The Pennell Institute: Part Duh!

The Pennell Institute: Part Duh!


Initially I was going to formulate this piece around the concept of “Majority” and how it applies to the current Pennell question. I will touch briefly on that subject but, a recent incident or two has caught my attention that I feel I must address.

Friday last, October 17th a group encouraging a no vote on the Pennell question put out signs in various locations throughout the town. The locations of choice were both legal and public. The ones I noticed were along side the road by a very old Graveyard just past the center of town. You have to wait at a traffic light on most nights so the area is ideal for many political campaigns. There are signs everywhere, promoting Tom Allen, Susan Collins, Sue Austin, as well as a few from Fed Up with Taxes, asking people to vote “Yes on One”.

By Saturday morning the 18th fifteen plus of the signs had been removed in an attempt to silence the Save Pennell group’s voice. No other signs, except the Pennell ones were touched. Regardless as to how one feels about this particular proposal, the act of removing and destroying the signs is contrary to our fundamental belief in freedom of speech. That is why there are laws prohibiting the molestation, disfigurement and or destruction of political placards and signs during the election season. I am deeply disturbed by not only the audacity of this criminal act, but also by the idea that someone finds that such behavior is acceptable or justified. I very much would like to tear down every Obama /Biden sign, burn them publicly and roast marsh mellows over the flames. I care not for their message or what that ticket represents. Alas, I restrain myself, for in this country people can express their views even when in opposition to my own. So I do not destroy the opposition’s property in some form of angry protest, nor do I attempt to silence them by denying them any medium in which they chose to convey their message.

This act of vandalism is unacceptable in the extreme and needs to be pursued vigorously by the authorities. I expect that this will be low on the list of items the town council and Sheriffs Department have on their agenda, but it should not be thus. By allowing or ignoring such an infringement on the one freedom we all hold so dear, a precedent will and can be set.

October 2nd in the Gray Independent Tracey Scheckel was quoted as saying:

“There is a vocal minority in this town who can’t deal with the prospect of
change.”

I was a little annoyed by this statement for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is it’s dismissive tone. As I wrote before in {The Pennell Institute: Part Uh!} People have some very strong views when it comes to this old building, and those views ensure that debate is heated. However, emotion should not supersede civility for if it does then we might as well start bashing each other over the head with clubs to make our respective points. I will try to be civil whilst I break down this faulty statement of the Gray Town Council’s Vice chairperson.

The very vocal minority, of which Vice Chair Scheckel speaks, are the Citizens, Taxpayers, and community minded people of Gray. They are her Constituents, who upon being elected to office, she is supposed to represent along with the majority. This “Minority” has not only the right, but the duty, to call into question any action that their government might propose, and to dissent if necessary. This is basic to our political system and should be understood by any who hold office, high or low. To dismiss these people and their concerns in such a fashion is unbecoming of an elected official.

The status of Minority as it compares to a Majority in this debate has yet to be determined. We will need to wait for the results of the ballot on Nov. 4th before we can say definitively whether or not who is actually the larger group. To say that those who oppose this move are in the minority now is misleading for all the data is not in yet.

The second half of Tracy’s sentence accuses the people who wish to save Pennell of being resistant to any kind of change. This is hogwash pure and simple!

I contend that the opposite holds true for the supporters of the Save Pennell group. By trying to stop the Town Council from borrowing $2.4 million dollars that we as citizens cannot afford, they are saying ENOUGH! They are trying to CHANGE how their local government spends tax dollars and are asking for their representatives to be more fiscally responsible. The time has come for the town council to Change how they do business, they need to be more prudent in their spending and conservative in their borrowing. The people of Gray have the opportunity and duty, to convey that message to the council with a no vote on November 4th.

No, Miss Scheckel the Save Pennell folks and the citizens of Gray are not resistant to change, they are promoting it.

In the end it will fall to each of us to decide what is to be done with the Pennell Institute, I personally will be voting No on the question as I could not live with myself if I did otherwise. I cannot in good conscience align myself with any group that allows the suppression of speech or who believes that dissent is of little import. Nor can I allow things to continue on as they have fiscally in our town budgets and our community borrowing habits. As it is last night’s performance by the council and the rubberstamp they tried to put on it, the fight for Change will be a tough one.

Slainte’
Blighter