Open government

The one thing that really frosts my $#% is ethics and open government; it's why I mention these as part of my platform for better government.

I've previously talked about ethics. Let's talk about open government.

Tonight we had a joint Precinct 8 & 9 meeting to review the warrant articles for the Spring and Spring Special Town meetings. At the end of the meeting, I raised the issue of future precinct meetings.

Specifically, the officers of Precinct 9 (Dave Smith, Deb Aguiar, and me) have discussed having issues meetings. This was originally Dave's idea, but I have become a champion of it because it is all about open government.

Often, town meeting sees a warrant article that has a history that goes far beyond the article itself. The problem is that we either don't know the history, or we don't have enough time at the precinct meetings or on town meeting floor to discuss/debate the history, which may be relevant to our decisions.

Dave's original brainchild was to have a precinct issues meeting to discuss and debate the issue of town sewer. With an estimated pricetag of $500 million, we really should be sponsoring a VERY public debate about what is and is not needed, the costs, options, etc. Meetings that address the issues would help the residents and voters in our precincts understand what, exactly, this entails BEFORE we get to the ballot box.

In essence, the idea is simply to make sure that the voters are informed and have the necessary information they need to make a good decision. It's Jeffersonian government at its best.

Except that there are those - an incumbent selectman included - who have argued against using the precincts as springboards for these kinds of discussions. They recommend neighborhood or association meetings for this sort of thing.

I strongly disagree with this because it bypasses the most natural avenue for informing the voters of political issues - town meeting. Neighborhoods or associations have very focused purposes. The Old Barnstable/John Parker Neighborhood Association, of which I'm the president, was formed to protect and further the interests of our residents and property owners. If it doesn't affect our interests, we don't address it.

Town meeting, on the other hand, makes decisions about issues that impact the entire town, and since we may eventually be voting on an issue that brings with it a long history - such as sewers - it makes far more sense for the precincts to take the lead in informing the voters. After all, isn't that what we, as town meeting members, are supposed to be doing anyway?

How can we, as town meeting members, make the right decision for our constituents if neither we nor they know the full history of the issue?

The previously mentioned incumbent selectman sent Dave an email, which Dave was kind enough to forward onto me. In it, he says, "have a dialogue with those Town meeting members that have stepped forward and seek their advice on how this whole issue [the organization of precincts] will proceed... The precinct organization effort that we have worked on is going to be, in my mind responsive to warrant articles that appear at Town meeting."

Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious here, but he basically says that town meeting members will decide how the precincts are organized, and then goes on to say that he's already worked everything out.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Town meeting is an independent body. During town meeting, the moderator has the floor, but it is up to the individual precincts - as our incumbent selectman noted - to decide upon their organization. If we, as a precinct, decide that we want to hold issues meetings, then that should be up to us, as a precinct.

There's a reason why our government has distinct branches. Town meeting is the legislative body; the selectmen the administrative body. One should not be telling the other what to do, yet that is exactly what our incumbent selectman is trying to do.

I think I'm drifting into ethics again.

This is also an open government thing. Town meeting decides political issues, as one member noted earlier this evening. We should be able to organize meetings - beyond simply reading the warrant - so that we can be informed about those issues.

Period.

We CAN do better.