Sorcinelli.net

I just finished reading this article in the Eagle-Tribune regarding the Salem Town Charter Commission. Among the items in the article was the comment that a first organizational meeting will take place this Thursday, June 18th at 7PM at Town Hall. There likely will be little discussion regarding the charter itself at this meeting; there is a lot of “housecleaning” that needs to take place.

After reading the article, I took a few minutes to see if there was any information provided by the town itself regarding the meeting…

• A quick scan of the 3 town cable channels showed regular programming. This is to be expected.
• The Salem Town web site showed nothing. Literally. Went to the Calendar link; the calendar shows nothing past April.I decided to also check the Boards, Committees and Commissions page. This obviously has had no update in months.
  The Eagle-Tribune had an interesting article a couple of weeks back regarding area town web sites and how many are not well maintained. In the year 2009, many look to the Internet as a way of getting the latest information. Unfortunately, it appears as though the town does not see this as a priority for communicating with it’s constituency.
• The web site for the local cable access channel yielded – well, I will let you judge for yourself.

I voiced concern a few weeks back about the need to be as open and transparent about the process as possible. If not for the writing of Jarret Bencks in the Eagle-Tribune, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to have quickly found out about the upcoming meeting. I say this to all the commission members, selectmen and government officials…

You already have concerns within the community regarding the Charter Commission, it’s goals and it’s interest in serving the needs of the community ay-large. Any behavior or action, be it intentional or unintentional, that leaves the voting base feeling “left out” will quickly erode confidence in the commission and process and all involved. It is imperative that information regarding meetings of the Charter Commission (or any town meeting, for that matter) be announced in a timely fashion (1 or 2 days before the meeting does not count and instead gives the impression of trying to keep people away) using whatever means possible.

An outcome of this Thursday’s meeting is the creation of a regular schedule for future meetings. This will be the chance to prove that the commission wishes to be open in communicating with the public. I urge the members of the commission to take the steps necessary to ensure that the word gets out regarding future meetings.  

As a young student, I can still remember what I considered to be the worst punishment in school. It was when the actions of one or a small number of classmates resulted in the entire class being punished for their actions. One classmate would act up, and the whole class would lose recess. A handful of classmates would talk during lecture, and the entire class would receive extra homework. It wasn’t the fact that someone did something wrong and they were punished that bothered me; it was that I was punished for something that I didn’t do and was out of my control. I hadn’t thought about those days in a long time, but an event at my son’s elementary school this past week brought those memories right back to mind.

My son’s elementary school has an annual event to acknowledge those parents who have volunteered time and/or services to the school during the year. They have a “volunteer tea” event in the cafeteria. It is only about an hour, and I think in concept it is a nice way of saying “thank you”. As the person responsible for building and maintaining the school’s PTA web site, I was once again invited to the event. Now, the Volunteer Tea in and of itself did not bother me; instead, it is an aspect of the morning’s events that were a bit disturbing.

Once the doors are opened to the school for the attending parent, each parent is to go to their child’s classroom. There, they are presented with a flower by their child and then they (and their child) leave the classroom to go to the volunteer tea together. I happened to get to my son’s class a little later then others. As my son was coming out, I looked back in the classroom to see a number of other children left behind. A couple of the children had pretty sad faces as well. It was then I realized a couple of things…

1. My son was being rewarded for someone else’s actions. I’m not so sure that I wanted this lesson to be taught to my son. He didn’t view this event as much as an acknowledgement of my work as he did a chance to get out of class for an hour, and for nothing he himself accomplished. Nowadays, as we often lament on how are children are being raised in a “me generation”, rewarding a child for anyone else’s actions only reinforces the notion that you can “get something for nothing”.
2. Those children left in the classroom were being punished for something they didn’t do. Before I hear someone say “well, their parents didn’t contribute”, ask yourself the following – Is it right to punish a child for their parent’s actions? And let’s not be too quick to judge here; for many parents, job roles and responsibilities combined with being a parent make it difficult (if not impossible) to volunteer. Not volunteering does not make a bad parent, by the way. My parents were wonderful, yet both worked full time jobs. They did make the time to be there for me and my sister, however.
   Even if those children left in the classroom didn’t have to do extra work, the fact that they were omitted from attending the event is a form of punishment that was entirely out of their control. As opposed as I am to a teacher doing this to one class, I am even more opposed to all classrooms doing this at one time.

As I stated up front, I applaud the idea of acknowledging school volunteers. With ever-increasing burdens on schools systems, these people often are the difference makers for a quality educational experience. If you want to have the parents attend an event like the Volunteer Tea, then great. Just don’t take the spirit of that “thank you” and tarnish it by making it a reward for some students and a punishment for others, especially when neither the rewarded or punished are responsible.

I’ve been a bit… no, a lot busy since last Tuesday’s Salem, NH Town Charter Commission election. Alas, I did not make the cut. Congratulations to all those who did. I have no regrets about running.. I want to thank all of those who supported me, both in spirit and votes. I am thankful for the opportunity to meet a few people along the way and have the discussion around how we see our town government progressing.

Now that I am back to the role of “regular citizen” with regards to the commission, I do a have small “wish list”  to pass along…

WISH #1: Be open during the process.
I never did and never falter on this one belief – the decisions and recommendations made by this commission affect ALL the residents and businesses in Salem. As such, the discussions and deliberations should be open and transparent and available to all. If there is a meeting of the commission planned, announce it in a timely and easily accessible fashion. Broadcast the meetings on local cable access and replay them whenever possible. Make it clear to everyone that you want the public to be aware of what is going on with the commission. Anything less than this, even with the noblest of intentions, will give the impression that there is something to hide. That will only lead to distrust of the commission by the citizenry, and that is the LAST thing this commission needs.

WISH #2: Be objective.
I know that a number of the candidates who ran for the Town Charter Commission made it very clear their positions regarding the Town Charter. As I stated before, commission members are expected to evaluate all the possibilities for town government. If you intended to sit on such a commission just to assert your will on the other members, not only will little be accomplished; you will be remembered for your actions. It is good to have an opinion, but but to attempt to impose it on others. This commission provides an opportunity to make the right decisions for the residents and businesses of Salem, but it will require objectivity and perspective to work effectively. Remember – you were not elected to represent yourself or a “group of tens”; you were elected to represent the population of Salem, NH as a whole.

WISH #3: It’s not about the past or the present – it’s about THE FUTURE.
Over the past month and a half, I often heard discussions around Salem turn to “back in <fill in the date>, we…”. I acknowledge and have come to embrace the history of our town. I do not believe, however, that the past should necessarily control the future. Change is inevitable; we see it every day here in Salem. What worked yesterday may work tomorrow, but it is not a guarantee. The Town Charter Commission MUST evaluate options and put them in the context of where Salem is heading in the coming years.

WISH #4: Engage in conversation outside the commission.
My opinion on making the issue of the Town Charter an open discussion with as many citizens as possible has not changed. If anything, it has grown over the past several weeks. I sincerely believe that all commission members take every available opportunity to reach out beyond your circles of friends and families to talk to and (most importantly) listen to what people think and what they want. You will then truly be serving your community in the best way possible.

Finally, as for me… I’m not going anywhere (at least, not outside of my daily commute). I will be watching and listening, to the commission and others. I hope that future writings here will be to say that my wishes have been granted. If they haven’t, I will still keep writing though.

This morning I received a telephone call from a local “constituent” who wished to ask me some questions before voting in Tuesday’s Salem Town Charter Commission election. I was quite pleased, as I have always promoted an open dialog in whatever way a person feels comfortable. What ensued, however, raised some personal “red flags”.

I fully expected any number of questions regarding my qualifications for the commission position or my positions on items directly related to the role of of the commission. There were no such questions ever asked. Instead, I was asked to explain my position on “family values”, including:

• Religion
• Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice
• Gay Marriage
• Rights of gay couples to adopt children

Now, we all have our own personal belief systems. They all help us to live a proper life and to help temper our decisions. Of course, this includes determining who we believe will best represent us at various levels of government. Where I have grave concerns here is when a belief system becomes the sole basis of electing officials and removes perspective.

