HomeMy WebLinkAboutAward Debate pdf---------- Original Message ----------
From: cgkyntamara <cgkyntamara@aol.com>
To: "fsp67@comcast.net" <fsp67@comcast.net>, cgkyntamara <cgkyntamara@aol.com>
Date: 12/18/2022 10:30 AM
Subject: Award debate
Hello Fran, December 15, 2022
I write as a full member of the BHC, as Chair of the HHDC, and as a member of the public, attaching
herewith a copy of the approved flier that was supposed to be sent to all historic groups, societies,
commissions, clubs and others possibly interested in applying for the BHC award (after amended – this
was the initial draft Elizabeth Mumford sent to the BHC for review).
I knew this existed as I was one of two in the subcommittee to put this flier together – which I amended as
per minutes - AFTER the rules and regulations were discussed and determined, Elizabeth Mumford (EM)
being the other. Elizabeth was also one of two – the other being George Jessop, assigned to put
together the “Rules and Requirements” referenced at the bottom of this flier – that had already been
discussed and formulated. One does not begin putting such a flier together until the content is known.
It is noteworthy that we have only received a total of 10 applications in 3 years, which includes 3 repe ats
from the HHDC, and 2 for Allesandra, and our last 2 applicants have yet to be dealt with SEVEN
MONTHS after the original deadline: end of May, 2022. NO vote has yet been taken, only insults,
innuendo and unlicensed diagnoses randomly and repeatedly de livered as is clearly evidenced by public
video record.
Over the last 4 meetings, I believe August-November, I have referenced what I refer to as the
“guidelines”, having forgotten that EM usually referred to them as “Rules and Requirements.” Even
George has recently referenced these – TWICE- noting the “three categories”, asking if you wished to
hear the elaboration, which I perceived as being less than encouraged.
I had intended to type out all the sections of the minutes for everyone, the supporting m inutes that I have
repeatedly mentioned; the voted on and unanimously approved minutes, which seem to have also been
ignored. As stated, I spent several hours finding the flier and more time finding more than sufficient
remaining supporting evidence to the claim such as the e-mailed exchanges between myself and EM in
2018, but I find myself unwilling to devote time to type out that which already exists – and has apparently
never been sought out to verify or question, as is the task of the Chair. If one desi res to lead into another
direction than that which has already been discussed, reviewed and voted upon, and placed into
approved minutes, then I see it as the obligation of the one wanting to lead elsewhere to first acquaint
themselves with that which already exists. The very easiest of efforts would be to contact our staff liaison
at that time who prepared the minutes. I did so last week! She stated that she can remember the
numerous discussions of the Rules and Requirements, just not the specific outcom es from so long ago –
referring me to the minutes – and granting permission for me to state the above. (On a similar, and
related matter – you stated several times in the subcommittee meeting that “we” contacted Cheryl - ME -
regarding a redirection instead to the Town Council. YOU AND I NEVER HAD SUCH A
CONVERSATION, nor was I redirected. Please show me that written communication, with proof of
delivery.
This flier should be sufficient as it corresponds to an attachment to one of Elizabeth’s summer 2018 e-
mails, also corresponding to the approved minutes. I have given you the dates multiple times in recent
meetings, usually against efforts to simultaneously silence my comments. Finding those minutes took
several more hours, but knowing the dates should now minimize your effort.
Preparation of a formal dossier is something that would take even more time to further prove what is on
record, which I will only do if needed to have proper entities review the matter. My preference would far
be to deal with this within the BHC – which should have been done in the first place – with several months
of opportunity.
Meanwhile, we have two applicants whom, it would seem, have NEVER been contacted. Of course, you
did not even vote on their applications – to date. One applicant had his application read in full - twice,
and the other had a few disgraceful snippets plucked out before being dismissed. This latter applicant
was submitted by the HHDC, an entity that you erroneously called something else in your July meeting.
As Chair of the HHDC, I have yet to receive any communication back, my only acknowledging the
complaints I received that the very worthy individual we unanimously nominated for well-deserved
recognition was publically insulted and humiliated, as was the other applicant – with zero intervention
from the Chair to prevent, or correct.
We need to stop stalling and deal with this please at the next BHC meeting, then respond to these
applicants who were submitted in good faith and according to previously agreed, as Elizabeth Mumford
references: Rules and Requirements. The Town Attorney’s office advised that the subcommittee meeting
be held again – which was also ignored it would seem as we are now working on nearly half a year after
their advice was given.
You have a standing motion (of 2) on the table, and three points of order that have also been ignored for
months, the latter which I believe is an OML violation. The first was when I asked what was happening
with the awards and which guidelines you intended to use, to which I was informed that it had been dealt
with, my responding with a Point of Order when you wanted to move on as I felt that I deserved an
answer to how it had been dealt with, which also seemed to be ignored, resulting in yet another Poi nt of
Order that the first Point of Order had been seemingly ignored, and I believe there was another Point of
Order for no apparent response to the first two points of order. This all sounds a bit too much like the
House that Jack Built rhyme – or possibly The Emperor’s New Clothes. Whilst delving into what appears
to be fairy tales and nonsequiturs, please explain the relevance of what you formally submitted to
Commissioners for consideration under the heading of Preservation Service Award, indicating th at, “In the
past, this award has been received for such acts as … artifacts of Barnstable’s pastlondon bridge is
falling peter zeihan” I am familiar with the work of this notable geopolitical analyst, yet I fail to see the
pertinence in BHC matters where, surely, our decisions should not be based on politics.
In the end, I do not care particularly if these applicants receive the award or not, although they certainly
deserve it. Our application was rejected for the first year simply, I was told, because there was another
very deserving applicant – Jim Gould. I always thought that was why they were not awarded – better
applicants, ESPECIALLY WHEN I WAS REPEATEDLY ADVISED TO SUBMIT AGAIN FOR THE NEXT
YEAR – until July 2022. Not caring because the recipient is someone deemed more worthy is one thing,
but I care immensely about the shameful and outrageous manner in which these two applicants have
been massively mishandled, which subsequently reflects disgracefully on the town, the BHC and all its
members. To allow this is to welcome and share the shame, with the integrity of the BHC challenged. I
therefore strongly suggest that BOTH applicants be commended forthwith for their notable historic efforts,
accompanied with a very sincere and public apology, and gratitude for their patience.
The second part of my motion is to turn these awards over to the Town Council altogether and to instead
work on restoring BHC integrity.
Sincerely and without prejudice,
Cheryl A. Powell
BHC full member
HHDC - Chair