PAL

It's fair to say that if I'm not comfortable with something, I am going to vote "no." Monday night was no exception, but there was so much tossed about that it took a few days for me to put my finger on that discomfort.

As I stated Monday, there are two issues here, 1) the safety of the children, and 2) the law.

My concerns about the first were largely addressed by visiting the PAL. I was given a tour of the facility on Brick Kiln Road, and there are locks on both the function hall and liquor cabinets, and separate kitchens and bathrooms for the function hall and children's area. While there is a common roof over these two distinct areas, alcohol is not served when there are PAL-sponsored children's activities.

The legal issues were always there, but were magnified by Chairman Ahmed Mustafa's recitation of various parts of the laws pertaining to liquor licenses. This is probably why columnist Troy Clarkson thought Chairman Mustafa a "cowboy" who was overstepping his authority. Yet each member of the Board of Selectmen brings something different to the table, and as a former state trooper, Chairman Mustafa knows the law. It's no surprise that it was his focus on Monday.

Concerns and cowboys aside, this decision needed more public discussion than it got. While PAL is a private, non-profit organization, they were asking for a public license - a club liquor license - which not only allows them to open a bar, but can only be revoked for good cause, i.e., breaking the law.

So, why should an organization dedicated to serving children have a liquor license?

Several directors of the PAL told me that their function hall is an important source of funds. "One event," I was told, "can pay our electric bill for one month." There is overhead to a building, and as every homeowner knows, electricity is but one of many bills. There are the PAL activities to fund too, even as they must keep the programs affordable for the families they serve.

The folks from the PAL assured everyone on Monday that this license would be used for functions only, not to open a bar. As a private citizen, I've no reason to doubt these people, many of whom supported my election. However, as a selectman, my job and the platform upon which I campaigned are about accountability. At least one member of the PAL board thought I was challenging their integrity when I asked if the PAL had this functions only policy in writing, but as another board member said later, "You were only doing what you were elected to do."

One could say that this controversy is the result of a shortcoming in the law. There is no middle ground between the one-day licenses PAL has received in the past, and the club license they requested. A "functions only" license would accommodate the PAL's needs and intentions, and assure the public that there would be no bar here down the road, but there's no such thing.

Trust is an intangible thing. The PAL and the people I call friends have earned my trust. Were I to make a decision based on trust alone, I would have voted "aye." However, behind the table I am a representative of the people, and government must always 1) remain impartial and 2) demand accountability. As a selectman, I must follow former president Reagan's mantra to "Trust, but verify."

In the end, I voted "no" because I could give the people of Falmouth no tangible assurance that there would be no bar here.