I think your post illustrates the issue with clarity.

I hope this forum attracts well-stated opposing viewpoints too.

Am I the only one who thinks the Town Manager should not be formulating a policy to solve this problem because 1) it is not his job to make policy and 2) his track record of deciding issues on the merit is suspect?

Your focus on the policy is precisely on point. I admire it.

I’m frustrated with town government that writes press releases on a new policy before he new policy is decided - voted upon by the duly elected Select Board. What is going on behind closed doors when only some but not all of the elected representatives are present? What makes this cabal think they are authorized to conduct government in the dark? A little more sunshine please!

What's this about a celebration of baseball? I mean it is the American past time and all, but it's far from perfect. What about the steroid era, for example? How can you celebrate a sport that is so obviously tainted? What kind of example are you trying to set for our kids? And then there's the astronomical salaries these players get paid; leading to ticket prices that the average family can't even afford. And what about the designated hitter rule? That took the purity right out of the game as far as I’m concerned. And don't get me started on interleague play. Whose invention was that anyway? My point is, there may be a lot in baseball that is worth celebrating, but lets not let that cloud the ugly realities; not even for one blessed day of the year.

I guess the person who made the last comment, missed the point. I am on the parade committee, and your Town Manager talks out of both sides of his mouth. This is a celebration,not a protest and it is by invitation, only. Sort of like me inviting people to my house my party and expecting them to act in a Lady and Gentlemanly manner. Don't they get it? We have rights, too. I was born in this town 66 years ago and I have never seen such child acting people on the Selectboard ,
as there have been in the past seven years. It's their way, or no way.

Thank you, and good luck dealing with Mr(ha ha) Weiss

Is the baseball parade using Town Resources - e.g. fire and police trucks? If not, then fine. If so - why should Town Money be spent on your special interests?

And apart from finances - is it proper for police/firefighters in uniform to even appear in your private parade?

Oh, but we can have a Pot Festival that attracts thousands to town center (some of them underage kids lighting up in public) requiring extra police--all at taxpayer expense.

Did Marcy read and understand the word "suppose" in "when a parade becomes a circus " article and then use her imagination and apply the principals behind the current 2008 4th July parade committee? Then think of this llustation's dual meaning for a fictional ( but maybe in amherst a reality parade) for Baseball. Is it possible your understanding of the baseball parade comparison came to you as an epiphany during the recent Pot festival.

Marcy is correct - she is extending the analogy. In Amherst a parade celebrating baseball would have to include every point of view.

Fire/police personnel on marching on their own time so, it is appropriate for them to be in a private parade. Just they could have a farm stand in the farmers market on a town street.

Besides, what would be more appropriate than police/fire personnel marching in a parade that is being held to thank them?

If it's a private parade then the hosts and participants should provide their own vehicles and floats or raise the funds to pay for the use of town vehicles that participate in the parade (not those that are there to maintain safety and order). Other than that all this seems like a tempest in a teapot.

Personally, I don't get the appeal of parades anyway. Never did. Same with musicals. One person's joy is another's torture. I just don't get it...

They did raise the funds for the rest of the parade. Most NORMAL towns are happy to have their public servants honored. Other towns send their police/fire without charging. Like the organizers stated, "its for the kids" and even though you may not enjoy it, the kids love it.

This whole topic is a fascinating lesson in how each of us individually interprets the same thing.

To some (not included in these comments,) this piece was inappropriate sarcasm. To me, it was an attempt to create a non-emotional analogy in order to test the logic and rationale of the Town’s action, and to illustrate why I believe it failed that test.

To some, Marcy’s comment was criticism of a baseball parade. To others (me included,) it was furthering not only my analogy and logic test, but using baseball as an analogy for the country and how we can appreciate and celebrate it despite its imperfections. I’m sure there are plenty of other interpretations to be had there.

To some, the parade itself is about the Fourth of July and the founding of the nation and its core liberties, and hence, to them it seems hypocritical for the parade committee to try to restrict some speech or participants. To the parade committee, the parade is, as I understand it, about honoring police/fire/ambulance personnel and military personnel past and present.

As I hope I have made clear, I don’t believe this or any other private group should be compelled to accommodate the expression of views it considers inconsistent with its parade theme within its own parade. Period. I don’t think a peace parade should have to include military recruiters, I don’t think a bicycle parade should have to include trucks. I believe there is plenty of opportunity for every group to have its own parade, and plenty of public property around the edges of the parade route to accommodate other viewpoints.

