Monday, September 09, 2013


I haven't been to recent selectboard meetings, but I went tonight.  I can report that, sadly, things have only changed for the worse.

First, Turner announced at the start of the meeting that he was banning any recording of it because the recording people hadn't indicated they were going to do so BEFORE the meeting, as opposed to at the outset of the meeting.  They read outloud the wording in the open meeting law, which does say "before," and by God we selectmen are going to enforce it against these disrespectful citizens who only want to trap us with our own words! 

There followed a rather bizarre discussion about Robert's Rules of Order, with the selectmen at first indicating they were going to follow it, but, well, not all the time.  When Weigle asked which edition of Robert's Rules they were going to follow, they admitted they didn't know there were several editions.  Pollard tried to bail them out with a rambling speech about how meetings should be (must be?) conducted, but was not terribly persuasive. How can you be persuasive when the real purpose of the selectboard's actions is to shut the citizenry up (at least those citizens who the selectboard doesn't like)?

Cumsky presented a letter outlining a conversation he'd had with an Assistant AG indicating that the open meeting law required that members of the public be able to hear the proceedings and that the selectboard must provide a room with adequate seating for the expected audience. Here it is:

That prompted Pollard to do a song and dance about how his prior contrary advice wasn't really to the contrary.  I can't wait to compare the transcripts.

What's so really, really bad about all this?  The selectmen have moved completely into the bunker, so the usual useful interplay between the citizens and the board - known as democracy - has been eliminated.  And pity poor Mr. Pollard, who has to defend the selectboard in implementing these attacks on the way democracy should work.

Then Brazie announced that one of the selectboard's ploys - to raid unused community policing grant money to pay for an extension of the temporary chief's tenure so they wouldn't have to ask the taxpayers to pony up at the special town meeting - probably wasn't going to work.  The finance committee had made inquiries at the state level and was told that that unused  money couldn't be used in that way because it probably had to be paid back to the state.   That really upset Flynn, who demanded to know if the nosy finance committee had put discussing that matter on their agenda!  Flynn apparently thinks it's okay to spend money illegally if you can just slip it by. 

Flynn then used that problem to launch into a tirade about Reena, and demanded to meet on what to do about her - i.e., let's fire her - by the end of this week.  He found it damnable that Reena hadn't spent the grant money and therefore put us into this terrible situation.  Of course, he overlooks that if she had spent the money it wouldn't be available, now would it?  (And he thinks a town employee should be criticized for NOT spending money?) It's the selectboard that applies for grants and is supposed to monitor them, not town employees; that's called accountability.  And there were several specific discussions with THIS selectboard about using that grant money for radio upgrades at the new police station, so they can't plead ignorance.  How wrong headed can you get? 

A bit of sad news is that Jim Fountain, the long time dump attendant, is quitting.  Much sadder is the selectboard's reaction.  Brazie announced that there was no need to advertise the position because a number of people had already indicated they were interested.  The fact that someone who is an outsider might be a better choice seems to be of no concern to this selectboard.  Cronyism reigns.  Indeed, when Cumsky asked what the board's policy was about advertising open positions, the response was that advertising was done only when there weren't people on the inside who were interested in the job.  I admire the honesty, but this is a really stupid way to do business, and the result is predictable.  It just worsens the "us against them" mentality that permeates town hall.  And there's no reason to hope that it's going to get better.  There's only one way to accomplish that.

 

6 comments:

Bruce Cumsky said...

Of course, the question I neglected to ask after Charlie's motion for Chief Bucknell to be fired was how can you fire her when all of the Selectmen have stated they "have an agreement" with her, for her to leave. Mary and Bruce were clearly quoted that there was an agreement and Charlie was quoted saying they even had a "handshake" for an agreement. Curious.

Richard Allen said...

Correction: The OML does not say BEFORE. It says "at the outset".

Anonymous said...

Give him a break, please. Turner can't speak louder because he never really learned how to talk at all. He's just a mumble. Blame it on his mother?

Anonymous said...

In all reality, it appears that 2 members of the BOS want to work to reach "some type of resolution." There is NOT a signed agreement, no handshakes unless the July 8th handshakes by the BOS to Chief B were valid.( Yes, there was an agreement on July 8th) to end this fiasco. The mystery/question is "who is talking out of turn" and why? OML violations abound. Sad state of affairs by tarnishing someone. Also smells like lawsuits against a long list of people.

Richard Allen said...

I'd like to know the details on "there was an agreement on July 8th." That's the first I've heard of that.

Anonymous said...

Richard,
July 8th was "THE hearing." It was voted that Chief B would come back, 2 of the 3 BOS members shook hands with the Chief, and the Town Attorney even stated " Reena is the Chief, has been the Chief, and will remain the Chief." They all agreed to meet before the next meeting (7/22) to finalize the goals and objectives of return. One side operated in good faith to work it out, but guess what? It never happened. 7/22 was the night at the Fire House when a list of bizarre conditions, rules, and a litany of stipulations under which the Chief had to abide was put on the black board. Remember? The BOS did not live up to their end of the agreement.