Letter: What’s the problem?
The discussion in the Feb. 14 and Feb. 15 Recorder about the presentation by Al Norman regarding the Conservation Commission is baffling. What is wrong with someone with knowledge of the issues at hand presenting a written change in an ordinance in public? Is this simply because it is Al Norman?
The Appointments and Ordinances Committee has not accepted these as an ordinance change. These will be put up against the Conservation Commission’s recommendations, the written or oral testimony by other members of the public and any comments from the Planning Department.
There was nothing hidden here. This did not happen in some smoke-filled back room. It happened at a public meeting.
Is there a limit about when a member of the public can comment on a public issue to the representatives of the town? Maybe it would have been better to wait for the Conservation Commission ordinance changes, but does that really change anything? Every type of testimony will be judged in a full analysis of the issue. Where is the problem?
How is it that The Recorder could only find critics of the ordinance committee for its second front page article? I am sure The Recorder could find someone to respond that they do not see this as a travesty of justice. It seems that this is much ado about who agrees with whom. This feels very much like the “old days” of Greenfield politics where who says something is more important than what was said.
Where is the discussion of the content of the suggested ordinance revisions? I, for one, would like to understand what Al Norman submitted, what the Conservation Commission changes are and what everyone who is interested in this issue has to say.
Can we get back to the news and stop the yelling?