As most readers of this paper are by now well aware, a struggle is currently underway regarding proposed alterations to a Class 4 road in Norwich. An abutting landowner contends that he has a right to clear trees and regrade this Class 4 road at his own expense to make it passable for vehicles. Some neighbors and others who hike this "road" oppose him, arguing that Class 4 roads are public assets meant to benefit the public. Thus, they argue, where the public interest is better served by keeping the road a hiking trail, an abutter's desire to alter it for vehicular use must give way. I see merits in both arguments and Vermont law govering Class 4 roads appears somewhat ambiguous on this issue. Not surprisingly, the matter is now before the courts and will likely result in a significant ruling further clarifying landowner rights and municipal authority in Vermont. A great deal can be said about the important legal principles at issue in this case, but I want to express my opinion regarding a more subtle, and more disturbing, aspect to this struggle.
Norwich town government, as in most Vermont towns, depends on the volunteer efforts of individuals and the collective civility of the entire population to work effectively. Norwich has been blessed with a rich history of individuals, from a variety of backgrounds, giving generously of their time to keep town government working. Unfortunately, like many blessings, this tradition of volunteer service seems often to be taken for granted. However generously offered, it is, nevertheless, a limited resource which the people of this town must respect and conserve if it is to continue.
The Bradley Hill Class 4 road/trail issue illustrates how easily the limited resources of small town government can be strained. The bi-weekly battles over this issue have significantly interfered with the Selectboard's agenda and delayed consideration of a large number of other important town issues. I see no useful purpose to these persistent attempts to force the Selectboard's hand in this matter. The legal principles at issue in the case are already before the courts. Both sides appear to possess the resources and determination to fully litigate these issues and supporters on each side have reason to be confident their positions will be well-represented. The Selectboard has convened an ad hoc committee to recommend a uniform policy regarding Class 4 roads. My point is simply that small towns such as Norwich depend on both the sacrifice of those who serve and the civility of those who seek town action. We all benefit from the individual courage of those who speak up, but we are best served when they also exhibit the good judgment to know when to shut up. Let's give the courts time to do their job, let the Town's ad hoc committee on Class 4 roads do its job, and let the Selectboard move on to the Town's other business.
Wednesday, November 1, 2000
Tuesday, March 7, 2000
Norwich Residents Deserve Better? (Valley News Op-Ed)
To the Editor:
I was appalled by Norwich Selectboard candidate Douglas Hoffman's letter of February 29, 2000, entitled "Norwich Residents Deserve Better." The tone and substance of this letter alone should raise questions in voters' minds regarding Mr. Hoffman's candidacy. While I support his stated goals of more inclusive and transparent town government, I utterly reject the cynical political rhetoric of the letter itself.
At its core, Mr. Hoffman's letter raises an important question: Why does it require a citizen petition and Town-wide vote to "advise" the Selectboard to change their meeting time to a more convenient hour and to record individual members' votes? The answer to this question should tell us a great deal about our Selectboard. But rather than simply pose the question and demand a forthright answer, Mr. Hoffman's letter impugns the character and motives of the current Selectboard with innuendo and rhetorical device: Has the current Norwich Selectboard really "done everything it could to discourage active and informed citizen involvement?" Has it "invested itself in turning a deaf ear to the town and its concerns?" Do Selectboard members truly want to deny Norwich voters "the right to choose from a number of candidates for selectboard?"
Over the years Norwich has seen a number of vigorous debates regarding issues of town and school governance. Mr. Hoffman's letter suggests a nasty turn in the tenor of these debates. It is one thing to disagree with someone's views and vigorously argue the merits of that disagreement. It is quite another to deride one's opponents with suggestions of bad faith, wilful indifference to voters' concerns, and actively conspiring to prevent broader citizen participation. Worse, still, Mr. Hoffman couches these serious accusations in the rhetoric of innuendo. Mr. Hoffman doesn't personally accuse the Selectboard of doing "everything it could to discourage active and informed citizen involvement." He's only "listened to many Norwich residents" who feel that way. He's not forthrightly stating his own opinion that Selectboard members want to deny Norwich voters "the right to choose from a number of candidates for selectboard." He's only suggesting that might be their motive in the form of a rhetorical question.
Near it's end, Mr Hoffman's letter makes much of the need for Selectboard members who will take responsibility for their actions. He would do well to lead by example, cast off this cloak of innuendo, and tell his fellow townspeople simply and forthrightly how he would do things differently and why.
I was appalled by Norwich Selectboard candidate Douglas Hoffman's letter of February 29, 2000, entitled "Norwich Residents Deserve Better." The tone and substance of this letter alone should raise questions in voters' minds regarding Mr. Hoffman's candidacy. While I support his stated goals of more inclusive and transparent town government, I utterly reject the cynical political rhetoric of the letter itself.
At its core, Mr. Hoffman's letter raises an important question: Why does it require a citizen petition and Town-wide vote to "advise" the Selectboard to change their meeting time to a more convenient hour and to record individual members' votes? The answer to this question should tell us a great deal about our Selectboard. But rather than simply pose the question and demand a forthright answer, Mr. Hoffman's letter impugns the character and motives of the current Selectboard with innuendo and rhetorical device: Has the current Norwich Selectboard really "done everything it could to discourage active and informed citizen involvement?" Has it "invested itself in turning a deaf ear to the town and its concerns?" Do Selectboard members truly want to deny Norwich voters "the right to choose from a number of candidates for selectboard?"
Over the years Norwich has seen a number of vigorous debates regarding issues of town and school governance. Mr. Hoffman's letter suggests a nasty turn in the tenor of these debates. It is one thing to disagree with someone's views and vigorously argue the merits of that disagreement. It is quite another to deride one's opponents with suggestions of bad faith, wilful indifference to voters' concerns, and actively conspiring to prevent broader citizen participation. Worse, still, Mr. Hoffman couches these serious accusations in the rhetoric of innuendo. Mr. Hoffman doesn't personally accuse the Selectboard of doing "everything it could to discourage active and informed citizen involvement." He's only "listened to many Norwich residents" who feel that way. He's not forthrightly stating his own opinion that Selectboard members want to deny Norwich voters "the right to choose from a number of candidates for selectboard." He's only suggesting that might be their motive in the form of a rhetorical question.
Near it's end, Mr Hoffman's letter makes much of the need for Selectboard members who will take responsibility for their actions. He would do well to lead by example, cast off this cloak of innuendo, and tell his fellow townspeople simply and forthrightly how he would do things differently and why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)