RE-ELECT TOM CREAMER - APRIL 9, 2012

PRINCIPLE, INTEGRITY, OBJECTIVITY, TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, EQUITY

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Town Hall - Center School Passes

Tonight, Sturbridge voters overwhelming approved Article 47, a request for additional funds for the Town Hall & Center Office Building Renovation project, thus clearing the way for the process to begin.

Town Administrator James Malloy, along with the project architect, provided a slide presentation summarizing some of the work to be done as well as their rationale for supporting and recommending the project.

This was followed by passionate and well articulated pleas from Bob Brier and CPC Chair Penny Dumas in support of the project. Both provided strong emotional and historical reasoning for supporting the project and certainly many of their points were valid.

Several residents - including myself - expressed concerns about the expenditure in light of the current economy, but in the end, the 2/3rds threshold was met as voters determined the project to be worthy of the additional funds.

The voters have spoken and the debate has come to a close. It is now incumbent upon each of us to respect the decision and to join in support, and indeed celebration of this project. It is, and will continue to to be our Town Hall, so let's support it and make it the very best that it can be.

Congratulations to those whose arguments ultimately carried the day.


Posted by Thomas R. Creamer at 9:19 PM

4 comments:

  1. Well said Mr. Creamer.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. C

    Aren't you a bit generous in terms of last night's outcome. Maybe 150 showed up so it is a stretch for any one to think this vote reflects the sentiments of the entire town. Many people I know just couldn't get out due to children and other priorities. I know some are talking about petitioning for another special town meeting. Why should we just lay down on this?
    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I do hope you will not be offended by my desire to respond.

    The Town Hall issue is somewhat complex and clearly one that evokes a great deal of justifiable sentiment. The buildings are part of our historic landscape and as such have great value to the community.

    I certainly recognize the historic symbolism and elegance they provide to our Town Common; this is the reason for my strong support of this project when it was first presented.

    Even as my concerns grew in terms the timing of this project (in light of the economy), I was reluctant to raise the issue due to my own attachment to the buildings. As the economy deteriorated however, I felt compelled to raise the issue and even then I’ve never advocated abandoning them. Rather, I’ve suggested doing what is necessary now to address accessibility and safety issues, while exploring other options with these buildings as time, money, and the economy allowed.

    My concerns remain as significant today as they were last night, but they are just that - my concerns, and clearly, the overwhelming majority felt that despite the economic uncertainty, the renovation project was worth the additional tax burden. For me that determination by the voters suffices and it is now time to support that decision.

    One cannot simply discount the sentiments offered by Mr. Brier, Ms. Dumas, or Ms. Pecci who argued favorably on the article as they presented sound rationale for the merits of renovating these buildings now, as opposed to later.

    In the end, those arguments (which I certainly empathize with, even as I voted differently), where the ones that resonated most with the voters who viewed this expenditure worthy of immediate support. This is not a political issue for me, it is an economic issue. Simply stated, there were several different economic approaches offered last night and one prevailed.

    For me, the voters are the final arbiters and it is the responsibility of a citizen in a democracy to respect the wishes of the majority, once that majority has spoken. Last night the majority spoke. Whether it was a substantial enough crowd to suit everyone's pallet is of little consequence in the end. The fact is, the numbers of voters who show up on any given day are the ones who determine the direction of a community, a state, or a nation.

    There will never be as many voters at any particular election as one might like to see (considering the overall number of registered voters), but that should not negate the final determination of those who do show up. Government “of the people” and “for the people” is ultimately determined “by the people” who participate. Thus, last night’s outcome for me is one wherein the community has tendered its decision on the Town Hall renovation project and I am committed to supporting the will of the people.

    In terms of your statement regarding a possible petition, I would not support such and would in fact strongly advocate against it, as I view such as disrespectful to those who took the time to cast their vote. Whether one agrees with the outcome or not, the voters have decided and any attempt to circumvent such is akin to disenfranchisement of voter will. In my view such would only become a vicious never-ending, non-productive, and destructive cycle.

    It is one thing to appeal the decisions of appointed or elected officials as such is an integral part of democracy, it is another thing altogether to attempt to circumvent the will of the voters. I would strongly advise against the latter; it serves no useful or productive purpose.

    In my view, it is now time to focus our energy on other issues and come together on this particular article, which has now been resolved.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Tom,

    I agree with your view on the outcome. While disappointed by the outcome of the vote and the lack of attendance, it is ultimately the result of a legal process. As I am against the "move to reconsider" that happens so often I am also against manipulating the process to serve ones own needs.

    It does bring into question if our current form of town meeting is effective and a fair representation of our citizens. Maybe we should consider one or more of the following, reinstating a quorum of more than just 1, adding limits as to what can be added to special town meetings (this one I state for completeness, not because I support it fully), or look at a representative town meeting structure with strict quorum limits.

    I don't mind losing an argument, but it is even more bitter when its partially due to political manipulation on many fronts. I guess I am just resigned to it on the state and national level but somehow feel that we, as a community, should be above that low level of human interaction.

    Now with this said I doubt that many in the current political establishment will support it as it will ultimately level the playing field and remove their ability to pull the strings (Not that they always have control over those strings, but it will make them like the rest of us and they will not like that)
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)