I also think the parade committee would do well to appreciate that its parade is not held in a vacuum: it is held in Amherst, on the Fourth of July. Neither of those factors is insignificant. This is a town with a certain flavor, and a holiday with a lot of symbolism and resonance. If you want a parade that this community can rally around, you need to consider the sensibilities of the whole community. It is impossible to please everyone of course; even with maximum inclusivity, some people would be incensed by any show of appreciation for police or military, while others would be incensed by protest messages. But I dare say that most of us would embrace (or tolerate) both, and be either amused or delighted with the juxtaposition.

There is much to criticize in the handling of this situation. I think that the Town has been reactionary, heavy-handed and opaque, and I think the parade folks have focused too much on their legal rights and not enough on their public relations.

As we say in my house: “So how’s that working for you?”

The Town Manager thinks he’s solved the problem by taking over the parade, when in fact, he has just created a host of new problems. The parade committee, at this point, has lost the ability to honor emergency and military personnel on the Fourth of July as of next year. One or both entities may well end up having parades on the same or different days that are either so controversial or so lame that no one wants to watch.

There has to be another way to have this conversation.

Let’s take a deep breath, start over and find a way to make this work.

Well you could start by reigning in the Lone Ranger Town Manager.

History is relevant. It was not so long ago that Amherst did not have an Independence Day parade. In believe there was a period of approximately two decades during which Amherst did not have July 4 parade. A group of motivated private citizens formed a committee and revived the tradition of Amherst’s Independence Day Parade. It was their vision that the parade would celebrate Independence Day and the service of police, firemen and veterans. It was also their vision that the parade would not become a vehicle for protesting one’s favorite cause; instead it would be a celebration.

The people in Amherst who feel that their right to “free speech” more specifically their right to “protest in the Independence Day Parade” have no respect for the initiative taken by the Parade Committee and their mission, nor enough initiative of their own to organize their own protest parade. Instead they see it as their right use town government to compel their vision of what purpose this parade should accommodate.

What I find most objectionable is that the town manager would write a press release about a new policy in advance of the Select Board’s debate of the issue.

There are five elected select board members to whom voters give consent to collectively make policy and spending decisions. The town manager is not one of them. He is not elected and he does not have consent of the people to make policy on our behalf.

The town manager’s job is to implement policy. But the town manager did not act solely on his initiative. He felt so empowered by having conversations about the issue with some but not all of the Select Board members. This kind of backroom political process must end. By the time the issue was raised formally the Select Board, the responsibility and of the Select Board had been subverted by Shaffer and probably Weiss.

The town ran the Fireworks for generations but about 15 years ago the Grinch Finance Committee very late in the process cut the $4,000 budget line item.

I formed a private committee and we raised the money and made it happen. I turned over the extra $2,000 or so to the Chamber of Commerce and they ran it for another two or three years and then gave it back to the town’s LSSE Empire.

My cousin and former Select Board member Sheriff Bob Garvey (whose wife Jane Garvey was FAA Chief on THAT awful morning) was Grand Marshall for the last town Parade on the Bicentennial in 1976.

As I live and breathe, Amherst WILL HAVE a NORMAL American Parade on July 4, 2009. If the Cabal wants to have their own Protest Parade, then that’s great. Competition is what America is all about. And when products compete--they get better!

To follow on Stephanie's analogy using the Red Sox as the parade theme, would town employees involved in maintaining baseball fields participate in the parade, riding their lawn mowers and being paid for it? Would the town be obliged to "donate" town employees and their gear for every parade that is proposed? I have no problem with Larry's parade- I am an equal opportunity paradophobe- I just don't want my taxes paying a cent of it.

If none of my taxes are paying for the parade (other than safety issues) then my objections disappear. After all, I am free not to go to it.

Hey Abbie: Sleep tight my dear; none of your precious taxes are paying for the parade.

It looks like the sarcasm in my previous post was mistaken as nothing more than good old Amherst-style dissenting opinion. The point I was trying to make, as Stephanie has attempted to clarify above, is that regardless of how wholesome and deserving a particular cause or type of celebration may seem to be, from a particular vantage point, there is likely to be another vantage point from which that same cause or type of celebration may seem unsavory and worthy of protest. And it seems that here in Amherst we have a very hard time, when dissenting opinions such as these exist, keeping ourselves from "raining" on each other's parades. Or perhaps I should have spelled that "reigning".

