BPW.

Might be that is if any of the proponents of that failed fiasco want to get up and argue once again how that would be an improvement to what we have. Not very likely that will happen, but there might be.

Mercifully, this years STM warrant has only 12 Articles. Unfortunately, 3 of those articles concern the former school buildings. There is also a request for a PILOT on that warrant. Might have some issues there.

In case you are wondering, and I know a few of you are because you have asked me, there is no burning desire from this writer to become an audience speaker.

My prior role and involvement was dictated by my, well prior role and involvement. I have no compulsion to stand and be heard for the sake of standing and being heard. We have a few too many willing to do that all on their own.

Now I won't say absolutely, positively it ain't going to happen, because who the hell knows what might happen that day. But if you want to make book, if you see me in line to speak, bet the odds it is to move the question rather than questioning. By the way, even for that, if you can get 1 for the over/under, take the under.

Forgive me for maligning the lyrics, but for this year I rather laugh with the sinners than cry like one of the saints.

Be safe.

Hello Monday

2016-04-18T05:14:00.000-04:00

Motivation folks, a quality if you will that one needs at times to kick things into gear, and that at times you have to wonder just what is motivating certain actions.

It seems there is a strong motivation to not go through with the latest proposal for the former Oxford School building. Now in fairness, I haven't paid enough attention to the details of the "deal". It could be the deal is no real deal for the town.

But I am paying enough of attention to the fact that the motivation against it seems to have more to do with the deal another group got some time ago and which is endangered a bit by the new deal. That first deal by the way, well let's hope any new deal for the first deal involves the process you are suppose to use in making such deals in the first place.

But in the end, the story is really what should we do with the new deal for the old school?

At this point, there seems to be a growing trend to stay to hell with it. Let the damn thing crumble and rot.

You ever wonder how come this gift doesn't somehow receive the same love and devotion for salvation as the other gift?

There is more concern about the historical fire thingy on the lot than the building. That's what drives the engine behind the resistance to the present proposal. Sure we have the neighborhood concerns about more "housing". Sure we had some self-centered arguments for the multi-use not for profit proposal. But the fuel in the engine behind all of it is that little building on the corner of the property.

So here we go, with another bell being rung signaling another round over that "other" gift.

Anyway, expect to spend more money on dealing with the problem. Hey, who knows though, we could see a decisive decision made in the best interest of the entire town.

Moving on ... if only we truly could ...

One of the potential hot button issue for the TM or the STM, whichever it is in, will be the proposed by-law concerning used auto sale and repair shops and boat stuff. The 4/12 Planning Board had an interesting meeting trying to calm the waters of those concerned about the overall effect.

Now once again I will plead ignorance a bit. I do need to read the darn thing before I side one way or another. The most interesting tidbit about the whole meeting was an exchange between a business owner/resident with a Town employee.

I actually watched the meeting because of what I was told had transpired. While not quite the dust up at a public meeting as was told to me, it was nonetheless interesting.

What makes it more interesting is the background story. Apparently there was a prior "discussion" that was a bit less polite than the one at the meeting.

Now as I have often said, don't take everything you hear as gospel. Advice you should also follow when reading things reported/written by third parties (yes, that includes what appears on these pages).

For the meetings, we usually have the reliable tape. The tape doesn't take side. It just is. It would be very interesting to have a tape of the other conversation, if the content of the same are what is being rumored.

You want specifics, you will have to put your ear to the ground so to speak. You will also need to resist the temptation to report your third-party version of the same, at least on these pages. Just keep your ears perked up a bit, because I am hearing there is more to hear down the road on this one.

Anyway, the Town Warrant is out for the annual Town Meeting (and the STM). Could be I am misreading a thing or two, but ...

Anyway take a look for yourself, see if you you find yourself misreading a thing or two yourself.

One thing I do know, Chapter 389 of the Acts of 2014 was not an act relative to zoning.

Town Meeting this year will be a special one, that's for sure. First one under our new format, which will deal with attempting to amend our new format to take care of some of the pieces of our new format that don't apply since the new and improved BPW proposal was rejected by the voters.

Wonder what the tap dance for that will be if there is someone who seeks an explanation as to what the article is all about.

Hopefully someone will tell TM it needs to do the right thing and adopt the language to clean up the debris from the fallout of the two articles previously passed by TM.

Think anyone is going to argue we need to take another town wide vote on the BPW article?

Doesn't appear the term limit thingy made its way back to TM. A number of months ago it was reported that there might be an attempt to take another kick at the can on that one. Of course that would have meant some one would have actually had to get up and argue for that one again. Which is probably why it isn't back on the warrant.

Anyway ...

A Massachusetts holiday or not, I need to get an early start today. So ...

Until next time.

The morning after

2016-04-05T05:55:00.000-04:00

Well, sometimes you go to the store and you end up with the change whether you want it or not.

That is life folks. All said in done, this morning after, the world still is turning, the town is still the Town. And being Fairhaven, we can start talking about next year and some people were chattering about it last night too).

I don't agree with a few of the positions of our new selectman, but heck that is not any different than with the other two, the most recent past one, and many past ones.

Mr. Freitas ran a very rock solid campaign. Strong visibility, heavy signage and an extremely active core of support.

We give credit where credit is due.

We hope he holds true to his promises of the best decisions for the Town as a whole.

And in the individual light, I personally hope he can figure out how to succeed on his campaign platforms.

He starts off as our newest Selectman tonight. The agenda would indicate he will be dealing with one of his campaign positions right off (well on the first meeting not right off at the meeting). The TA contract is up for discussion, although listed for an executive sessions discussion.

Other stuff is on the agenda, stuff that is important in other ways.

The reorganization of the board occurs, and if precedent holds, that means Mr. Murphy assumes the chair. The no more is apparently back to just one more by the way. Might be interesting to see how many actually end up being tallied next year, but even for me that concept is too soon.

Anyway, before I wander to far down that path ....

Bits and pieces from yesterday ... I think we saw a bit of ABC voting in one of the lesser known races.

Did the weather come into play? My position on how the weather affects an outcome is it essentially affects everyone to the same degree.

The fact that the turnout was so dismal in a four person selectmen's race would indicate it did lower turnout. Yet by how much? Certainly not by half. If we have become so "soft" that a storm like yesterday's would drive turnout down by 50%, we have much bigger problems than we think, at least I think.

Someone made the statement that the elderly came out in droves. If they did, it was the only demographic that did. It would also show that the elderly vote didn't break for the elderly candidate to any significant degree.

Which from my way of thinking is the silver lining in the cloud by the way.

One supporter made the comment to me, as some sort of rub if you will, "Well at least he got beat." My reply, with a smile on my face and a finger pointed in someone's direction, "My sentiments exactly."

What else? Statistically, you can safely assume that more than 8 out of 10 people eligible to vote, stayed home.

Sounds even worse than 15%, doesn't it?

Okay, I think that's enough rambling. If you were expecting rants and raves, or even sour grapes, well at this point in life, and truthfully throughout life, I have never been one to get in a agitated state about what the electorate does.

That is why we hold elections folks. So people can go out and vote their preference.

Those who don't vote express their preference to remain simple collective members of the flock.

Begrudge no elected official the size of his electorate nor his or her victory.

Until next time.

It is time to be counted.

2016-04-04T05:03:00.003-04:00

I swore I wasn't going to do another piece before the election. I also figured I would be missing the West Island candidate's night last week. Not to mention seeing a few thing written here and there.

I also received several comments that just ain't getting published. Now I have sworn several times I am done commenting on such comments. Yet, I still can be surprised a bit about what people feel is appropriate to comment on.

Suffice it to say, if you sent a comment, and it didn't get published, you have stepped well beyond the border of any one of the four corners of a topic, or issue.

Enough said.

Today is the day folks. Election day in Fairhaven.

Well for those of us who still meander down to the polls. In our version of early voting, there have been a few absentee ballots cast. Let's hope there are more than a few ballots cast today.

For those of you who have haven't jumped over the fence yet, and need info to make a last minute decision, the four candidates each did a spot on WBSM radio.

Again, I will state I will keep the quarter, rather than make some change.

No secret code here by the way, I am voting for the incumbent.

As a commentator to a post expressed, I don't quite understand the burning desire to seek the "change".

Neither do I quite grasp the "vote for me rationale" being put out there by the challengers.

If you are actually paying attention you, you might realize and discover much ado about nothing right at the moment.

