Up Front

This morning there was an article in the local newspaper stating that the selectmen of the town of Fryeburg (in which I live) are seriously considering the discontinuation of the traditional Town Meeting, and replacing it with a 'hybrid' system which allows both discussion and ballot voting. It made me glad that I attended what might have been one of the last traditional Town Meetings in Fryeburg. It was March 31, 2007. An account of the meeting follows:

--------------------------

Whenever I go, it reminds me of the Norman Rockwell painting entitled ‘Freedom of Speech‘. That’s the one where a rather shy looking young man (a blue-collar type by the looks of him), is standing to say his piece at a New England town meeting. Times have changed, but the New England town meeting hasn’t. At least not in these parts.

That’s not to say it shouldn’t change. Having 78 important articles of town business voted on by a show of hands in a venue (the fire station with the trucks temporarily removed) which has the potential to hold only a small fraction of the town’s voting population is really not very democratic. Hello folks. It’s not the 1930’s anymore. Just in case no one’s noticed, the town’s population numbers in the thousands, not the hundreds.

Although the Fire House was just about filled to capacity, the curious thing was that some folks chose to stand in back, even though there were seats available in the front rows. The Front, you see, has its disadvantages. For one thing, it is plain for everyone to see how the folks Up Front vote on any given article. If you’re standing in back it‘s not nearly so obvious. Also, The Front is not a place for the camera shy. The video camera taping the show for the local ‘public access’ cable channel consistently kept The Front in plain view (albeit at an angle from the side). Same with the newspaper photographer.

Being neither camera shy nor afraid to subject my vote to public scrutiny there I was, right Up Front. “I must be in every single one of his shots! Wonder if I‘ll make the newspaper.” I said to myself as the camera flashed for the umpteenth time.

The contentious article (article 17) (which would have amended the Land Use Ordinance to more strictly regulate the protection and extraction of groundwater) was moved up the list ’cause people were so anxious to debate it.

And debate it they did. It was a civil discussion, but just barely so, with the moderator stepping in on a couple of occasions to remind the those who were saying their piece to abstain from nasty or personal remarks.

Some people thought the amendment was too complex and suspected a hidden agenda. Some thought it made bulk water extraction too easy. Some thought it would be too hard on farmers who might need to extract more water. Some thought it was OK and recommended adoption of the article...

Anyway, the amendment was defeated. It was obvious that the citizenry desired a strong Land Use Ordinance with regard to water, but everyone seems to have a different idea as to what it should be. Many seem to be mis-informed, or have an unrealistic idea as to what a Land Use Ordinance can legally do. It will be interesting to see what happens from here...
.