The Big Picture

 Chairman,CAVE
 (Citizens Against Virtually Everything!)

I would hate to be branded a member of CAVE -- I have long supported a new public safety building to replace the undersized, decrepit facilities now in use.   But I can very easily see both sides on this one -- I can even argue this issue with myself:

Will the Building make us safer?  Well, it will probably decrease Fire/EMS response times to somebody's house -- but not mine..  

Is it necessary?   There seems to be a growing trend towards building huge municipal edifices over the past decade.  I know it has been said that the buildings are being built to some sort of new industry standard or accreditation yardstick.  I would think a more important yardstick would be the number of  "Boots on the Ground".  People put out fires, rescue people, and capture Bad Guys -- Buildings don't.  But, Buildings do provide healthy work environments that may allow people to do their jobs more efficiently as well as provide facilities for the continue training of people.  Buildings also make a good place to store equipment in a manner that will make it last longer and/or work better (and provide a secure place to store Bad Guys until they can be given to somebody else).

Is it the right time?  It's never the right time for anything   Our local infrastructure is falling apart because nobody has agreed to spend anything on Town Buildings for decades.  The Great Local Wizards of Yore saw Commercial Development as the Work of the Devil.  They went out of their way to block commercial development -- which shifted a huge portion of the tax burden onto homeowners.  And, then they started selling their land to new home owners who increasingly needed new expensive services -- like schools, police & fire protection.

A Municipal Translation Guide

I recently read an amusing article about meaningless words and phrases that should be removed from everyone's vocabulary.  It contained the usual suspects -- "like",  "literally", "changing paradigm", "outside the box", etc.

It made me think of a newer variation -- "Meaningless Words and Phrases That Could be Eliminated From Local Government Discussions."  But, knowing how unyielding the local vernacular is to modification of any sort, I , instead, offer the following translation/response guide.

1)  "Transparent" -- Buzzword #1 -- nothing could be bad if it is described as "transparent"!  Generally used to criticize somebody else's work -- even though the speaker would probably do nothing different if given the opportunity.

2)  "Seek Community Input"  -- The speaker is seeking to avoid making a decision for which they could be criticized.  This allows blame to be spread around based on the public opinion they will receive from the 7 people paying attention to that particular issue.

(First Rule of Thumb for Government Speaking -- When in doubt, repeat the phrases "Transparent" and "Community Input" as many times as possible!)

3)  "People have expressed concern" -- Very similar to #1, except the speaker is unwilling to say that it is either their own opinion because nobody else was paying attention to the issue, or nobody was willing to be publicly associated with their own opinion.

4A)  "It's a Process" -- A meaningless phrase used when the speaker doesn't have a constructive idea; or just wants more camera time.  We need to spend less time discussing process, and more time discussing progress.

4B)  "Evolve" -- Nothing has happened yet, we're not sure what will happen in the future either.

5) "Think outside the box" -- Speaker really has no idea what to say; but doesn't want to admit it.  (I would say that Speaker should be put inside a box -- except that somebody is liable to interpret that as a threat and pressure the local constabulary to investigate a potential domestic terrorism risk.)

6)  "Uncharted territory" --- I got no F'n idea what's going to happen!

7)  "Deferred maintenance"  -- Something we know we should have done previously -- but are now pretending to be surprised that we hadn't done previously (related to the Ben Franklin quote -- "a stitch in time saves nine")

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot!

OK, The Accountant beat The Tree Warden for State Rep., that's a Good Thing.   And, on the State Senate side, as much as we all love to hate Beacon Hill and its inhabitants, who wants to wait the decade before somebody stops using "who is" in front of your State Senator's name?  If you need the State's attention, do you want to be represented by a freshmen Senator from the Minority Party, or The Boss -- Pragmatism wins!

But what happened to el Presidente ?  Is anybody better off than they were a few years ago?  My obvious bias would be to support a corporate restructuring guy over a "Community Activist" -- since (a) the Country obviously needs some restructuring and (b) who really likes "Community Activists"?.  I think its  time for the Grand Old Party to start reeling their right wing in a little ... lest it break off entirely!

