To the Editor:

I virtually attended the January 22 public meeting of Princeton Council and like many others asked the question of the evening: Why not wait a month or so to formally assess the proposed ordinance and gain input from the town? [“Council Approves Consolidation of Board, Commissions,” January 24, page 1.]

In reply, our elected officials diverted the discussion by rationalizing and insisting on an immediate vote — protesting that their only mistake was a glitch in the “roll out”; that Princeton had a reputation for talking too much and not acting (I would think that particular cliché referred to the town governance rather than the people in general); and, critically, that “the situation” — apparently a vast complex of coordination and communication problems inhibiting Princeton’s ability to help its people — was so dire that something had to be done immediately.

No one on the Council attempted to shed light on the relationship of the responsibilities of the salaried town managers, who presumably are assigned much of this work, to the activities of the volunteer committee members being dismissed by the ordinance. 

A related sideshow around these real issues of public concern made much of vaguely described inefficiencies. The ordinance’s original goal of trimming three groups to one — 29 people to nine — suggested that less volunteers increases efficiency, or, that volunteers themselves “waste” the time of town officials. Town managerial staff did not officially speak — when one did he was told by a Council member he had made a mistake — but difficulties in their and Council members’ personal time management might comprise a flip side of any “waste.”

The more important issue in some ways was the development of the proposal behind closed doors, particularly without consulting any members of the groups being discussed. Criticism of this practice directed at town Council members began two weeks before at the “roll out” (ironically that term usually means “finished product”), and continued during the meeting. These legitimate expressions of disappointment and anger at the ordinance being developed during months of secret meetings upset Council members so much that they exhibited a stunning array of diversionary and defensive posturing, merely adding to the ill will.

From where I watched most on display was an aversion — or perhaps a true inability — of our elected Council members to take responsibility for their own deficiencies regarding the efficient and effective management of our town.

Jane Sloan
Leigh Avenue