Find more about Weather in Groton, MA

2013 best online casinos Top rated and most trusted gambling sites play slots machines no download 21 black jack online http://slotsforrealmoney.us online slots accepting Western Union

Scott Harker

Dear Editor: On A La Carte Town Meetings

 By
Feb 122013
 

Cassius: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…., Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”, Act I, Scene II.”

Although I am a sitting member on the Groton Town Meeting Review Study Committee, this Letter is being written, with genuine regret, as the opinion of a private, concerned, citizen.

It has been suggested, in recent times and in different venues, Groton’s open Town Meeting format no longer reflects the opinions of the vast majority of the Town’s citizens. The prevailing argument given is the perceived, limited attendance of residents. And, attendance at Groton’s recent Special Town Meeting, on Saturday morning, January 26, 2013, as was reported in some media outlets, would seem to reinforce this argument, …but, really?

Indeed, that morning’s Meeting started with 277 Groton citizens present, more than satisfying Groton’s Special Town Meeting’s current Quorum requirement of 155 residents. And, as described elsewhere, the Warrant’s Articles I and II both passed, unchallenged, by voice votes. When Article III’s “Main” Motion (New Central Fire Station funding) was voted upon, the Meeting’s voice vote was challenged from the floor, and 285 hands were then raised and tallied (227 Yea’s vs. 58 Nay’s).

Now, the description I just gave you might suggest, a mere eight additional residents arrived to vote that morning, thus reinforcing the aforementioned argument.

In reality, a grand total of 398 residents, or nearly six percent (6%) of Groton’s registered voters, were signed in as attendees (Source: Groton Town Clerk’s Office). Or, in other words, prior to the vote on Article III’s “Main” Motion, 121 more citizens had arrived late, while 113 citizens, having voted on one (or both) of the first two Articles, picked from the Town Meeting’s Warrant, given a freedom paid for in blood, with a civic obligation, and the opportunity to stay and express their opinions and positions on Articles’ III and IV, filed out of the Meeting early, never to return.

We know their voices impacted Articles I and/or II’s outcome, but what effect might they have had on Article III and Rule Loving’s Citizen’s Amendment? Could their opinions have altered the end result? Could those additional votes have had a profound effect on Groton’s history that day?

A century ago, in what was a far different age, this behavior, in departing a Town Meeting prior to it’s adjournment, might have been looked upon as (in no specific order) boorish, irresponsible, ill-mannered, immature, self-centered, selfish, thoughtless and/or tactless. That Saturday morning, after two separate episodes of mass exodus, I have little doubt those same thoughts and feelings existed, if only silently expressed, in the minds of many of those who felt it their civic obligation, and responsibility, to stay and participate in directing Groton’s affairs.

No (with apologies to William Shakespeare)! The fault is not in our attendance levels at open Town Meetings, but in ourselves. On that particular Saturday morning (as with many other Groton Town Meetings in recent memory), it was exhibited in the “a la carte” nature of voting behavior seemingly (and increasingly) preferred by Groton’s citizens.

Think about it.

Scott Evans Harker
Martins Pond Road


Dear Editor: It’s Time To Set Groton’s Priorities

 By
Oct 122012
 

Those attending Groton’s Fall Town Meeting will, in short order, face a profound decision — whether or not, after 20 months of research, engineering and design, to halt the planned construction of our new Central Fire Station upon a portion of the Lawrence Family Homestead Trust Property.

Article 10, in the 2012 Fall Town Meeting Warrant, the first and, I think, more important, of Ms. Alix Chace’s two, “Citizen’s Initiative” Articles, would require those attending Town Meeting this Fall to ponder the question which vote will best serve the greater good of our community:

A “Yes” vote sustaining Groton’s historic and exceptional, ongoing commitment to agriculture, or…

A “No” vote sustaining the reasoning behind construction of the new Central Fire Station which, when completed, will advance protection of our lives and personal property, as well as provide for the safety of businesses and enterprises supporting Groton’s economy, far into our, and our children’s, future.

But, I would opine, for those of us who plan on attending this Fall’s Town Meeting, the question we should be answering for ourselves before voting on Article 10, is far simpler: “Which vote — for, or against — not only sustains, but will enhance our Firefighter’s and EMT’s abilities to save a human life?”. If you thought, “A vote against!”, you’ll have both the rational and justification for voting “No!”, along side myself, on Article 10.

Most sincerely,

Scott Evans Harker
Martins Pond Road


Dear Editor: I may be one of those… “sniping at the Master Plan”

 By
Apr 302012
 

Scott (Wilson), when I came across your letter, I felt it important to reply. I have been one of the more vocal on this matter at the Planning Board’s Public hearings and, as such, in all likelihood, I am one of those who you view as “sniping at the Master Plan”.

First, two points on a personal level: Your comments, “.…paranoid pot-stirring does the town a huge disservice….It’s worth noting that the few who are now sniping at the Master Plan were totally absent from the entire three-year update process” are, factually, correct… and incorrect.

As a Stroke “Survivor”, given the years of “House Arrest” it, and subsequent, Stroke-induced seizures, imposed upon me, it was beyond my physical capability to attend Master Plan-related activities. However, this does not mean I didn’t have an interest. Further, just to reassure you, I was informed by a well-respected psychologist, there are no symptoms of “Paranoia” indicated in my thought processes. Just the opposite. The Stroke wiped out most vestiges of what was once my “Type A” personality, but left, I was told, what is perceived to be a vigorous, objective and inquisitive mind (I jest not. This often happens with specific forms of Stroke, and if you’d like written confirmation, I’d be glad to obtain it for you).

Second, I want to reassure you I do not think “Sustainability” is a bad word. Indeed, as it was originally intended to be used (as a “Term of Art” within the realm of environmentalism), it had significance. Note, I said “had”. Today, sad to say, forty years after it’s appearence, because of the “commercial abuse” it has received, not so much. Remember, I indicated to you and the other members of the Groton Planning Board, for our British cousins, in the realm of Urban Development in England (and rapidly so, in this Country), it had become a “Joke!”. And, I can offer you two recent, local examples: A truck passed me on I495 two months ago. It’s side panel was emblazoned with “(Acme) Home Security Systems, Installation and Repair – A Sustainability Company”; and, even more mysterious, not to mention, laughable, Wal-Mart announced just a few days ago, from now on, it would only sell “sustainable” fish! Confusing? I think so.

Third, these are not what you call “False arguments”. They, along with others I’ve presented, are factual. Simply put, “Sustainability” has been diminished by, and is being used (for profit) in ways inconsistent with what I believe this word, as defined, was intended to mean: ie., “Strengthen or support… the capacity to endure”.

Am I being simplistic? Perhaps, but, for the life of me, as a guide for the elected leadership of our town, it’s Town Meeting or it’s residents, over the next ten years, and in the years that will follow, I can think of no better “Over-arching Theme”, or purpose (read: “Goal”) of this Master Plan than “Strengthening or supporting our capacity to endure” (note my modifications).

And, as for “Sustainable Development”, the Brundtland Commission’s “Definition” misses the mark. I suggest trying on for size what, in reality, both words, collectively, mean:

“Conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources (via) A specified state of growth or advancement”.

This is not nit-picking, Scott. In my humble opinion, at their roots, this is what “Sustainability” and “Sustainable Development” are all about. And, given the complexity of the political, social and economic dimensions of our Town’s affairs, it will take enlightened self-management provided by our Town’s Leadership to make these “Terms of Art” a reality. You’ve, as a Board, attempted to provide that “enlightenment” through the Master Plan. I, for one, just don’t think you’re – quite – there, yet.

There is still the opportunity for the Master Plan to go back to the “grass roots” these terms represent. Perhaps, the “Amendments” to the Plan, that I understand may be forthcoming, will recognize this.