I think, despite the seriousness of the issues underlying this debate, that we have gotten ourselves foolishly entrenched in positions that are unnecessarily self righteous and polarizing. Patriotism, in my opinion, can and should be able to withstand, and even honor the existence of dissent. And similarly, those with dissenting opinions can and should, to the degree that they believe in both the founding principles of our nation and our capacity to work towards realizing them, be able to honor and embrace patriotism. But what folks on extreme ends of this debate can't seem to tolerate is that it’s O.K. for different “brands” of patriotism to exist; without one necessarily threatening the other. Though the intent behind it may be different, I think that the town
take-over of the parade serves only to reinforce that notion. And that, in my opinion, is unfortunate.

Sorry, I forgot to sign my comment above.
Marcy

Wouldn't it be fair to let the police and fire decide on their own if they are interested in participating in the parade?

Yes, it should be up to the departments to decide. We have great police and fire departments, here in Amherst. The only problem is the Select Board, and He who speaks with forked tongue, the Town Manager. I am up for honoring good people, not idiots.

Another point I have is, if we are tax payers, do we not own the public ways, also, as private citizens? What are our taxes paying for? I hope it is not to pay the T.M. who cannot make up his mind which way to go when it comes to making a decision.

Well, why does the unelected town manager even THINK it is his job to make POLICY decisions?

The process by which citizens consent to rule is election, in our case to be ruled by five Select Board members, not one town manager and one select board member (you know who you are Gerry Weiss).

Any system whereby the town manager and one Select Board member makes policy prior to the time it is debated and voted by the select board is a subversion of the democratic process and a subversion of your right to VOTE.

How ironic and shameful that Weiss and Shaffer argue about rights of free speech by advancing a policy that was never voted on by the select board. Pot, meet kettle.

Like Stephanie O'Keeffe, I am finding myself part of a "passionate middle" on this issue, feeling disappointed with both sides of the debate for different reasons.

I am, however, seeing this latest controversy as involving something far more profound than just a petty spat between two groups in town. In thinking about this, I find myself wanting to refer back to other people's spoken words, including Mr. Obama's recent use of Lincoln's phrase "in order to form a more perfect Union". I'm also interested in looking again at Mr. Weiss's (to my mind) unfairly criticized speech at last year's Memorial Day proceedings, in which I thought that he availed himself of his freedom to think and speak for himself in a remarkably courageous way.

I haven't got it completely thought out, but we in Amherst perhaps need to ask ourselves, are we still trying to form a more perfect Union?
Maybe we're not any more.

I see a Fourth of July Parade as something unique and different from a public forum that involves free speech issues. I see it rather as a celebration for just a few hours of what I thought still binds us together, that aforementioned striving for a more perfect Union. That is ultimately what all the passionate arguing and debating that we do on the other 364 days is about: that journey together toward that shared goal. In that respect, we as Americans are each part of something far greater than what can be represented by words on a sign.

While absolutely respecting all their hard work and fundraising, I wish that the representatives of the Parade Committee had embraced that aspect of a July Fourth celebration more explicitly, but I wish Mr. Shaffer (and apparently Mr. Weiss) had understood it in those terms, too.

So I'm stuck in the middle.
It just doesn't seem like too much to ask that we celebrate together for a few hours on this small patch of common ground that I've described, and resume the arguing right after the parade.

Per Neil’s and some others’ points: This issue has had lousy process, for sure. But I don’t consider it to be a done deal.

I believe that the most important thing going forward is to focus on constructive ways of achieving a resolution that is reasonably satisfying to both sides. Complaining about how we got to this point is certainly legitimate and there’s plenty to complain about, but I don’t feel that it’s constructive. We could distract ourselves for a long time arguing about things that have already happened, and lose the opportunity to create a better outcome.

Speaking of not constructive, there’s the whole “Boss Hogg/spitting in the eye of the guy who holds your fate in his hands” thing. It is hard to imagine how anyone could think that being obnoxious and antagonistic might possibly help their cause.

Mr. Morse. I could not have said it better, myself, but I do not think that they will ever see it that way.

Stephanie, I do not like the Boss Hog thine either, but he did earn that name at the meeting. I saw the tape and I thought that you did your best, bur Mr. Weiss and his partner in crime had it all wrapped up. I do hope that they are not in office for very long, because this town cannot and will not tolerate the bull crap that is coming from the two of them. Go, Stephanie, and try to make a better Selectboard, that we, the people of Amherst, can be proud of. Help our voice be heard.

