This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.

Exciting

The April 2 town meeting was exciting. The first order of business, appointing the moderator, proved contentious. By voice vote, a majority approved Bill Bloss. A “formal count” was demanded. Hand ballots were counted, and the results were surprisingly similar: 300-plus yes; 90-plus no. Nearly 20 minutes down with the same outcome. Well played! Dave Holman insisted on nominating someone, but pesky rules precluded more time-wasting. A “secret ballot” proposal was rejected. That’s how the night progressed. Bloss gamely allowed folks to test their lyin’ eyes, confirming repeatedly that 300 exceeds 100.

Kendall Svengalis has a different take on things. His April 11 letter (“Vote No”) was a pearl-clutching classic. Svengalis struck the perfect balance of insults and conspiracies. His budgetary analysis was concise: “Vote ‘No.’” He mostly rehashed ancient grievances. Apparently, Bloss, three years ago, approved ballots without “wet ink.” That scandal means we can’t trust Bloss’s conclusion that 300-plus votes to advance the budget to referendum exceeded 100-or-so votes against.

Bill Bloss is a prominent attorney. His venerable firm has successfully represented Sandy Hook families against the gun industry and against Alex Jones. Name-calling won’t deter him from following parliamentary procedures. And what of the recent referendum outcome? Svengalis will accept it (or gloatingly take credit). He only discounts “adverse” outcomes as stolen. He apparently acknowledges two teams: his side … vs. … everyone else. Guilford’s a “one-party town” since his team keeps losing.

Greg Kinsella

Guilford