Mr. Watson, Ms. Stone and Mr. Greg Jones were elected to the Select Board and School Committee yesterday. Curt Brown's blog has the vote totals here. The Standard Times article about the election result is here. Congratulations to the winners. Thanks to all those who ran. The town was given a difficult choice ...
...with so many good people in the contests. Thank you to the incumbents for your service.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
New faces on Select Board and School Committee
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
97 comments:
Since Ms. Stone raised the issue about not yet having a plan, can we assume that will be one of her top priorities? My feeling was that the executive administrator failed to formulate one and that was a major reason for not renewing his contract. Personally, I felt that not renewing his contract WAS progress towards finally getting a proper plan. Evidently Ms. Stone disagrees or she would not have raised it as a campaign issue. When can we expect her plan?
You raise an excellent point. I think it is imperative we keep this on the forefront of the SB, and particularly before the new members or it will fall by the wayside.
Bill, Diane, and Joe have worked too hard to let this important issue lapse or take a back seat, which could well be what some people hope would happen, especially if they don't believe that we still don't have a plan as specified under the Charter.
Hopefully, she and Watson will be on the same page with Joe and Bill, to understand the role the SB plays, along with the EA and director of budget and finance/treasurer, with reference to the formulation of a plan.
Although I agree with some of your post, to say that Bill, Joe and Diane worked hard to let this important issue lapse or take a back seat is just wrong. These are the only three who demanded a plan and then took action (the non-renewal). Carney and Dias did nothing and are far more accurately described as the ones who worked hard to let the important issue lapse. I would certainly hope that Stone has at least been laying the groundwork for the plan she believes is the select board's responsibility. This was an issue she mentioned more than once on the campaign trail. When will we see the rough outline?
To 7:23 Sorry, I misread your post about Bill, Joe and Diane. I agree with your entire post.
I'm happy to see the new faces: Stone's, Watson's and Jones! Congratulations to all!
Time for congratulations are over. Let's get to work on the plan.
7:37: Well, the vast majority of voters are happy with the results! Guess you're going to have to deal the congratulations and pleasantries for at least 24 hrs.
Oh yes by all means Lara and Michael have been elected for less then 24hrs so should of course have a complete financial plan in place by now. Especially when Diane who had been in office for 3yrs failed to produce one and how long has Joe been in office 2 yrs and Bill 1, and then of course there is Nat with how many years on the board??
Just because your are unhappy with the outcome of the election don't hold the new members to unrealistic expectations, that's just sour grapes. We all need to work together to attain a plan that will work for our community and that will take some time. Granted we don't have a great deal of time but give the new people an opportunity to at least find their chairs in the Select Board room. I think you will be pleasantly surprised by their strong work ethic and ability to bring people together to get the job done.
How long before the grant money starts rolling in?
I certainly hope to be surprised by Ms. Stone's work ethic. She has some very big shoes to fill in that department. I respectfully disagree that it is sour grapes to expect some pretty quick results from Stone regarding the plan. She made it a campaign issue. She disagreed that it was the executive administrator's responsibility which was her predecessor's stance. Gilbert was taking action to replace the EA so that we could get this plan completed. Will Stone get the plan done herself or will she continue on with Gilbert's plan of action and take the credit later? No sour grapes here, just a focus on the important issues.
As long as she tells the truth she'll be one up
The SB is responsible to tell the EA to tell the director of budget and finance/treasurer to draft a long-term financial plan. The SB is not responsible for drafting it, so Ms.Stone doesn't have to put one together and is not going to be credited with doing so.
All she and the other members are to do is request/demand or whatever is needed to get one from the EA, and then expect to receive it from the EA. That's under the Charter, and that's the role of interaction between the SB, EA, and budget and finance director/treasurer.
I hope Ms. Stone is not expecting to take over that role to make her mark on the Board. It's not her role to take. If she thinks it is, she obviously has not read or understood the Charter accurately.
The SB is to direct the EA, not take over his/her responsibilities, which, I think, has been the misconception of those who championed Michael Gagne by insisting he had fulfilled his responsibilities under the Charter.
People will be watching for her to deliver. Let's see how quickly her "soft side" adapts to politics and how quickly she can adapt her "soft skills" to attaining the cohesiveness and lack of division she professes she is able to accomplish.
All this talk about a plan and who is responsible. MRI the agency that is screening a new EA says that the SB should have 5 goals set in place for the new EA, just wondering if that was set in place for the past EA and was that in writting as MRI has requeaasted?
It is my opinion that the finance director has done his part of the plan. The revenue and expense projections are there. What hasn't been done is the executive administrator's plan on how to deal with the budget shortfalls that the projections show. Ms. Stone has made this a campaign issue by her expressing dissatisfaction during the select board race. This can only mean that she believes the select board should take a bigger role in formulating the plan. Can we get a little insight on her tyhought process here?
