To the editor:

The Rockport Council on Aging has been exploited by the Town of Rockport so as to arrive at a decision that should have been made at least a decade ago.

I refer, of course, to the recent Town Meeting that determined the course of action required to renovate the Community House. It causes me distress to think that I inadvertently served as a dupe in propelling the Community House question to the fore of Fall Town Meeting. Through observation and research, I have concluded that the property renovation was in hand before Town Meeting, and the warrant article for purchase of the Granite Savings Bank building was dead on arrival.

Much has been said about the Community House having a priority with the Building Study Committee for something like 11 years. This committee was inaugurated in 2000, with a membership of the three and with Peter Beacham as chairman.

There is no reported action in Town Reports for 2001 and 2002, and one Town Report makes no mention of the committee at all. In 2005, the Senior Center notified selectmen that it was outgrowing its quarters and needed attention. Selectmen referred the question to the Building Study Committee, and, off it went.

Action was taken in 1929 to create the House as worthy of inclusion on an historical register. Yet, there is no indication anywhere that public funds were expended on the building until 1955. What improvements needed during this period had been covered by organizations that utilized the building. But, in 2005, it was determined that the building had all but sunk, and several of the town's incestuous committees determined a renovation was needed almost immediately, and the cause for action was relief for the Senior Citizens' Center. Nowhere do I find public funds being used critically in repair of the building before this.

As for revenue? Rockport has passed several years without increases in tax levies, living within Proposition 21âÑ2. But with the adoption of a Community Preservation Act, and participation at the highest potential levy, what better way to proceed than to use funds accrued by this act to undertake a rebuilding of the Community House?

Unfortunately, along the way, the Council on Aging was pitted against all other users of the facility in terms of which organization would be king of the jungle.

Enter a newcomer to town who made a new senior center a primary, near personal goal. The gentleman had other concepts for improving Rockport, including a major program for open space and recreational development. Perhaps by personalizing the issue of a Senior Center, and with the availability of a soon to be vacant bank building, inadvertently, the Council on Aging became a municipal goat, with a near violent Fall Town Meeting in 2008 that most thought put the issue to bed.

Not so. The issue smoldered all through 2009. Read, if you can stand it, various committee reports available on the Town Web site. The Community House was going to be reborn, it was going to be a place for senior citizens, come hell or high water.

We then came to Fall Town Meeting with two warrant articles dealing with a similar subject; renovation of the Community House; or purchase of the bank building. One article sponsored by selectmen; one an article by petition; either of which, if passed, would require a major involvement of Community Preservation Act funds. The town version was Article D8; the petition article was Article I.

I had reviewed bylaws and parliamentary procedures in an effort to combine the two articles in one major discussion, removed from the normal lottery practice. I should have known to shut up when the moderator addressed me with the comment that he indeed had the same concept. There was much back-and-forth about which Article I intended for initial disposition. I held to D8, simply based on the alpha arrangement of the warrant. When I moved for the consolidated action, it was near stunning to see it pass.

Had I had access to the minutes of the selectmen for the meeting immediately prior to the town assembly, I would probably have not ventured forth. As I read them now, this group, plus town counsel, were far from comfortable with the potential unfolding of these issues, and the meeting included an interim moderator for this particular action.

The crux of the matter: Depending on which article got which vote, that would determine how much of the CPA funds would be required directly from the pot, and how much would have to be borrowed against the CPA to make either project whole. And it was apparent from the get-go that the petitioned article was doomed.

As the motion went down to defeat, the house was ripe for closure, and the petitioner was urged to come forward and make his case, a challenge he refused — as he should have. Again, reading from various committee minutes — Finance, Capital Improvements, the inner shrine, if you will, among others — had made it clear heading into Sept. 14 that there was really only one acceptable approach to a senior center, and it was the Community House. There would be no room for acquisition of the bank building.

So we will renovate a building which should have always been a work in progress. The seniors can either use it, or go fish; but our deliberators and deliverers achieved a major retrograde, without increasing taxes.

I believe the Council on Aging deserved a better shake; I have sat through past selectmen's meetings where this committee was virtually instructed to get in line over the Community House.

I did not attend the closing session of Fall Town Meeting, because it was clear that everything else to be resolved would fall in line. I ventured an opinion well before the second session that the article requesting permanent assignment of the Open Space and Recreation Committee would be defeated. You see the same protagonist for this committee, once viewed as the second coming, was the author of Article I, the proposal to acquire the bank building.

The "Select Rockport" has no need for anyone who dares think outside the box.

My comments here are not an endorsement of one creative individual. I was convinced then and now that both articles were flawed; the only winners would be those who view themselves as those who really know what is best for Rockport.

Herb Wescott

Rockport