The expression “good old boy” is a phrase commonly one of approval – as when applied to NASCAR drivers, sheriffs with bull horns or distant relatives who possess the skills necessary to turn sugar into alcohol. But the expression may also be disparaging, as when three councilors were so designated at a recent Gorham Town Council meeting. People were urged to vote against these “good old boys” – a sure sign that these three men were neither relatives of the declarant nor NASCAR drivers.

The complaint was inspired by “a failure to listen” to the viewpoint of a group of citizens in the matter of a proposed asphalt plant on Mosher Road. On this basis, these three political leaders were deemed to be less than satisfactory candidates for public office.

(In passing, it might be noted that the charge, properly declared, should be stated as ” a failure to heed the recommendations of a group of citizens.” For listen, they surely did – at length and often. Therefore, once the charge is restated, a new perspective emerges. “Heed” is a term defined as “be guided by,” “follow” or “obey.” And “obey” they surely did not.)

So here exists a quandary: Were the accused councilors egregiously willful? Were they simply obtuse? Had age and length of service diminished their faculties, their ability to hear or concentrate? Were they not able to grasp the complexity of the issue? Did they all have hidden agendas? Or, as their previous history would suggest, did they give the argument a fair shake and conclude it to be defective or of lesser value? Was it possible that they “listened ” to an inarticulate public that had not troubled itself to present argument – but whose interests were nevertheless at stake?

Democracies are fountains of differences and when two are incompatible, one must be submerged while the other floats. In such case, the principle on which we have a right to insist is that these differences be resolved by our elected officials in an orderly fashion, in accordance with law, procedure and fairness.

In the matter of the asphalt plant, the Gorham Planning Board and town council met that standard. They did, in fact, “listen.” It is fair to say that they believed their obligation was to rule against some of those they heard.

The total service of these “good old boys” to the town of Gorham is more than 50 years – an impressive figure, particularly considering the meager reimbursement that duty on the town council affords. Over the years, they have done lots and lots of listening and they are experienced in deciding conflict – and this matter was, in principle, little different from scores of others gone before.

It was a difficult decision. There were clearly two sides to the question. The frustration of the losers is understandable. But, while the decision may have disappointed or angered, it should not lead to vendetta. To blindly vote for or against these men based on this single issue is to sacrifice long and valuable service involving hundreds of decisions on many other issues. By any reasonable standard, they have excellent reputations and records of accomplishment. To replace them with candidates running on a single-issue platform of resentment is to do Gorham a disservice

“Losing sight of the forest because of the trees” or “Throwing out the baby With the bath water” are aphorisms which, like “good old boys,” do not belong in the voting booth.

Rodney Quinn, who lives in Gorham, is a freelance writer and former Maine secretary of state.

Copy the Story Link