As a society, we consistently oppose governments which are based upon fundamentalist religious views. We fight these types of government to typically be highly repressive and devoid of human rights concerns. If, however, we were to all vote based solely upon religious beliefs similar to the ones I received in my phone call, would we not run the exact same risk for our own government? I am finding this thinking to be increasingly prevalent in our own community lately. As a result ,more people are not voting for candidates based upon the “job description” of the political position and the candidate’s ability to fit that job description, but whether or not the candidate “thinks like I do” – regardless of the candidate’s qualifications and positions relevant to the post. That type of attitude only leads to community divisiveness – and “us” or “them” mentality that only leads to political ruin. 

In order to better understand the possible consequences of complete “belief system thinking”, consider the following scenario…

You are applying for a job for which you are highly qualified based upon your education and experience. You sit down for an interview with the employer, expecting to be asked questions relating to your resume and past employment experiences. Instead, the employer only asks you questions relating to your “values”. Later, you discover that you do not get the job. Instead, someone with less qualifications and abilities got the job because they answered those less-than-relevant questions to the employer’s liking. Fortunately, we have laws that protect from this type of discrimination in the workplace, and for good reason. They are there to ensure that truly qualified people are given a fair chance at employment regardless of religious belief. While I clearly understand that employment is different from the electoral process, there is still a great deal of relevance to be found here.

As I stated before, it is important to to include one’s belief systems when voting for a candidate who’s job role may include deciding on issues relating to those beliefs. However, -

• Common sense dictates that you should also temper your beliefs in judging a political candidate to ensure that they have the overall capabilities to govern effectively in the role they are being asked to take;
• Common sense also dictates that you should look carefully at the description of the office or position up for election and ask yourself honestly if your belief system will even come into play.

That second point is what truly disturbs me regarding current voting trends in our community. The last time I checked, the role of a member of the Salem Town Charter Commission will never really address any of these “family value” issues. I could see the asking of such questions as “Are you honest?” or “Are you generally nice to people and concerned about others?”; those values transcend all people and situations and are always relevant. However, those questions were never asked of me in my phone conversation today; I can only assume, therefore, that like any relevant questions to the post, whether I was honest or concerned about others in my community didn’t matter.

Belief systems (be religious, spiritual or otherwise) are intended to aid us in making the right and just decisions in life; they should never control all other thought processes. In the case of politics and electing proper representatives, using only a belief system runs the risk of your choice not representing you or the community as it often forgoes asking the real questions relevant to decision-making. In the end, how we elect those who will represent us in some form or another should be the proper combination of beliefs and common sense.  

One final thought – While the discussion I had this morning concerned me, it in no way will stop me from what I have said from the outset. As voters this Tuesday, you should feel free to have a dialog with any candidate about the Town Charter, your beliefs on the Town Charter and forms of government and any candidate’s relevance or qualifications for that commission post. I am still here for that discussion with you. Let’s keep that discussion relevant, though, to ensure that we pick the right commission members to represent all of Salem, NH both proudly and effectively.

As a result of running for a seat on the Salem, NH Town Charter Committee, I have been giving some thought to our town’s form of government – the “Town Meeting” format. Historically, this form of government is one of the purest forms of democracy. Recently, though, I’ve come to realize that - in the traditional sense, at least – this form of government encounters challenges brought about by changes in a town’s makeup.

Before going any further here, let me make a few points abundantly clear…

1. I absolutely respect the Town Meeting government model in it’s intent. It embodies the spirit of community representation when it is used under the  appropriate circumstances.
2. There is nothing that prevents the spirit of the Town Meeting form of government from continuing in any community and still providing value. It will, however, require modifications from the original structure to be successful.

In order to clarify my feelings on these two points, I will need to elaborate a bit more.

The intent behind the Town Meeting form of government has always been to provide a more direct input by citizens in the decision-making process for a town. By having town meetings, it was the intent of this format to allow all citizens to participate in the process. In essence, the Town Meeting is intended (much like other election processes) to deliberate and vote on key issues relating to the town. It was, therefore, an extension of the concept of representative government, with the citizens themselves becoming direct representatives.