Bill, Do you think you could ask Ms Stone about the plan and let us know what she says?
Unfortunately, I think our last EA was hand picked by a few (miller, George et al.) and was led around for most of his time. Without Miller to tell him what to do, he was unable to make a decision. I have seen a vast difference with our interim, Ed Icaponi. Ed knows how to delegate and gets the job done! Ed doesn't need someone else to tell him what to do.That shows leadership! I think most people in town are happy with Ed!
Why don't you contact Ms Stone yourself? I think you will find her honest and willing to address all questions. Her website would have contact info.
I'm 9:59 pm.
I agree that Ed has done an excellent job as interim. I was not criticizing anyone, just providing information as it is written in our Charter. The SB, EA, and treasurer have to work together was all I meant; no finger-pointing or blaming was intended and I don't think I did any. Each has a distinct role to play, but they interact altogether to get the plan. There is a "chain of command" that must be followed is what it amounts to, if you read the Charter's mandates.
Ms. Stone can't execute any actual drafting, so she's not going to be coming up with any answers or information for it. She is just expected to request the plan as mandated by the Charter, with the information that is expected to be included, and to expect and ask for it in completed form.
This is not anything new, nor a brainstorm idea for Ms. Stone. It's been part of the Charter since its inception in 2000, the difference being that previous SB's didn't follow through and see to it that a plan was done. Joe, Diane, and Bill started the push to get a complete plan.
It will be up to Ms. Stone and Mr. Watson to continue Ms. Gilbert's work in the push for a complete plan, following up her work. That's it.
Not a big, major undertaking for Ms. Stone at all. Just follow the rules.
Ed is doing an admirable job and is to be commended.
Why then, did Ms Stone make not having a plan into a campaign issue? Now she is simply going to follow through with what Gilbert started? I have integrity issues with that line of thinking. If it was a campaign issue for her, then she should have an alternate plan of action, don't you think?
this is like hearing Rush Limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails. Why don't we keep our eyes open and see what the approach of the new sb will be? I did not support Gilbert, but I accept that she was trying to do what she thought was right.
Who were the SB members creating the Budget and Revenue Task Force? Who requested the DOR audit? I do not believe it was Gilbert from the start. Many were involved in initiating the process for a more comprehensive plan and had the foresight to create and charge other bodies to help guide it.
Your reference to Rush Limaugh is nothing more than a distraction from the issue of having a proper plan in place. An issue that was raised by the newly elected Ms. Stone. The bottom line from this discussion so far is that Stone tried to make an issue out of not yet having one. Now it appears that her actions will be to do exactly what the person she criticized about it was already doing.
Congratulations to the new SB members. Now that the political rhetoric is over, we shall see who will do what. It's one thing to make promises, but it's another to produce results. Anyone/everyone who has ever sat on the select board knows, they can only do so much, as it relates to saving money or cutting expense. Our two new members, will soon find themselves between the rock and a hard place, especially when it comes to finances. Because our town is in such financial overspending, without any means of increasing the tax base or adding additional town related fee's, the SBM will be forced to make some difficult cuts with town employee's.. Looking into the near future, town employee's will be laid off.
We must also point out that the SB are police commissioners. They are in control of the hiring, firing, and promoting of police officers. As police commissioners, they are responsible for setting policy, hiring a new police chief, and over-site of the police department 24/7 ....365 days a year. The police commissioners, are responsible for the safety of our appointed police officers. Dartmouth police officers are appointed through the state department of civil services, human services. This department is a none political department that also oversee the ongoing actions of the SB. The new selectmen, will soon receive their new gold commissioner badge, along with a permit to carry a firearm. As it pertains to SBM, this action is taken to protect their life and property. Hmmmmm...no carrying fire arms at SB meetings. Ho..Ho
As it relates to the hiring of all other town department heads, the SBM can only vote for/on the recommendation of the E.A. Also, the E.A. With the approval of the SB, can fire any department head. with the approval of the SB. But the recommendation must first come from the E.A.
Good luck.....beware out for the unknown. Oooooop's SBM's must qualify at a firing range, before a town firearm will be issued.
Hit that liquid lunch a ltiitle early?
Ms. Stone is not charged with formulating a plan; she and the other SB members ARE charged with telling the EA to provide them with a plan and to receive this plan. This is in the Charter, along with the information that is to be expected to be included in the complete long-term financial plan.
If Ms. Stone thinks she is responsible for the plan and can provide one then she is mistaken and has not read or apparently not understood the mandates of the Charter. Hope this misunderstanding/misinformation did not sway votes.
Ms. Stone is not the saviour of the plan, nor its heroine. The issue is nothing new.
I find Stone's actions concerning the plan to be rather divisive. She raised the issue on the campaign. Now we find that it is not an issue with her at all. Her true intention all along was to go along with what Gilbert was already doing. If you agree with something, why would you try to create controversy about it? Aren't we divided enough as a community with REAL differences? Instead of being a uniter, so far she is more like a wedge.
I hope Ms Stone can overcome her blunder about the plan. I guess we can all tune in to the regionalization meeting tonight to see what she has to offer there.
Coffee shop talk has the 2010 election on course. The group, some devided, can't wait to get rid of NAT DIAS. Maybe she will decide not to run.....Hmmmm Mike should sue the town, "who said that"?
I'll miss Monday night DCTV with Gilbert vs Dias comedy show. It contained as much, if not more suspense/ action then (24) with Jack Bauer. Although, Trimble/Michaud supported Gilbert/Gracie, I'm convinced that the fence mending will take place and Dartmouth will once again become the friendly town we once knew. If you will allow me to extend my post with this last comment; to all those who participated in this last election, it's time for Nat Dias to go in the same direction as Gilbert/Carney. It's only 362 days before the next town election. All interested people should get their ducks lined up. Maybe we can talk Gracie into making another run at SB. Good knowledgeable people should never give up.
I think it's time for all unopposed races to have some individuals step forward to challenge the incumbents. The moderator and town clerk's positions come to mind, among others. There were several posts that were left unchallenged.
What about giving consideration to either running or supporting someone who is willing to run against these individuals? Granted, it is too late now, but, think about it.
What a shame when people win their post by default. Where is the people's choice to exercise their right to pick the individual they feel is best suited for the job if no one considers running against them? These is called complacency, and apathy is what most of the voters in Dartmouth demonstrated by not exercising their right to vote on Tuesday.
Start now giving serious consideration to either running or lining up someone to run against the incumbents and supporting their efforts. The time will go by faster than we think and the unchallenged incumbents' term will be over, and then we will be behind the eight ball again, with the "choice" of "voting" for one candidate only, in many of the races.
Lara Stone has some big shoes to fill. Diane Gilbert was a wealth of information, gleaned by extensive research into the topics and issues facing the Town. Hope Ms. Stone and Mr. Watson can meet the challenge, or they will be letting us down.
Barry: You've always got the Dartmouth Hitching Post Comedy Show to keep you entertained!
Why would anyone want to run for office? The benefits are? The grief? Constant. Look at these blogs. The current winners are maligned within hours of their wins. The Standard Times blog even has a post from someone saying elected people should have criminal background checks. Who needs the aggravation?
To anonymous, 5:17, let's hope they deliver. The residents are watching.
People, Please stop hitting the send button,posting under someone elses name, or anything else that is negative in any way. The last post under my name was not written by me and I am quite sure the last post under Kathleen's name was not written by her. If you have had a friday afternoon drink, please turn off your computer. Tomorrow is another day. I would also recommend to Bill and Curt to rethink allowing people to comment on their blogs anonymously. Most of the credible people post under their own names anyway and who wants to deal with this?
KHM has more class than that.
Besides, she would spell her name correctly.
It's really low to post in someone else's name.
Barry, Bill an Curt wouldn't it be nice if people would post with their own names. Accountable, responsible and answerable to their comments and opinions. I'm in favor of that revision to the blog rules. It would be bring credence to the posts and perhaps might yield some worthwhile thoughts and solutions. At least an real individual could be asked to elaborate and discuss their thoughts. Our founding fathers would be proud of that notion. I vote a hardy 'yea' to no more anonymous posts. Accountability and responsibility for all!
It gets to the point where anonymity does more harm than good. Another vote to change the blog rules.
TO: Wayne Hawes, I agree with new posting rules. Our founding fathers would be proud of that. I read somewhere that in our nation's infancy, you had to cast all of your votes publicly. The feeling was that if you didn't have the courage to do that, then you didn't deserve to have a vote. Of course they also provided whiskey at the polls to foster the courage. Speaking of whiskey, I've got to go check the still.
I agree with the previous posts. People write things in the heat of the moment they would never say to another person. This Blog can be a great resource for the town if all parties are held accountable.I really think it would be great if we identify ourselves by name.
Letters loving Lara are still appearing in the S-T even though the election is over. Enough with how lucky we supposedly are to have her. The proof is when she delivers and demonstrates her understanding of the town and its issues, but, more importantly, if she understands how they affect the residents, and not just a small segment, but all of us, and not just the kids, but all of us.
The proof will be when she demonstrates that she is working for all of us. Talk is cheap, and she may sound good and look good on paper, but many of us have to see it to believe it.
I too would like to stop the anonymous posts. They usually add nothing to the conversation, only negative thoughts with no substance. Please consider it Bill. Your site deserves more respect.
What do you mean about listening to everyone not just a small segment? A large segment overwhelmingly voted Mrs Stone into office not a small segment. I don't bother to worry about those that don't bother to vote, they get what they deserve. I'm happy to reqad letters supporting our elected officials,it tells me they care enough to take the time to express themselves. keep the letters coming and good luck Mrs Stone.
To those of you logging in by name. Have you been posting regularly as anonymous? Seems as if you have. Just curious.
I look at the last election like this. Gilbert was meat and potatoes. Stone is a rich fudge dessert. People had a craving for a sweet dessert and voted for Stone. How long will people want to eat triple fudge syrup covered brownies for breakfast, lunch and dinner? I think sooner rather than later people will get a hankerin' for a t-bone.
My personal opinion is voting is not just a right, but a privilege. Some will take advantage of it and others will not. In Dartmouth during this past election 25% of registered voters participated. I have made a decision not to pass judgment over the size of the turnout, but to respect its outcome. People I supported did not win, but the election is over. I am not going to live in the past. I will look to the future and ask myself how I can be of service to our community and new elected officials today.
To anonymous 9:29. For someone who is posting anonymously, it seems odd to be questioning others about posting anonymously.
By the way. I think it is a great idea to require people to register and use their real names.
A small segment: the schools. Let's see where that goes.
To anon 9:29 AM: Yes I have posted anonymously. I've never gone negative and I've tried to bring something of worth to the table. When I felt the need to be direct or on one occasion a bit feisty, I used my name. The truth is bloggers and readers of blogs are locally engaged, do vote and discuss town politics. While working on Mike Watson's campaign I used the blogs as a crude poll taking tool. We needed to gauge the temperature of the race and what potential voters were thinking. 'Anonymous' allowed a truer sampling. On occasion, I went to the defense of individuals and candidates whom I felt were being written about unfairly or too harshly, that includes the host of this site. While Bill and I may not agree on all things political, he provides a valuable service by hosting this site and I for one appreciate it. Earlier I joined Barry's call for blogs to require posting names. As I think it through that will not work, and truthfully isn't the American way. We enjoy freedom of speech and its a wonderful freedom. We also have freedom to read what we wish. I can choose to skip the negative posts. And if postings become obscene or threatening, Bill can and should delete them. Curt's site does afford him prescreening capability. We can hope posters will exhibit self control and neighborliness, but not all will. Perhaps one could build a tangent blog for those who wish to register and engage in dialog toward constructive results. It could admit all readers but only accept written posts from those who are willing to register and post under their real names. By registering /passwording it would eliminate the bloggers who take the identity of others as happened earlier to Barry and Kathy. Posting under another's name is far lower than anon posting.
Thank you, Wayne, for being up front. I, too, while posting anonymously have never gone negative and also try to bring something of worth to the table. I think many "anon" posters do the same.
Also, congratulations on helping to run a great campaign for Mike Watson!
Freedom of speech is a nice cliche to hide behind while engaging in gutter politics. After all, it's your right. Only thing is, good people's rights get trampled in the process. Don't people have a right to know who their accuser is? Don't people have a right to expose the special interests of those who assasinate their character? Thanks Wayne. I'll be sure to throw in a couple of good character assasinations at you in the name of free speech.
6:31 you miss my point. I completely disagree with hiding behind the anon tag when the rationale is cowardice. I'd prefer to see posters willingly and pridefully using their names. Some will, others will hide their identity and pound their chests and gloat because they've insulted a 'public' individual with anon words on a blog. They are the same individuals who BOO an athlete from their perch amid the many faces in the stands. Its their right, misused but their right. To have these rights and guarantee them to all, even those who intend to insult and hurt, is far better than stifling the freedom. I sincerely hope expressing my opinion doesn't provoke you to 'character assassination in the name of free speech'. I don't believe you could feel good about yourself if that became your end game.
I don't think the original intention of freedom of speech included hiding behind an anonymous post on a blog. It meant you had the right to "publicly" say or write whatever you choose. This meant having your face or name attached to the statement. Times have changed and maybe it is okay for people to avoid standing behind their opinions but it is not okay to verbally abuse or attack with such hatred. This is not acceptable in society but it has become acceptable on the internet. Those who are being attacked should know where it is coming from for safety reasons alone. There are enough stories in the media relating to hate crimes and I personally feel this type of internet expression is just another form of it.
lisa (it is nice to have a name to address); you raise valid and troubling points. Ultimately, Bill aided perhaps by Brother James, will make the 'name' decision on this blog. Its his to do with as he wishes. But I'm certain there will be argument no matter the decision. Hopefully he will consider that the majority of 'anon' posts are not negative, in fact the vast majority of election congratulatory posts are written as anon and most anon posters do raise, argue and support ideas very thoughtfully and politely. As in society it is 'the few' ruining it for the majority. While I will gladly abide by a 'name only' rule I wonder if we would lose many thoughtful, polite posters who don't want their names published. Good anon's might prefer to express their opinions and then not be bothered while enjoying their bagel and coffee. The 'anon' tag does afford that luxury. I am certain there are thoughtful individuals at Town Meeting who don't stand to express themselves because of the attention it brings. Those individuals deserve to have a forum to express their ideas. Otherwise the willing individuals, like us, might dominate the discussion boards and we'll get caught in the dreaded realm of rehash and the blog concept might die. There must be a middle ground. On the HitchinPost it will be up to Bill to consider the options and write the rule book. Happy Easter.
