Telephone politics

Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone to bring families and friends together. Its purpose was to provide communication around town, the commonwealth and the nation.

First it was operator connected, then dial-up and later push buttons to get connected.

In the old days, when customers relied on operators, the operators knew as much as the parties, the source of the conversation, the nuts and bolts of the conversation and the upshot, if any, of the two parties.

Fast-forward to the late 1900s, when members of a committee used to call around and seek opinions on issues coming before their committee. They would discuss them, take a vote and then announce the outcome at the next hearing.

This was declared illegal noting it required a hearing before the public along with a vote in camera by the Great and General Court with enforcement given to the district attorneys.

Once again, fast-forward to today, when the Town Manager Gregory T. Federspiel and Selectman Richard Channing Gibson, Jr. had a series of telephone conversation over the zoning issue of Sam Kasten Handweaver’s plan to move into Lenox Commons and whether setting up a loom constitued a manufacturing issue, a design issue or an educational issue to be decided by the Lenox Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Federspiel interceded with a by-right decision of determining it was a “design issue.” Meanwhile, the building inspector, William Thornton, ruled it was a manufacturing idea and thus not allowed by the town’s bylaw.

Selectman W. David Roche participated.

While these phone calls and meetings do not appear to be in violation of the Open Meeting Law, town business conducted out of public view by selectmen formally or informally on the telephone, by text and/or by e-mail is not a trendsetter for good local government.

To usurp the process of the planning board and the ZBA is not good government.

They have a job to do, and the Town Meeting members so entrusted them to make decisions in zoning, not the town manager or the selectmen.

To ensure good government, the process should not be denied.

As to the question of the decision of allowing the business to conduct in the Lenox Commons by “design,” we agree. Yet it opens the door to the next business’ personnel to try to circumvent the process.

One of these days, continued conduct to expedite a decision might lead to legal action, and that may lead to costly litigation.

Posted by George C. Jordan III on February 6, 2013. Filed under Editorials,Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry