What Are You Hiding?

I used to live in a village that broadcast its board meetings.  While the discussion of whether or not to approve the minutes was hardly on a par with NCIS, most citizens were interested in the new businesses that were coming to town, what the mayor had planned for the 4th of July celebration, and how the budget looked. We felt knowledgeable and it was one of the few times I went into the voting booth knowing exactly who stood for what because I had seen how they voted.

A few years ago, I moved to a town that does not televise its meetings.  Periodically there are articles in the local paper questioning that and the excuse is always the same - there's no money in the budget for it.  This was the justification even when the village was rolling in dough during the height of the real estate bubble.

I have to wonder why those in charge of our town feel that televising the board meetings is unimportant.  Or perhaps I don't need to speculate at all.  When it comes to local politics, the less said, the better?  No doubt, the village trustees fear what the citizens might hear in an unguarded and heated discussion moment.  

We all assume business is conducted at the meetings but possibly they spend an hour or two playing bridge. Who's to know?

Good communication in government has nothing to do with politics. It is about fostering a sense of community. Residents want to know what's going on and that's getting harder and harder.  In an age when local news comes from foreign writers (see my post from July 5 - Local News from Faraway Places), televised village meetings are more important than ever.

So my fingers are crossed that things will change and in the meantime, my neighbors and I keep guessing about what's going on behind those closed doors.

The Title Says it All

Last week, I mentioned a couple of cable reality shows that use housing and remodeling as their premise. There is another program that raises questions and has since its debut.

The idea for the show is to provide a deserving family a brand new house filled with everything any person could want. Often these people are in financial difficulty because they are underemployed and/or face debilitating medical expenses. In order to survive, the family let housing fall to the bottom of their needs list.

In earlier days, the builder often paid off any existing mortgage that burdened the family. Builders even provided college funds or paid off medical bills. That type of donation is noticeably missing from the series this year. Add higher insurance, utility and property tax bills for the new structure and one must wonder how the family will pay for the on-going costs of maintaining the huge house they win. Are any of these homes now in foreclosure? The answer, sadly, is yes.

Since the beginning, the program has provided more house than most of these people need or can maintain. The series ignores the adage “It’s not the cost – it’s the upkeep.” By flagrantly disregarding the future, what does this show communicate to those who watch it?

I do not begrudge these deserving people a new house but it would be nice to see this program cut back a bit. It can show us an amazing makeover each week and still provide the families with housing they can handle.

Responsible ownership plus concern for one’s neighbors and community is exactly what we need to survive today’s struggling economy and move into a future based on something other than greed. This show has two of these elements already. Add the third and it would be communicating a trio of values that will keep it a winner.

Part III next week.