Yeah, Stephanie you're W-A-Y too young to remember, but there's a perfect poster from the late 60's-early-70's of a teeny tiny mouse in a field about to be devoured by a screaming hawk streaking from the wild blue younder with beak and talons in full battle mode and the little cornered critter, as its last act on this God's earth, extends the middle finger.

And of course you are also way too young to remember (but I’m sure Dad does) the climax of 1969’s ‘Easy Rider’ where Dennis Hopper is cruising on his Harley with Peter Fonda and some old fart in an ugly farm truck points a freaking shotgun at him from the passenger window just for fun and Hopper responds with the uplifted middle finger (that image too was a best selling poster). BANG!

Anti war, counter-culture maestro Carol King picked up that theme in 1971 singing (in one of the best albums of all time) “You can’t talk to a man with a shotgun in his hand.”

To use another Viet Nam era scenario (or WW2 for that matter as evidenced by the most decorated American soldier of all time, Audie Murphy): the enemy is overrunning base camp and you’re the last man crouching with a radio in hand directly connected to artillery and air support: call in your coordinates!

“Complaining about how we got to this point is certainly legitimate and there’s plenty to complain about, but I don’t feel that it’s constructive.”

There is an argument to be made about what is constructive and what is productive. I agree that the complaint about process may not be a constructive step in resolving the parade issue but I disagree that the complaint is irrelevant to repairing the underlying, fundamental problem that produces results like this repeatedly.

If this process remains status quo - whereby the select board chair and the town manager decide policy apart from some or all of the four other select board members - then Amherst town government will continue to be broken in a way that is unacceptable to people who give their consent to be ruled by five elected select board members, and not the un-elected town manager.

This complaint is pivotal in resolving a fundamental malfunction of Amherst town government. Mr. Weiss is accountable and he will continue to enable Mr Shaffer’s illegitimate policymaking until he is confronted on the issue, understands why it is a subversion of our government process and agrees to rules of due process whereby Select Board vote rules the day and the town manager implements.

That said, I am interested in what process would be a constructive one to put the issue back on the table and allow our democratic process to deliver a result.

I find myself agreeing with both Stephanie and Rich Morse on this. I am waiting for the so called "passionate middle" to finally stand up and say to both sides that we are tired of having fringe elements run our town. Putting that aside before everyone runs off and thinks that if the Select Board voted on this matter that the parade would have been left alone. Weiss and Awad are for the town takeover, Alisa and Stephanie apparently against it (at least in the manner it was done) and that leaves Diana Stein who is a member of one of the groups that began this whole mess, the Amherst Democratic Town Committee, with such august members as Carol Gray and Mary Wentworth. These two certainly not the standard for a rational middle course in anything they deal with.

Mr Phillips, How would the passionate middle decide the issue?

Let me take a shot at that one:
I would suggest that we have a parade with participants who do what has been done for years on the Fourth of July.

You walk in the parade with a big banner that gives the name of your organization.

You smile and wave to the crowd.

For this celebratory occasion, you put away the signs pushing your political views, angry or otherwise.

You revel in the celebration of freedom of speech and all the other American ideals that we argue about for all the rest of the time, when you're not marching.

You join together with your political adversaries and celebrate what little we have in common. You have some faith in the possibility of the free exchange of ideas, that standing there cordially with people you vehemently disagree with, you just might have developed some goodwill on behalf of your deeply held views. Maybe you discover that you have more in common with some folks than you originally thought.

I haven't heard anything from the Parade Committee that suggests that it would
prevent any of the above.

Could we have just one (1) public event that is not a protest march or a forum for the pushing of your political position?

Do we not need one day (call it two hours, if you want) to come together to celebrate America and the ideals that we share, including the imperfect Union that we currently enjoy, worry about, and debate about?

Maybe we don't. Or maybe we just can't be together in this way any more.

If your proposal is mainstream "passionate middle" then count me in, Mr Morse.

Sorry on my previous attribution of "in order to form a more perfect Union": that's the Preamble to the US Constitution, not Abraham Lincoln. (I'm not the first and I won't be the last person to project Abraham Lincoln onto Barak Obama.)

More importantly, Lincoln's obsession with preserving the Union may actually be relevant to this discussion. Does anybody remember why that goal was so important to him? Some aspects of the heritage we share need to stay in focus.

First off, Rich's proposal is exactly how the parade should work.

Lincoln's desire with preserving the Union is phrased as "a house divided cannot stand". In other words, a house/country/town that is constantly working against itself because of different viewpoints cannot survive.

Going off of the "creating a more perfect union" theme, our differences are part of our effort to create a more perfect union. I believe however that as Rich says, the July 4th parade is an excellent time to celebrate what we have in common with each other and take a break and step back from controversy and maybe by doing so we will learn a little more about each other, which will hopefully help us in the future to work towards a common good instead of insisting on our way or the highway.

I agree with Richard and Robert and yet if there is no reconcilable agreement between the Parade Committee and Right To Protest group, why not accommodate both rather than just one or the other?

The day is long enough and our byways ample enough to accommodate the political needs of both parties.

Can we add to Mr. Morse's celebratory vision of a July Fourth Parade that at least most of us, I think, could support, a request of the parade committee to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric coming from some of their spokespeople? It is wrenching, as someone who supports the principles behind their position, to have to sift through the character assassinations taking place, in order to find the actual substance of their argument. Do they not realize how much the hatred they are spewing dilutes the merits of their message? I am trying hard to remain sympathetic, but it is getting increasingly difficult.

Is the Parade Committee an abject denier of Freedom of Speech as they are being pasted in Select Board meetings and in the press by their political opponents including Shaffer, Weiss, Wentworth?

The Parade Committee simply want a parade that is not a protest. Is that a denial of other's rights or a freedom of speech?

Aren't the people who want the right to protest free to organize a parade and must they do it in a way that denies the Parade Committee access to continue theirs? (LSSE files an application last Wednesday before the Select Board meeting to conduct a parade 7/4/09 from 9AM to 5PM. We both know the parade is unlikely to last more than two hours so why the eight hour duration written on the application?)

Speak out about the "character assassinations" taking place on both sides.

Why was the Select Board not in charge of a decision like this?

Good point Neil. Four years ago when the Select Board was cited by the District Attorney's office for violation of the Open Meeting Law Select board Chair Anne Awad had emailed Barry Del Castilho (circulated to a quorum of the board) and directed him to "pull" our permit and then the entire board would make it official later that night in an Open Meeting.

Of course then Town Attorney Alan Seewald advised them not to even think about it because if Town Government even makes the private parade committee "feel threatened" it was a violation of our First Amendment rights, and the town would be liable.

There is a tension in Amherst between people who want to conduct an Independence Day parade without protesters in the parade and people who want to use the Independence Day parade to protest. Both parties feel it is their right, and both parties accuse the other of denying their right to free speech. It is a quintessentially Amherst kerfuffle that requires adroit policymaking skills to resolve.

A private group of Amherst citizens named the Parade Committee have been fund-raising, organizing and conducting the self-financed event for seven years, since 2002. Prior to that, Amherst had no Independence Day parade for twenty-six years.

The town manager Larry Shaffer stepped into the fray decisively but without the benefit of the deliberation of the elected Select Board.

Once again the un-elected town manager is making policy on matters town residents have an interest, while elected representatives - the ones we chose to represent us - are relegated to the sidelines. Questions like these should be put to the Select Board. Mr. Shaffer is not an elected mayor; he is a hired manager. Elections are the process by which we consent to rule: Mr. Shaffer is un-elected.

Mr. Shaffer's decision was made before it was taken up at the 4/23/8 Select Board meeting. There is no deliberative record of the analysis that brought Mr. Shaffer to his decision. From the public record we know, Mr. Shaffer had been unable to convince Parade Committee representatives to accept protest marchers as part of the parade. It is not clear if Shaffer, the Parade Committee or the Protest Group considered alternatives to full accommodation. Alternatives might include an adjunct event such as a protest rally, a second parade directly on the heels of the first, a protest parade on another day, or protest as spectators along the parade route.

Mr. Shaffer decided the Amherst Independence Day parade has an obligation to provide the opportunity to protest in spite of the Parade Committee's purpose.

Mr. Shaffer decided the way to accomplish it was to deny the Parade Committee their 2009 Independence Day Parade application and direct Leisure Services to organize and conduct the 2009 Parade in such a way that two parades on July 4th 2009 day would be ostensibly impossible. The LSSE application indicated the parade will start at 9AM and end at 5PM on July 4th 2009. It is possible that Mr. Shaffer has directed LSSE to file a fraudulent application unless LSSE in fact intends to conduct an eight-hour parade.

If Mr. Shaffer's policy defines the final course of action Amherst town government chooses, then I submit that Amherst is settling for an unsatisfactory result, based on inferior problem-solving skills, and hindered by poor process.

