We've all heard the term. It means blaming someone else rather than accepting responsibility yourself. We see a lot of that kind of activity in politics, especially on the national level.At least one Hamilton Selectman has shown us that he too knows how to "Pass the Buck".
That's exactly what he did, as reported in a recent article in the Hamilton/Wenham Chronicle, when he stated that:
The truth is that all that was left for the citizen petitioners was to see to it that the motion for the audit was approved at both the Wenham and Hamilton Town meetings. They did that.
The truth is that the motion passed overwhelmingly in Wenham with the FULL support of the Wenham Board of Selectmen and the Wenham FinCom and the Wenham FinCom addressed the issue of their portion of the funding for the Operational Audit at the Town Meeting and how the appropriation would take place.
The truth is that the IDENTICAL motion was made and overwhelmingly approved by the voters one week later at the Hamilton Annual Town Meeting.
The truth is that there was only ONE Selectman in both towns that consistently opposed the motion for the Operational Audit from day one to the day the voters approved the motion.
Guess who?
And now that same Selectman has the audacity to suggest that it is the petitioners' fault that a Special Town Meeting is necessary in order to appropriate Hamilton's share of the cost of the audit.
That's called "passing the buck".
The petitioners and the voters did their part. Even Town Manager Michael Lombardo has graciously stepped up and accepted responsibility for the unexpected need of a Special Town Meeting. But Michael is not to blame.
Apparently the only elected official not willing to accept responsibility, despite nearly six years as a Selectman and with more than two weeks notice in which to address the appropriation issue, is the sole dissenter from both towns' Boards of Selectmen...the only one who voted against the operational audit.
Hmmmm...imagine that.
That's exactly what he did, as reported in a recent article in the Hamilton/Wenham Chronicle, when he stated that:
The truth is that the citizen petitioners negotiated in good faith with the Selectmen of both Hamilton and Wenham, as well as the Finance and Advisory Committees of both towns, and they were assured at public meetings that the towns were going to step up and and fund the Operational Audit of the HWRSD. That placed the responsibility squarely on the town leadership...not the petitioners. And the Selectman mentioned above knew that, at least two weeks prior to the Annual Town Meeting, and said and did nothing."the operational audit (of the Hamilton-Wenham Regional School District) was approved pursuant to a citizens' petition, so the approval of funding should have been part of the citizens' motion but was not".
Excuse me?
The truth is that all that was left for the citizen petitioners was to see to it that the motion for the audit was approved at both the Wenham and Hamilton Town meetings. They did that.
The truth is that the motion passed overwhelmingly in Wenham with the FULL support of the Wenham Board of Selectmen and the Wenham FinCom and the Wenham FinCom addressed the issue of their portion of the funding for the Operational Audit at the Town Meeting and how the appropriation would take place.
The truth is that the IDENTICAL motion was made and overwhelmingly approved by the voters one week later at the Hamilton Annual Town Meeting.
The truth is that there was only ONE Selectman in both towns that consistently opposed the motion for the Operational Audit from day one to the day the voters approved the motion.
Guess who?
And now that same Selectman has the audacity to suggest that it is the petitioners' fault that a Special Town Meeting is necessary in order to appropriate Hamilton's share of the cost of the audit.
That's called "passing the buck".
The petitioners and the voters did their part. Even Town Manager Michael Lombardo has graciously stepped up and accepted responsibility for the unexpected need of a Special Town Meeting. But Michael is not to blame.
Apparently the only elected official not willing to accept responsibility, despite nearly six years as a Selectman and with more than two weeks notice in which to address the appropriation issue, is the sole dissenter from both towns' Boards of Selectmen...the only one who voted against the operational audit.
Hmmmm...imagine that.
I hope that a large number of town folks come to the next selectmen's meeting and tell this selectman what they think of him and antics,
ReplyDeleteComments from folks around town are saying that he should resign from the board. He does nothing but hinder town business with his blamming others for things. Every year he has been on board its been the same thing with this man. Its time for him to go...Townie
We all know that Bill is a rubberstamp for the schools and an
ReplyDeleteobstructionist when it comes to something the schools don't want. We only have one year left of him. We are fortunate that he is now 1 of 5 and no longer 1 of 3.
The comment was just dumb, but doesn't the finance committee need to also take some heat for this? Was it not their responsibility to bring the motion to the floor and they "forgot?"
ReplyDeleteIMHO...You make a good point. Afterall, Wenham's Finance Committee DID address the issue of funding openly and directly at the Wenham Town Meeting.
ReplyDeleteMargo,
ReplyDeleteNo motion could have been made by the Finance Committee on May 8th to fund the operational audit because Town Meeting rules clearly state that expenditures cannot be voted unless there is a specific article on the Warrant.
The only alternatives were to have included a funding mechanism as part of the citizens’ petition or to have included a place-holder on the Warrant to vote the funds after the audit was approved. When the Warrant closed in April, there was no agreement on who would pay for the audit or how much it would cost. In fact, the original version of the citizens’ petition assumed that the expense would be covered by the HWRSD.
There is no blame to be assigned for this “omission” because the facts were changing substantially during the run-up to Annual Town Meeting.
Wenham’s decision to fund its share from a Reserve Fund transfer is contrary to the Hamilton interpretation that the operational audit does not meet the definition of an “unforeseen” expense.
Let’s close the loop on June 21st.
Bob Bullivant
Bob B: If, as you say, the operational audit did not meet the definition of an "unforeseen" expense, then is it safe to say that it was a "foreseen" expense? And if so, why didn't someone from town leadership make the necessary motion for funding at the annual town meeting?
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that we need to move forward and "close the loop" on June 21st.
This issue should, however, be noted so that in the future we will not need a Special Town Meeting for something that could/should have been taken care of at the same time that a motion is such as this is approved.