Marcy's question, and Gerry and Rob's Replies

Again, this is from the comments on the first post at the bottom of the blog.

Marcy said...

I agree that embedding the rationale behind the opinions of more or less sustainability (related to individual votes) directly on the scorecard would be of added value and benefit; particularly to those less familiar with the broader context of the discussion. I wouldn't be surprised if we see this function included in the next iteration of the site. These folks are all about being upfront about their beliefs, which I respect. On a simiIar note, I would love to see a process enacted on the select board of explaining abstention votes. From the discussion that takes place on a motion it is pretty clear what has motivated a Yay or Nay vote, but it is often perplexing to me, unless a conflict of interest has been identified, to determine the motivation behind abstention. It was especially troubling to me to see so many abstention votes on the various motions related to the override question (or questions). It is hard to formulate an opinion on the kind of stand our elected officials are taking on the issues crucial to our town in the instances when they aren't overtly taking one. It makes me question their willingness to lead.

Gerry said.....

Mary, your point is well taken about abstentions. Any time you have a question about why I voted as I did, please feel free to contact me. I believe everyone on the SB feels the same. You can do so on this blog, on list serves, via email, via phone. I'm always willing to explain myself.

robert said...

Marcy and other friends,

I think my abstention on the "$1.5M question" last Monday was explained completely by earlier comments I made at the meeting before the vote was taken, and by my subsequent motion: I think we need a multi-year plan and multi-year funding of such a plan in place; but the exact amount, and whether it should be done with a single question or with two questions, was not yet settled in my mind at the time of the first vote. (Indeed, it proved later to still be unsettled in the minds of many of my Select Board colleagues!) Later in the meeting, I explicitly commented that this is in part the "fault{ of the rules of procedure with which we work, these rules requiring our discussion to be "punctuated with votes and motions", often before we've come to a position we are ready to agree upon.

That's not a lack of leadership - that's using one's ears and eyes and mind - and one's considered judgement - to make good decisions, not simply "speedy" ones. (Look where such "speedy" decisions have gotten us with foreign and environmental policies, for example!)

I believe that by the end of the discussion on the override, even if it may seem like we had returned to where we were the week before - which isn't the case at all, since the result was that Hwei-ling had joined the unanimous vote and there had been a very throrough discussiom of the various views on tnis issue - the Town had made progress.

This override is potentially very divisive issue, and trying to work through these divisions and diverse perspectives in a forum like the Select Board can only be helpful. Wouldn't it would be kind of "phony" (or worse) if we always marched to the same drummer, goose-stepping and straight-armed saluting "the right thing to do" simply in the name of "leadership"?!

Anyway, as Gerry also invited - and as I have also invited many as well (including you, I believe :-) in the past - please feel free to call or email anytime you want to discuss an issue. Perhaps your comments will prove so persuasive that I'll change my mind - or even be placed in such a dilemma that I will be forced to abstain (until a better crafted motion or more information is presented ;-)!

Warmest regards,

Rob