My understanding of the Charter is that even if three selectmen voted..it would have to be unanimous for it to be a vote that passes.

So (I think)..that if there were a vote, any vote (pertaining to "appointments" by the TA).. it would have to have three votes (out of five)..to pass. In other words..Any two selectmen - 2, another selectman - 1  ..doesn't work.

Check the Charter..

From the Wareham Charter 

Section 4-2 (b)

"Appointments made by the town administrator shall become effective on the fifteenth day following the day on which notice of the appointment is filed with the board of selectmen, unless the board of selectmen shall, within said period, by a majority vote of the full board, vote to reject any such appointment, or, has sooner voted to affirm it."

Wareham Charter

PS: If there's any doubt that all three "attending" selectmen would need to vote unanimously in order for it to be "ratified" (Stanley)..Ask Bowen..what else is he being paid for?? Don't let Jane and Brenda manipulate ANYTHING on their way out the door.

Last edited by DDPTRO (2011-03-28 22:06:16)

I don't see it Dan. It clearly states a majority of the "full" board is needed. So..if three out of three vote yes, that works. If four are present..again, 3 works..5 present, 3 works!

3 works...and nothing less..I believe.

D&D

I parse that sentence a little bit differently.

"Appointments made by the T/A shall become effective on the fifteenth day following the day on which notice of the selection is filed with the Board of Selectmen...."

So. If the "notice" was filed on march 14, 2011, then the appointment takes effect today. Period. No vote required.

"unless the BoS shall, within said period, by a majority vote of the full board, vote to reject any such appointment..."

So if the "notice" was filed on March 14, then the BoS is out of time to vote "No". A filing AFTER 3/14, and there is still an opportunity to reject. BUT, it would take THREE votes, regardless of the number voting, to reject.

"or, has sooner voted to affirm it." It does NOT appear to me that the requirement of THREE votes applies to a vote to affirm. Rather, a simple majority of those present is sufficient.

Since the voters/citizens/taxpayers of the Town of Wareham are not allowed to be privy to such incidentals as a filing with the BoS on this matter, it is hard to be certain as to the proper approach if the Stanley appointment comes up.

But here's one. Suppose that in order to justify an outlandish salary for Stanley, that a new position has been created. Call it: SUPERCHIEF. Then does the same rule apply regarding the T/A & the BoS in that situation? doesn't somebody, somewhere have to approve the creation of a new position? It would seem to me that one of the members of the BoS could ABSTAIN, forcing a vote into the future when the full (possibly new) BoS convenes.

What about the FinCom? remember them? They could reject any Salary deal as part of the FY12 budget - too late for FY11.

What about Town Meeting? The budget article which inludes Stanley's salary could be challenged from the floor. Trick: spread his SUPERCHIEF salary over several categories - nobody will notice. And, shouldn't TM have the ultimate say on any new positions?

Lastly, ya gotta luv the BoBo. Give Stanley what he "deserves". 'Deserves' ???????????? As decided by the Bee Jays and foisted on the Town of Wareham? NFW

Stewie.. I missed your last post here yesterday.. I agree with Dan..I think your "reading" of the Charter is right on the money. It's my understanding that no such "filing" (to date) has been made by TA Andrews on Stanley's appointment..so the "15 day clock" has not started (yet).

As far as the creation of a new "position"..well, nothing would surprise me anymore. I would think a TM vote, etc.. would be involved in that process..

Thanks for your "brain" Stewie.. How'd you get to be so "smaht", anyway? (It must be the football shaped head;)

DDPTRO wrote:

Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs