A model for Gilford?
Regular readers might note that I have mentioned Milford's "blogging selectman," Jim Dannis, as a model of the new type of representation that people should expect from an elected official. Constant communication and advocacy of ideas cannot be a bad thing. Of course, the entrenched bureaucracy and their comrades and water-carriers don't see it that way. It's no secret that certain factions and special-interest groups here in Gilford aren't overly fond of this blog. Over in Milford, NH, home of Selectman Jim Dannis, a series of "ethics" charges have been used in response to the "new way." Luckily, none of the charges held. Writes Jim:
Yes, we need to take ethics complaints seriously. But when we are faced with claims that should be summarily dismissed, we should summarily dismiss them. That’s what I tried to do last Monday, and there was no support from the other selectmen. I believe we were wrong to put Larry Pickett through another unnecessary public spectacle.
.
This will go down as an interesting episode in town history. Many of the allegations had common themes that hark back to the old days: a selectman should follow customary channels for getting information out; disagreeing on policy matters is “undermining” town staff; and robust public debate is to be avoided.
.
To me, an important subtext of this ethics affair was a last-ditch attack on the open, free-market-of-ideas culture of the blogs. Thank goodness the information age prevailed. We are moving forward, not backwards.
.
Thank goodness, also, that the First Amendment squeaked by in Milford.
Click here to read about the latest saga in that town. Check out the homepage of his blog and you'll see why I like what he's doing as he represents the people in his town. Oh, and he obviously finds time to write a lot.
