A government of laws, not of men

I went on a bit of a tirade Monday night, and some who watched it are probably wondering, "What's the big deal?"

Well, let's begin at the beginning.

In 2008, I was elected on a platform of open, accountable and fiscally responsible government. It was no small victory: I unseated an incumbent that no one thought could be unseated. Indeed, one long-time political insider said to me, "I didn't see this coming."

In 2011, I was re-elected on a platform of open, accountable and fiscally responsible government. Again, it was no small victory: Aside from myself, this campaign included a popular former fire chief, a former selectman, and a challenger (running for a third time) who had attracted 10x as many votes in his second run as in his first. Oh, and did I mention the 11th-hour write-in campaign by the same former selectman who I unseated in 2008?

Against this field of candidates, I again managed an impressive victory. The second and third place finishers - separated by just a few votes - had to wait weeks for a recount to decide who would get second place and the second seat. In the meantime, my margin of victory was more than enough to have me declared the first-place winner, so I was sworn-in.

Don't forget...the votes and victories are secondary to my platform...open, accountable and fiscally responsible town government. I won election and re-election because of what I promised - and delivered.

Open, accountable and fiscally responsible...in other words, good government - fair government.

Now, flash forward to the past month and ask that question again: "What's the big deal?"

I don't mind losing a vote.

In fact, I don't mind losing every vote.

But I really hate it when the rules are changed in the middle of the game, and that's exactly what happened with the appointment process over the past month.

That is not fair.

So I complained. Loudly.

"Come on...isn't this just sour grapes over being rejected for chair?"
This might be an good explanation if I hadn't already established a track record of questioning how the Board does business. For example, in 2008 I asked that every incumbent appointee be interviewed, regardless of whether they had a challenger. And in January 2009, I openly complained about the fact that we had just 30 minutes in one meeting allocated to discussing the budget.

"But if you didn't make these appointments, wouldn't that have jeopardized hearings?"
I'm not saying that we shouldn't appoint people, I'm saying that a process was in place, and it was tossed aside.

Just prior to the election, the Board reviewed a calendar that had - among other things - time allocated for interviews and appointments on June 27. However, when June 27 rolled around, we had a hearing for parking fees in Woods Hole, and a presentation about water quality.

The charter requires us to make these appointments. Parking fees and water quality may be important, but those appointments should have taken precedence. We spent two hours on optional topics (some would say political topics) instead of doing our job.

That is wrong.

Perhaps more importantly, for the past two years, if there are challengers to incumbent appointees, the Board has interviewed both the challengers and incumbents. There has been a level playing field and the challengers have a shot at unseating incumbents. This year, by reappointing the incumbents before interviewing the challengers, the Board effectively told the challengers that they were second-class citizens.

How many times have we lamented the lack of volunteers and the many vacancies on our various boards, committees and commissions?

By favoring the incumbents the way the Board did over the past month, we've essentially said, "Volunteers need not apply."

By changing the way we do business - by ignoring the charter and our policies- we have redefined town government to be one of men, not laws.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is wrong, and there is no justification for it.