First, I want to praise Rep. John Velis for all of his dedication and commitment to our Veterans. But, I did add to his efforts; as a Vet, and a retired State employee, I want to point out a problem one can have as such. I do not know if this problem is systemic or local to the Dept. of Developmental Services (the former Dept. of Mental Retardation), but when I became employed by them, I had the usual forms to fill out. Included in them was about being a Veteran. When it came time to retire I checked into whatever benefits there were as a Vet. I was told then that I could put into “buy back” my military time and add it to my retirement. But, it would cost me over $6,000 to do so. It was mentioned that I could have signed up for that when I was hired, and it would have been taken out of my pay. Great time to tell me! Having been coerced into retiring early was bad enough but to have to get a loan for $6,000 for a buy back; it would have taken years to break even. My request then to Rep. Velis is that if he could check into this. While it will not help me I hate to see other Vets/State employees hit up for this. A part of the problem is a technicality, that you can convert Military time to State time as the Army is Federal government time. Yes, I know the policy, but should the State make an exception for Veterans, especially for 3 years or so in service?
Next, from the last City Council meeting, regarding the issue of whether to have the Mayor and Councilors have 2 or 4 year terms? For me, as a voter, I think the Mayor should. Things are far more complicated in the needs of a city, and attaining the ways and means to provide for them. As for the City Council…here we go again. For me there are positives and negatives. As with the Mayor seeing a project through can take time. But, would they do what they want and then take the last year to make up to the voters? As we know there are those who play to the camera at the meetings, and create their own facts. So I can imagine what one would do with 4 years????
OK, the here we go again is for the deceptive rhetoric about the issues. During my term, and for years before I knew many on the Council. I don’t any who want 4 years to avoid having to campaign. That is nonsense to undermine their credibility. Most I talk with fully believe that it gives them a reason to re-connect with their constituents. To suggest that they are professional politicians likewise is insulting and demeaning. Let’s not bring D.C. like politics to Westfield. Many if not most really are dedicated to serving the needs of our city and our people. They are everyday Westfielders, who take on the serious and real responsibility to work for our interests.
And, like our city and its citizens there are a diversity of needs, and interests, thus a diversity of ways and means by which to service them. Just because one person’s needs are different or their means to service them, doesn’t mean that they are wrong, or bad in pursuing them their way. It is their obligation to those who voted for them to do so. America has never been a one way nation. We have always had diversity and often it has been conflicting; thus a nation of checks and balances to ensure one faction is NOT able to impose itself and their interests upon the others. It is, as a result, often a messy and confusing process, but our ability to cooperate and compromise has always been fundamental to our success.
I would suggest that the voters decide. One of the people now opposing voting on it had suggested that there should be a non-binding ballot question that would throw it back to the Council to approve before it goes to Boston. I would like to point out as in the Agawam case you have to have a binding ballot to have State approval for that kind of charter change. As well those for and against would have a central issue to campaign on to convince the voters. That would be Democracy, and the people deciding. As to the idea of term limits…some of those who claim to believe in the letting to voters decide would be taking away the voters determination of who will be on the Council; whether we want them for one term or 10, that should be up to us. It amazes me that some people who criticize our government for being corrupt and can’t be trusted, use deception, exaggeration, out of context political rhetoric to trick the voter. So what is the difference between them and those they criticize? It is ok if they do it, but wrong if other? For me it is wrong with both, but in reality and 50 years of working in civic affairs, it is a normal. And, as well, what is normal is condemning others for doing the same thing they are doing. Political Hypocrisy is nothing new, it just challenges us to see beyond it to the real facts before making a decision, and not just the sounds right. Thank you for your time, your feedback is welcomed. Brian Hoose ([email protected])