Amherst used to be a fun place to live, until a few CHOSEN, decided to take the town on, without considering the consequences of the "real" town folk, and how much respect they would lose from these people. I, for one, have no respect for Mr. Weiss or Mr. Shaffer. Ms Awad has never had any respect from me for some of the deals that she has pulled during her reign on the Select Board. I have said before, that Mayor does not sound too bad, right about now.
I do think that it is time to get rid of them all, and start over.I would like to keep Stepanie.

As a relentless critic of Mr. Weiss, I can't let the above comment go unchallenged:

Mr. Weiss has been a dedicated student of town government since he came on the SB in 2004. Do you have any idea what kind of hours SB requires?

He was easily the best member of a very bad Select Board, that is, the Board of 2005 and 2006.

He broke with his close political friend Ms. Awad (whom I hold most responsible for ratcheting up the political rancor in town)and decided not to endorse candidates as a SB incumbent, thereby establishing some independence for himself.
He has stuck to his guns on that, even under some heavy pressure to do otherwise this year.
He has been a pretty good SB Chair when it comes to running the meetings and keeping things moving.

He is perhaps the most accessible SB member ever.

He has done at least one ride-along with the Amherst Police, during an era when no other SB member was willing to do one.

He has become a relative moderate on zoning issues, during a period when there has been tremendous pressure from both our NIMBY coalition and people like me who want more economic development in town.

To my observation, he does not hold personal grudges despite the usual flow of criticism that now comes to SB members.

To balance all this praise, my criticisms of Mr. Weiss are archived all over this website. But we need to be fair.

As to Mr. Shaffer, this is a very smart guy who has worked very hard to find revenues and efficiencies in this system. He is a bit of a public relations klutz, especially when it comes to the interests and sensitivities of the meat-and-potatoes, flag and country, "olde Amherst" segment of the population.

But let's be fair about that, too. That segment of the population tends to huddle in the usual places in town, like Kelly's Restaurant and on the Masslive Forum, and bitch under their collective breath about town government. Are they fully represented in Town Meeting or on Select Board or on all the boards and committees in town? Of course not. And whose fault is that?

So if Mr. Shaffer is not hearing from those folks, the blame has to be shared.

I'm sorry, I forgot to sign the last post above.

So, if you are not on town meeting your constitutional rights can be violated? A private parade has the right to control the content of that parade. Period.

You said it Chris! And they are about to find that out.

Chris, you know that's not what I said.

I agree that there's a silent majority in Amherst on a lot of issues. That silent majority would like to have the parade similar or identical to the one that the Parade Committee wants, that is, without the angry protest signs.

But that silent majority has blown off town politics. And, as Larry Kelley and I have demonstrated for years, it is extremely easy to get oneself elected to Town Meeting. The power is there for the taking.

But, to quote the Peter Finch character in the movie "Network", "First, you've got to get mad."

It's time to come back to town government and get involved, and stop muttering in the shadows and the blogosphere. Get off your ass, pick up that Town Meeting nomination sheet after January 1, 2009, sign your name, give it back to the clerk right there, and you're on the ballot. Watch for the LWV mailing asking for your written position statement in the Bulletin pullout section just before the election, send it back with your 50 words of insight, and voila! That's it: you're in the political game. How hard it that?

There is nothing stopping middle-American Amherst from calling the shots in town politics, including on this parade. It's time to quit whining and take back your government.

I agree with your philosophy Mr Morse. If one thinks one has something positive to offer to town government, participate.

In this case however, the policy is being decided by the town manager, there appears to be no recourse in town meeting as far as I know, some but not all of the Select Board members have indicated their interest in reviewing the policy, others have indicated they wish to leave it with the town manager.

When it comes to policy authored by the town manager, whose boss is the Select Board chair, the best way to influence the process is to debate it in public so that the elected Select Board can be influenced by the merit of the argument.

To that end, please offer your feedback on this comment about the 4/28/8 Select Board minutes. I think the current thread here, When a Parade becomes a circus, is the best one in which to continue the discussion.

And as Mr. Morse can verify, last night I publicly asked about the $10,000 required for the town to suddenly "take over" the July 4'th Parade and the Town Manger told Town Meeting in a cocky manner that LSSE would raise the money privately (although they will avoid paying thousands for police labor to close the roads/direct traffic like they did with WinterFest this past February) thus avoiding Town Meeting oversight.

Of course that begs the question about the 250’Th Anniversary Committee coming before Town Meeting later this month to request $25,000 for the Parade in September, 2009: Gee, why not have LSSE simply raise that money privately?

