I WISH YOU COULD HAVE BEEN THERE
A Personal Take on the First Meeting of the Advisory Council Updating the Town Plan on Public Safety
The Advisory Council (Peter Berger, Linda Blodgett, and Peter Veysey; absent Don Eatmon) met on Monday February 22 at 6 pm
in the Town Office. Ed Bove, Executive Director of the Rutland Regional Planning Commission (RRPC), chaired the meeting.
Nicole Griffin sat at the table as the recorder.
(LPCTV was not present, apparently having been advised by a town official not to come. If this is true, it would appear to violate
the provisions of the Open Meeting Law.)
In the audience were: the chair and one member of the Select Board; the chair and one member (also a member of the Fire
Department) of the Planning Commission; the town’s representatives to the regional Planning and Transportation commissions;
members of the Mount Holly Fire Department, led by Chief Keith Hawkins; members of the Mount Holly Rescue Squad, led by
Chief, Karen Veysey; the town constable Paul Faenza; the newly appointed coordinator of Emergency Management, Jason
Griffin; and about ten additional members of the public.
After limited introductions, and no reference to minutes from the previous meeting, a set of 15 questions prepared by the
Advisory Council and Ed Bove was handed out (see attached). This was the first time that the public and the town’s Public
Safety services had seen the questions. (The questions were basically the agenda for the meeting, and as such, should have
been posted as required by the Open Meeting Law.) About half-way into the meeting, both Fire and Rescue expressed some
frustration that their responses would have been more complete had they had time before the meeting to review the questions
and also to obtain input for all their members. They were invited to send more information to Ed Bove; but they were not
invited to a future public meeting when they would be better prepared.
Generally, in answer to the questions, the safety officials believed that their buildings and equipment were sufficient for the
job. Some private drives and roads are impassable or dangerous, but property owners and agents are aware of the problem.
The increase in drug use in town and the danger presented to emergency workers were noted. No significant changes in town
population or buildings are anticipated and Bill McGrath, chair of the Mount Holly Planning Commission and former director of
Rutland Economic Development Corporation, stated that Mount Holly was particularly unsuited for any industrial development
- or any operation with more than 10 employees - due to Mount Holly’s limited septic capacity and insufficient water supply.
I wish that all town residents and property owners could have the chance to hear and see our Fire and Rescue volunteers
describe their work: the 350 to 400 hours spent in basic training; the loss of work time to respond to calls; the lack of employer
understanding; the increasing work load as it becomes harder and harder to attract volunteers; the burnout rate, and the
depressing prospects for the services they have put their hearts into. I was moved by their devotion to serve the citizens of our
town.
Despite their dedication and expertise, it became clear that Fire and Rescue have no way to describe how well they reach their
goal of excellent services. “We do the best with what we have”. There is no data showing that the department or squad are
providing – or need to provide - services at a rate equal to or better than others serving similar communities. Therefore the
Town, which has ultimate responsibility for public safety, has no performance measures to inform taxpayers of the quality of
the services they are paying for. (Mount Holly is not alone: the Town of Hartford has described its process of correcting this
problem: http://www.oregon.gov/osp/SFM/docs/data_services/creating_soc_for_fire_incidents_usfa_2002.pdf
In 2009 the National Fire Protection Association published Fire (and Rescue) Service Measures
http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/the-fire-service/administration/fire-service-performance-measures)
My response to this first meeting to upgrade the Town Plan is that there was good conversation back and forth between the
Advisory Council and public. However, I thought that expecting informed discussion from the public safety officials and the
public based on questions distributed at the beginning of the meeting was unlikely, and I supposed that the deficit was
probably the result of insufficient time to prepare for the meeting. I suppose that insufficient preparation time must also be the
reason for RRPC’s lack of reference to the bedrock of planning: goals, performance standards, and measurements.
Indeed, I feel a general sense of rushing may be compromising this important planning work. The Town Plan is not due until
2018. The newly appointed Advisory Council has no town planning experience and needs time to understand the planning
process, to review past plans, ordinances, state intent and statutes, and the roles of various town officials. The Town has not
been explicit in defining problems it wants addressed. Subjects as complex as the status and governance of education and the
needs of at least 12 community organizations are each given only one hour to be discussed in detail by the representative
agencies and the public. RRPC has assumed the job of compiling new information related to the subject areas under discussion:
updating maps, reviewing new State and Federal laws and programs, and finding examples from other towns’ plans that could
provide examples for the Advisory Council. This must be challenging for Mr. Bove to do when he directs a large organization
responsible for the 7 towns of Rutland County.
Annette Lynch
Annette Lynch
