Historical Commission speaks out on Common

To the Editor:

There has been much controversy in the town of Westminster regarding the proposed memorial benches to be placed on the town common. Much of this has been focused on the disagreements among the Selectmen, Elaine Jones, and the Westminster Historical Commission. The members of the Commission would like to take this opportunity to share our concerns.

Generations of Westminster residents have enjoyed the town common. Adults and children alike gather for Memorial Day ceremonies, on warm summer nights to hear the Town Band play, and to celebrate the annual holiday tree lighting. Friends and relatives surround the gazebo to watch a loved one's wedding ceremony. For these and many other reasons, the common is a focal point of town activity. It is the Commission's charge to preserve the integrity of the common so that future generations will be able to enjoy it as we do today.

Based on the town's preservation plan as well as on many letters from town residents, the Commission feels that the Town Common is not the ideal place for the planned memorial benches honoring Ryan Jones. Placing benches near the gazebo disrupts the open space and will limit the flow of foot traffic. Hard stone benches with no back support do not lend themselves to the comfort of anyone wishing to sit for any length of time. They may be tripped over in the dark and may entice children to walk or play upon them, posing a possible risk of injury and issues of liability.

Had the Selectmen considered their duties, they would have presented the proposal to the Commission before granting permission; the role of the Commission is to examine and advise on just such issues. Despite this, the Commission has worked hard to reach a compromise, such as having the benches placed around the perimeter of the common rather than in the middle, placing them in the cemetery for the benefit of all who grieve, or bringing the question to a town vote. So far, neither the Selectmen nor Mrs. Jones have been willing to negotiate.

The Selectmen have acknowledged that the Commission should have been consulted much earlier in this process, yet they seem unwilling to make any effort to correct this oversight. Ignoring the recommendations of the Commission indicates a lack of respect for the work of the individual members and their many volunteer hours of service. This has caused two members of the Commission to resign recently, leaving only three members remaining. It is very difficult to recruit new members to an office that the Selectmen seem to regard as insignificant. If the Selectmen are unwilling to consider the input of a commission appointed by their own office, can we expect them to consider the wishes of their constituents? It's something we all should consider.

Donna M. DiRusso

Westminster