Scolding a scold...
Selectman Grant
.
Those that have been around our town for a while know that certain groups never, ever take NO for an answer when it comes to spending more and more of our taxdollars-- you know, the school people, the library people, and the water carriers for the social services industrial complex (outside agencies, i.e. New Beginnings, etc.)
.
We have had to listen to the whining, watch the finger wagging, and hear the threats from the library lovers at least three times in meetings prior to last night's budget committee meeting. Each time, we hear absolutely NOTHING new. It's always the same: "this budget committee is delivering a slap in the face to the donors." I'll address that in another post.
.
At the outset of last night's budget committee meeting, the chairman (time for some new blood here, BTW) stated that the purpose of the meeting was to consider input that was given at last week's public hearings on several matters. After bending over and doing everything he could to entice the budcom into a revote on their position on giving the library 100K from the proceeds of the sale of the land never used for a library as rejected by the voters, Chairman Hickok got what he wanted: more discussion on the matter. And why not? He knew that one of the key opponents was not in attendance, and he knew that 'Ol Reliable, Bill Phillips, would cave to the spenders, as he always does.
.
OK, Fine. That's the way it goes. After a rehash of the whole debate again, Skip Murphy "called the question." Well, you know what that means-- if it's Doug Lambert, or any of those trying to work on behalf of hapless taxpayers, all discussion IMMEDIATELY stops and the question is called. Otherwise, if it's a spending rumpswab, they get to continue and carry on with discussion. Anyway, following Skip's call for the vote, a person in the audience- one of our esteemed Selectmen, decided that she needed to get one last threat and fingerwag in against the budget committee. The chairman, clueless once again about parlimentary procedure, decided to let Selectman Grant have her shot at the budget committee. Once into full whine mode, she called the budget committee an "obstacle" to people like her and her ilk from getter their way.
.
Because she was offering nothing new to the discussion, and that it was improper for her to be speaking given the "rules" (such as they were) as laid out by the Chairman, I cried foul and asked the Chair to do his job and enforce normal rules of operation.
.
This is a note I sent out to members of the Budget Committee and media following last night's meeting:
I would like to remind everybody that Connie Grant was offering nothing new for the discussion when she was allowed to speak AFTER Skip moved the question. Her input was purely emotion and was nothing substantive in any way, shape or form. The Chairman said that the rules were that we would ONLY consider info we learned from the public hearing. What would have happened if my wife had wanted to speak? Selectman Grant was simply granted special privileges because she is a selectman. The selectmen are already well represented at the table.
.
Giving Ms. Grant mic time given the point we were at in the meeting, JUST PRIOR TO A VOTE gave the pro-library big spenders an unfair advantage. The input she gave was that the budget committee was being a stumbling block to what SHE saw as right. This input had no place in our deliberations. I stand by my point of order interruption and wish that the committee as a whole would become more conversant in parlimentary protocols. Calling the question is just that.
.
Remember, Ms. Grant, while not a member of the committee, tried to particpate in a vote at last Tuesday's meeting by raising her hand (it's all on tape). While some may laugh this off as simple meaningless childsplay, there are some of us out here that take process very seriously. I'm sure if someone like Wayne Snow or Dick Campbell had watched this behavior, it would have caused their eyebrows to raise at the very least. The selectman raising her hand (while the actual selectman member of the committee sat in the audience, further confusing things) during a committee vote seems to me nothing less than an attempt to cajole and intimidate. I make no apologies for my action, and will most likely write about this on the 'Grok. The public's business is serious stuff. The politics are rather intense at times. Unfortunately, some people don't know this. It ain't bean bag!
Doug
It is unfortunate that some people get involved in politics and forget that that's what it is-- POLITICS! Ms. Grant is so angry at me, she is ten shades of red. Why? Because I choose to freely exercise my right to free speech, critical of my government. Given our brief exchange about free speech and the exercise thereof following last week's public hearing, I know where she's coming from. Yep-- she's another person in politics that sees such rights as nothing more than a pain in the ass-- hers! Oh well... It's people in government just like her that the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.
.