But hey, that's an opinion. Yes, it may only be my opinion, but after actually listening multiple times, I haven't heard anything out there to feel the need to make any change.

I have heard more statements to convince me as to why I am not voting for change than to make change.

Call me undemocratic, but the concept of going to an open town meeting isn't a proposal that I can support. As poor and sporadic as some Town Meeting members attendance may be, it should be pretty clear to any individual who has spent any time studying local government that open town meeting don't boast attendance on the average, only on the very hot button issues, which of course is often the only time anyone who hasn't bother to become a TMM wants to be a TMM.

Call me whatever you want to on this one, but I do not equate years of well compensated public employment as dedicated public service.

Neither might I add does being the head of any department make you qualified to be a selectmen.

Ditto for service on one or more of the minor league boards in town.

When you talk about keeping taxes as low as possible for the taxpayer, well dang it, you should be telling us just how your are going to do that.

I could go on and on. I could do a whole lot.

No predictions this year. I really have been out of the loop lately. Not enough interaction in enough different settings to get any kind of real vibe. The crystal ball is just too murky.

The weather today definitely has a chance of being messy and messing up the turnout, so even a prediction on that would be, well ... messed up.

Let's hope it isn't too messy, in any aspect. Let's hope for me clarity, if not in the weather, at least in your decision on whether to vote and in how you vote.

I am going to simply end it here.

Until next time.

I will keep the quarter

2016-03-27T06:05:00.001-04:00

Well, it has been awhile hasn't it. That best laid plans concept seems to have gone out the window just a bit.

It seems with the passing of each day, the desire to pass comment or thoughts about what is going on around town is also going out that window.

In truth, a somewhat bad attitude if one wishes to be in the role of good citizen. If we all stayed a bit more involved on the local level, perhaps we would see a trickle up effect on the larger levels of the political spectrum. Sure the heck would beat the every four year let's beat the drums attitude that goes on in this country.

Anyway ...

A week from tomorrow, yes just one week, on April 4th, the town heads to the polls.

In one of the more enlightening pieces from The Standard Times, you will find a write up on the candidates in the selectmen race. Make sure you click the read more link on the page, because the more you read, the more enlightening it gets.

I have to tell you, in this writer's opinion, if you took the "reasonable person" who has been living in a vacuum, and plucked them off the street, let them read the S-T piece, and sure why not give him or her the other press writings and the "tapes", and heck direct them to a few other sources of information, I don't thing you would be finding a voter who would be voting for change.

I have been working towards this piece during the three week hiatus.

I have done several drafts detailing the pluses and minuses of the incumbent and his challengers.

I have also reminded myself of what is now the old adage for this blog: read it once, twice, three times before hitting the publish button.

In a logical debate, in a point by point argument, in a scenario where one measures up all things, I firmly believe that no challenger is offering the necessary reasoning for change.

The concepts of logic and reasonable thinking however seldom have anything to do with how a vote goes. I actually get that.

To understand just how quickly logic and reason go out the window you need do no more than look at the national debate and how fear mongering and pie in the sky promises are sharpening the polarization of this country.

Politics and the political process on the local level, probably even more so than on a higher level, has more to do with personal likability or the lack thereof than on any honest assessment of past experience and action and analysis of proposals.

Neither longevity nor the lack thereof is an automatic good thing. Experience in other capacities is something to look at, but simply put, having had first hand experiences in many things, I can tell you no other position, be it as volunteer, elected official, or presently or in the past being on the payroll in this town qualifies you to be selectmen.

Which is one of the reasons I believe I usually end up supporting a 50/50 split on winners and losers.

I don't have to personally like someone to vote for them. I don't vote for the candidate I like more as a person. I don't simply pay attention to the self promoting campaign speeches and literature. I don't simply by the "experience" arguments.

I tend to put a great deal of weight on the rationale behind why someone tells me we need to change. I look at performance in office. I most definitely apply the concept of the "Peter Principal" when some one is looking for a promotion.

You can all have a different opinion, and I am guessing at least 2/3's of you do. One of the still remaining great things in this country, even though that seems to be dwindling as a concept if you happen to be on an opposing side.

Someone might ask well what are your reasons.

I could detail them. Very easily. I am resisting that temptation, for a number of reasons.

