Introduction

While this campaign is meant to be fun and enlivening (see more about its overall purpose here), I mean to get into some weeds as well. As background, I see town government's role as involving these basic elements:

• Keep things working

• Manage money responsibly

• Solve significant problems, or better yet, avert them ahead of time

• Foster community

• Preserve the environment (thoughtfully and realistically, not impulsively)

• Foster a consensus vision for the town's future, and support its realization

Doing these things successfully depends on having a healthy culture of government, with healthy governmental processes. "Healthy" in this context means inclusive, reality-based, and free of manipulative nonsense. With that as a foundation, here are some proposals I have for good governance in Orleans:

Be More Proactive In Encouraging Involvement In Local Governance

 

Positive steps have been taken in this direction. Let's do even more, though, because it's going to take consistent time and effort to reach and include portions of the population who aren't engaged.

For starters, how about some opt-out emails to voters? Why is that considered "too much?" In Australia, it's compulsory to vote. Here, however, there seems to be way too much hesitation about sending the message that town government affects everyone's lives and needs broad-based participation.

I know that other types digital efforts are proceeding. Maybe there could also be town government bulletin boards in local stores. How about if we get some focus groups together and ask people what it would take to make them feel connected? Let's ask young people about the barriers to participation, such as scheduling meetings during work hours, for instance, and keep working on how to overcome them until we actually get somewhere. I don't really know the answers. I just want us to work hard on this, and keep trying until the town's political culture changes.

The reasons this issue is important are simple:

(1) It's natural for like-minded people to cluster together and form a "bubble," in which the receive only certain data and consider only certain ideas. A great example of this is Kent's Point, where the expert's report had absolutely zero impact on the narratives already embraced by town officials before the study was conducted, even though it conflicted with them substantially.

​

(2) Broadening the scope of participation brings in not only different ideas and perspectives, but also additional skill sets. For instance, had my human been involved at the governmental level, and had the town formally run the parking sticker idea by him, he would have saved everyone a lot of trouble and embarrassment with an earlier discovery of the legal obstacles.

​

​(3) Getting younger people involved, in a way that works for them, is also a moral imperative. Think of it this way: Whether or not younger people are going to be able to live here in the future depends a lot on decisions made by the town, particularly those affecting the per-unit cost of housing construction. Forgive my blunt way of putting this, but is it really right that those decisions should be made by a handful of people many of whom have single-digit life expectancies? If, for example, there have to be a few judiciously-placed four story buildings in town to make it possible for young people – including our teachers, police officers, etc. – to live here, shouldn't that cohort have an important voice in deciding whether to approve that?

Enact Hearing Procedures To Respect The Process And Curtail BS

Let me provide some context. In my judgment, both members of boards and witnesses before those boards feel far too free to shade the truth to advance their agendas. To a careful observer, this is pretty evident in the case of the 8/27/25 Kent's Point hearing, which my human did a thorough job of annotating. For reasons which should be obvious, this does not serve the common good. Thus:

 

(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
 

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

​

Respect the Open Meeting Law
 

The state's Open Meeting Law requires two things: effective notice to the public of the issues to be discussed at governmental meetings, and public deliberation of governmental bodies. Let's be clear about why: To prevent local officials from making corrupt or unwise decisions without the check of public awareness and participation. Yes, it's cumbersome sometimes, but it's an important democratic check on governmental power, and it needs to be respected.

As to the notice aspect, It's well known that agendas items are often written so that board or committee members understand the reference, but the general public can't. At times, this is more than just an inconvenience. In 2019, many dog walkers were surprised when a cryptic notice about dog restrictions at an address on Willie Atwood Road turned out to be about imposing restrictions at Wildflower Beach. When called on this after action had been taken without dog owners present, the then Town Manager defended the notice as "technically accurate," which is definitely not the legal standard. Many dog owners took all this as a gesture of contempt, not only towards them, but towards the rule of law, and I wouldn't be surprised if that weren't the only instance of inadequate notice damaging public respect and  trust for local government.

As to the public deliberation aspect, all I'm going to say is that the more a political process, such as a series of hearings, looks like political theater to justify behind-the-scenes decisions, the more it drives people away from participating in government, and the more hostile it can make them in resisting initiatives. I think that's a social cost that town officials tend to discount.

Let's honor the positive intention behind the Open Meeting Law, and try to adapt ourselves to behaving in ways that further its beneficial purposes.

​

Curtail Unanimous Voting

One unhealthy trend I notice in Town government is the high proportion of unanimous votes. I'm not saying that unanimous votes are always and necessarily bad. Sometimes such a vote may reflect a consensus which was arrived at in a healthy way. I'm concerned about two other scenarios, though, 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.

