Fair

One of the selectman told me that he sought balance when appointing members to the various town boards. I'm not going to put words in his mouth, but our conversation led me to believe that his definition of balance was to have people from both sides represented. For example, on a particular board you might have some folks that favor development and some who are opposed to it.

This is wrong.

While collecting signatures for my nomination forms, I've been asking people about their concerns. One person mentioned that many years ago she had a difficult time before the conservation commission. She said the tone of her hearing, which was heard over a number of weeks, varied wildly depending upon who was present on any given night.

This is something that I, too, have noted with the various town boards. Consider that half of the ZBA was in favor of the Little Pond Landing 40B project and half against, but it was the half that was in favor of the project that could vote. The outcome could have been very different if the other half had voted on that project.

The selectmen should be appointing people who have no opinion either way. They should be appointing people who can look at the regulations and interpret them fairly and consistently without bias. They should be screening for this, but they rarely do.

A few years back, Selectman Virginia Valiela asked a potential candidate for the conservation commission if his building background would affect his ability to be impartial toward other builders. THIS WAS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION, and it was exactly what the selectmen need to ask to ensure that appointed individuals are fair and unbiased. Yet another member of the board took offense to it.

When the outcome of your hearing depends upon who is or is not present, government is not fair. More importantly, the selectmen have not done their job.

We CAN do better.