Not the least of which is the vast majority of you readers are not mindless sheep. I actually do believe that. I believe if any of you haven't made up your mind to this point, you are going to do your own research. You are going to draw your own conclusions.

For me however you make change when change makes sense.

I neither sense the need for change, nor see the sense for it.

Now that is my opinion. You are certainly free to disagree.

If you do, and want to express it here, well feel free. I tend to enjoy the point/counter-point thingies.

Until next time.

Another head scratching day.

2016-03-15T06:21:00.000-04:00

Okay, another Tuesday. Another big day for politics nationally and locally.

Second candidates night is tonight. The Fairhaven Business Association at the skating rink at 6:30.

I have been working on a piece based on last week's "night". It has been one of those read, once, twice, three time writings I have written about numerous times in the past.

I have tried various approaches, from the extremely critical, to the "just the facts" style. And in reviewing but styles, well ....

Truthfully, this local election causes just a big a dilemma as the national one in many ways, at least for me. I just don't understand the whys behind it.

In the end, the outcome, at least based on what I have heard, seen and read to date, is not going to be based on any more compelling reason than pure and simple popularity. Yes, the whole concept of an election is the most "popular" candidate wins.

Usually, however the decision to vote for the most popular candidate is based on something more than simply I know him or her. Well, at least in the rational world.

Throw in all the variables, and adding up the pluses and minuses for everyone involved, I personally am not seeing anything here to get real excited about relative to a need for change. But that's why we have elections folks, because you out there may see something or things differently.

I know for some, the goals for this election were established the day after the election three years ago. There was a certain amount of disbelief out there. There was a bit of a movement at one point to find our local version of the anointed one. But that movement seemed to disintegrate right after last May's TM. that camp seems to have split in two based on the line up of supporters for two of the challengers.

But create any line up you want, with the pluses and minuses. Then tell me what proposal is being made that is going to result in more pluses than minuses.

Oh, I can guess a few suggestions out there. So let's have at them and begin the discussion.

Who knows, tonight's candidate's night might be revealing and may reshape the whole race.

Personally, I can the potential for something, given the dynamics involved, although I am unlikely to actually see it since I am unlikely to be able to attend this one.

Who knows, as schedules do change. Anyway, I am at this point underwhelmed.

There are no real concrete signs out there that indicate any real improvement or need. But if I am missing something, let me know.

That's all there is for today. A bit underwhelming I known, as its much of what is going on.

Until next time.

And they are off and running

2016-03-10T06:17:00.000-05:00

I actually managed to drag myself out of the house to get to the Government Access Candidate's night. Interesting evening, at least for the portion I stayed for.

I left after the school committee candidates folks. Sorry, but staying for that was even a chore, given the probabilities and voting patterns in this town.

Plenty of no shows for candidates running unopposed. Although at least one did show up.

The main event was the selectmen's race segment. Before we get to that ...

Some definite improvements and still lingering peeves about the night.

One peeve is once again the sound system. I don't blame COA for this. It may be their building but it ain't their show. For most speakers not an issue. I suspect the most workable solution hear is to have someone instruct the speakers on how to utilize a microphone. Now granted, some have been around long enough so that they should know how to do just that, but some haven't. Put a mark in the organizational draw back column though, again.

The format. What use to be unlimited time for the candidates to introduce themselves went to five minutes. I realize it was just a year ago, but I don't remember this being the case last year. Apparently a few of the candidates were unaware of the limit. Not having seen the advance notice for the event given to the candidates, I am not going to rant too much here. I have never been the advocate for unlimited. If this limit was clearly stated to the candidates before hand, too bad for them. If it was not, well another mark in the column.

Biggest improvement, going back to getting the press to ask the questions. Last's year Candidate's Night highlighted just how wrong somethings can be, not only in perception, but in actuality.

The decision last year to stack the panel with members from a town committee which were essentially the sponsors of and presenting a ballot question to the voters, and have it "hosted" by another member of the same committee was point blank wrong and inexcusable. It was wrong for all the obvious reasons at the time and didn't get any less wrong with other information that came to light.

May that travesty of blatant promotion never happen again. One thing I will tell you, based on comments from people back then. It totally and completely backfired. Sometimes the average voter is greatly underestimated. What people forget is you don't have to be the world's greatest mathematician to be able to figure out what 2 + 2 equals. And that is all that will be said on this.