And, does anybody feel they will be better represented by the left wing Professor from Oklahoma (even worse than a "wash ashore!") who scammed the system by lying about her heritage?    Didn't a couple of Boston Firemen try that a decade ago? Was anybody else amused by her rant about the Government needing to "do something"about the cost of higher education?  Perhaps they should crack-down on overpaid Professors !   Was it me, or did she seem incapable of answering any questions without repeating mouth loads of "sincere" rhetoric -- that had nothing to do with the question asked? 

Speaking as a guy who has taken several dogs, cats, rabbits, and  a guinea pig for their final car ride (and who watched both his parents die miserable deaths), I was surprised that voters weren't willing to allow terminally ill patients the same merciful treatment we allow our pets.  I would be willing to bet there were a lot of folks who were incapable of travelling to the polls yesterday who may have felt differently on the issue.  Well, I am sure somebody's guilt was eased by the fact that they were able to prolong an "existence" -- maybe they made themselves feel better?

But, then again, it looks like we'll have some medical marijuana to play with while we're all waiting to check out!

The voters have spoken.  And, as the old saying goes, "the only thing worse than Democracy, is Not Having Democracy!"

Not that my Opinion matters ...

I am under no illusion that my endorsement is worth more than a "warm pitcher of spit". In fact, because of my very strong (and unapologetic) views on certain issues, some (including members of my immediate family!) may occasionally prefer I sit quietly.  But, hey, I'm not sensitive!

There was an amusing Letter to the Editor in the CCT recently endorsing the Town's former Tree Warden to be our next State Representative.  The writer said we needed an "energetic" representative who wasn't "out of touch" with his constituents.

Right criteria  -- but he tried to apply them to the wrong candidate!  

"Out of touch" certainly describes most of the denizens of Beacon Hill -- including the Governor, his friend in Washington, and the law professor/Indian princess from Cambridge/Oklahoma!

But it doesn't apply to  Randy Hunt.

Even if I haven't agreed with Randy on every issue over the years, I have never questioned that his actions were sincere and well-researched.  Even overlooking his record of constituent service -- every email or phone call responded to quickly and personally -- dealing with a wide variety of individuals and small business owners is the lifeblood of his public accounting practice.  You can't be more "in touch" with people than when you sit down with them at the end of the year to review what they worked hard to earn, and what  the government will be taking away from them -- in many cases to give to those who didn't work very hard.

Randy is certainly accessible and he definitely communicates regularly with his constituents.  I heard he even writes a blog to share his opinions and observations --- actually, I heard he writes "the nice blog".  (Who writes the other one?)

And, as far as "energetic", obviously that letter writer never saw the campaign-o-cycle!

Please vote Tuesday.

The Power of Marketing ! (From Anonymous Contributor)

Occasionally, I receive pieces written by folks who may have an opinion on an issue, but may also personal or professional reasons for not raising their objections publicly -- hence the "Anonymous Contributor" label.

Truth in Advertising?

Behold! The mighty power of marketing (and power)!

Anyone besides me noticing the all court, full time marketing blitz being conducted by town employees and others to justify the new public safety building? 

Town employees have even gone so far as to set up tents on Saturday mornings at the Wing School soccer fields to distribute glossy public safety building brochures that attempt to justify and explain the building to otherwise occupied soccer moms and dads. 

Setting aside the important question of whether a new public safety building is needed and justifiable; isn't this and related activity a political campaign for a tax increase? 

Aren't there laws governing election campaigning? Isn't this group of town employees and volunteers actually operating an unregistered Political Action Committee (a PAC)? Since when can the town and town employees conduct a political campaign funded by of all people us taxpayers? Who else but us taxpayers paid for the brochures and architectural drawings?

Where’s the ire?

Where’s the outrage? Where are our town officials? Where’s Taylor White – aka Mr. Open Meeting Law? Where are the police? Oh, that’s right – they’re all running the campaign.