Diversions. In Paris? Not parades filled with fun and laughter; not activities to showcase holiday music or craft fairs to showcase local talent. No. These diversions are beneficial to the community, bringing the community together in a positive way.
Diversion, in the sense of causing one to look in another direction, while something else is happening where one might not be looking. Diversion - meaning to draw attention away from.
Are there such diversions going on in Paris? Are there individuals seeking to throw sand in the gears and disturb and distort just the right situations to draw attention away from something(s) we shouldn't be noticing very much? Like noticing things happening in the municipal process, perhaps?
And what would attention need to be drawn away from, would you think?
Would attention need to be drawn away, from the fact that interviews started Monday11-30-09, for a new town manager, because there is a large legal question yet to be resolved in the status of the former town manager? A question that has a potential for costing the taxpayers a sizeable amount?
No looking. Not for you to see.
And speaking of the legal question, is there diversion, or worse, stonewalling, when citizens ask about whether the town attorney is able to speak freely about legal matters with all 5 selectmen, not just the 2?
How about the costs of all the above? No costs are ever mentioned. Are we not supposed to know or ask how much things cost - rather, are we expected to just open our taxpayer-wallets and shell out? Or are we to be kept so busy by endless crises erupting that we miss the window of opportunity to ask?
Focus would certainly not be welcome on the motives for, or the quality of, what passes for financial planning by the selectboard and interim town manager. Carelessly scraping together figures, in the hope of demonstrating a sound financial basis for hiring a tax-assessment company right this minute: could this hurry-up-and-do majority be serving another agenda? Who might benefit? And what happens if it can't happen before....? No one says.
Revaluation, in a thorough and well planned manner, has merit; the immediacy of this particular plan, however, is unsound - even reckless, at this point.
A new tank for a fire truck - a real need; a wise request. And if money needs to be moved to a different place in the budget to make it accessible for use, then Paris citizens should vote to do so. But why now? This has been a need for a good while; it has certainly been talked about before. Why now? At this particular moment? Points to be gained? With whom?
No looking closely: asking questions might translate to one not valuing the work of the firefighters and their needs. Asking any questions might indicate that one would welcome the risk of having one's house - as well as one's neighbor's - burn to the ground. Who's being manipulated here?
A bridge to be repaired? Of course unsafe bridges are not good. No one wants people to be unsafe, whether for walking or snowmobiling. But using public funds requires more than good intentions or favorite sports. What's the hurry? Before the sun sets? Along with these other plans for spending? And why no more details, or a chance for questions?
In recent years a few developers have added money to a recreational fund that is now being considered for tapping. This is public money, and the uses of it should be talked about by the public, in public. Chances are good many in the public might support it, if they get a chance to ask questions and have them answered. Again, why this push, now? What's coming up that makes this a project for right now? Any agenda being served by the 3-2 split to make points? Points for what, anyway?
Note: some of the same folks now pushing to use public money for this private snowmobile bridge are the very ones who closed significant portions of snowmobile trails last winter, when it looked as if support for the current 3-2 majority's campaign was flagging. Might this be an apology? A down-payment on continued support? A way for the contributors to that fund to get back the use of "their" money for something they like?
Whoops - no looking. Not for you. Look over there....
How about certain roads demanding to be taken over by the town? Oh - wait a minute - roads don't demand - they are impersonal objects. Rather, people who live and own land in areas serviced by certain roads: they are demanding. What is the expectation here? And exactly whose expectation is it? Why, at this juncture, is this issue coming up, again? It has been settled. Before. 3 times.
Why the sudden push all over again? Does someone need a new, immediate solution? How come? What happens if, as Mr. Hanley threatens in veiled tone, the town does get sued by citizens who have been told repeatedly that they are not being served? What then? Well, of course, there's that long waiting time for law suits to be resolved.... But, roads last quite a while. Why the push now? What's at stake now?
A fair amount of items not bearing too close a look. Diversions come in handy. Probably the more disruptive the better.
