Not Best Practices
The initial citizens' initiative Best Practices Resolution was an honest and worthwhile attempt to review the rules and regulations which have allowed Northampton governors to ignore their responsibility to represent the best interests of their citizens and community and follow whatever personal or political agenda profited them instead. It was an effort that similar cities found necessary to hold government more accountable no matter who was in office.
Under the threat that this would reveal the defects in rules and ordinances that have provided their opportunities, the Higgins administration proposed folding this challenge into their Sustainability Plan to control the investigation and report—and, even better, give the impression that they were the sponsors. They next needed to have control over the citizens who would take charge of directing the inquiry, suggesting the changes, and handling the report.
The compromise resolution provided for three sitting city councilors and four citizens, conditionally not current board or commission members, who were most often appointed or controlled by the mayor. The resolution passed the first reading without Mayor Higgins present. But just before the final reading, five councilors conspired in secret to fix the vote to overturn that condition before the public could protest.
At the final reading, a majority of councilors attempted to play to the compassion of the public by fabricating the objection that board and commission members were being accused of being "tainted" by the resolution as written. "Tainted" will be the word that will precede any consideration of this City Council until those councilors submit their resignations and citizens of Northampton find the good sense to establish enforceable rules and guidelines that will make governors like that unwelcome. It is discouraging to competent and responsible candidates that the citizens of our city tolerate this environment.
Kenneth Mitchell
Northampton
*
Listen Up, Newspapers
Newspapers are a wonderful way to disseminate information, albeit not the only way today. That being said, wouldn't it be wonderful if our newspapers began a series that would explain complex subjects such as the dollar's devaluation and/or the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, to name just two? Having people understand these important landmarks would go a long way in having citizens make informed decisions. It would also mitigate the old complaint that all the papers print is the sensational—i.e., if it bleeds it leads—and would be providing a valuable service to their readers.
Neil Fahey
Chicopee
