I am surprised to read that the selectmen are even discussing whether it is prudent to compensate David Woodsum for his truck, which was totaled during his volunteer service to the town—service that was provided for more than 25 years.
Dangerous precedent? I feel a much more dangerous precedent is to convey the message that Harvard will not move to “make volunteers whole” in such extraordinary circumstances. Wouldn’t it be a nice scenario if volunteers decided not to use their personal vehicles in circumstances such as this because of the risk involved?
It was stated that David Woodsum did not have comprehensive coverage on his truck. This is a personal choice in Mass. In many cases when one reviews the value of a vehicle along with normal driving habits, not purchasing comprehensive coverage is a very prudent choice. Mr. Woodsum’s use of his vehicle in this ice storm was far from “routine use.”
The insurance coverage the town is investigating to cover such situations—why was this not investigated or provided previously? Many volunteers have been using their personal vehicles for decades (maybe a century) for service to the town. If those responsible for risk management in the town made a decision not to provide such insurance, then maybe they should pay for Mr. Woodsum’s truck.
I urge the selectmen to pay for Mr. Woodsum’s truck promptly so that he can get back to his business.
John E. Owings
Tahanto Trail