This is why I moved to Belchertown.

A couple of points:

1. The only thing the SB has decided is to hold a longer conversation with the public after Town Meeting ends.And I believe that the entire SB agreed to do this. Despite what appears to be a Weiss/Shaffer decision for the Town to hold a parade, it was entirely a Shaffer decision. The SB has not voted on this matter.

2. Referring to a post by O'Reilly (April 28, 1:26 PM): "if there is no reconcilable agreement between the Parade Committee and Right To Protest group, why not accommodate both rather than just one or the other?

The day is long enough and our byways ample enough to accommodate the political needs of both parties."

I've been thinking the exact same thing, and am glad to see that idea posted here.

3. Let's not forget that we got to this point because of an impasse. The path is not permanently closed; it is still under reconstruction. Dialogue can lead to a satisfactory resolution. I'm willing to wade through these postings to look for suggestions that lead to an unblocking of the path...

Sometimes, you gotta use dynamite for "unblocking the path."

I prefer reason over dynamite.

It was pleased to read Select Board Chair Gerry Weiss comments on this thread. Thank you Mr. Weiss and Ms O’Keefe.

1. The only thing the SB has decided is to hold a longer conversation with the public after Town Meeting ends. And I believe that the entire SB agreed to do this. Despite what appears to be a Weiss/Shaffer decision for the Town to hold a parade, it was entirely a Shaffer decision. The SB has not voted on this matter.

It was not clear from the 4/28 SB meeting notes that the SB had a consensus regarding their role in the matter. It seemed that some but not all members wanted to evaluate. I applaud the SB’s decision to evaluate the policy and help identify a host of solutions so that the best solution can be made policy.

If it is true that the Town Manager reports directly to the SB Chair, then citizens will look to the SB Chair when they’re not satisfied with process, conclusions or policy authored by the Town Manager. Conflict arising from Town Manager’s execution of his job will rightly fall at the feet of the Chair. How much better would it be if the review occurred before the policy was announced?

But I have an even more fundamental problem with this arrangement. Elected town government officials as opposed to hired ones should be responsible for town policies that regulate citizens’ behavior and access to town resources.

Elected officials are our representatives. The Town Manager is not a representative; he is instead a manager and an employee. The process of election is the process by which we consent to be ruled. The Town Manager has not been elected and does not have our consent.

At some point, this issue of governance and the Town Manager’s authority to make town-wide policy as opposed to town government operations policy needs to be taken up by the SB. It is the fundamental reason for Amherst’s two recent least popular policy missteps.

"if there is no reconcilable agreement between the Parade Committee and Right To Protest group, why not accommodate both rather than just one or the other? …The day is long enough and our byways ample enough to accommodate the political needs of both parties." .

I've been thinking the exact same thing, and am glad to see that idea posted here.

That is excellent news because as Chair you may have more influence than just one vote in five.

3. Let's not forget that we got to this point because of an impasse. The path is not permanently closed; it is still under reconstruction. Dialogue can lead to a satisfactory resolution. I'm willing to wade through these postings to look for suggestions that lead to an unblocking of the path...

I applaud your conflict resolution attitude.

I think this impasse exists because Protest Advocates demanded participation the Parade Committee Parade and no other solutions were conceived. The argument about denial of free speech must have seemed so compelling that no one asked them to consider how else their needs could be met. The discussion that may not have ever occurred is the one that starts with the question: What forums on 7/4 would Protest Advocates find satisfactory, are they’re prepared to organize it, what resources they’ll will need from the town?

All negotiation up until this point has been Protest Advocates demands on the Parade Committee taken up by the Town Manager and made official policy - an official policy that recognized protest advocate “denial of free speech claim” but not Parade Committee “right of association” claim.

I’m on board. If I come up with any more ideas, I’ll post them here.

This is a good start. We have some consensus to proceed with reason and dialogue.

With that in mind, I have the following request of the parade committee. You have submitted a permit request for a parade on July 4, 2009, and you are demanding that Larry Shaffer respond to that request immediately, in advance of any more negotiations or conversations. That will put the decision squarely back into Mr. Shaffer's ball park - permitting. Would you be willing to withdraw your application until the SB has taken the matter up in June; or at the very least, stop demanding an immediate reply? That will allow everyone a chance to breath, to listen, to think, to converse.

This is Mr. Weiss at his best. Sometimes we all need time to reflect and to consider what is fair. Despite what some people think, it's not always immediately clear.

