Introduction

While this campaign is meant to be fun and enlivening, I mean to get into some weeds as well. When I look on the national scene, a figure who reminds me of myself, in some ways, is Pete Buttigieg. I'm a bit of a policy wonk, and I believe that government can do important good things if we follow consistent principles, both as to policy and as to procedure. I mean, I think I'm cooler than Pete, and earthier (I am a terrier, after all), but we share something important when it comes to the "process" of governance. So here are some proposals I have for good governance in Orleans:

Curtail Unanimous Voting

One unhealthy trend I notice in Town government is the high proportion of unanimous votes. There are two likely reasons for this, neither of which is desirable:

(1) Deals are being made behind the scenes, in violation of the transparency principles of the Open Meeting Law, and the underlying right of the people to know why decisions are being made.

(2) People feel intimidated by the general culture of governance, or by specific overbearing individuals, from expressing their dissenting opinions. This deprives us all of an opportunity to hear those opinions, and to let them take root and flourish if they are well-founded.

Members of boards and committees should consider it their civic obligation to vote against the majority when their sincere belief is that the majority is wrong.

Public Hearing Procedures 

(1) I propose establishing aspirational standards of decorum for witnesses – to promote respect for the process and reduce the risk of contaminating the process with bad information – including something roughly like the following:

 

  • Prepare in advance, so that your presentation is clear and organized

  • Be honest; advocate without deceit or unfair “spin”

  • Please don’t excessively flatter the board members, as this is unseemly

  • Do not present opinions as fact

  • Do not repeat rumors as fact

  • Support your opinions with data whenever possible

  • Be aware that intentional misrepresentations to bolster your case may lead to denial of the relief you seek

  • Do not malign other people or groups; please try to use “I-statements” to explain your objections to anyone else’s opinions or behavior

  • Consider whether your comments build community or tear it down

  • Please check your ego at the door; hearings are not anyone’s opportunity to “shine” – you’re here to help us understand and decide something

  • Please bear in mind that if we challenge you, it’s purely to better understand the truth of the matter

  • “I don’t know” (if true) and “let me do some research and get back to you on that” can be acceptable answers to our questions
  • Feel free to express criticisms of the process, bearing in mind that specificity is more useful than passion
  • We don't have to get all stuffy and formal, but nevertheless, consider whether your attire is really appropriate to the occasion
 

Note that the recent court decision preventing boards from stifling criticism of board members (Barron v. Kolenda) in no way prevents us from establishing such standards and encouraging witnesses to respect them.

(2) I recommend establishing aspirational standards of decorum for board members, including something roughly like the following:

 

  • Be respectful of witnesses and other board members

  • Be proactive; ask questions to make sure you understand; elicit actual data (or the absence thereof) whenever possible

  • Gently redirect witnesses who violate the aspirational rules of witness conduct

  • Do not malign other people or groups; use “I-statements” to explain your concerns about anyone else’s opinions or behavior

  • Consider whether your comments build community or tear it down

  • Check your ego at the door; hearings are not anyone’s opportunity to “shine” – you’re here to understand and decide something in cooperation with the other members

  • Look for the elements of truth in critical feedback from participants in the process; always strive to be an even better board member

 

(3) My final recommendation is a bit more esoteric, but it is pertinent to the Kent’s Point proceedings, and similar problems could conceivably arise in the future. When you are presented with a jumble of concerns (e.g. erosion, traffic and unwanted canine contact), you can separate (“sever,” in legal parlance) what is presented to you, hold hearings in logical sequence, and even allocate different concerns to different boards, if doing so will promote focus and clarity. You should conduct a single, unified proceeding on separate concerns only if there is commonality of evidence, issues, notice, and jurisdiction. In this case, the evidence about dog collisions was so different from the evidence about runoff that this factor counseled severance. The fact that leashing dogs might lead to tourists and young families to view Orleans as dog-unfriendly, ushering in issues far removed from ecology, also counseled severance, as did the fact that a whole different group of people would need to be notified and heard from to decide those issues fairly, and the fact that ordinarily one would expect those issues to be decided by the Select Board, not an environmental commission. (“Management of Kent’s Point is the job of the ConsCom” is not an adequate response to the last point. Sometimes jurisdiction overlaps, and it becomes necessary to consider which entity should take the lead on a particular issue.)

I’m available any time to elaborate on these ideas if anyone would like.

Sincerely,

Boris