More focus on crucial town business, less on global social justice

Editor’s note: In addition to running his two businesses and writing news and commentary for the Vermont Daily Chronicle, the author announces today he’s running for local office. Like Arlington resident and VDC commentary writer Joe Gervais, he wants to make positive change happen as a local leader. 

by Aaron Warner

Politics has gotten ugly of late, although one might say it’s long been that way.  At the local level there is hope among neighbors in a movement toward simplicity of function rather than polarity and bickering.  This seems to be the necessary agenda for the town of Hartford that has seen a beleaguered Selectboard over the past decade. 

The current board has three seats up for grabs, two two-year seats and one three-year seat.  Leaving the three-year seat is former board chair Dan Fraser, heir to the Dan ‘n’ Whit’s store in Norwich.  Ally Tufinkjian is leaving a two-year seat and board member Rocket is running against three others in town for his two-year seat.  I am one of the three alongside Brendan Smith and Sue Buckholz.  Patrick Daneher and Ida Griesemer are vying for the three-year seat. 

Among the many issues connected to the board are complaints from former members of bigotry and racism while townsfolk have complained of incompetence and social justice activism from members violating the stated charter function.  It’s possible both are true, however the trend in politics nationally indicates activism centered around racial claims and social justice talking points seeks to seize the means of political power as if this is representative of the voters and their wishes.  In talking with people in town the overwhelming sentiment is staying focused on the business of the town rather than using local politics to move social justice agendas to the front.  

Among the issues people are concerned with in Hartford are taxes, staying within the budget, roads and public safety.  Questions of land use, water mains, road access points and conditions, public safety staffing and general knowledge of the board’s two functions – budget and oversight – were brought up at yesterday’s candidate meeting a the Bugbee Senior Center.  Admittedly I am completely new to this process, however the ongoing focus by activists within the town and on the board to bring in extraneous and unpopular programs like D.E.I. trainings, racial equity committees and promote LGBTQ+ events for children has many in town saying we need to right the ship by getting back to basic town management.  

Seated at the meeting were some fifty or so adults, most of them elderly, looking to do their civic duty by putting the tough questions to the candidates.  “How do you plan to stay within the budget without raising taxes” was the first question given by Carolyn.  The answers, though not easy, included the willingness to cut or exclude some of the items and defer them to a later date.  

A 1% sales option tax, unpopular to many, is also up for vote. Though in principal I am opposed to most taxes and would like to see many repealed, the rub is how do we fund the infrastructure needs, such as new water mains, repaving roads, potentially close the town transfer station and provide resources for the town’s proclivity to attract homeless people while improving the town’s D+ crime rating with an already understaffed police department? 

Here the simplicity of function runs into the complexity of need.  Among the candidates I was the only one open to the 1% tax, reasoning the percentage was negligible given the amount.  I realized quickly this was a highly unpopular position.  In principle I am opposed to the many and frivolous taxes in Vermont.  I oppose the massive red-tape apparatus that slows down necessary projects and development, such as nearly every new job needed some type of expert study, even if a study was done with-in the past five years. 

A good example is the VA cut-off bridge that needed an upgrade to the joints only to see the multi-million dollar project fail in less than two years, necessitating a new bridge currently under construction.  Is the town at fault for bad judgment?  Do we blame the contractors for shoddy work?  Are the materials becoming inferior?  Who can say, really?  Though the workers made money to put back into the economy the town (and state) tossed away millions on a fix that likely only worked to bang up peoples vehicles more thanks to the daily bumpy ride over the bridge.  What’s the actual cost at that point?  Again, it’s up for debate. 

Sitting on the hot seat I began to realize why volunteering for the Selectboard is not attractive to the best and brightest in town.  It is a thankless job inundated with need and complaints with virtually no hope of making everyone happy despite the natural human desire to do exactly that.  Government administration jobs need people who can be efficient, calculating and strategic with an eye toward public safety and general town health more than people wanting to be everything to everyone and championing the causes of a few squeaky wheels who are likely to keep squeaking no matter how much grease you give them.  

Though my initial diffident regard for politics was warranted, the role of government, local and otherwise, is a necessary good that can feel like a necessary evil in the hands of those who use it for their own political agendas.  “Don’t get mad get elected” is the slogan of the activist class who see’s government as the means of re-producing social changes for minorities rather than honoring it’s simpler role of serving the needs of everyone, minorities included.  

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next three weeks leading up to the election and the conversations and positions that take shape as the town looks to decide in which direction they want to go.  It’s obvious the preference of those at the senior center want responsible, accountable and knowledgeable volunteers to inhabit the roles.  Will they also be happy with members who, once voted in, are also forced to tell them “no” we can’t, or will the town continue to look for candidates who over-promise and under-deliver in favor of satisfying pet concerns and feel-good agendas like social justice initiatives?  

We’ll find out this March 5^th.