The press, love them or hate them, at least wear the badge of not being aligned.

Speaking of which ... kind of ...

My original thought for today's piece was an assessment of what was said by the four last night. Do yourself a favor and watch the darn thing when it airs. Then read the candidates statements in The Fairhaven Neighborhood News, the March 10th edition.

The answers to the reporters' questions are insightful, at least some of them. A couple of potential moments. One question relating to management style in particular for one of the challengers. One question about past actions in another capacity that was head in the right direction but missed the mark a bit. Would have been more relevant about skills and actions the last few years rather than the first few years.

Anyway, since I am somewhat pressed for time this morning, and giving the full attention all four deserve isn't going to happen today, it will have to wait.

I will end by butchering the H.L Menken line by splicing it together with another famous line, the KISS principle applies to explanations, the simple seldom though is the answer to most problems.

Until next time.

It is Tuesday after all.

2016-03-08T05:52:00.001-05:00

Well, it seems I have been sliding into blogging apathy. Truthfully, If I thought you were up to it, we could have a grand time with the presidential primaries. It could be loads of fun.

I mean our fair haven seems to have caught the Bern for the primary. Shame about the state result though isn't it.

What Fairhaven has in common in with the other New England Berners should be too hard to figure out. The thing it doesn't have in common with the others up north, or at least more of the Fairhaven Berners than seems common elsewhere, is that most of our berning fair havenites are actually true Democrats.

Amazing how many ways our little spot on the bay mirrors the demographics of north that find an appeal to the Sandinista philosophy. Just as amazing how the demographics of the cities mirror the opposite side. Kind of a shame that those on fire for the new philosophy keep ignoring differences that should be clear.

The hate to be preached to, I know. They do love grabbing the pulpit.

But, rather than get into a rant and a rage about the awakening of the others, the usually politically apathetic and most likely to revert to hibernation until the next promise of a free promised land opportunistic and newly energized voter, let's move on ...

Tomorrow night, March 9th, begins our local version of the "debate" cycle. I had been toying with the idea of really ramping up the dialogue on the race. Yes, I know there are several contested races, but there is one that only matters. You can pretty much call the other ones right now and right them off.

Absent some earth shattering scandal, and perhaps even if there is one, the only real one is going to be for selectmen.

I have decided to wait. I am hopefully going to get motivated enough to attend in person. This one has the added draw of the prevent "bake sale". Usually some good stuff, cheap. Apologies to whoever I stole that line from.

At this point I am just going to say there seems to be some interesting political thought evolution going on in this town. You see people lining up, and you just have to figure there has been some sort of epiphany of thought by some.

It is either that, or I really am losing it, because of the distinct memories I have of comments made by some supporters of the candidates. but hey, its politics, and it is politics in Fairhaven. Which in the relative scheme of life is no worse than the vast majority of other communities.

We will see what the four have to say on the various matters at hand. As always, be prepared for lots of rhetoric. With four candidates, and it seems questions to be asked by the press, at least one candidate aiming a shot in their own foot is probably a very good bet.

By the way, at some point I will get to the proposed budget. Call it a bit of hubris, but I don;t feel like tossing out an potential ideas for those who may be lacking them.

Hopefully, or regrettably depending on your perspective, I will bang something out Thursday on the great "debate", version 2016. If not then, well at least before the next one; but, ...

Until next time.

First Edition of the New Open Book

2016-03-03T06:44:00.002-05:00

Writing a bit blind here. I haven't really be paying attention, to the town stuff that is. Going to have to either dig deep and find the resolve to actually care a bit more about it; or, just fade away into the woodwork.

It has been some time since I have pounded away at the keyboard. The why is the part apathy locally and part rapped up in the S &G of what is going on nationally. Since most of the remaining dedicated readers of this little exercise do not seem to want to waste your time scanning over the words typed out here relative to a picture picture bigger than local, there haven't been any lately.

But, perusing through the local weekly, a bit of information struck me as interesting.

That would relate to the recommended budget of the Town Administrator.

Let;s set aside any quibbling about the actual content for the moment. Let us instead look in awe as to what we actually have. A proposed budget. Submitted to our selectmen. Submitted to the residents of the Town of Fairhaven. Viewable online no less.

