Random wonderings about how Town Meeting is going to go this Fall 2007

Interesting excerpt from the David Brooks New York Times "Happiness Gap" column published in The Republican (Springfield, MA) pg A16 Thursday November 1, 2007:

"In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt could launch the New Deal because voters wanted to change the country and their own lives. But today, people want the government to change so their own lives can stay the same. Voters don't want to be transformed; they want to be defended."

The basic upshot of Brooks' take on some Pew Research Center survey results is that as individuals, American voters are happy with their lives and also expect their lives to get better, although at the same time they believe their country and their government is going to hell in the proverbial handbasket.

I'm trying to figure out why this resonates with me for local politics as well as for the Presidential election that Brooks is focusing on.

Amherst has some number of folks who want the Town to stay the same as it was the day they arrived -- and given the transient (oops - mobile) nature of our population due especially to the five colleges, that arrival day may be last week, or ten years ago, or thirty years ago, or four generations ago -- and those folks don't seem to want to acknowledge that things in Amherst have changed and will change, like it or not, even since just ten years ago (disclosure: I've been here almost that long).

I'm trying to figure out why the clearly unhappy people, who fight so many of the changes we are challenged to consider as a community, are able to organize their unhappiness so effectively, while many of those who are strongly supportive of some change are too busy to sit through meetings and proclamations based on consensus. Sure, a lot of it in Amherst is the "aristocracy of time," as my friend Rich M refers to it. The people who can "afford" to spend time in all kinds of meetings -- plus the uber-meeting, Town Meeting -- are definitely people of some varied viewpoints, but all together they are admittedly unlikely to be representative of the entire breadth and depth of Amherst-resident views. So much of life is based on who shows up, so...

When it comes to community bylaws, zoning, and budgets, do retired white academics view the issues the same way as a single mother of color who has lived in poverty for two generations or more? Do we need to find ways to have all of us hear from the single mother on an ongoing basis, or is the retired white academic "channeling" his/her hopes for the "downtrodden" enough? What about retired academics of color -- should we worry that they're not serving in our numerous volunteer government positions in representative-of-our-population numbers? What about the number of visibly mentally ill people -- where do their views get meaningfully considered during any part of this process? And what about the college students? Do they get any say?

Do the folks we're not hearing from at meetings, in the newspapers, and/or on the listservs want Amherst to remain the same?

Do they notice the effect of state Proposition 2 1/2 on our town services? Have they suffered any ill effects due to the failure of our 2007 override vote?

Do they want to see some denser development in some areas of town, or do they think it's better to have more areas with a single large house on a two acre lot? Does "denser development" mean small, close together, single family houses? Accessory apartments in already built-out neighborhoods? Mixed-use buildings with retail on the ground floor, offices above that, and condos above that? Where?

Do they depend on the PVTA bus to get to work, school, food shopping, and/or medical appointments? Do they agree that significant local tax dollars should be spent on serving 5-15 riders at any given time, or are the routes paid for mainly by UMass (e.g., the Old Belchertown Rd bus that goes to Valley Medical) adequate for their needs?

That's just skimming the surface, of course.

Questions like these have indeed been considered in the Comprehensive Planning Committee's Planning Amherst Together process, including a survey, multiple questionnaires, small meetings, large meetings, etc.. Some progress in reaching those not often heard from has been made due to huge amounts of thought and effort on the CPCs part, but we all know that there is simply no way for the results of all those efforts to seem as though they've perfectly captured every single nuance of the issues. I'm something of a perfectionist by nature, but I know the efforts and results of the CPC work enable me to say "the perfect is the enemy of the good." The draft Master Plan is still being worked on, and should get to the Planning Board for their statutory approval a few months before Annual (Spring) Town Meeting. This will give everyone time to consider the many ideas in the Master Plan as they develop their Town Meeting warrant articles.

So why are we going forward with the zoning articles on the upcoming Special Town Meeting (the one we have every Fall, but it's always "special" if it's not the Spring Annual) beginning Monday Nov 5, 2007? Why not wait for the Planning Board to approve the Master Plan?

Because the results have already been made widely available through the town website and a variety of meetings, and ongoing meetings can always be attended by anyone. The zoning articles on this upcoming Special Town Meeting are significant and they can proceed now. For a great perspective, see this week's Amherst Bulletin piece by my friend Carol S.

Back to Brooks and how it applies locally: maybe the folks who are afraid are the ones who want the government to change to ensure their fear remains codified.

We don't need to be afraid of our decisions. We can decide to pass these zoning articles with the necessary 2/3 vote, and move on to making more decisions in the best interest of the viability of our community in both the short and long term. Arguing zoning pieces to death (or referring them, again) takes up time we need for figuring out how to deliver programs and services our residents need during these extremely difficult -- and likely to get far worse before they get better -- financial times. Keep moving forward!

Even as I try to shed some cynicism, Demotivators never let me down

...we need to get rid of cynicism in politics...

although then again, as quoted by Craig Sandler of the State House News Service at the MMA Massachusetts Selectmen's Association Fall Conference on Saturday October 13, 2007:

"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." - Lily Tomlin in "The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe"

Tradition @Despair, Inc.

Interpreting the Ethics Laws: No Action Taken by State Ethics Commission

Update on the Ethics complaints filed by Larry Kelley:

Daily Hampshire Gazette:
This just in to the Gazette Newsroom

State ethics complaint against Amherst Select Board members closed without any action taken
By SCOTT MERZBACH Staff Writer

AMHERST -- The state Ethics Commission complaint filed against two members of the Select Board has been closed without any action being taken.

Information obtained from board members Rob Kusner and Alisa Brewer Wednesday morning, who were the subjects of the complaint, as well as from complainant Larry Kelley of South Pleasant Street, reveals that the matter was closed because the appropriate disclosures had been filed by both board members with the town clerk.

Kelley said he was surprised and disappointed by the decision "I'm not overly pleased with it," Kelley said.

The original complaint was filed by Kelley because Kusner and Brewer, who both voted in favor of a waiver on effluent fees for the University of Massachusetts, have connections to the university. Kusner is a mathematics professor, while Brewer's husband is a UMass professor.

Kelley maintains that the Select Board should at least have to do over its vote because the formal disclosures were not filed with town clerk until a week after the vote.

See more about the decision in Thursday's print edition of the Gazette and on GazetteNET.

You are receiving this email because you have subscribed to this blog.
-------------

Alisa says: Verbal disclosure is sufficient. Verbal disclosure was made at the September 17th Select Board meeting. Case closed. If you're interested in actual ethics violations, check out these enforcement actions.

Ethics Commission

268A:23. Supplemental provisions; standards of conduct.

Section 23. (a) In addition to the other provisions of this chapter, and in supplement thereto, standards of conduct, as hereinafter set forth, are hereby established for all state, county and municipal employees.

(b) No current officer or employee of a state, county or municipal agency shall knowingly, or with reason to know:
...

(3) act in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person. It shall be unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion.

Previous posting on this blog:

268A:19. Municipal employees, relatives or associates; financial interest in particular matter.
...

(b) It shall not be a violation of this section
...

(3) if the particular matter involves a determination of general policy and the interest of the municipal employee or members of his immediate family is shared with a substantial segment of the population of the municipality.