Dear Editor,
I am a town meeting member, and watched as Karen Herrick stood up at Town Meeting during an instructional motion on the new water rates and said, “I do recall our discussions in June and I was happy to move forward with these tiered rates. I knew at that time it was not a perfect solutions and um, I certainly understand where the proponent of the instructional motion is coming from and although I wasn’t quoted in The Chronicle, I do believe I expressed commitment seeking out additional ways, to make sure that we provide equitable water charges for our residents.“. If you go back and watch the meeting, her “expressed commitment” was to vote FOR the NEW tiered water rates. The rates that are not equitable! The same water rates she “is committed to seeking out additional ways to be equitable… “ Ah, you missed the boat! The time to do that was at June Select Board meeting. If she was so committed to finding equitable solutions does she realized that she could have voted “No” in June?
Ms. Herrick was caught in a conundrum. How could she possibly push her green initiatives and use the word “equitable” in the same sentence? Cue grandstanding at Town Meeting. Residents probably forgot that she was one of the 3 “yes” votes FOR tiered rates. She never tried (even a little) to minimize the impact on large families and multi family buildings.
Mr. Bacci was the only one to point out that the entire SB board agreed the tiered rates were a dumb idea and yet Dockser, McCarthy and Herrick all voted to implement them.
The equitable solution Ms. Herrick was looking for was the 4% rate increase across the board (but that doesn’t help with conservation).
McCarthy, Herrick and Dockser voted yes on an inequitable water rate in our town. Don’t be fooled, your water bill will never be equitable.
Alicia Williams
Town Meeting Member
Marla Lane