What does that mean? It means the first open and transparent budget process. It means changes in the numbers be it for expenses or revenues will have to be explained in a heck of a lot more detail than in the past, and the reasons justified. It means sudden and continuing shifts in the process are not going to be able to occur because others have someone magically been able to poke legitimate holes in your preferred spending methods and items, or decimate a rationale for your vision of reality.

Behind the scenes maneuvering, adjustments and plans aren't going to pop out, at least not with the same frequency. The last minute revealing of plans even your average 5th grader knows have been months in the making are not going to be able to occur because you now have laid your cards on the table well in advance.

You slant on it all will depend on whether you are one who will lament the changes you will see in presentation, bickering, discussion and the loss of the old process; or, are one that sees the value in an upfront and open showing of what we actually have to spend and how we are spending it.

Now don't get me wrong There is nothing that requires a total acceptance of the TA's budget. There is nothing that says you can't add or subtract from the amounts being recommended. The difficulty some will have is in how to adjust to the new playing rules.

I have heard the whining about the schools starting. I have heard the crying about the IT position. A number of other things have people in a tizzy. The one good thing about it all, is it is out there and out there early.

Hopefully it will be even earlier next year. At least for once, there seems to be an understanding that the administration's proposal for a budget can in fact be prepared in advance well in advance.

Now the most interesting thing going forward will be how the budget gets voted on. It is not the vote itself that is interesting. It will be the effect, coupled with a reduction in the reserve fund (which I whole heartedly endorse).

What our TA might not fully grasp is the past practice of some to underestimate spending but spend nonetheless, relying on a reserve fund to bail them out. What will be interesting will be the fall out over the ability to spend a bit more freely. Hopefully it is minimal.

With a reduction in the reserve fund, the reserve isn't going to be as big, and isn't going to be be able to be relied upon for the never ending parade of honest mistakes.

Personally, this writer would have no problem with abolishing the reserve fund entirely. If the same people had to constantly head to a town meeting to get a bailout, well perhaps you would see and actual change in attitudes. If some people understood the fact that there was no money forthcoming if you overspend, you might see a bit more foresight.

Anyway ... I digress a bit.

Let's stay on the positive. I am positively delighted to see a budget out. A budget which the architect drawing it up takes full responsibility for. A budget being explained and submitted to the public.

We can and probably will disagree on some of the components (and I in fact do), but that is what the next stage of the process is. Administration shoul, should always have been, submitting a budget which it believed in in advance. In the past, both the old structure and old politics would get in the way of that. Going forward, that budget now has to come out. It has to be claimed by its presenter.

If for no other reason, it is a plus because we no longer have to listen to the reasons as to why it couldn't be done.

Enough for today.

Until next time.

The reservation book is filled

2016-02-18T06:56:00.000-05:00

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.

A polar plunge of sorts

2016-02-16T06:13:00.000-05:00

I was actually planning on taking the week off. There was a comment to a recent post made however that raised a point that some in town find disturbing.

It was raised during decisions to establish the position of TA. It was raised during discussion for the hiring. It will continue to be raised every instance someone has a complaint about their taxes and how the taxes get spent.

The argument goes: Our new TA is not a town resident. He doesn't own real estate. He only rents. He doesn't pay taxes in Town.

So what? Think your answer through by the way. Please. I am really not in the mood to banter back and forth this week.

First you very well could have a TA who is a Town resident, who doesn't own real estate but only rents. So where is the difference in those two scenarios. Sure, as a resident if he owned a car there would be excise taxes, but if he as a resident rented, no real estate taxes.

Owning a house in town is going to accomplish what by the way? I have seen too many people make to many decisions based on how it effects them. I understand that. I do. I understand sometimes the real and extreme need to pinch those pennies.

I also understand that sometime hard decisions must be made. If you represent a town, you have to decide based on the Town.

Granted the its only a "cup of coffee" argument can be completely infuriating to hear, especially if you presently cannot afford that cup of coffee. But put it another way, unless and until the actual policy makers decide to give you a break, we are talking about the same battle we have be fighting for a long time.

It isn't about how much will be raised. The paid payroll has always fought for the full 2 1/2 plus new growth. It is the spending of the full load.

