Within the realm of local political drama, there have been few events that have caused a degree of surprise like Mr. [Bourne Planning Board member Elmer I.] Clegg’s lawsuit against the elected board of which he is a member.
With no reason to doubt Mr. [Bourne Enterprise reporter Michael J.] Rausch’s accuracy of description [in “Mr. Clegg Sues Bourne Planning Board, Local Developer” last Friday, May 15], it sounds like that because of a “continuance” of a “public hearing” as an agenda item should not be allowed because the cancellation of a previous meeting did not allow a previous public hearing to begin and therefore cannot be continued. Pretty thin, Mr. Clegg.
While I do agree that all public hearings by all town committees and boards are not adequately or appropriately advertised generally, it seems to me that the “continuance” of the “agenda item” as advertised was reasonable.
Having said that, it remains obvious to me that no public hearings should be conducted via Zoom as quasi-legal proceedings deserve a better level of communication impossible to achieve via the internet in my view.
Residents of Bourne can only fantasize that an identical level of concern with transparency, public participation, proper advertising on the agenda be exhibited when the planning board begins its inevitable zoning bylaw construction for the drug seller Haven Center. This fantasy will include the truth of motive for such a zoning bylaw that will say that it will provide the basis for the legal nullification of the recreational marijuana ban by the signing of the Host Community Agreement that specifies “grandfathering.”
Rejection of duplicity could be the first step in transparency.
Don C. Hayward