Yesterday’s article on the defunding of the Nottingham Community Newsletter received some important comments and caused one Budget Committee member to email me.
This isn't the first time information presented here was incomplete or had a definite spin. If a blogger is going to present information it should at the very least be accurate. I'm glad Charlotte and Owen clarified this information for the town.
I'm glad you posted the additional comments you've received in response to your article on defunding the Newsletter, as I think there were a couple of important points that were made by Charlotte and Owen. To your question of whether or not the warrant article should continue indefinitely or if a new one asking if the funding should continue or not seems like a moot point to me.
When a point about something wasn't covered specifically in a military directive, we were taught to think about what the spirit and intent of that directive or regulation was or in other words, is something more likely than not to be the case being considered. That warrant article that you researched and posted, doesn't say that it's meant to be an on-going process and I don't think it was intended to be or it would be written differently, as in this warrant article will not lapse until the voters present a new warrant article asking if the town wishes to discontinue warrant article 20 passed in 1999. If that wasn't true then or isn't true now, imagine all the warrant articles that have been passed in the intervening 24 that we should still be funding because they haven't been specifically ended by a new vote! Nope--that warrant article had reached the end of its life cycle a couple decades back. IMO.
And that’s just what it is , your opinion. Others may agree or disagree but that doesn’t answer the question legally or ethically or solve the problem of whether and how the only printed source of important information about our town is going to continue to be democratically distributed to its residents as originally intended.
This isn't the first time information presented here was incomplete or had a definite spin. If a blogger is going to present information it should at the very least be accurate. I'm glad Charlotte and Owen clarified this information for the town.
I'm glad you posted the additional comments you've received in response to your article on defunding the Newsletter, as I think there were a couple of important points that were made by Charlotte and Owen. To your question of whether or not the warrant article should continue indefinitely or if a new one asking if the funding should continue or not seems like a moot point to me.
When a point about something wasn't covered specifically in a military directive, we were taught to think about what the spirit and intent of that directive or regulation was or in other words, is something more likely than not to be the case being considered. That warrant article that you researched and posted, doesn't say that it's meant to be an on-going process and I don't think it was intended to be or it would be written differently, as in this warrant article will not lapse until the voters present a new warrant article asking if the town wishes to discontinue warrant article 20 passed in 1999. If that wasn't true then or isn't true now, imagine all the warrant articles that have been passed in the intervening 24 that we should still be funding because they haven't been specifically ended by a new vote! Nope--that warrant article had reached the end of its life cycle a couple decades back. IMO.
And that’s just what it is , your opinion. Others may agree or disagree but that doesn’t answer the question legally or ethically or solve the problem of whether and how the only printed source of important information about our town is going to continue to be democratically distributed to its residents as originally intended.
I agree Sandy that warrant article has reached the end of its life cycle.