The Town Government format harkens back to times when -

• The town itself was smaller in population. This allowed for the actual town meeting to take place in a single gathering place with the expectation of all citizens attending and participating in the process.
• The town population base cold easily attend meetings. The town meeting format harkens back to a day when most citizens both lived and worked in their community, with little restriction on travel and availability. This would ensure as high an attendance for the meeting as was possible.

For some communities in our state (and our country in general), these two factors still exist. For them, the Town Meeting form of government in it’s strictest sense could therefore be effective. However, changes in our society have made these two prerequisites for the Town Meeting format come under scrutiny.

Salem, NH now has a resident population approaching 30,000. If a town deliberative session were held today and even 10% of the population attended, it would be difficult (at best) to hold a single meeting in a single location and accommodate all of the attendees. Of course, this has not been an issue up to this point.  This leads me to the second change in our town’s makeup – the ability to attend meetings.

The original spirit of the Town Meeting form of government assumed there would be little difficulty for a citizen attending a meeting. Today’s society, however, is far different than the the society of even 50 years prior. Differing work schedules and work locations make for challenges. Work and personal obligations now dominate many schedules, making attendance a challenge. I don’t think this should serve as an excuse for community participation, mind you; it is a modern-day reality, though. The result, when combined with increased resident population, is a decline in the number of citizens who actually do participate in the deliberative process. This is where the potential lies for the Town Meeting form of government to go awry.

Remember that, regardless of the type of government used, an overriding goal of democratic process is representative government. It is why we have elections and elected officials. In addition to those elected to office serving as the voice of their constituency, these same people are accountable for their actions as the elected representative. If we do not like what an elected official is doing, we vote them out of office. If we feel the situation is dire, we have processes for more immediate action. The Town Meeting form of government, and more importantly the deliberative session, runs the risk of working in complete contrast to the representative government principle.

At a deliberative  session, those in attendance were not elected in any way. They also have no accountability for their actions to any constituency. Yet they are afforded the same power as an elected body in that they can determine what can or cannot be presented to the voting population at large. When only 30, or even 600, out of a voter base of nearly 20,000 are able to control control and potentially manipulate what does or does not get to be voted upon by all citizens, then the spirit of the Town Meeting form of government risks being corrupted. While some may argue that this is similar to government today, the key differentiator is no accountability. Attendees are not charged with being representative of anyone, and there is no way to hold them accountable to anyone.This is one of the cold hard realities that the Town Charter Commission must address. As always, there are options.

I believe that in addition to the wholesale move to other forms of government, research should also be performed to determine the legalities and acceptance of modifications to the Town Charter in conjunction with the Town Meeting format. Here are just a couple of options to consider –

1. Can the vote of attendees on warrant articles at a deliberative session be treated similar to the recommendations of committees rather than a “on or off the ballot” vote? In this case, the deliberative session still provides a value for the town population to discuss and debate these articles, but the vote does not deny the general population their right to vote on the article on election day. I am not saying that this is the only solution – I am, however, saying that those elected to the Town Charter Commission need to weigh all of the options here and (most importantly) consider the residents of Salem, NH as a whole when making these decisions.
2. Can there be modifications to the voting process that would require a larger attending base to properly reflect the overall voting population (like a quorum)? If the voting base at a deliberative session has the ability to vote a warrant article on or off the ballot, can there be some sort of threshold for attendance that would better reflect the size of the overall voting population, thereby allowing for some greater chance of diversity in representation at the session and mitigating the chance of control by a small group or individuals.

I am certain there are many more creative possibilities to explore. This is what I would expect the Town Charter Commission to do, and I equally expect all Salem residents to hold those elected officials (including myself hopefully) accountable for. I still am open (and very interested) in hearing what you have to say on the matter as well. What do you think?

I just received word that today’s Eagle-Tribune has an article covering the candidates running for the Salem Town Charter Commission. It is great to see what I hope will be more coverage of both the candidates and the issues surrounding the election. I also was delighted to see a reference to this web site in the article! I hope to see more folks visiting and engaging in the discussion. Thanks go to the Eagle Tribune and reporter Jarret Bencks for the coverage.

I strongly encourage other candidates to consider this website approach to the election. This level of transparency is vital to voters who have a limited amount of time to get to know all of us better and to ask questions. It is this approach that will garner confidence come election day. That confidence, in turn, will be essential for the commission’s acceptance by the community in the long run.