The Parade Committee meets tonight at 7:00 PM at the VFW.

I'll mention Mr. Weiss's proposal, or he can show up and present it himself.

This issue is a no-brainer. Fourth of July parades do not include protests in the parade itself. Protests along the route of the parade are perfectly fine and are where they belong. Why is this hard to understand?

You got it Rick!

I planned to go the 7/4 parade meeting this evening at the VFW but got stunningly good news from the People's Republic of China about our new (2'nd) daughter.

Ya think Amherst can handle another Kelley?

Here's an idea:

How about a protest-free Independence Day Parade followed by a protest-rally or visa versa?

The Independence Day protest advocate groups - Amherst Democratic Town Committee, Amherst Republican Town Committee, the Green Party, the League of Women Voters and the anti-war group SAGE - could join together to organize, pull the permit and raise funds to finance it. That way we don’t have town government raising funds to finance a protest parade that citizens may or may not want their town government facilitating. Furthermore, the solution of having the aforementioned groups initiate their own solution, raise their own funds, accomplish their owns goal without terminating the seven-year tradition of a protest-free Independence Day Parade is process parallel to the Parade Committee’s work since 2002.

Best of all, the solution recognizes the protest advocates free speech right to protest and the Parade Committee's free speech right of association.

I like that solution, Neil. That is what we have been saying for five years. But, the Chosen still want to rain on our parade. The audience is much greater for us than it would be for them.
Things will work out if they would just stop being so selfish and fend for themselves.

I agree. A much simpler and more fair solution than using our tax dollars.

The ACLU believes that the way to counter bad speech is with good speech (and some in this town view patriotism as “bad”.)

Having a 'Patriotic Parade' and another 'Protest Parade', each with equal access to town roads and the general public fits perfectly those parameters.
http://blog.masslive.com/kelsey/

Lol @ Amherst!

You can't even fix your potholes or plow your roads.

You are a silly town filled with silly people.

Did you know your town is laughed at all over Massacusetts?

From Kelly to O'Connor and all in between!

me: Knock knock
Matt: Who's there?
me: Smell Mype
Matt: Smell Mype Who

When I think about Independence day parades, I think of a nostalgic ideal. I think of wide-eyed children and togetherness, or community. It represents wonder, innocence and a peaceful thankfulness.

I remember in particular a 4th of July parade in Leicester, Mass. on the bicentennial (1976). I can see in my mind red-white-and-blue streamers in the spokes of bicycles and people sitting on folding chairs on their front lawns.

I love to imagine the 4th of July that way.

Why does everything in Amherst have to be such a big deal. If the super-duper, more-patriotic-than-thou patriots, who believe that dissent is unpatriotic, just let the few people who wanted to participate with protest signs, march, then that would have been the end of it. They could have just ignored them if they wanted. But no...it had to become an issue. If it weren't such a big issue (did anybody get us onto Letterman for this? I can't remember), then nobody could absurdly invoke KKK as a possibility Why on earth would the KKK want to come to little old Amherst if the parade weren't such a contentious issue? Alternatively, if those who demand that they have a right to rain on the "I'm more patriotic than you" parade just let those people have their patriotic parade, and maybe organize their own less-flag-waving parade of their own, then it wouldn't be such a big thing. Free speech, right to assemble, right to keep people out of my parade, etc., etc.,...... all very important issues. But if the people on the fringes of Amherst (maybe 10 % ?) could just learn the art of compromise and perhaps tolerance, then the other 90% of us could just go on with our lives in what could be our idyllic little town. We have plenty to worry about without constantly hearing from people who don't get their way on the parade, the golf course (It's been around 20 years now. Can't we move on from this one?).

The year before the private parade organizers banned gay marchers at the Boston St. Patty’s Day Parade, the KKK did apply to march and were rejected. That was before the “controversy.”

And quite frankly if I were in charge of that Parade I would have let the gays march—but only if they were Irish of course (thus staying within bounds of the “theme”) and unlike Iran the Irish do have gay folks--and hey, now they can even marry in California as well as Massachusetts, something I also support.

Actually the golf course has been losing tax money (and I have been pointing that out) for twenty-one years now. And although you have not been in Town Meeting that long Professor, a few have, and probably missed the irony that Vince is whining for more money for the Jones Library and nobody in town meeting is more responsible for the original Cherry Hill fiasco than he.

A golf course we could have had for free but ended up spending the most money in town history to take it by eminent domain, something our Conservation folks had in mind for the South East street property owned by Scott Nielson.