Wayne, Here's the flip side to your bagel and coffee argument. How many people won't step up to serve or run for elected office because of the anonymous personal attacks. I'm willing to bet that these cowards have convinced more than a couple of people that it just isn't worth the aggravation. That's how we end up with some people in the highest elected positions who have IQs resembling their shoe size. Anonymous forums do more harm than good. Public figures have the right to know where the attacks are coming from. We are trampling the rights of those who are willing to serve. People have died for us to have the right to face our accusers. Identifying yourself seems like a small price to pay for that right.
In many areas of our society we can make people take responsibility for their actions. On this particular Blog only Bill has that power. He already has a full time job and is a member of the Board of Selectmen. He created this Blog as an information center and I think done a very good job. People like to post how biased certain threads are, but they still read and comment on them. I do not see how he can be a full time moderator for the Hitching Post. With this said I still would like to see people take personal reasonability for their posts. Maybe the way to do this is to ask it voluntarily of people. Now that I have put my name to a few things and I have not found a horse head in my bed I realize it is not such a big deal.
Of course it is the right of the blog creator to choose how to run the blog. However, Popcorn brings up a very good point. I know several good, qualified people who do not want to serve the town not because of other obligations but for the sole reason of not wanting to be dragged through the mud. The qualification to be a government official should not be that he/she has the stamina to withstand gutter politics. This may be the reason some town meeting members do not wish to speak. Dartmouth has become a breeding ground for negative campaigning. The same argument you use for being able to post anonymously can be turned around to argue that many people won't speak out for fear of being attacked. Take away these anonymous abusive tactics and you may find more people would be willing to express their opinions or serve the town. Some town meeting members were actually sent an anonymous message in the mail stating that they would be watched at the next meeting. Does intimidation fall under the right to freedom of speech? The nastiness on the blogs are just another form of intimidation. Trying to silence those who are willing to come forward but do not agree with the attacker's point of view. Is it right that people might not speak because of fear? Was that the intention of our forefathers? Whose rights are being trampled then?
The attacks have already begun on Curt Brown's blog against Joe Michaud. He is now being accused of everything that was being said about Diane Gilbert. Same tactics, just a different name being inserted.
It's a shame that a few people can spoil it for the rest of us, and connote our choosing to be anonymous with a desire to offend, slander, and post ugly and malicious comments about others. Toward the end of the campaign, posts certainly did become downright ugly, and I for one was astounded with the vitriol spewed by some.
When people were using others' names to post, it entered into a whole new realm of anonymous posting beyond merely wanting to spew, hurt, or offend.
Now that the election is over, posters are starting to trash Curt on his blog, as well.
Do you wonder if they really enjoy this or are they just bored?
Anyone who thinks these cowards will stop what they are doing if you ask them nicely is in lala land. It is time to require people to post under their own names. If they have some inside info that they are worried about sharing, there are others who would be willing to post it for them. I am tired of watching people have their rights taken away by cowards.
Long before the internet existed personal attacks were part of politics. Personal attacks have been used to win elections and even keep candidates out of races. While I do not agree with this type of campaign practice it is part of politics.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This quote best describes my feeling about what we are discussing. I do not like the anonymous posters who character assassinate or taunt people anymore then you do, but I will not take away their rights either. If Bill decides to enforce his Blog so be it, but correct me if I am wrong but I think we are talking about something bigger here then simply the Dartmouth Hitching Post.
I maintain the vast majority of anon posters are good or at most benign. Some are lawyers who offer an opinion anonymously but wouldn't or couldn't offer an opinion with their name because of their profession. Or the business owner who serves the entire town and can't afford to anger a segment of their customer base, they are smart individuals with insight. What about the town employee who may receive a reprimand if posting under their own name. Or the doctor with a great deal of intellect and wisdom but concerned about his practice if his name is public. These people are resources and voices the town needs to hear. An 'anon' post affords them the opportunity to speak. The very few 'nasty anons' are screwing things up. Popcorn, whomever you may be, alluded to our founding fathers voting publicly, then mentioned heading to the whiskey still. Somehow we need to distill and flush the 'nasty anons'. The good and benign anons, whom I believe to be the majority, are worthy of posting, I will argue that we are less without their posts. How does Bill deal with the small percentage of 'nasty bloggers'. Their posts are shameful and cowardly but concerning. Most anon posters are not nasty, even in this thread we have thoughtful bloggers posting their arguments under 'anon'. I have no issue with these 'good anons'. Finally, I do believe we must make available a forum even to the nasty. Free speech is just that. Our society is better because of our liberties. Do I wish self control and self editing prevail? Absolutely! But I'm willing to accept the bad for the good that is derived. What about it 'good anons' speak your piece or it maybe denied.
