(Editors Note: In discussions with the author Wendi Haegle-Devlin she now believes that she may have made an
error when discussing the Recreation Committee’s inability to receive a burn
permit. After re-reading Artlicle 19 she now believes that the Recreation Committee
would be able to acquire a burn permit for the Annual Tree Lighting
as part of the Town’s administrative function.
She did not want to edit this out of the letter as it would have made
this letter inconsistent with the one released to other media outlets. She continues to believe the other examples
included are valid concerns and/or circumstances.)
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE VOTERS OF WINDHAM
For the first time in my many
years in Windham, I feel compelled to put proverbial pen to paper; and I do so
to implore the citizens of Windham to vote “NO” on petitioned Articles 18
and 19 on March 13th. For while it would be easy to simply vote in favor of
them on the misguided assumption that any stricter regulations regarding
conflicts of interest can only be a good thing, it is my firm belief that
neither will ultimately serve to better our community. As responsible voters we
must examine the potential, overall repercussions of these policies before voting,
and I believe doing so reveals that they are, at best, poorly crafted. At
worst, they are designed specifically to infringe upon the personal activities
and freedoms of anyone who has an association with the Town - from employees to
volunteers to subcontractors and even their employees – by deeming them
“covered persons”.
Article 18, for example, presumes all covered persons are
residents of Windham by authorizing them to speak to an issue before a Town
board only in their capacity as “residents of the Town”. This
requirement, which cannot be waived, effectively silences non-resident
employees who may have an opinion to offer at something as simple as a budget
hearing.
Article 19, which also prohibits any waivers of its provisions,
is even more unnecessarily restrictive. Let us suppose that the Town has a
volunteer van driver, a fairly innocuous service agreement, who is also an
engineer. What would he be subject to under Article 19 during his stint as a
driver, and for two years beyond, in exchange for his generosity in taking a
few senior citizens to the doctor? Among other things:
•
He could not, in
his professional capacity, appear before the Windham Planning Board or any
other board; nor could he even speak on behalf of a client in response to a
direct inquiry from said board.
•
If he were so
fortunate as to own and pay taxes on a commercial property housing his
engineering firm, he could not represent himself before any board to improve or
expand on that commercial property. He could, however, needlessly expend his
hard-earned funds to hire a third party to represent him.
•
Similarly, he
could not, as owner of a vacant parcel of land, approach the Town to subdivide
it in order to gift it to his children or place it up for sale without the
same, undue expense.
Citing just these few examples
we must, again as responsible voters, ask ourselves where this could leave the
Town in terms of our volunteer forces; and I’m no longer speaking of van
drivers. In my opinion, it could very well leave our most important boards
filled with people who, despite their best intentions, lack even a glimmer of
pertinent knowledge or experience. After all, what local professionals with
actual knowledge of codes, zoning or construction design would be willing or
able to serve on our Planning Board or ZBA under such excessive circumstances?
What local business owners will be available to bring their intellect to the Economic
Development Committee? Who will we ultimately have making those vital decisions
intended to propel Windham prosperously and responsibly into the future?
Of equal concern is the
potential financial impact to taxpayers should Article 19 pass; beyond
increased legal costs, that is, as the Town will surely be obliged to defend
its enforcement. What of the probable loss of in-town construction contractors
who plow in their off season, for example, perhaps driving up our winter
maintenance costs. What of the services that may no longer be donated, or the
competitive bids that may no longer be submitted by our local vendors, as their
acceptance or award would constitute an agreement with the Town and all that
entails.
Were
any of these hardships and potential liabilities the intent of the petitioners?
Did they really intend that the Recreation Committee would be unable to obtain
a burn permit for the Annual Tree Lighting? Or that, in all likelihood, the
issuance of pistol permits to covered persons would be restricted? I would like
to think not; I would like to believe what has happened here is simply a lack
of adequate vetting before submission. Yet, it is because these issues do exist
with these proposals that I am urging the voters to resist the temptation to
support them on the premise of fixing something that may not even be
fundamentally broken.
Rejection of these petitions
will give the Board of Selectmen the time to assess our existing Conflict of
Interest and Code of Ethics policies in preparation for the 2013 ballot, if
necessary; with an eye toward best addressing the needs and rights of all,
rather than a few. In the interim, I would encourage Windham’s volunteers,
employees, and citizens as a whole to avail themselves of the existing
policies. For, if issues do exist, the answer may lie in actually adhering to those
documents; in people actually speaking up at the time a conflict arises
rather than remaining silent about it save for grapevine recriminations or
anonymous accusations.
In closing, although I have
been employed by the Town for nearly 23 years, and currently serve as Chairman
of the Cemetery Trustees, I do not publish this letter in either capacity. This
is despite a very personal sense of sadness at my having to resign as Trustee
in order to avoid a conflict that would be created in my positions should they
pass. No, I submit this only as a resident of Windham who is well aware of and
appreciates the effort expended, time spent, and generosity bestowed by our
volunteers, employees, and local business owners. A resident who sincerely
hopes that we are still a community populated by people who have enough wisdom
and foresight to resist throwing the baby out with the bath water and exhibits
that on March 13th by voting “NO” on Articles 18 and 19.
Respectfully submitted,
Wendi Haegle-Devlin