Profiles In Discouraged – Part III

                        Sideshows Over Substance

Kenneth M. O’Brien

I suspect that the majority of registered voters in Southbridge would be very happy if they never heard the following terms again – Robert’s Rules, Home Rule Charter, Town Council Rules, Open Meeting Law, etc.

I am not saying that these guidelines do not have their place.

Rather, the preoccupations with these guides to the conduct of business have taken the place of doing business.

Take for instance the meeting of December 6, 2010.

Not merely the council meeting, but the subsequent reporting in the local press was consumed with the issue of the election of a vice chairman. The next meeting was similarly a victim of a discussion of not only this issue, but also a statement by the council chair addressing issues of decorum.

Virtually overlooked in all of this quibbling over process was the serious matter of the vote at the December 6 meeting establishing a property tax rate of $17.14 per thousand. I suspect that, when push comes to shove, this will matter far more to the citizens of this town than someone’s six-month tenure as vice chairman.

In conversations with several councilors subject to the vote, none of them realized that they were voting for a tax increase. Others, as well as the administration, maintained that while the tax rate was increased by $1.98 per thousand over the prior fiscal year, it really wasn’t a tax increase. This conclusion was reached by observing that, since property values had declined, most property owners would see little if any increase in their property taxes.

If ever there was a disingenuous strain of argument, this is it. If your income were to decline by 20% but the amount you paid in income taxes stayed the same, would you have experienced a tax increase? Of course you would have.

But neither “side” has chosen to address this issue. Rather, we’ve seen a pattern of walkouts, endless debates about Robert’s Rules by those who lack little more than a “Cliff Notes” version thereof, filing of Open Meeting Law complaints, claims of being the victim of unfair treatment and ultimately a relentless stream of whining, whimpering, lecturing and vituperation. And in the midst of it all the public is left to “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”.

As I said earlier, such procedural matters do have their place. The most evident case was councilor Logan’s “Point of Order” that restored the Board of Health to three members. Anyone who cannot see that the increase to five members was a cynical move to stack the Board of Health to favor a corporate interest is seriously deluded. Unfortunately, the Attorney General’s office has yet to respond to the council’s request to rule on this matter. One can only imagine the attention an average citizen would get from the person occupying that office if they were now our U.S. Senator.

I, for one, would like to see either “side” make explicit an agenda for what they want to accomplish. At the very least, I would like to hear candidates stop mouthing platitudes about what is important when they are running for office. Rather, I would like to see them set forth specifics and then, most importantly, follow up on these after they are elected. I also think that it is time for our Town Manager, as long as we are burdened with this form of government, to set forth a plan for dealing with the needs of the town and its citizens rather than merely responding to the political calculus involved in keeping his job.

Of course I realize that such expectations would require our elected officials and town administrative officials to do the real work of governing rather than playing the political games that they apparently find so gratifying.

I would welcome comments suggesting what readers of this blog think should constitute such an agenda – the more specific the better.