Conveniently Arguing Both Sides

Over the last eight months, one has, with all too much frequency, been witness to a deliberatory process by some officials based upon the practice of “Situational Convenience” as opposed to one grounded in the principle of “Argument Consistency”.

Situational Convenience allows an individual to deliberate issues before them based upon what it most convenient at the time in order to achieve or facilitate their personal proclivities. It affords one the luxury of taking contradictory and inconsistent positions at will, in direct response to the particular matter at hand. Argument Consistency, dictates a deliberatory process grounded in arguing positions consistently based upon principle, even when said principle is in opposition to one’s personal desires. It directs an individual to maintain consistency in approach and continuity of character so that all matters are deliberated with the highest level of intellectual honesty.

Undoubtedly, Situational Convenience provides immense freedom from the burdens associated with doing the principled thing, i.e. the right thing. As well, it spares one the need to become overly concerned with the details surrounding one’s position or those pesky reservations about bogging oneself down with the need to deliberate honestly and consistently.

Situational Convenience allows one the opportunity to argue for example, the extreme importance of obtaining Department Head input into the hiring of a new Town Administrator (T.A.) one week, then using said input to reject those finalists (for “unknown” reasons), while arguing their input as irrelevant several weeks later as it related to extending (in direct contradiction to the Town Charter) the term of our part-time/ interim Town Administrator.

Situational Convenience provides one the luxury of dismissing the sanctity of the Charter and characterizing that which is obviously clear and convincing language as merely “suggestive”, in one breath, while earlier conveying to the Building Inspector that the sign by-laws are “very clear” and “need to be enforced” with the next breath. For the record, the Town Charter, Zoning Bylaws, and General Bylaws all use the very same language, in the very same format, and provide the very same unequivocal strength of mandate.

The advantage of Situational Convenience is that it allows an individual to argue on the one hand that “we should always follow Town Counsels opinion whether we agree with it or not” (B.O.S. Chairwoman - Monday, January 4, 2010), while earlier arguing against Town Counsel’s opinion when said opinion suggested that the Chairwoman should leave the room during discussions pertaining to the appointment of a second Search Committee. During a meeting held Thursday, September 24, 2009, Chairman Blanchard challenged Town Counsels opinion that she should have no physical presence in the room during the committee appointment discussions and acquiesced only after considerable debate and a personal request from the B.O.S. vice-Chairman. In response to his request some 5 minutes into the discussion, Mrs. Blanchard replied, “Well Scott, seeing as your requesting that, I’ll abide by your request”. Her decision to comply with the request of myself and the vice-Chair had nothing to do with “following Town Counsel’s opinion”.

Situational Convenience as well, allows one the flexibility to be arbitrary and capricious in the execution of authority. For example, one can choose to extend a 200 gallon per day sewer request to a well known individual in August, while arguing against a similar request in December from one who is lesser known; this despite the situations being identical. To be clear, I voted for the request in August and would do it again today. I was quite prepared to support the December request were it brought to a vote. Simply stated there was no concrete rationale not to support these requests.

Perhaps one of the most beneficial aspects of Situational Convenience is that allows one to make countless campaign promises when seeking votes that become summarily jettisoned once the oath of office has been taken. Situational Convenience allows one to state that “Providing leadership as a selectman requires an open mind and a willingness to listen. I firmly believe that the town deserves an open board that is accessible to everyone” while simultaneously demonstrating the reverse. Equally, Situational Convenience allows one to state that they “will be a voice for open, accessible government that considers all sides of every issue” while practicing to the contrary.

There is nothing magical or special in terms of the Argument Consistency approach to reasoning, nor is it in any way remarkable; it is simply based upon good old fashioned honesty. I grew up in the projects (Great Brook Valley) and low-income districts in Worcester - Kilby Street and Gardner Streets. We had little, but my dad believed that regardless of what you did or did not have, you were certainly wealthy if you had integrity. I pray each day that I shall (as used in the mandatory) remain faithful to this approach engendered to me by my dad; a WW II marine veteran with an eighth-grade education. He was unmistakably, the smartest man I have ever known. He died 21 years ago at the age of 70. I endeavor always to honor his life with integrity.

In closing, I am obligated to share the following. During the two years prior to my January 2009 entry into the political arena, I strongly advocated against the politics of special-interest determinations and what I viewed as selective representation. I argued against what I believed to be “Situationally Convenient” deliberations by the Board at that time. I was quick to point out what I viewed as inconsistencies in their approach and the lack of balance. Though I still disagree with many of their positions taken at that time, I must admit that those inconsistencies were minor in magnitude in comparison to what is now taking place.

In support of what I believed was much needed change, I provided sustenance through blog postings, research, and letters to the editor for some who now themselves engage in acts that are, in my estimation, more egregious than any previously witnessed. Said postings, research, and letters were always factually based, honestly developed, and objectively vetted, though not void of my opinion either. Sadly however, the last eight months have resulted for me, in a rather telling evolution; such being that the selective self-interest governance I was so concerned with prior to January 2009, now appears so relatively minor and pale in comparison to those things I’ve witnessed as of late. In hindsight, things then may not have been so bad after all when taken on the whole in contrast to this era.

There’s an old saying about such things, “be careful what you wish for, you might just get it”.