#131 2010-02-21 14:06:42
Cyrus Moulton wrote:
Members of the Charter Review Committee (CRC) fielded a continuous stream of questions on Saturday, Feb. 20 about their proposal to adopt a town council plus mayoral form of government, with citizen concerns focused on the committee's process, the proposed powers of a mayor, and the new system's cost to the town.
WW: Charter committee addresses questions, concerns of mayoral government
KEEP TOWN MEETING VOTEAPRIL6 VOTE4CHANGE
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
VOTE4CHANGE
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Offline
#132 2010-02-21 21:57:31
CRC Public Mtg. 2/6/2010
To view the rest of the meeting, please go to:
CRC Public Mtg. 2/6/2010
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
VOTE4CHANGE
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Offline
#133 2010-02-21 23:27:58
/
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-02-21 23:28:30)
Offline
#134 2010-02-22 01:55:48
Few attend meeting on government revision
By DON CUDDY
DONCUDDY@S-T.COM
February 21, 2010 12:00 AM
WAREHAM— There was a small turnout at the Middle School on Saturday as the town's Charter Review Committee offered the public the first of several opportunities to question a proposal to replace Wareham's town meeting form of government with an elected mayor and an 11-member town council.
There are 15,000 registered voters in town and around 50 people turned out for the discussion. But a show of hands revealed that only 5 of those present responded when asked whether they had studied the lengthy draft document outlining the charter.
Those who spoke were looking for answers on topics ranging from the costs associated with the installation of an entirely new administration to questioning why the committee had even undertaken its work.
"Every year that ends in a '9' the Boards of Selectmen appoint a committee to review the charter," committee Chairman Alan Slavin explained. The need for change arose from the perceived inability of the current form of town government to get things done in a timely fashion, he said. "Conflict between the town administrator and the Board of Selectmen day to day was also a problem," he said.
There were some in attendance who viewed the committee's work as a threat. "Why do you want to take the voters out of town meeting?" Mel Lazarus asked, claiming that the committee had predetermined the outcome at the outset.
This assertion was strenuously rejected by the committee with one member, Linwood Gay, going on the record saying he was favored three full-time selectmen and was not in favor of the committee's recommendation. "But it looks like we're headed for this mayor-city council contraption," he said.
Committee member John F. Houton said that the recommendation to change town government to elected councilors would enhance "constituent services," as he put it. "They would serve on the council and represent a particular neighborhood. We need to give those 15,000 people the right to speak and participate in the government. We live in a changing time and I don't think that town meeting works."
Committee Chairman Slavin stressed that the process was ongoing. "All we're asking is that you look at it and give us your opinion. We are still open to anything," he said.
After the meeting Selectman Walter B. Cruz told The Standard-Times that he was in favor of retaining the current form of government.
"You're going to have less representation from the people than you do now," he said.
Some of the attendees remained dissatisfied with the proceedings.
"They should have started this process with a meeting like this," Robert Brady said. "They were all appointed last February and have not included the citizenry in any part of this process till now, three weeks before we close the warrant for Town Meeting. I could never support changing the form of government without having properly vetted it through the community."
If it is approved at Town Meeting, the proposal would then require approval from the Legislature, and after that it would be voted on in a town election. The committee estimated that it would take, given the go ahead, approximately two years to see a mayor take office.
Offline
#135 2010-02-24 20:53:23
CRC Chair Alan Slavin before the BoS (2/23/2010) in order to get a non-binding referendum question added to the April 6th ballot.
*I found it interesting that Mr. Slavin stated that the vote by the CRC to approve the "wording" of the referendum question was 6-0-1, and he said that one member was "away"..Are we back to having only eight members on the CRC again??
2/23/2010
http://www.wareham.ma.us/Public_Documen … rterReview
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
VOTE4CHANGE
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-02-24 23:43:02)
Offline
#136 2010-02-26 00:49:28
WW: Why you should fear Political Power Consolidation in Wareham
Peter Baum wrote:
In the first three parts of this article I explained how the Wareham Board of Selectmen has a plan to grab power in April through their handpicked Charter Review Committee. If successful, this consolidation of power will take from you, the Wareham voter, the power to enact legislation and the power to control your tax dollars. The proposed charter change will limit information, limit debate, and place all real power in the hands of just a few individuals. In this installment, I explain how the Charter Review Committee itself made choices to limit debate and control information, as they decided on a way to get their plan approved by the town.