You will save some anon posters in this forum by leaving it the same. You will lose others by leaving it this way, me included.
What I find disturbing is that some people can, for whatever their reason, be so ugly in their postings. You have to wonder if they really are that way when they interact with people face-to-face, which is both sad and scary, or if they become a different person under anonymity. (I suspect in many instances, the latter.)
At this point, reading the above, why not just leave it as it is? Those of us who are the "good anon posters" far outnumber the "bad," who, for all intensive purposes, could be three or four individuals doing all the postings rather than numbers of them. Different postings just get more vicious, but we "good anons" can and do see through them, as we have demonstrated here, so, if we can just ignore the ugly and continue to value and respect the good that is posted here, maybe being "anon" could be a moot point.
We do, after all, acknowledge there are less than "nice" people in this world, and people who do less than "nice" things. If ugly posts turn some people on, so be it. We can choose to ignore them. They and the ugly postings will continue, as has been mentioned; we just don't have to respond to them.
There are many blogs that require one to register. This requirement is not taking away any one's rights. You can choose to participate or not. What it does do is require one to be respectful or at least let the person being attacked know who their attacker is. It also keeps the conversation informative. I don't feel that is an infringement on one's rights. If people choose to post anonymously, let them go to Curt Brown's blog. It is the perfect forum for them.
Think about it Bill, all the nasties will go to the Dartmouth Beat. All the real debate and conversation will take place here. Your posts are far better than Curt's anyway with much more substance and real information. Why not have one blog of each. If someone is too cowardly to sign their name they can post on Curt's blog. Someone can then post about it here where it can be discussed like adults. We need a forum for civilized adults.
One more thing. I am living proof that if people participate in a reasonable, informed way, it can actually be good for business.
Marianne I disagree in fundamentals and Popcorn I believe you are expressing an elitist point of view. First, Marianne, arguments and solutions will be deprived of the intellect and talents of those who wish and must remain anon. Popcorn, if the Hitching Post begins to believe itself superior it has taken the first step toward extinction. A fine line exists. The Quaker in me wants to believe people are good. Challenge them, cajole them and the good will manifest. But we must survive the interim.
By the way, I enjoy this debate. I've not encountered anything similar on any blogs. The thoughts being posted are all valid, well considered and thought provoking. I'm certain this is the type of debate Bill and others hoped for and must be happy to host. Also, notice the 'nasty anons' don't appear in the good debate. I like that!
Wayne, What are you saying? Is it elitist to say everyone should sign their name? The common folks won't provide good input if they have to sign? What I am saying is that I believe the quality of the Hiching Post is better than the Beat because Bill has better info. Personally, I think it protects elitism by allowing anonymity. People who have power are posting anonymously with character assasinations against anyone who threatens their power and they are getting away with trampling the rights of the "common folk" who want to participate in the political process. One more time, anyone who thinks these elitists will stop trampling people's rights if you ask them nicely is in lala land.
Popcorn, no offense intended. Your comments ridiculing Curt's blog and your accusations that the 'nasties' are individuals of influence surprise me. Perhaps I am naive. But the 'nasty posts' aren't written as I would expect an individual of influence to write. Am I naive, uninformed or just not included in the inner circles. If you have substantive information that will expose 'nasties' please share. Pulling the curtain back exposed the Wizard as a coward, perhaps you could do the same. That, Popcorn, would be a public service.
As to Curt's blog, he has rules to abide by. The posts are screened and delayed. That method, I assume, was designed to prevent 'nasties'. Yet Curt has allowed, in the name of free speech, himself to be the target of some very ugly posts. What can you argue with the man's courage or willingness to put his reputation where his blog is? He shouldn't be slapped. The man is putting bread on the table and reporting what he sees.
Where are the rights of those being attacked to be able to face their accusers?????? I would be willing to die for those rights. Would you or is it just easier to protect the criminals rights? You are right that it is not the people of influence. They get their lackeys to do it for them. Just like with the recall attempt. Curt allows the trash on his sight that adds nothing to the subject of his post, destroys people in the process and now he's a martyr because somebody threw a few shots at him? Give me a break.
What's wrong with giving both ways of blogging a try? It seems like Mr Hawes is hell bent on defending the rights of those who engage in nasty blogging with no regards to the victims. Why? Because it has been politically advantageous for him. We have Curt Brown's blog anonymous already. Let's have one where only people with the courage to identify themselves can post. It can't hurt to try it Bill. I'm sure you would get less comments but the quality of posts would improve dramatically.
Mr. Hawes, the following statement could well be considered elitist. The "nasty posts are not written as I would expect an individual of influence to write".
I saw nothing ridiculing Curt Brown's blog. It was an opinion only. Yet your choice of words puts a negative spin on it.
People have been exposed in this town Mr. Hawes and the result was the wagons were circled and the ones doing the exposing were demonized. Unfortunately most of it is done through whisper campaigns and anonymous postings. The truth rarely lies in any of the information but that doesn't really matter. Put out a lot of negative/misleading rumors and keep repeating them over and over. Eventually people start to believe. Why would anyone keep saying it if it wasn't true? This is not a judgment but most people do not have the time to keep up with town issues. They rely on what they hear around town, what they read in the newspaper and unfortunately what they read on the blogs.
I don't really understand why you would have a problem with this blog requiring one's real name? It's not like there aren't other blogs people can go to to post anonymously. If those with "intellect and talent", your words not mine, wish to post anonymously, there are other sites. Many well respected citizens have posted on this blog including Greg Lynam, Greg Jones, Frank Gracie and Bill himself only to be sometimes viciously attacked by anonymous bloggers. It does not add to the conversation, discourages good people from commenting who would never consider not signing their name to their own statements and encourages other anonymous bloggers to join in the attacks.
Now I do not believe that Bill is going to change the format of his blog. He decided from the beginning that he would allow people to post anonymously. I understand and respect that decision. I just think this is an important discussion and people should understand the ramifications of anonymous blogging. Certain rights, the right to face one's accusers, are being violated to protect other rights,freedom of speech. It is a very valid point that we are sacrificing the rights of the victim, in this case the one who is being attacked anonymously, to protect the attackers in the name of free speech.
I would die for my accuser's right to say what he wants about me as long as my right to know who they are is not violated in the process.
This is nothing new, just the format. If you recall, the ST had their forums started a while ago and during an election for the school committee in which McDonald lost his seat, he was personally attacked in the forums. Also, his family was attacked as was his wife. Someone with some kind of sense removed the posts about his family.
Posting anonymously gives everyone a license to be rude, crude and a prude. However, it also protects the identity of those who have knowledge and wishes to that knowledge without fear of retribution.
BQ
If it weren't for the nastiness and ugliness of the past campaign, would we be at this point, discussing the pros and cons of anonymous blogging?
How much can we bet that some (not all, I'm sure) of the posters who have identified themselves have also blogged anonymously? It might be interesting, if we were to know, just what their reasons for doing so were.
All I know is that any time I have expressed any concern over individuals being attacked on this blog I was labeled by Mr. Trimble as a "concern troll" and told to go elsewhere.
So I have, my new blog of choice is
http://momof3npt.blogspot.com/
This blog allows you to still post anonymously but is moderated to stop the personal attacks and I applaud Momof3 for the effort.
Her topics and discussions are just as relevant as Mr. Trmble's. You will see by her posts that she is a talented writer and quite witty giving her blog a distinctive flair.
I find the short time posting delay a small inconvenience to pay for the reward of knowing that the dialog and discussion will remain civil and thought provoking, instead of full of personal attacks that you must wade through to get to any meaningful discussion.
Feel free to join us!
Blogger on momof3
This past campaign has been over the top in nastiness and viciousness. Now posters are starting to attack Curt, too.
Too bad they can't use their hate energy to do something constructive for the town, or at least contribute constructively.
I agree with Wayne - "individuals of influence' are generally not nasty. I see nothing "elitist" in this remark as Marianne states.
It's settled then. Let's allow people to have their character assasinated all in the name of the rights of the perpetrators. Screw the victims.
I am struck that of the 10 posts prior to mine only one, Marianne Walker, has posted her name. The nine 'anons' aren't being nasty. The are posing good questions and continuing the debate. Yet they mostly are arguing that people shouldn't post as anon's. I wonder if perhaps some individuals don't know the mechanics of how to post their names on a blog. I don't know that I've ever been cast in the role of the 'bleeding heart'. And I don't see myself as that individual. But I do believe the vast majority of anons, for whatever their reason, are good and worthwhile posters. There are a few whose behavior and rhetoric is shameful and I wish we could eliminate their presence. Marianne the context of my 'talent and intellect' partial was in reference to doctors in our community. Yes, I do believe they are a source of talent and intellect, and I welcome their opinion and debate whenever possible. At the same time, I can understand, and perhaps support, their preference of anonymity. The blog would be a lesser forum without input from our community's best minds.
Wayne, You can eliminate the nasties. Simply require identification. My opinion is that your doctor argument is a weak excuse to trample the rights of victims. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall of your voting booth to see which of these victims you voted against. I'll bet your ballot looked a lot like Saul Raposo's.
To my best recollection Saul Raposo and I have never met nor had a discussion. I'm not sure I understand why the prior anon is trying to link us.
I did reread many of the posts in this thread since Barry opened the name debate. I wanted reassess whether I was missing a key point or whether I wasn't making my argument clearly. Victims is a recurring theme that is very sensitive to many. My argument has been less about 'victims' and more about maximizing those contributing to debates. I believe the blog would go stale and become 'of one mind' without open community participation. Bill is providing that now. However, 'a few' (my opinion is a few, others seem to believe it too be more widespread) are becoming nasty under the cover of 'anon'. Posting names indeed may eliminate the majority of nastiness, but I believe this blogging community's population would decrease to 'friends only' and debate would yield to nods and agreement. That is my simple position: maximize input, invite diversity.
To the 'victims' who wish to face their accusers, I don't blame you. Nasties can get very personal and very mean. The unknown face or bump in the night is very unsettling, and in no way do I condone or defend the cowards blogging among us. I wish they wouldn't post. But as Popcorn correctly stated 'anyone believing we can wish them away is in lala land'. So, do we potentially reduce the participants and ideas in the blog's debate by requiring names, or allow free access and more diverse opinion. Neither path is perfect. I haven't felt the sting others have been victim to. I hope I don't. But my vote goes to more participants. Let the good anons have their voice.
I'd be willing to bet "individual(s) of intellect" can and do post nasty. I am struck by Mr. Hawes' presumptions that "the best of the community" (my words) possess too much "intellect and wisdom" and "talent and intellect" to be anything except paragons of verbal virtue.
Jim Mathes does it.
Mr. Hawes, haven't we witnessed some of these "pillars of the community" displaying ignorant and less-than-quality attributes already before, at the Gagne Open Meeting in December?
Haven't we read the same, from these "pillars"? If that's "talent and intellect" and "wisdom," then I wouldn't want them in my circle of "individuals of intellect" that I respect.
That type of behavior courts no respect from those of us who will not stoop that low, and I think that that is the majority of anonymous posters.
Are you contending that if you are a doctor, attorney, businessman/woman, or town employee, that you automatically are an "individual of intellect" incapable of posting anything nasty?
I think some of these "individual(s) of intellect" have already done just that. What could they be lacking? Respect for others who have differing opinions? Common courtesy?
Needed to add that to my above post.
Nasty posting is a political tool and Mr. Hawes is hell bent on preserving it.
You are all challenging Wayne’s statements, but feel no need to let him know who his detractors are. Whether you agree or disagree with his posts Wayne has been polite and up front. No one is leaking sensitive information so must remain anonymous. Everyone is criticizing an individual who is signing his name to it and taking reasonability. Once you identify yourself you can become anonymous again should you decide to.
Signing your name rather than posting anonymously is starting to sound like a "holier-than-thou" attribute.
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind signing my name on one post and then having it okay to be anonymous the next. Is the difference because a poster is responding to a particular other poster; I would assume that is it.
I'm not saying Mr. Hawes has been anything less than polite or upfront. I just find his argument flawed.
AND UNTIL I AM TOLD I MUST SIGN MY NAME, I CHOOSE TO AND SHALL STILL REMAIN
Anonymous.
Say or think what you will. Post what you will about my decision. I will say that I have never posted nastily or offensively; I have never posted any misinformation to my knowledge because I DO NOT WANT TO BE ACCUSED OF DOING SO, NOR DO I WANT TO BE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR PERPETUATING MISINFORMATION.
I am not the type of person who uses anonymity to spew venom. I have nothing to feel guilty about, so if I choose to remain anonymous, it is not because I truly should hang my head in shame. I would imagine most of the other anonymous posters are the same as I am. As a matter of fact, I think long and hard before I hit the "send" button.
"Thou does protest too much!"
Yeah, I know. This will be the last time I post regarding anonymous postings.
Mr. Hawes repeated the comment made by another regarding individuals of "influence" (4/12, 10:26). Wasn't his point that nasty posting results in an individual who lacks influence. I know that individuals who influence me are generally not nasty.
I think Mr. Hawes comments have been misconstrued and it has snowballed.
Why don't we all just concentrate on discussing something truly of worth that affects our town and our lives, rather than going on and on about the intellect, personality, etc., of those who post anonymously?
It's tiresome, already.
Read what you like; skip over what you don't or what you find offensive. Not everyone can play nice in the sandbox, and we're all grown up enough to separate ourselves from people whose behaviour we don't appreciate. Let's move on.
What about this 40R project? How about some information, ideas, and opinions there?
I do not agree with you entirely about what is important, but I would like to move on as well and discuss other issues.
Post a Comment