In running for a seat on the Salem NH Town Charter Commission, I have been adamant in stating that the commission members open a maintain a dialog with those who will be most impacted by the commission – the citizens. With a resident population approaching 30,000 and numerous others who have a stake in the process, how do you have such a dialog?

I believe the Town Meeting form of government is in many ways the purest demonstrations of democracy – in spirit. It allows for all eligible members of a community to come together for discussion and debate and directly participate in the decision-making process of a community. This still works well for small communities, where dozens or hundreds of residents makes up the total population. However, how does the traditional Town Meeting format work as numbers grow to thousands, or tens of thousands? This is one of the difficult questions the Town Charter Commission will have to address after the May 19th special election. For Salem, an audience of 600 participants at a Town Meeting only represents a small fraction of the total resident base. When this occurs, the Town Meeting format runs the risk of being a less representative form of government than other structures, if for no other reason than there is no accountability for those voting. Think about it for a moment – those attending the meeting were not elected and are not bound by any legal rule to represent any constituency. If only 100 attend a Town Meeting and all agree on warrant articles that benefit themselves to the detriment of all others (regardless of intent), there is no recourse for the community as a whole. At least with elected officials, there are methods and means of accountability. But I digress…

We live in an age where technology provides us with ample means to communicate, participate and join the discussion. The Internet now provides us with so many ways to engage our friends, relatives and co-workers. There is even the concept of the “online community”, where people of common interest gather to discuss those things that matter. Those discussions can happen both in real time (using instant messaging, web conferencing or Voice over IP) and static forms (email and forums). Most recently, there has been the emergence of “Social Media”; basically, tools that effectively combine technologies to make for a friendlier and effective communication experience.

Recently, a great deal of media coverage has been given to tools like Twitter, MySpace and Facebook. All 3 represent the emergence of social media to the general population. If you do not use one of these tools, ask around. I am certain it would not take long for you to find a relative, friend or co-worker who uses these tools to be a part of the discussion. If these tools and online communities can be used for personal discussions, then why can’t they be used for town discussions as well?

I believe the only way that I or any other candidate for the Salem Town Charter Commission can work towards solutions that meet our communities collective needs is communicate with its citizens. What better way to do this than to take the discussion online? This is why I, from Day One, have asked people to join me here. I want people to get to know me as a candidate, to ask me questions, and to tell me what they think and believe. I want the discussion to be just that – a dialog that is a true reflection of the community and its desires. I want you, the voter, to be able to look at my name on the May 19th ballot and recognize it not only for the unique spelling (not many Sorcinellis in New Hampshire, mind you); I want you to feel that you know me, where I come from and where I stand.

In the coming days and weeks, I will continue to write here regarding the election, the issues and the challenges. I will also encourage you to take part as well. You can make comments to any posting I make simply by clicking on the “Comment” link under the title. You can email me. You can follow me on Twitter if that is your preference. Please do not hesitate to suggest other ways for us to continue the dialog – I am always open to suggestion. And most importantly – feel free to ask questions.

Let’s make this election and subsequent commission the opportunity to take the Town Meeting concept into the 21st century. Let’s communicate in order to better understand our true collective needs. Let’s have a discussion of historic proportions.

How can the Salem Town Charter Commission achieve success? I personally believe it boils down to 3 criteria I like to refer to as “The 3D’s”…

• Diversity.
  Salem, NH has as very diverse population of close to 30.000 residents. There are also commercial interests to consider. The Town Charter Commission will have to make recommendations and/or take actions that will impact some or all of these constituents. If the commission is to be remotely successful, it’s representation should be as diverse as the community itself.
  My greatest concern with the current candidate pool is the potential to be “loaded” with one type of experience base, interest or belief. This type of makeup will only cause preconceived skepticism by the voter base, limiting even the best of intentioned commission members. It also runs the risk of limiting the discussion of ideas and thoughts around our town charter.
  As a voter, you should take time on May 19th (election day) when selecting your candidates. Not only should you look at individuals; you should step back and look at your selections as a whole and ask -
  
  “Will these selections make up a group of people who best reflects all of the interests of our community?”
  
