I’m a retired attorney, with a career as a legal writer/editor spanning approximately 150,000 pages of material relied upon daily by lawyers and judges. I have lived in Orleans since 1993, with a break for a family emergency between 2006 and 2013. My kids both went to Nauset High. I missed Orleans deeply while we were gone, but in regard to its politics, I’m finding myself lately liking it less and less. I created this site in the course of being an advocate for one simple thing: a year-round place for dogs to be able to run and play. It doesn’t matter if you agree with me about that or not, because these issues transcend individual policy choices.

 

We deserve an honest, functioning town government which supports a thriving, cohesive community. In my judgment, we don’t have that now.

 

Over the course of several years of watching local officials operate in regard to the issue of dogs, I came to the assessment that they were acting exactly as, let’s say, Mitch McConnell might. From their point of view, perhaps they describe it as “hardball politics” and “getting things done.” I judge that their approach has been divisive and destructive, and reflects a lack of the personal qualities necessary to build consensus and community. I feel especially strongly about the need to confront such behavior when it strays into actual illegality, or (here comes a quaint word) “immorality” so significant that it damages the fabric of our little society.
 
I see the task I have taken on as explaining things I’ve noticed and why I consider them important. I’m open to being corrected if I’m misrepresenting something, and that is never my intention. I will freely admit that there are people in Orleans politics I don’t much like, but I would lose respect for myself if I invited you here in order to indulge a cheap desire to hurt or embarrass anyone. My sole purpose here is to offer you a narrative and/or some questions to consider, for the sake of upholding an honest and functional form of local government.
 
My other introductory comment is that from time to time, people may do things that raise doubts as to whether they are fit to continue in their positions. Sometimes they will be friends of yours, or people who have done great work in the past, or people for whom you feel a great level of compassion. In my judgment, that type of thing can matter only a little bit. Past a certain point, we need people to do their jobs well, and if we always let people off the hook so as “not to be mean,” we will not be rewarded with effective government.
 
In the following pages you'll learn about…

• The absurd debacle at Kent’s Point, where Town officials are misrepresenting the expert advice they have gotten, scapegoating nonresidents for their own failures, and preparing to enact a “nonresidents excluded” regulation which is unconstitutional under both the First Amendment and Article 49 of the state constitution (as established by relevant caselaw), all in the service of inappropriate motives and objectives.

• My dog Boris’ (utterly serious) write-in candidacy for Select Board.

​
Let's start by looking briefly at the background of the Kent’s Point initiative: