Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Ducking Responsibility

When I go to the polls to vote, I like to know the positions of the candidates on issues important to me. And when I go to town meeting, I like to know the positions of the selectmen on the matters on the warrant. Sounds reasonable, right?

But our selectmen too often don't want to take positions. They frequently put items on the warrant not because they support them but because they want the voters to decide. In many cases that's appropriate, but aren't we at least entitled to know their positions on those items? We elect them to become familiar with and study the issues, and we need to know the results of that process because we may choose to go along with their recommendations. And when they explain their positions and the reasons for them, we can evaluate their performance to see if we want to re-elect them.

Alas, the selectmen seem to want to keep their positions to themselves. They refuse even to set forth their vote on the items they themselves put on the warrant! So if you want to know how a selectman feels about an issue, I guess you have to ask at the meeting when the issue arises. And don't be surprised if you get a wishy-washy answer or no answer.

6 comments:

Bruce Cumsky, Selectman said...

Why Richard, I'm surprised... I don't think I've ever been called "wishy-washy." Certainly, I've NEVER sat and not given an answer. I believe all of our citizens deserve to know where we stand on the issues that affect them. Of course, the actual vote doesn't communicate the debate that led up to it. I encourage everyone to attend a Selectman's meeting to listen and ask questions. Yes, hold our feet to the fire. If anyone wants to discuss any of our town's issues I am always available, just give me a call, 644-9934. -Bruce

Anonymous said...

I agree with this and find it very objectionable that the Selectmen will not disclose their personal positions on matters of interest to all of us in Egremont.

And in this regard I just can't believe Bruce Cumsky's response to you. I was at last year's meeting on the right of non-residents to speak at meetings. Bruce was asked point blank what his personal view was and refused to give a simple "yes" or "no" answer. He responded with so much legal mumbojumbo that it was impossible to know where he stands. Only Tom Haas expressed a clear personal opinion. We deserve much better than this from our Selectmen.

Bruce Cumsky, Selectman said...

With all due respect to anonymous, all three Selectmen stated their positions clearly regarding non-resident's right to speak. Anonymous wasn't listening. There was no ambiguity, no mumbo-jumbo, no refusal to state a position.

We are having another Selectman's meeting on April 25th, Saturday at 10am in the North Egremont Fire Station, so our second homeowners can easily attend, but of course, open to all! Anonymous is more than welcome to ask again, or can call me. I'm more than happy to reiterate my position.

This is not the place to debate it, I prefer to know who I am talking with. I'm not one for anonymity, I prefer to take responsibility for my words. -Bruce

Anonymous said...

I recently talked with somebody in Falls Village, CT and has been actively involved in that town’s government. He says that not only are nonresident taxpayers allowed to speak at Town meetings but they also vote on Town matters, such as the election of local officials and the budget. He was appalled when I told him that nonresident taxpayers in Egremont can’t do either.

This suggests that it’s unlikely there’s something in Federal law that prohibits nonresident taxpayers from speaking at Town meetings and voting on Town (but not State or national) matters. If there was something to this effect, then it would be illegal to allow it in Falls Village; that doesn’t strike me as likely.

So I suspect that there’s something in Massachusetts law that restricts or prohibits these activities for nonresident taxpayers. Can anybody tell us what the law actually says? Maybe our Selectmen could do that?

I'm puzzled by the opposition to letting nonresident taxpayers speak at Town meetings, just like residents. They’re not asking for much, and the only cost to the residents is that they might have to listen to a few blowhards once in a while. But we already have plenty of those in Town already. So what’s the big deal?

Giving nonresident taxpayers this right (i.e. the same right as resident taxpayers) allows us all to get away from a divisive issue that is not going to go away (particularly when nonresident taxpayers already pay more than 50% of the Town's total tax bill) and allows the Town to focus on more important matters. And we, the resident taxpayers, might actually benefit from what they might have to say. It seems like a no brainer to me.

It would be nice to see our Selectmen finally take a leadership role on this matter.

Bruce Cumsky, Selectman said...

It’s unfortunate that so much misinformation has surrounded this argument. To help clarify things, I recommend reading the United States Court of Appeals decision, No. 07-1876. This answers some of your questions. I will quote a relevant section: “We (Court of Appeals) hold that forum analysis is inapposite because the town meeting is a legislative body in deliberation. The Curnins are not registered to vote in Egremont and therefore are not town meeting legislators. The First Amendment does not give non-legislators the right to speak at meetings of deliberating bodies, regardless of whether they own property or pay taxes.”

You can view the entire decision at: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/07-1876-01A.pdf

It’s important to note a few things. Because Egremont has fewer than 5,000 residents the town meeting becomes a legislative body, as described above. More than 5,000 and we elect representatives to speak for us. That’s the technical side of the argument.

Yet, from your post it sounds like you are a resident. That means you probably have attended a few town meetings, at least. Only on one occasion over many years have I seen a non-resident not permitted to speak. That was after a motion was made by a resident in the audience, a legislator, not by the moderator, as many have thought. The motion was made and debated by the full legislative body and then voted on, and passed. This was during debate on the proposed sewer project.

At all other town meetings I have often seen non-residents speak. At our last special town meeting a non-resident asked me if he could speak. I asked our moderator, Tom Gage. Tom responded that he had no issue with that (as I suspected) and just asked that residents have the chance to speak first. That seemed reasonable. One of the items that day was concerning a RFP for cell tower location. There were many pilots (not from Egremont) and an attorney (not from Egremont) who spoke. There was no protest or restriction about their speaking.

The bottom line is that people may speak, but the legislators (registered voters) or the moderator have the right to deny non-residents from speaking. I’ve only seen it happen that one time. I agree with the court’s decision. I also welcome EVERYONE to attend the Selectmen’s meetings to share their views. It is an open meeting, as all are in Egremont (except, of course, Executive Sessions). We are also having a Saturday Selectmen’s meeting for residents who have difficulty making a Tuesday night meeting and non-residents who are only here on weekends (many of our second-home owners). Again, ALL are welcome. It’s Saturday, April 25th at 10am in the North Egremont Fire Station.

I’m sorry if this is long-winded and hope it offers some clarity. But please give me a call if you have a question or want to discuss it further. - Bruce 644-9934

Carla Turner said...

As I recall the reason we limit non residents the right to speak at the annual town meeting is due to the length of the meetings. Most years in fact all the years that I've come to those meetings all residents are limited to length of speech. If we have to limit those who have enough of a tie to this community to call it their main home. Why on earth would it be fair to let someone who doesn't care enough about our community to use up valuable time.In many instances even those who are permanent residence cannot speak due to call to vote rules. Non residents can always speak to the selectmen at their meetings and there still is an editorial page in the newspaper which I have taken advantage of many times. If the unknown author likes the way they do things in Connecticut they could easily move there.HaHa unless their 1st home is there. and then well you know... The debate goes on. Fondly, Carla Turner.