About the incidents cited in last week’s article, “Selectmen deny breaking Open Meeting Law,” I agree with Marie Sobalvarro, “It’s time to move on.” However, as a participant in the Annual Town Meeting (ATM) April 2 looking back on the events leading up to the vote on the compromised Article 17, I hold a rather dim view of actions members of the Board Of Selectmen (BOS), the Finance Committee (FinCom), and the Capital Planning and Investment Committee (CPIC) took to undermine the Municipal Buildings Committee (MBC) and its original Article 17.
My impression of the original MBC Article 17, upon reading the MBC report, is that MBC members’ year of effort succeeded in providing Harvard an ATM Article 17 well-researched, well-considered, and well-organized. The original MBC Article 17 was well-regarded judging by so many open-mic comments at the ATM. Passage of the original MBC Article 17, straightforward per the MBC report, was to bring detail to plan concepts presented in the MBC report so that a more informed vote by Harvard citizenry could be taken in 2012 on which plans to pursue.
Article 18, the proposal by an ad hoc group claiming basis in MBC efforts, sought to place limits to further planning, period. Viewed from the perspective of the MBC report it appeared to say, “Ignore details! We know better NOW the plans to pursue.”
My dim view of BOS, FinCom, and CPIC comes from members’ arrogant efforts, partly successful, to deny residents details of choices to have been made in 2012.
Harry Jacobson
Bolton Road
