 |
| Sometimes volunteering isn't all it's CRAC'd up to be. |
Why judge just the cover when you can judge the whole book?
By Linda Felaco
Here in Charlestown, as we all know, we have a largely
volunteer government. Which can be a wonderful thing. Not only does it save money,
but it keeps people connected with what’s going on and ensures that town
government is responsive to people’s needs and desires. We’re fortunate to have
many dedicated, hard-working volunteers who devote a lot of time and energy
into making Charlestown a better place to live for all of us.
But there can be a downside as well. When
committees are not formed according to the rules and don’t follow proper
procedures, the town can end up getting sued, like what happened with the YMCA
land advisory committee. Or people may join commissions for the wrong reasons,
such as because they oppose the work of the commission and want to sabotage it,
or they have an ax to grind, or they seek to aggrandize themselves and foist
their ideas on others without having to go to the risk and bother of actually
running for elective office.
No, I’m not gonna name
any names. I’m betting regular readers can put the proverbial two and two
together.
For instance, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance has a
certain logorrheic
blogger who’s been pissing and moaning for months now because the
Charlestown Democratic Town Committee is still hashing out the details of its platform.[1]
He even went as far as to compare
himself to John the Baptist in his quest, if you can believe that. This
despite the fact that at the time the national parties hadn’t even held their
nominating conventions yet, much less announced their platforms. And the state party hasn’t produced a platform yet either. “Get busy,”
he peremptorily demands in his most recent Chamberpot.
 |
| Perhaps this is what Chambers has in mind. |
Now, is this person running for office himself and having to
stick his own neck out putting together a platform? Most assuredly not. He
couldn’t even be bothered to officially join the committee that he acted as a
shadow member of, despite the fact that there
was and still is a vacancy.
Not to mention the fact that until he disaffiliated, he
could have joined the CDTC himself and put his considerable talents to work helping
us whip our platform into shape.
He’s already declared himself for the CCA, so what does he
care what anyone else’s platform is? Obviously, he’s champing at the bit to get hold of everyone else’s platforms so he can attempt to poke holes in them. I
say “attempt” because I don’t foresee him being able to do much damage. But I’m
sure he’ll try.
I on the other hand don’t give a fig what the CCA’s platform
says, because in the end it’s not worth the proverbial paper it’s written on,
as I
detailed in a recent story. I think people should instead judge the CCA on
their actions in office. I think those actions give us a much better prediction
of what the CCA candidates will continue to do if allowed to keep their seats
in November.
I was more interested in looking at CCA’s 2010 platform to
see how well the winners had lived up to their promises. So I looked for it on
the CCA website. And much to my surprise found that the 2010 campaign info had
all been sent down the memory
hole—even the bios of the current candidates who are running for
reelection.
 |
| "Open" and "transparent" government, CCA-style. The CCA platform: "Vote for us; we'll stick it to the Narragansetts every chance we get." |
In fact, when I eventually obtained a copy of the mailer
that was sent out in 2010 from someone who had held on to it, I found that none of the online links printed in the
mailer worked anymore. Not one.
Makes you wonder what they’re trying to hide, doesn’t it.
Seems to me that rather than worry about anyone else’s
platform—it’s not as though anything they say is going to change his mind—Michael
Chambers[2]
ought to take a close look at how well his CCA friends have lived up to their
own lofty promises.
That is, if he held on to that piece of mail from 2010.
(… to be continued.)