• Decision-Making.
  Without a doubt, the Town Charter Commission will have to make decisions that will not be accepted by all. As the old saying goes, “You can’t please all of the people all of the time.” The members of the Charter Commission will not only have to commit to due diligence and research; they may have to make decisions and come to conclusions that will likely not be popular with all. Even more important is the fact that they may have to come to conclusions that they themselves may not like, but are the best thing for Salem as a whole.
  I entered this race looking to represent the entire resident base of Salem. There are those that I agree with and those that I disagree with. I view my role in this commission to do the research, listen to the discussion and debate and vote for what works best for  the community-at-large. This commission is too important to be used to promote personal gain or the gain of a small group.
  As a voter, I encourage you to look at each candidate, their views and background and ask yourself the question -
  
  “Will this candidate represent my interests? The interests of my neighborhood? The interests of all of Salem?” 
  
• Discussion.
  I have stated before and will continue to state – The issues around the Town Charter require as broad a discussion as is possible. This discussion should occur within the commission, but should also occur outside of the commission. You cannot represent the issues and beliefs of a community if you have not taken the time to hear them. To take this one step further (and quite bluntly) – the discussions of a group of friends or a small group does not equate to the community as a whole.
  
  I was a bit distressed to hear some of my fellow candidates discuss their viewpoints in the first-person and state that this was the reason for running. How can you hope to serve the community when your mindset starts and ends with a community of one?
  
  I will continue to encourage this all-important discussion regarding the town charter to be as inclusive as possible. I want to be a part of this discussion as a resident of Salem. I need to be a participant of this discussion if I am to best represent the interests of Salem as a whole. I challenge all other candidates to be part of this discussion as well. I offer this web site as but one possible forum for a dialog. I am also willing to take the conversation wherever else it needs to go, so long as it is a healthy discussion and is inclusive.
  
  When deciding who you should elect to the Salem Town Charter Commission, I urge you to ask -
  
  “Is this candidate willing to listen to and talk to myself and others in the community with a stake in our future?”

Our special election is less than one month away. Now is the time to think about your choices for the Salem Town Charter. I hope the “3D’s” approach will help you to determine who best represents our town.

Last night, I had the privilege of participating in a live forum introducing the candidates for the Salem Town Charter Commission seats. I would like to thank the Salem Chamber of Commerce for sponsoring the event, as well as Salem Community Television for airing it. Some quick thoughts -

• It was wonderful to get a chance to meet so many of the other candidates, even if only briefly. We sometimes look past the “smaller things” in any given moment. Regardless of what happens for me moving forward, I appreciate the opportunity to get to know more of the people in our community. The chance to meet a group of people who, regardless of their beliefs, are willing to step forward for those beliefs and to help the community is always something to remember.
• It was good to see some diversity in backgrounds and experience from the pool of candidates. I believe this same diversity should also be reflected in the final 9 members of the Town Charter Commission. It is only through this type of diversity that the true interests of all residents and citizens of Salem will be addressed.
• Three minutes of speaking time is never sufficient for delivering a message. This is one of the reasons why I encouraged all listeners to visit this web site. I intended this site to provide the community with a way to get to know me better, and (more importantly) to communicate with me.

I really am looking forward to the dialog surrounding the Town Charter Commission in the coming days and weeks.

Before I decided to run for a seat on the Salem, NH Town Charter Commission (for more information, please refer to some of my other related posts), I had to ask myself a simple yet important question -

“What makes you think you are worthy of a position on this commission?”

After some personal reflection, I came up with some reasons I would like to share. All of these reasons brought me to the conclusion that I should, at the least, present myself as a candidate for a commission seat in the hopes that others town residents might agree and want me to sit on the commission as well. 

• Reason #1: I am passionate about our town and it’s citizens.
  Anyone who knows me knows I tend to be a - well,  “passionate” – person about those things I believe in. When my wife Melissa and I moved to Salem from Andover, MA back in October of 2004, it is because we believed in this community. We believed that it would provide a good foundation for our lives, as well as the lives of our two children.
  Over the course of the last four and a half years, I have not wavered in that belief. I still believe in this town, and I am committed to doing all that I can to help make it better.
  
