To the Select Board
I will not be able to attend the meeting Wednesday evening to discuss the vote for the prop 2.5 override last week. I will be out of town for work.
I was at the town hall on Monday morning. I listened to Elaine, and I agree with what she said. We will continue to be neighbors. We should all strive for a civil discourse. I thought she handled the situation well, including the aggressive heckling.
I do not envy your situation and the need to make a decision about whether to allow a second vote. However, I hope that you will decide in favor of a second vote on the prop 2.5 override.
Voting is a mechanism to ascertain the will of a community. It is a procedure, and an important one. It is one we can probably all agree is an appropriate way of determining the will of a community in a democracy. But the outcome should not be held in higher regard than the process. A “good” election must be measured according to important principles like fairness and truthfulness. In this case, last week, these fundamental principles were not met (things like access are also important, but these are not being called into question).
Like other residents of Shutesbury we received a number of mailings prior to the election. My wife subscribes to e-cricket. Information being given out by some individuals was misleading, inaccurate, and confusing. We were initially confused, and had to seek out additional information. On our short road one neighbor thought a ‘no’ vote meant that there could be additional discussions about the footprint of the proposed library and did not understand that the state grant is contingent on maintaining the accepted footprint (but not the entire preliminary design). A second neighbor was repeating inaccurate information about the impact of the override on our taxes.
I do not know whether these individuals would vote differently if they had more accurate information. But, theirs was not an informed vote. In a small town like Shutesbury we should strive to make decisions with clear, accurate information. We should uphold the principles for “good” elections. The reasoning that elections are always like this is no excuse. Why should we be as bad other places? Personally, I am very tired of people saying whatever they want in elections with no accountability.
This is especially important because the decision to provide town funding for a new library is one that will likely have long and far-reaching consequences for our town. It is not a small decision or one isolated in impact. It is not about paving Farrar Rd. A ‘no’ vote means that our Town will probably not have a new library in the foreseeable future. Whether or not we have a new library will affect our tax rates, our property values, our ability to gather as a community in places other than the Shutesbury Athletic Club (like the PTO does now), etc.
I do not know whether a second vote will change the outcome. Those who oppose the town funding for a new library may ultimately have an argument more compelling to most voters in town. Or, those who support the prop 2.5 override and a new library may prevail. In either case, however, their arguments should not mislead. Their arguments should prevail on the merits.
I would like to see you schedule a second vote. I would like the Select Board to craft a factsheet that lays out the basic facts of the situation. These could include the requirements of the state grant for the town and for the design and construction of the library. It should be clear that the proposed $1.4 million is amaximum and that the Library Trustees are raising funds that will reduce the town’s contribution (although by how much is not known). It should be clear what the process will be to determine the final design, including how town residents will be able to participate. This should be mailed to all residents. If people could stand to be civil and to listen respectfully a few information meetings might even be valuable.
Thank you for your work.
Respectfully,
Seth Tuler
38 Old Egypt Rd.
No comments:
Post a Comment