Letter: Cease Fire Resolution Proposal

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

I add my voice to those asserting that the Select Board should NOT support the cease fire resolution. Several writers before me have enumerated many well-reasoned arguments against involvement of our local governance in such a controversial issue.

I come at the question from a somewhat different angle. I have asked the Select Board on numerous occasions to cite the source(s) from which they have authority to comment as a board on articles not strictly related to Williamstown issues. Does the authority come from the Williamstown charter? The Massachusetts General Laws? Case law? Where? If the SB or anyone has responded to my inquiry, I have missed it.

Should not the authority issue be settled before we even get to the merits of the resolution? Our town governance with its town meeting is touted as being a citizen-friendly model for legislative democracy. Is it? Look closely at some of our seemingly democratic citizens' petitions.

In recent Williamstown history, two articles were touted by proponents as being "passed unanimously." "Passed unanimously" at the end of a very uncomfortable town meeting when many participants had already left is factually translated as 222 votes out of a population of many thousands. This is democracy? Were even a healthy minority of voices heard? Would these articles have passed if put to a vote in the privacy of a voting booth?

Furthermore, proponents interpreted the passage of these article as a mandate. The result was a huge amount — some say "well over a million dollars" — to support institutions and promote programs that many found morally offensive —even seriously at odds with — their religious beliefs. This is democracy?

Town meeting may seem democratic. Those who carefully reviewed the Williamstown Charter deserve our thanks and appreciation for a grueling task well done. But, particularly in light of vast improvements in communicating, more can be done to ensure that many voices who wish to be heard are indeed heard.

The iBerkshire coverage of Monday's SB meeting was replete with words of passion. "I will never forgive you." Speaking and acting "from the heart" was encouraged. Passion certainly has a place in politics, but should passion without prudence guide us? Should feelings trump thought, even in local politics?

What does the Williamstown community want? Many opponents of recent Williamstown policies and practices have been strangely silent. Do we want a small group of albeit-elected officials to speak for us on matters of morality, even religion? Is solidarity a good thing? Can there be room for diversity in solidarity?

And to those who have been and still are fearful to speak, please know you have ample support to freely speak your minds. And even your hearts a bit if you so choose. You might even learn that your silence has been and is unwarranted because you really are the majority.

Donna Carlstrom Wied
Williamstown, Mass.

 

 

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Williamstown Preservation Panel Pulls Surcharge Hike Proposal

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Community Preservation Committee on Tuesday voted to backtrack on a plan to ask town meeting to increase the town's Community Preservation Act surcharge on local property tax bills.
 
And it heard arguments that the town should be asked whether to pull out of the CPA program altogether.
 
Earlier this month, the panel voted 6-2 to develop an article for the May annual town meeting warrant that would have asked whether the town should increase the current 2 percent surcharge (with the first $100,000 of property value excepted) to 3 percent, the maximum allowed under the CPA.
 
Committee members argued that raising the local surcharge to the maximum would unlock significantly more in matching funds from the commonwealth. Hypothetically, for example, the town would have received nearly twice the state funding for CPA projects in FY24 (the most recent year available) had it charged a 3 percent surcharge instead of the current 2 percent.
 
After hearing two members of the town's Finance Committee, a former Select Board member and one member of the public question whether the CPA surcharge makes sense at all for the town, five members of the CPC at Tuesday's meeting voted not to put the surcharge increase warrant article to a vote at the annual town meeting.
 
Nate Budington, one of four members to flip their votes from the Feb. 4 meeting, joined others in saying he was on the fence on the issue in light of the ever-increasing tax burden faced by property owners to support town and school operations.
 
"As to the surcharge, like other people, I went back and forth. I've had a couple of conversations with people on Spring Street about the demise of the [Williamstown Theatre Festival] and what that's meant to their business," Budington said. "And I don't think that's going to get any better. If anything, it's going in the wrong direction. And that's ominous to me.
 
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories