<-Previous - - Next->  ----  Printer-Friendly   Our Latest Posts: * Wishes *  Been reading this week *  Handy Helpers * 

Oak point clubs: we have plenty of room for your pictures and announcements! See Clubs for more information.

Linda and I attend most Selectmen's meetings (Monday nights, 7:00 PM, Town Hall). We can't always stay to the end because Linda just can't sit for many hours without suffering greatly, but we do like to be there because you can get a much better feel for reality than you can just watching it on TV or reading the minutes later (the minutes can be eventually found at http://www.middleborough.com/selectmen/Minutes/).

I was a bit disturbed by the meeting last night (October 1 2007). We had to leave before the end (Linda just couldn't stand the pain any longer), so there might have even been more that could have upset me more, but what I was there for was quite enough.

I'm going to reverse the chronology just for my convenience. I'm going to first talk about a verbal altercation between Selectman Adam Bond and Selectman Steve Spataro. This actually happend after the other item I want to discuss, so don't let that confuse you if you happened to watch on TV or are reading the minutes later.

The issue under discussion was the reorganization of the former Casino Study Commission as a Resort Committee Advisory Group. This issue has been going on for several weeks, and has been pushed back at prior meetings. It looked like we were finally going to get somewhere when Steve Spataro stated that he felt that there needed to be a specific scope of work defined, with deliverables and a time line. His stated concern was that he wanted to avoid duplication of effort, and wanted to be sure that the various town departments could lean on this committee for projects and research.

Adam Bond objected loudly, asking where Steve had been for the past three weeks and just what "scope" Steve wanted. In other words, why hadn't Steve brought this up weeks ago and suggested his desired definition of what the committee should be doing?

Steve reacted by complaining about Adam's tone and further stating (somewhat gratuitously) that this was why he (Steve) would not support Adam's bid for the Town Manager position.

More on the Town Manager stuff in a minute, but first let's look at Steve's request for details. That is, in my opinion, typical "engineer" mentality. I don't mean that as a slur again engineers or any procedural oriented personalities: I have some elements of that in my own personality and fully understand that attention to detail can be very important in some situations: if you are going to build a two mile bridge, you need engineers who are positively obsessed with details: scope of work, deliverables, time lines and more. If you don't have such people controlling the project, you are heading for disaster.

But you don't want procedural people making decisions about whether or not you need a bridge and what it needs to connect.

Now you could argue (I'm sure Steve would) that his desires for details are reasonable, and I'm not saying they are not. It's not unreasonable to seek the advice of an engineer when making decisions about whether or not to build that bridge. Advice, though, and that's all: other than that, you don't want the engineers involved because they will always get too bogged down in details and always will want to move slowly and cautiously. Leave them out of decision making: engineers make lousy politicians.

So I was upset with Steve for the same reasons Adam was: the committee actually needs to be much more free to set its own course. Again, I'm not saying that they would ignore the input or the needs of department heads, but this is a citizen group that is hopefully concerned with the overall needs of the Town rather than what's convenient for a specific department: tying them down with a specific charter is not the way to go. A timeline makes no sense either: we really do not know whether this project is 18 months away (as Dianne Bassett keeps insisting), five years away or will never happen at all. It makes no sense to impose a time line on this group given the current confusion and uncertainty. So I definitely saw Steve as only throwing up unnecessary delays. However, the motion to reinstate the committee did pass (and Steve didn't vote against it), so we'll let that slide. I was more upset by his sudden turn about on the issue of Adam as Town Manager.

There was another turnaround earlier (not at this meeting): Selectman Wayne Perkins, who formerly seemed to support the idea of Adam as TM (or at least wasn't loudly opposing the idea) now says Adam isn't qualified. Well, that's something reasonable people can disagree about: I personally feel that the ability to negotiate and resolve conflict is more important than financial degrees, but others may feel differently. I just don't like sudden reversals of opinion.. both Wayne and Steve formerly seemed to support this, now they suddenly do not.

Oh well, that's politics. Steve has 18 months left to serve, so I'll have to put up with him till then at least. Wayne is up for reelection in the Spring, and if this were the only complaint I had with him, I'd still be voting to re-elect if he chooses to run again, but as I said earlier, there was another issue last night that upset me.

By the way, before anyone gets any ideas: I'm not politicking for election. I am not qualified in any way to be a Selectman, I don't even possess the knowledge and expertise necessary to serve on most any town board or committee, so don't assume any of this is motivated by political aspirations: I have none. Nothing has changed since I wrote Not Me! in July and nothing will change ever. This is just another citizen gripe.

The second issue that upset me was a hearing for Pavestone. They are located out on Rte 28 and they want to expand their storage yard, and that involves some wetland issues, hence the hearing. This hearing actually began last week or the week before (sorry, can't recall and the minutes aren't up yet) and there were angry complaints from abutters about noise and possible pollution. Selectman Pat Rogers had made a site visit because of those complaints and reported back at this meeting that he was satisfied with what he had seen and been told.

Well, I'm not, on two counts. First, I don't trust this company at all. The abutters have (according to them) been given an entirely different story about noise abatement than the story Pat Rogers came back with. OK, maybe that's just miscommunication or misunderstanding. But at the previous hearing, the company representative (I forget his name and again the minutes aren't up yet) mentioned the possibility of using pervious paving in this new storage area. Pervious paving is what Pavestone makes, so obviously that would be convenient for them. Adam and someone in the audience (was it Brian of the Casino Committee? I think so..) both questioned if this was wise considering that fork trucks would be bringing material to this area. The company rep immediately responded that Pavestone uses propane fueled fork trucks.

Well, this week we find out that's not true. Pavestone's trucks are diesel fueled. This was brought out by an abutter and confirmed by the Pavestone Plant Manager. Immediately the rep who had said that they used propane jumped up and apologized for "mis-speaking" previously.

Mis-speaking? I don't buy it. Sounds more like an attempt to deflect than a mistake. This hearing was, after all, about water resources and possible pollution. You want me to believe that the guy Pavestone sent to represent them on this matter had no idea what the possible sources of pollution would be? Possible, but if so, they should get someone else..

More important was the Board's reaction to abutters complaints about noise: basically they were told that this hearing was about water resources, not zoning, so there was nothing more to discuss. As it all turned out, the area in question apparently is outside of any concerns for town water, so after consultation with the Town Planner, the pervious paving was allowed and the Pavestone people will get their permit. Adam Bond did try to direct the Board's attention to the fact that there may have been misrepresentation in the original permit, but the rest didn't want to get into this.

Now I'm not entirely sure they should have. This was a water resource issue, not a zoning board complaint, so maybe they were justified in their attitude. But I can't help but think that maybe Pat Rogers wasn't the right person to send down there. Shouldn't instead the whole issue been investigated, perhaps by the Building Commissioner? I'm assuming he'd have responsibility for zoning complaints, but if not, then whoever would have that reponsiblity certainly should have been dispatched. Given the absence of a Town Manager, shouldn't complaints from neighbors, even if received in the wrong venue, be redirected by the Selectmen to the proper channels?

Now I understand and generally agree with Wayne Perkins' lament that chasing a company from board to board isn't conducive to attracting business to Middleboro. On the other hand, it isn't smart to turn a blind eye to what may be inappropriate behavior by a company who made certain representations when originally permitted. That was what Adam was trying to get at, but he was the lone voice there.

I'm not feeling very happy about our Selectmen right now. No, I'm not advocating more recalls, but as the terms expire, I'm definitely going to be looking to people who indicate they see the same problems I see. I'm not sure who those people might be, but again I really think there might be someone here at Oak Point who could do the job..