  Mind you, there are times when I have not agree with our decisions or direction as a community. I would expect that of any other individual, however (if we all agreed on everything, why would we need any political system to represent our beliefs?). This has not taken away from overall belief in the great potential our community has to be a great place for all, be it residents or businesses, children or adults, elected officials or citizens. It is this passion that helped drive me to run for the Town Charter Commission seat, and it is this passion that will also help in representing the interests of Salem as a whole when serving on the commission.
  
• Reason #2: I have some unique perspectives.
  As I have frequently stated in the past, I think that a commission such as the Town Charter Commission should have a makeup that represents the diversity of interests within the community. Representatives of current government, resident base, business interests, etc should all play a role in determining the future of our town government. That being said, I believe I provide some unique perspectives that would serve the interests of the commission and our town -
  
  - While I am a resident of our town, I am not a lifelong resident. I have had the great opportunity to live in several places in my lifetime. Those residences exposed me as both a citizen and a businessman to differing types of town and city government. My time in Florida exposed me to a “Strong Mayor” system and powerful county governments. My time in New England has exposed me to a “Town Meeting” structure. In both cases, I have personally witnessed and been affected by the pros and cons of each form of government, and it is these life experiences that can serve to aid in providing some perspective to the decision-making process.
  - I have had the opportunity to travel extensively for business purposes throughout our country.While this might seem like much for adding perspective, I have had the opportunity to be able come to understand the impacts of town and city government on businesses and individuals where I have no vested interest. As a consultant, I often must spend a great deal of time with my clients and understanding how they do business. These relationships have helped to understand the impacts of government on their professional and personal lives.
  
• Reason #3: My professional skills serve well outside of my profession.
  My career in software development has often been valuable to me outside of workplace. No more relevant example of can be found at the start of any software development project. Commonly known as the “Requirements Phase”, this aspect of software development focuses on gathering all of the requirements for the creation of software from those who will use or be affected by it.
  
  As a software developer, there is no more important rule than the following…
  
  ”Unless you are creating software for you and you alone, you are NOT the user. You are the simply the creator of software meeting the needs of the users.”
  
  As part of the Requirements Phase, it is essential to listen and to document the needs of the user base, be it business requirements, technical requirements or personal preferences. If this is not done, the resulting software (no matter how good it is) runs the risk of meeting the needs of its audience.
  
  If the goal of any government, organization or body is to work effectively for a constituency, it is vital that those who make up that group have the ability to listen to, document and understand the needs of those affected. These skills are obviously not exclusive to any one person, nor should they automatically be presumed to exist in an individual simply because of their job title. If those skills did not exist for me, though, rest assured – there would be no way I could have survived in any successful fashion in my chosen field. I believe that these skills will be essential for this commission if it is to truly achieve its goals.
  
• Reason #4: I believe in “transparency”.
  An oft-used phrase in conjunction with recent politics, I believe that “transparency” in any process is essential in order for the building in confidence of those affected by the process. In an age where technology allows us to provide access to information in so many forms, it is considered a given that those who ask the public for trust and faith will, in turn, provide that same public with access to information in support of that trust. I write to you today from my personal blog, an example of just such a form of transparency.
  
  I have long believed in tools like blogs and other emerging social media tools (Twitter and  Facebook are but two examples) as a way to provide insight into what individuals are thinking. What easier way to get to know anyone who you are imparting trust in than to learn about them using these tools? I also believe these same tools provide a way to provide a dialog rather than just a monologue. Take a look at this web site. You will see that you have the ability to comment on any individual post I make. You also have the ability to contact me from a Contact page. What better way to ask questions of me in helping you to determine whether or not I am the right candidate for the Town Charter Commission.
  
  I have been living in this world of transparency for quite some time now. My commitment is to continue to do it, both leading up to the May town elections and beyond. I cannot think of a better way to have an ongoing conversation about the Town Charter and what matters most to the community.

I am certain that I could come up with even more reasons as to why I think I am qualified for the Town Charter Commission. I will leave that for another day and another posting, however. IN the meantime, please feel free to contact me. I’ll be waiting… :-)