AUTHOR: Mr. Tejasinha Sivalingam (Ashland, New Hampshire)
How shall the voters reconcile the discussion that took place at the Ashland Joint Meeting to Discuss Northern Pass Issues, on February 27, 2017, with the title and body of the amended warrant article 41 “Opposition to Northern Pass”? This meeting was posted by Pemi Baker TV, is titled Joint Ashland Meeting 2/27/17, and can be viewed in its entirety on YouTube.
The amended warrant article 41 titled Opposition to Northern Pass states in part, “We the people of the town of Ashland hereby affirm our continued support of the Ashland Water and Sewer Department, Ashland Conservation Commission, and the Board of Selectmen who are acting on the Town’s behalf for the protection of Ashland’s natural resources and assets as interveners”. The title of the warrant article may lead a reasonable voter to assume the warrant article intends to outright oppose Northern Pass. However, after watching the Ashland Joint Meeting to Discuss Northern Pass, voters may observe that several of these interveners accept that Northern Pass will happen, there is nothing we can do to stop it, and that it is better to try to negotiate the inevitable rather than take an oppositional stance.
In summary, the title Opposition to Northern Pass, is inconsistent with the perspectives and intentions of several of the interveners; therefore, this voter will vote ‘NO’ to warrant article 41. This is a vote of NO confidence in the interveners’ intentions to oppose Northern Pass outright. Sadly, the title of warrant article 41 is different from the intention of the interveners it endorses, and voters who vote based on the title Opposition to Northern Pass may be misled!