I thought we were supposed to have 5 selectmen?
A funny thing happened last March, we only elected one selectperson, Anne Surman. In place of the fifth selectperson, we got a rubber stamp.
Have you ever watched the Selectmen's meetings on channel 22? That void sitting next to Chartrand is an inanimate object that does no homework and does not utter an independent, coherent thought.
Sometimes it seems as though Chartrand has learned ventriloquism and is speaking through the mannequin sitting next to him. Other times, you just hear the sound a rubber stamp makes agreeing with Chartrand.
It is a shame that this is what the monolith Democrat party has resorted to - elect someone who will just agree with everything their mouthpiece says, regardless of how bad a candidate she might be.
Have we given over the future of the town to those who don't trust voters and just want to have the Town Manager run the town? Is Exeter lost?
When it comes to apathy, Exeter residents win the prize. Voter turnout at 20% or less is the norm. Decisions affecting taxpayers are supported by this minority. Apparently folks are satisfied with this since it continues every election cycle. It appears no one with views opposing those of Chartrand will even come forward and run for selectman given these sad voting results. Hence we will continue with the scenario depicted above. Is there no one that is upset with this prospect?
ReplyDeleteMaybe if the loyal opposition could do better than multiple losers like Ferraro and Greasit, who can;t even win during Republican landslides. Lets look in the mirror for a change.
ReplyDeleteHi this is Mike Lambert weighing in. It's probably a direct result of many players, this commenter above as well, construing this all to be political. That serves no purpose but to keep citizens at home on Community issues. It becomes a easy walk away for the citizen.
ReplyDeleteIf that 'stuff" could be left on the stairs leading to the Nowak room more would be participating.Mr Griset who I have pilloried from time to time on my blog still speak to each other on a regular basis.
I have warned repeatedly over many years that our Community business should be kept free of partisan politics otherwise all is lost.
Mike makes a good point when he says politics should be left at the bottom of the stairs to the Nowak Room. It seems that egos and personal agenda prevail, when common sense and public input should. Elected officials up and down government seem to think they were voted into office becausue they are smarter than the public. Quite the contrary as they often have narrowly focused experience while the public offers a wide array of experience. That said, if the public does not get involved, they deserve what they get, good or bad.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to get involved when so much is done behind closed doors when the people that want to get involved and have been appointed by the selectman get shut out too. Look at the Economic Development Commission who had absolutely nothing to do with the TIF. Look at the Conservation Commission that wasn't even asked for their input on the new wetlands amendment. If everyone is shut out of the process except for Russ Dean's employees that seem to have some status and that is just a few then there is no process. Democracy has been shut out.
ReplyDeleteConflating apathy with not voting is misguided. Non-voters like me are deeply interested in the fact that we are getting ripped off. However, the idea of voting today is nothing but a meaningless show; it doesn't matter. Education is key. Also, the idea of keeping politics out of local politics doesn't make any sense. Local government is politics: cronies seize money and power, and we peons suffer.
ReplyDeleteI agree that politics should not be involved in local government. All elected and appointed officials should work towards what is best for the public. However, when one political party pushes their members to vote for an individual, no matter how unqualified that person, then it is extremely partisan. Just look at the last local election and the person who garnered the most votes. During the campaign and the debates, she was widely acknowledged to be the least qualified candidate. She has since proven that she was unqualified and remains so. That didn't stop the partisans from getting her elected.
ReplyDelete