I would just say that 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.

 

​Don't Commission Studies If You Don't Intend To Learn From Them

Studies like the LCI environmental report for Kent's Point cost money ($15,000 in the LCI example), and shouldn't be used as window-dressing.

If anyone questions whether I'm being fair about this, compare the recommendations in LCI's environmental assessment of Kent's Point (pages 18–22) to the town's action items for Kent's Point, supposedly based on that assessment, and notice the extent to which they don't match.

 

I'm not suggesting, by the way, that there might not ever be good reasons to deviate from a study. But certainly, if a study is not followed, the reasons for the deviation should always be expressed in writing and publicized. 
 

Be More Open Minded and Willing To Take Risks

 

This is anecdotal, but sometimes, there seems to be so much concern in Orleans government about what other towns have done that one wonders whether we ought to just contract our governance out to Harwich. We have a lot of smart people in Orleans, including people who can think outside the box. We lose the benefit of all that human capital when we're always checking to make sure we're not taking a risk by being innovative. The experience of other towns is certainly relevant. However, let's not sell ourselves short by attaching ourselves to it.

To illustrate, my human once learned about a technique which had been developed locally to rebuild dunes. It required some volunteer labor, but next to nothing in materials costs. Excitedly, he wrote to town government about it. In a rare instance of responsiveness to an email, he got back a terse and dismissive reference to the contract to rebuild the dunes where Liam's used to be. The potential of the new method to be used beyond that, to rebuild the big dunes to the South of Liam's, was completely ignored. Another person active in town government remarked that this was not surprising, and just the way it is. My human said, "this is the kind of thing that makes people hate bureaucracy and get tempted to give supreme power to an individual." Honestly, when I hear stuff like this, I'm glad I'm a dog. It's just a lot more straightforward, and less frustrating. I'm not saying, by the way, that there might not be issues in accepting suggestions from unusual and/or interested sources. I'm just saying, let's not be lazy or unimaginative, especially when there are big potential benefits at stake.

 

Be Sane About Environmentalism
 

By sane, I just mean this: take actual data into consideration, and resist the temptation to virtue-signal. Obviously our natural resources are precious, and we owe ourselves and future generations an obligation to preserve them. Equally obviously, we have to comply with state and federal environmental requirements. However, there are instances when either the gain we're trying to achieve is minute, or the whole story of what the problem is doesn't match the facts, and we have to exercise some careful realism about that. Case in point: ignoring runoff erosion at Kent's Point in favor of a dubious narrative that dogs are "destroying our public lands," and a legally problematic plan to impose access restrictions.

Be Mindful Of How Fortunate We Are

 

One thing people born between 1945 and 1964 don't tend to realize is that a lot of younger people don't like them very much. They're perceived as unable to regulate their emotions, technologically helpless, and massively entitled – a whole generation of "Karens" and the male equivalent thereof, demanding to speak to a manager when something isn't exactly the way they want it to be. Some younger people who live in Orleans think we have a serious Boomer problem. While I understand why they see it that way, I wonder if it might not be more of a Spoiled Rich People problem.
 

In any event, I know I'm fortunate to live here. In Houston, life on the street was hard. Some guy shot me with a pellet gun, and I had to walk through the pain for quite some time before getting medical care. Far worse, my human's family was brutally affected by World War II, and my human witnessed the aftermath in Eastern Europe up close and personally as a young child, seeing things that haunted him for the rest of his life. So, neither my human nor I are exactly impressed when someone complains about "too many" cars driving by their house every day. Lots of people, and animals, don't even have shelter, or dependable access to food. Others are coping with trauma, past or present. I mean, really, come on. Let's be grateful for what we have, cultivate a little resilience, and work together to make things even better. Town government shouldn't be a force to try to mobilize against people who annoy you; it should be a tool for collective life enhancement. How about if we all try to hold that aspiration in mind?

Answer Correspondence

 

Finally, there's no excuse for the persistent tendency of town officials to ignore correspondence. It's not hard to put together a little acknowledgment blurb. Remaining mute is simply rude, and suggests, rightly or wrongly, that messages are not being read, out of indifference. Naturally, someone whose correspondence is ignored is less likely to see town government in a positive light, or want to participate in it. If we are going to be a friendly, functional community, let's have town government set the tone with simple gestures like this.

I guess that's the gist of what I stand for. Thanks for reading, if you did. I’m available any time to elaborate on these ideas if anyone would like, or feel free to converse with my human.

Sincerely,

Boris