Monday, April 21, 2008

Reframing or misleading?

At the past few Council meetings, you may recall The Rubberstampers creating all sorts of excuses, strawmen and obstructionist tactics to oppose my goal of moving forward on an alternative to the pool bubble. Of course, they eventually succumbed to the overwhelming public pressure for action on the pool. So they accepted my idea that something has to happen with the bubble and created the Bubble Study group.

As a result we got this motion:The comment "including, but not limited to" certainly seemed to generate some discussion because the above motion did not include consideration for either "performance contracting" or a "summer-only facility." And the exclusion of those considerations concerned not only me, but others as well. As you can see here, Jimmy Sima felt compelled to amend the motion... though Matt Altieri said it was unnecessary: But that was April 8. And now fast forward to April 18 when I received an email from Matt Altieri that included this excerpt:

I am going to instruct all who are scheduled to come in and give input is to be precise be prepared and to stay focused on options that we outlined within the resolution we voted on that night.

Huh? Do these two statements jibe? Or are we witnessing the classic Washington-style "reframing" of the debate?

Tim White

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

He should be the Chairman of the BS. He throws around more BS than anyone I know!
He is an embarassment to this town!

Anonymous said...

Tim, your partisan rancor is becoming too much....how do you expect to work with these guys if you keep calling them rubberstampers, etc....you weren't this way a year ago...don't get jaded- Breachway

tim white said...

Breach... thanks. As always, I appreciate and respect your opinion.

I'll tone down the rhetoric and try to do a better job at explaining my perspective.

Anonymous said...

The only issue the Bubble Study Group is looking for is a "YES' to spending money to fix this problem. If either party in this town had any backbone they would have already figured out the answer based on previously supplied information. The residents will allow the town to fix the problem provided the town establishes the creditability of a solution. Past performance dictates caution when it comes to the town govt and how it manages projects. The resolution stated clearly it would be self funding, there is clear path on how to do it, the Town Council cannot see the answer