By the way, renters do in fact pay taxes, indirectly, but they do pay taxes. Well the ones not in government housing. We get some PILOT money for that however we aren't getting ... never mind, for another day on that.

Suffice it to say, you rent you do pay taxes, through your landlord. If that isn't a direct enough connection for you, so be it.

In the line of a town resident who pays taxes being better for the job than a nonresident TA, based on what exactly?

Trust me when I tell you, the spending philosophy of the past has been raise every single possible dollar you can on the tax levy. Indeed, all rants and raves in the past to the contrary, it has been a long, long time since any administration budget was developed with an intent to provide the tax payer a break.

The odd year or two in the past 15 years or so where the limit was not maxed out was a result of a miscalculation not any real intent to provide relief. Hell, we had one occasion a number of years ago where the town raised over $200k more than authorized by T.M. through a technical, but absolutely legal procedure, because it discovered we were under the limit.

Now that particular little exercise in "tax them til it hurts" did have a silver lining going forward. It brought to light the power of the pencil and the past procedures and role of the overlay account. But before I digress ...

My point being here, there has been no effort by any town residents employed to cut budgets for a tax savings. Divert the money to something else yes, but not to put it back in your pocket.

Which is why, in the past we had the budget turmoil we did. The battles would rage not on saving the tax payer money but in where it was going to go. But I digress again.

Simply put a town resident vs. a non-town resident gets you nothing financially as far as spending. You may feel otherwise however it is an opinion not based on past experience, not in this town.

Having had the opportunity to have had a chit chat with our new TA, knowing what I have been able to discover about applicants, non-applicants, including residents, there is no doubt in my mind that your new TA, based on the available pool, and potential residents available, was the best choice.

Might others have been capable? Possibly. The unknown will remain unknown however. Also, never, ever underestimate the validity of the "Peter Principle".

Time will tell how good Mr. Rees actually is. At the time of his selection however there were none known better suited.

Another point that needs to be made clear here.

It is an absolutely necessary clarity.

The TA position, as presented, as related to the BPW and as failed to be totally implemented in what was a failed, and shortsighted strategy of "consolidation", does not have control of the day to day operations of the BPW.

Whatever perceived authority and oversight may have existed has disappeared.

Water. sewer, road, parks issues, complain to Arsne Street. Unless that is you want to be seen and heard, then you try to get on camera for the BOS.

Understand what is prior to being critical as to what has happened or may happen.

There are changes coming folks. Many subtle. Many procedural. All long overdue.

But we did not appoint a mayor. We did not give away they keys to the hope chest. We did not cede direction.

Policies and procedures, our goals as a town are things that remain with us.

What we have done, is to understand the need to take politics out of day to day operations to the extent possible. What we have done is the necessary step to insure that day to day decisions are made based on what's proper and not on who is asking.

Politics will never completely disappear from any situation. Human nature. It really is that simple. But you can take steps to neutralize the effects of the political games on the operational side. That we have done.

Some say we have gone to far, I say we did not go far enough. So be it. We deal with what we have.

But, in truth, an "outsider" is a very good thing to have right now. A very experienced outsider is even better.

You want to insert a residency requirement. Well go to it and try and change it. A big mistake in my opinion. Said that way back when.

You shrink the pool for available talent tremendously when you do that. You end up with the political inbreeding so many of you lament and complain about concerning the make-up of town meeting.

I prefer a much broader horizon and like the bigger pool.

Until next time.

Stormy Monday.

2016-02-08T04:55:00.000-05:00

Okay, I for one have had my fill of winter. Yeah, I know this year is a breeze compared to last year. Had my fill of last year early on in the season too.

Each winter finds this blogger just a bit less of being stoic about the weather. It also seems the same applies to what goes on in the world which the winter enjoys turning topsy turvy.

Politics nationally, well it is no longer a simple and perpetual SNAFU. In the be careful what you wish for world, it is a distinct possibility that the extremes of at least one party, and not totally out of the realm for both parties, will grab the reigns for candidacy to the highest office.

Why be careful of what you wish for? The getting it in either or both cases is going to bring that political revolutions some yearn for. It ain't just some on the left yearning for it either.

But since my faithful readers do not seem to inclined to follow the rants of a local blogger on politics on such an compassing scope, I guess I must say I digress a bit ...

The recent storms bring to mind a few pet peeves about the winter in general, besides the fact it is winter that is ...

Parking. If you live in Fairhaven for more than a year or two, you should be well acquainted with the winter rules for parking. As far as the complaints about who seems to get away with violating the rules, if it bothers you that much pick up the phone and complain.

As far as the rants from some who get plowed in when they park legally, seriously ... where do you expect the snow to go. As far as the rants of those who get plowed in when they park illegally, count your blessings the town doesn't invoke the tow option with the frequency of other communities.

Save your complaints about the road conditions. I get it. Not always as wonderful as we might like, and I get it that everyone is also an expert at plowing a hundred miles of roads, and how more clear to the pavement the roads are somewhere else. It ain't so bad in our fair haven that the world will seemingly end.

Since I suppose I can gripe about the weather, some may want to gripe about the roads. Knock yourself out, except put that gripe on your Facebook page or something.

Moving on ...

I am still trying to figure out what that critical juncture in history we are at is. That was the period of time leading up to the votes to change things. That was last April when the voters let it be known what they considered was critical and what was not. That was the recent decision made to hire.

Now the only "juncture" we face is what are we going to do about the two separate but equal boards.

Not to worry, I am hearing a few things about a few things that are going to be proposed to deal with the failed proposals which were proposed.

Not enough content known to offer even an intelligent guess, but hearing enough to know there could be some interesting articles to deal with the rubble left from the two prong attempt last made.

I was subjected to a few moments of chastisement the other day about my stance on remote participation. Knock your socks off folks, seriously.

There is absolutely nothing personal about how my position on this issue was formed or is directed. Despite what some may think, when you ask for a personal exemption based on personal circumstances, well ....

I don't believe in remote participation. Period. End of it. Did not support it when it was raised in the past, by individuals I knew on a personal and could have made the same personal arguments in support of adoption as were more recently made. But ...

Decisions which involve the town as a whole should not be made to accommodate specific individuals.

And I am going to add, officials who support the adoption of a town wide policy to benefit an individual do not show to me a town wide best interest. I said it before. I say it again. Any legitimate arguments in favor of this request should have been based on a belief that the policy was in the best interest of the town, Any standard less than that was reason enough to deny the request.

Call me a meany. Call me a misogynist (which I was, with an adjective or two before the word).

But please also call me consistent.

I expressed my position on this issue when the same accommodation was sought for members of another entity a few years ago. I didn't believe heading south was any reason then, and despite my distaste for the winter, I don't believe it should be a reason now, or quite frankly ever.

As happens with many pieces, this one is several days in the making.

Apparently, we also have another storm in the making, with my weather app having just beeped, once again, to let me know. I suppose on the positive side, even if we get the foot, based on this time last year, we are what, still an inch or two on the the good side of it?

Speaking of last year, it was about this time it became obvious that no one wanted the job available in April's election. This year, for a period of time it seemed everyone wanted it, and a big bunch still do. Go figure.

I mean despite all the complaints, and yes there was complaining. There is complaining about all three, no one had the gumption, burning desire to serve, to make things right at what was still a time we were at a critical juncture.

If you are running to lend a helping hand, well from what I see so far, that ain't reason enough. The TA seems to have at least a handle on what is going on. He certainly seems to have a better grasp of reality than those who want to steer and direct.

I am hearing more positive chatter and from a few new birds chirping out there.

People seem impressed with the way the budget submits that have been submitted are being reviewed. Now in fairness as to past practices, The main difference between now and then is the TA has the responsibility to submit a proposed budget.

He also has the responsibility to make sure his budget is adequate and workable, not simply to stay within a spending figure. He will be responsible for justification and shortfalls for cuts he makes. He will have oversight and authority through the year.

Most interesting thing to see play out is going to be how some people handle the exercise of the oversight.

More immediately, and even more interestingly from a voter's perspective, will be policy proposals and perspectives. Because, in this squirrel's nutshell, if the Board functions as it should going forward, it functions the vast majority of time to form policy and enact the rules and regulations to implement the policies.

Just another rambling thought.

Anyway ... the every fluctuating weather warnings now saw 6 to 10. I suppose that is better than being knee deep in some of the other stuff that we have to wade through. When you are my height though, not really much of a difference.

Be safe folks! Until next time.