To the editor:
In Wednesday's issue of the Gloucester Daily Times, Rockport is granted attention on Page 1 in an article describing how our Board of Selectmen finally came to a decision concerning which drivers in town may utilize the former Granite Bank building parking lot, and when they may do so.
Unable to reach a decision, with discussion on a motion ending in a 2-2 tie, the Board resorted to the "Rule of Necessity," an action permitting the return of Ms. Fleming to the debate.
Ms. Fleming had recused herself from the discussion, as a member of the Parish of St. Mary's, granted temporary access to the lot on Sundays.
How the board came the usage of the rule has to be questionable.
The Rule of Necessity is not a parliamentary action. It is created for use within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as set forth by the state Ethics Commission, Advisory 05-05.
For the sake of clarity, it is necessary to quote directly from the Advisory in the following two (2) paragraphs:
"The Rule of Necessity is not a law written and passed by the Legislature. The Rule of Necessity was developed by judges who applied it in their court decisions. The Rule of Necessity may only be used as a last resort.
"We strongly suggest that the rule be used only upon written advice from town or city counsel, since improper use of the rule could result in a violation of the conflict of interest law,"
And, "Example: A five-member board has a meeting and all five members are present. One member has a conflict and is disqualified. The vote is a 2-2 tie. The Rule of Necessity may not be used to break the tie. In general, a tie vote defeats the motion. Stated differently, a tie vote will maintain the status quo."
But, since I doubt Koppelman & Paige had any input to our board's action, I suggest the motion granting "general" access to the lot, be declared null and void.
If the same outcome resulted involving a motion for resident only parking on the lot, this board has a problem.
A review of other Board actions illustrates the action of a tie vote, resulting in dead motions.
If this board — which wasted weeks in the debate of the display law primarily affecting Bearskin Neck — can dawdle over who and when we can park on the bank site, and we are headed into a Fall Town Meeting without complete warrant information, I suggest something is seriously wrong.
This is not to say that my "take" on the above is correct, but who, in this particular meeting, took it upon themselves to interpret the usage of the Rule of Necessity?
It is well known I am often wrong, but never in doubt. But in this case, I'm a simple citizen seeking clarification.
HERB WESCOTT
Rockport