In Massachusetts, there are three ways to change a charter.
By an elected commission. This requires a public hearing, a preliminary report, a final report to the Board of Selectmen, and approval on a town election ballot. No town meeting approval is necessary. Major changes to the form of government can be proposed this way. The process is specified by Massachusetts General Law Chapter 43B.
By an appointed committee, such as the current Charter Review Committee. These changes, also governed by Massachusetts General Law Chapter 43B, are limited and cannot be used to make major changes, such as eliminating town meeting. The warrant article proposed by the committee requires a 2/3 town meeting approval, approval by the Attorney General, and approval by the town as a ballot initiative.
By a Special Act: By a simple majority vote at town meeting, the proposed changes are sent to the Massachusetts legislature (called the General Court). Although there is no legal ballot requirement, the state legislature usually wants to see a voter acceptance provision in the initiative. Historically, this was the only means of changing a charter prior to 1966.
As you can see, the Special Act method is the fastest path to change, requires the least consensus (a majority vote at town meeting), and does not require any public hearings prior to any decision making by the proposer. On the 5th meeting of the Charter Review Committee, on May 14, 2009, a vote was taken to pursue the Special Acts route rather than the other methods specified in Massachusetts General Law Chapter 43B. The Charter Review Committee meeting minutes describe what happened...
...There's a lot to learn about making changes to a charter by looking at the alternative of using an elected commission, the form to be used when major charter changes are desired. That route requires by law (Massachusetts General Law 43B:9A) that a public hearing be held within 45 days after the election which creates the commission. Plenty of time is allotted for research and discussion - up to 18 months. The town meeting must approve the proposal by a 2/3 vote rather than the majority needed by the special acts route. The Wareham Charter Review Committee chose the path that would most limit debate, most limit discussion, and involve the fewest people in the decision making process.
Peter Baum wrote:
In this installment, I describe how the Charter Review Committee made choices to limit debate and control information as they decided on which governmental form to implement.
...From the committee's point of view, one of the perceived problems of using an elected commission was made very clear in the meeting minutes of July 9, 2009:
Alan stated that it we have to (sic) options for changing town government, we go forth and support an elected commission. It was discussed that an elected commission might not necessarily support the ideals of the committee.
The possibility that an elected committee might take an approach that differed from the Board of Selectmen's appointed Charter Review Committee was of such concern that they decided on July 9, 2009, to proceed using the Special Act method:
Mick Jones made a motion that we proceed under the Special Act format to change Wareham's form of government. Ed Pacewicz seconded the motion. Alan called for the vote, which was recorded as unanimous (7-0-0).
The Charter Review Committee apparently forgot that they had already decided to use the Special Acts path at their May 14, 2009 meeting, which also passed by a majority vote.
Part 5
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
VOTE4CHANGE
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-02-26 01:31:56)
Offline
#137 2010-02-26 06:56:14
ALL VOTERS NEED TO GET TO TOWN MEETING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS MAYOR FORM OF GOV, ALSO TOWN MEETING IS OUR LESGLATURE WHERE LAWS ARE MADE AND NOT A VOTE ON THE APRIL BALLOT , THE SELECTMAN ARE TRYING TO MEDDLE WITH OUR FORM OF TOWN GOV, VOTE THESE CLOWNS OUT IN APRIL.
Offline
#138 2010-02-28 16:49:34
Copied from other thread..
The BoS still have their finger's in the CRC pie. It was their idea all along to add the question to the ballot (no wonder Jane said she thought it was a great idea)..and Bruce went out of his way to say that the CRC was "bringing it to them"...Remember it was on the agenda, but CRC Alan Slavin put it off for a week...then at last Tuesday's meeting they did it (check the vid clips under the "Inside the Charter Review" thread).
The following is an email response to me from CRC Vice-Chairman (Tin HatChatter, Wareham Week Accuser, and Mayoral Gov't endorser) Mick Jones. Mick and I have recently had a few email exchanges, that (I thought) had been pretty "civil". We disagree on thing's, but at least we seemed willing to "listen" to the other one's views (he had also been having some trouble viewing the vids I post, and I tried to help with that). After Alan Slavin was before the BoS last Tuesday, I sent him (in part) the following question:
P-SPAN wrote:
I heard Alan tonight get the Board's approval of the non-binding ref. question on the ballot..is the goal to "take the pulse" of the Town, or is this some way of getting the required "support" necessary to form an elected commission, or something?
I received the following as a response:
Mick Jones wrote:
The non-binding resolution was not initiated within the CRC. I hope you won’t use this information on the blogs or elsewhere. The committee was not very supportive of the idea when we heard about it. That is why we voted to table it last week. We were leaning toward voting down the idea all together. We did approve the wording last night and people seemed supportive of it. It was obvious the BOS were going to put something on the ballot and we wanted some influence on the wording. I will be interested to see how it was presented at the BOS meeting.
I didn't intend to post this, as it was clear Mick didn't want me to. The reason I am is because I think it is something people should know (and his recent "views" stated in the comment areas on Wareham Week)..Accusatory, incorrect and "damaging" opinions (stated as fact) about this website, and those who post here. Among (many) other thing's claiming because there are "images" (oooh) of swastika's here, we are somehow "Nazi Adherents", or something??..(what's that "blog law" where once somebody compares you to Hitler/Nazi's the "accuser" loses the argument..and the thread's dead?) besides all that "fun stuff"..I find any comparison of "us" to people who committed (IMO) the worst crimes against humanity EVER..to be extremely inflammatory, off-base, ridiculous, stupid (should I go on?)..Mick has shown many of the characteristics of the one he follows..Too bad.
https://warehamwater.cruelery.com/viewt … 848#p65848
http://wareham-ma.villagesoup.com/colum … ?cid=31816
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
VOTE4CHANGE
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-02-28 20:00:37)
Offline
#139 2010-03-03 08:30:29
this letter in the S-T....
By PETER BAUM
Peter Baum lives in Onset.
March 03, 2010 12:00 AM
Most Viewed Stories
Three men charged with Acushnet break-inThe Casey FamilyPolice dog made lasting impression over his careerPolice logs: Detectives investigating shots-fired in West EndSupreme Judicial Court upholds conviction of New Bedford man arrested in South End murderLETTER: Release or euthanize killer whaleJoan P. Fournier In Wareham, it seems that we vote first and then we fully discuss the pros and cons of the issue.
The Charter Review Committee took a straw poll during their very first meeting on March 12 "to see how many supported a change in town government." By the fifth meeting, on May 14, a vote had been taken not only to abandon open Town Meeting, but to use the least democratic means available to affect that change. This decision was made with no public input, no town administration input and no departmental input. Almost a year later the Charter Review Committee is now asking for public input in the form of a non-binding referendum on the April 6 election ballot. During that year a great deal of time and effort has been spent creating a new charter, and money has been spent on lawyer fees, publication costs and the like. In Wareham, we vote first, ask for relevant information afterward.
On Feb. 23 of this year, the Charter Review Committee referendum was submitted to the selectmen for their approval. The selectmen discussed the referendum for 2 minutes and 15 seconds prior to their vote. After the 4-1-0 votes to place it on the ballot, they spent another 11 minutes in further discussion about this very same referendum. Again, vote first, discuss afterward.
The referendum is meaningless in two ways. First, the Charter Review Committee already has decided its course of action regardless of the vote on April 6. In addition, it is meaningless because of the way the referendum is worded. Here is the referendum approved by the selectmen:
"The current form of government consists of five part-time selectmen, an appointed town administrator, (sic) an open town meeting. Do you feel the current form of government is working in the best interests of the town? Yes or No."
The first sentence is fairly straightforward. Selectman Donahue added the word "five" when making the motion to approve the referendum, even though this word was not in the referendum as read by Charter Review Committee Chairman Slavin. We will see one consequence of this unexplained addition below.
The second sentence of the referendum reads:
"Do you feel the current form of government is working in the best interests of the town?"
I believe the real intent of the referendum is to bolster support for the Charter Review Committee's decision to abandon open Town Meeting. April 6th voters, however, are likely to take the referendum at face value and try to answer the question as written.
The referendum does not ask the voter if the current form of government is best for the town, but rather how that form is working. Voters might interpret the question in a number of ways. They might view the questions as being primarily about the best form of government, how well the present government is working, or the competence of town officials.
Because of this ambiguity, we will not know what a "yes" or "no" vote on the referendum means. Does a "no" mean that you don't like an open Town Meeting or does it mean that you think there should be three selectmen instead of five? Does a "yes" vote mean you like the current form of government, or does it mean that you prefer a different form of government but believe the current form is working in the best interests of the town? How should you vote if you like open Town Meeting but don't like the way the meetings are run? How should you vote if you think the Board of Selectmen would function better if they didn't appoint themselves road and sewer commissioners?
With ambiguity caused by the way the referendum is worded, the tally of "yes" and "no" will be meaningless. We are fortunate that the actual consequence of the resulting vote also will be meaningless. The referendum is non-binding.
Offline
#140 2010-03-05 01:19:13
The current form of government consists of five part-time selectmen, an appointed town administrator, and open town meeting. Do you feel the current form of government is working in the best interest of the town? Yes or No?
Courier:Letter: A meaningless reverse referendum
YESONONE
VOTE4CHANGE
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-03-17 11:27:20)
Offline
#141 2010-03-05 02:05:00
Peter Baum wrote:
In this final installment, I will describe how we can use our understanding of the Charter Review Committee's failures to suggest changes to improve both our charter and our government...
WW: Why you should fear Political Power Consolidation in Wareham - Part 6 of 6
VOTE4CHANGE
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Offline
#142 2010-03-12 08:52:00
#143 2010-03-14 05:49:58
Ok..so I recorded this meeting and have been waiting for WCTV to show it..so I can add their video instead..I saw Sandy Slavin taping it, and I was told by WCTV that it would air..well if it did, then I missed it..or we're still waiting (probably in the "edit" room). If you do listen..I apologize for the occasional "shuffling" noises..It sounds like I was opening Snicker's Bars a few times : )..but again..I didn't really expect to post this.
To listen to the rest of the meeting, please go to:
CRC Public Mtg. 2/20/10
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
VOTE4CHANGE
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-03-14 05:57:00)
Offline
#144 2010-03-16 20:19:47
Thanks for reminding me, IHL..
Peter Baum wrote:
In its support of this plan, the Charter Review Committee has misled the public by using false census data. In order to suggest that Wareham is getting too large for the Open Town Meeting form of government, they have falsely stated that Wareham has 22,000 residents and is growing. In fact, since the 2000 census, when Wareham had a population of 20,335, the number of residents has been decreasing. The latest, processed annual town census figure is 19,386 (January 2009).
The Town Clerk is responsible for the annual town census and the town report, which contains population figures. Both the FY2009 Town Report and a Charter Review Committee document reports a (winter) population of 22,000. When asked to justify the 22,000 figure, the Clerk’s Office said the value was rounded. Such an explanation is unsatisfactory, because 19,386 rounds to 19,000, not 22,000. Note that the Town Clerk is a member of the current Charter Review Committee.
Charter Review Committee Makes False Population Claims
Bonus Article: )
The Deep Significance of an Open Town Meeting Form of Government
KEEP TOWN MEETING VOTEAPRIL6 VOTE4CHANGE
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
VOTE4CHANGE
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-03-16 20:35:08)
Offline
#145 2010-03-21 03:51:54
CRC Public Mtg. 2/20/10 (WCTV)
To watch the rest of the meeting, please go to:
2/20/10 (WCTV)
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
VOTE4CHANGE
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Offline
#146 2010-03-25 11:38:25
I think it's at least a little interesting that a current poll on the Courier asks:
Do you think Wareham's current form of town government is working?
Yes. It's not perfect, but it works for a town of Wareham's size. 15%
No. The town has outgrown its current form of government. 15%
The current form of government is fine; it's just the people currently in charge that make it seem broken. 68%
Total votes: 44
Now, granted it's not alot of respondent's..but out of 44 people 83% don't feel "The town has outgrown its current form of government."...Funny, because 89% of the CRC disagree (8/9), and have from the time they were interviewed and appointed.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/wareham
VOTE4CHANGE
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-03-25 11:39:36)
Offline
#147 2010-03-25 22:13:32
Charter Review Committee Public Mtg. #3
To view the rest of the meeting, go to:
CRC #3
VOTE4CHANGE
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Offline
#148 2010-03-31 22:36:49
This is CRC Chairman Alan Slavin on WCTV's "Daily Gumbo" show..it's partial. I'm not actually sure how long the segment was, but here's about twenty minutes..Oh, I'm also unsure of the exact date on this..probably, hmmm 3/20ish..
VOTE4CHANGE
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-04-01 23:48:27)
Offline
#149 2010-04-05 14:17:30
the following comment was mad by a member of the CRC...
"By: mickjones on 4/4/10
I think Mrs Smith will be wearing an earphone and get instructions from someone in the back of the auditorium if she is moderator."
Offline
#150 2010-04-05 14:25:37
And I think the moderator that we have now gets instructions from his wife/selectman.
Offline
#151 2010-04-05 14:41:08
So jones thinks that getting advice for conducting a meeting is a bad thing?
then, no doubt, he will not be voting for Curley the stooge. He's he one who sought guidance from a Town moderator to the north of wareham prior to the last Town Meeting. in fact, let's call it Wareham North, HOW's that? (Note: it is not the town of HANSON).
So. did anyone notice ANY improvement in the misfit's awful manner of conducting the meeting? or, ANY evidence that he can distinguish between a motion to adjourn and an illegal motion to dissolve?
Any one of the teenagers that he brought into the meeting would be a substantial improvement over curley the stooge.
Offline
#152 2010-04-09 16:48:31
Jaime Rebhan wrote:
.."I don't think the existing charter was really looked at," said FinCom Vice Chairman Donna Bronk, in reference to the Charter Review Committee's (CRC) analysis of the current town charter. Bronk is the FinCom's liaison to the CRC.
"I really oppose having an elected mayor," she said. "It depends on which way the air is blowing, who's going to get elected. And it could just send the whole town into a lot of turmoil and turnover on a regular basis."
Offline
#153 2010-04-09 19:48:13
#154 2010-04-13 11:41:30
Town of Wareham
Charter Review Committee
2010 Final Charter Proposal
Town Charter Proposal 2010 - Final
Town Charter Review - 2010 Minority Report
Offline
#155 2010-04-13 13:07:04
I agreed with Ms. Carmichael i 1977 and I agree with Mr. Gay in 2010.
He said it all very well.
How do you like the CRC deciding to take away your power to elect a School Committee?
Isn't that just great!!!
What a bunch of ignorant people. I don't know what City they formed this charter from, but whatever one it is, I'll be they must be overjoyed with what they have. That is...if any City actually exists with this particular charter.
Nonsense.
Waste of time.
It will NEVER pass Town Meeting.
It will go down to defeat with a bigger mandate than the last election.
Offline
#156 2010-04-13 13:50:37
Pretend you are a school teacher. On a Friday you give your class a weekend assignment: "Read and review Chapter Five and be ready for a test on Monday."
The kids get together after class and one of them comes up with a plan: "Chapter five is BO-ring. Remember how much we hated it when she made us read it last Fall? I say let's all read Chapter Seven....skip Six, that's boring too....and on Monday we'll all tell her that we understood her to say Chapter Seven, and I bet she'll fall for it !"
That's what those CRC folks are going to try to pull on Wareham on April 26. With straight faces they are going to give a report on an assignment they were not given and expect that because they worked so hard on that wrong assignment that we will not only forgive them, but will give them full credit.
I don't think so....
Last edited by Dick Wheeler (2010-04-13 13:51:51)
Offline
#157 2010-04-29 00:09:54
ARTICLE 25
To see if the Town will vote to petition the General Court for special legislation revising the Town Charter in accordance with the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee, which may be found in a document entitled, “Charter Review Committee-Proposed Town Charter,” as on file with the Town Clerk, and provided for the adoption of a new charter with an elected Town Council to be comprised of precinct and at-large councilors who shall serve for 2 year terms, an elected Mayor who shall serve a term of 4 years, an elected Town Clerk who shall serve a term of 3 years, and an elected School Committee whose members shall serve for terms of 3 years. The “Proposed Town Charter” is available on-line or a copy is available for review at the Town Clerk’s office or the Wareham Free Library (copies available but copy charges will apply). The new charter shall not take effect in the Town until approved by the voters at an annual or special election; provided, however, that the General court may make clerical or editorial changes of form only to the bill.
Inserted by the Board of Selectmen at the request of the Wareham Charter Review Committee
KEEPTOWNMEETING
NOON25
Offline
#158 2010-04-29 08:39:34
Please make sure you read the entire charter proposal BEFORE town meeting. Near the very end, you will see this. I'm still a little confused about what exactly it means, but it looks like Wareham's Civil Service policy will be changed. Remember, we voted to RETAIN civil service for our police chief at last year's town meeting. Read carefully. This is on page 34 of the proposed charter you can find on the town website. (You should make a copy and bring it to town meeting as you can't be sure there will be copies for everyone at the meeting.)
"(h) Not later than 30 days after the date of the ratification of this charter by the voters, the board of selectmen shall give to each member of the Massachusetts House and Senate who represent any part of Wareham a copy of the vote ratifying this charter and the following petition for the enactment of a special law applicable to Wareham in the following form:
AN ACT EXCEPTING WAREHAM FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW
Be it enacted, etc.
For the purpose of classifying positions under the civil service law and rules, Wareham, notwithstanding a Charter establishing its form of government, shall continue to be governed by section 52 of chapter 31 of the General Laws and not by section 51 of said chapter 31. Nothing in this act shall be construed to affect the civil service status of any person currently covered by such law and rules. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
The above draft is provided for guidance and general scope and may be altered by the General Court to conform to its normal practice."
Offline
#159 2010-04-29 09:12:36
Chapter 31, Section 51 of Mass General Laws
CHAPTER 31. CIVIL SERVICE
Chapter 31: Section 51. Cities; civil service offices and positions
Section 51. All positions in all cities shall be subject to the civil service law and rules except as provided by section forty-eight or other law and except that, in cities with less than one hundred thousand residents, positions which would fall within the labor service shall not be so subject unless the city council votes to accept the applicability of the civil service law and rules to the labor service.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section forty-eight, the following offices and positions in cities shall be subject to the civil service law and rules: (1) the position of parking meter supervisor in cities whose city councils vote to accept the applicability of civil service law and rules to such position; (2) the office or offices of chief of police or chief of fire department, or the officer performing similar duties, whatever his title, in cities which vote pursuant to the provisions of sections fifty-four and fifty-five to accept the applicability of the civil service law and rules to such office or offices; (3) any municipal office to which the civil service law and rules are made applicable pursuant to section fifty-three; and (4) any office or position to which the civil service law and rules were applicable immediately preceding the effective date of this chapter.
MGL Chapter 31, Section 52
CHAPTER 31. CIVIL SERVICE
Chapter 31: Section 52. Towns; civil service offices and positions
Section 52. The following offices and positions in towns shall be subject to the civil service law and rules:
(1) Inspectors of plumbing.
(2) Sealers and deputy sealers of weights and measures and inspectors and deputy inspectors of weights and measures, whether they are heads of departments or not, in towns of over ten thousand inhabitants.
(3) Offices and positions allocable to the official service in any town of more than five thousand inhabitants which votes pursuant to the provisions of sections fifty-four and fifty-five to accept the applicability of the civil service law and rules to such service.
(4) Positions allocable to the labor service in any town of more than five thousand inhabitants which votes pursuant to the provisions of sections fifty-four and fifty-five to accept the applicability of the civil service law and rules to such service.
(5) Any municipal office to which the civil service law and rules are made applicable pursuant to section fifty-three.
(6) Any office or position to which the civil service law and rules were applicable immediately preceding the effective date of this chapter.
The civil service law and rules shall also be applicable to any of the following in a town which accepts such applicability pursuant to the provisions of sections fifty-four and fifty-five:
(a) The chief of police, or the officer performing similar duties, whatever the title of his office, in any town.
(b) The chief of the fire department, or the officer performing similar duties, whatever the title of his office in any town.
(c) The police force, the fire force and the call fire force in any town.
(d) Parking meter supervisor in any town.
(e) Janitors of school buildings in a town with more than five thousand inhabitants.
(f) Supervisors of attendance in a town with more than five thousand inhabitants.
(g) Clerical positions in the school department of a town with more than five thousand inhabitants.
(h) Sealers and deputy sealers of weights and measures or inspectors and deputy inspectors of weights and measures, whether they are heads of departments or not, in a town with more than five thousand but not more than ten thousand inhabitants.
Offline
#160 2010-04-29 09:19:26
The whole concept of the change of government is ludicrous. I just came back from a long trip, but I will be writing about this over the weekend.
Anyone who tries to change the form of government in Wareham is, as I have stated, delusional.
I'll explain why later. Nora and the rest of you have been very kind with this discussion. I won't be.
Ham...I'm off the peace train officially. The idiots behind this change of government, and destruction of the School Committee, and the removal of Civil Service, trying to shove Westfield down your throats again, hiring a Chief of Police that carries too much baggage and is retiring from another Town, hiring Town Administrators that carry baggage and retain an Ass't Town Administrator that gets paid too much, trying to take EMS away from competent leadership and put it with the PD, etc., etc., etc. need to be stopped.
I've had enough.
I know you have had enough.
Offline
#161 2010-04-29 15:52:58
Yes, Dan - we certainly have had enough.
Offline
#162 2010-04-29 17:51:13
Nora Bicki wrote:
AN ACT EXCEPTING WAREHAM FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW
Be it enacted, etc.
For the purpose of classifying positions under the civil service law and rules, Wareham, notwithstanding a Charter establishing its form of government, shall continue to be governed by section 52 of chapter 31 of the General Laws and not by section 51 of said chapter 31. Nothing in this act shall be construed to affect the civil service status of any person currently covered by such law and rules. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
Another reason to vote this down..how many do we need?
Thanks Nora...and your 100% right Mr. O'Connell...sir.
Offline
#163 2010-04-30 20:50:47
The following was sent to me by a concerned Wareham resident regarding the civil service reference in the proposed charter that I mentioned above.
1. If the proposed charter change is made, it doesn’t guarantee that the Special Act regarding civil service will also pass and that will cause serious problems. The solution is to only pass the proposed charter contingent upon the civil service special act also passing.
2. Civil Service and Unions could be in trouble because several important departments could be eliminated, outsourced, or reconstituted in a different form. The only way to protect them is to guarantee their continued existence in the form we desire by putting them in the charter where they can be protected from the Mayor.
This person makes a couple of important points considering these statements are also in the new charter:
Section 3-2 (a) (v). “The mayor is not required to continue any existing boards, committees, or departments unless required by law.”
This is repeated in Section 6-1:
"The mayor may, subject only to express prohibitions in a General Law, propose to reorganize, consolidate or abolish any town agency, in whole or in part; or establish any new town agencies that the mayor considers necessary."
This is also repeated in Section 10-8 (m):
"The mayor is not required to continue any existing boards, committees, or departments unless required by law."
Please read the proposed charter carefully before town meeting!!
Offline
#164 2010-05-03 14:46:51
Their goal is to eliminate Town Meeting and take away your right to attend and act as the legislative branch of our government.
WW: The answer is in the numbers
TODAY !!!
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
P-SPAN
Offline
#165 2010-05-08 05:03:24
What should have been done..
Ryan Richardson wrote:
Jan 29, 2009
To change the way a town’s government is structured, say by going from a board of selectmen to a mayor, or even going from five selectmen to three, requires that a town go through a charter commission.
A charter commission can only be called for by a petition signed by at least 15 percent of registered voters in town. After the petition is certified, voters need to determine whether they want to revise the charter and who will make up the nine-member commission. Commission members are elected at large like other town officers.
Voters will consider the question of charter revision and commission members during the same election. Once the commission members are elected, the commission has 10 months to put together a revised charter for submission to the voters. At least two months after that, the charter faces an up or down vote in an election, and, if approved, becomes effective in a date provided in the charter.
Courier: More charter committee candidates interviewed
KEEP TOWN MEETING...VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 25
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
P-SPAN
Offline
#166 2010-05-08 16:10:53
---Copied from "other" thread...
As anyone who watches any of the meetings I post knows, I don't add (usually) any comments when I add them. Mostly because there's alot of video..I can't watch it all (yet, anyway)..so I decided to just "pump them out"..and deal with that later..but I do watch some of the old ones..and all of the ones in the last year or so...trust me..."things" happened at every meeting..
For this Charter Review "call-in" show that happened about three weeks ago (I don't know the exact date)...I tuned in late..but when I did they were running a presentation created by the CRC..after that they went "to the studio" (the video starts here) and uncomfortable moments passed while NO ONE called in. I was even feeling a bit embarrassed for the CRC..anyway..since there were no calls..after chatting amongst themselves for a few minutes they decided to re-run the presentation..after which they returned to silent phones once again..so they wrapped it up. If the "public" meeting's they've held show anything, it's that there are serious concerns about the CRC's flawed "process" (there's that word, Mick)...as well as confusion/concerns about what all the changes would "mean"..this call-in show is more evidence that the Town is not "tuned in" to the proposal..and I don't see how they can feel they have any real support from the citizens. A purposely confusing non-binding referendum question, given to the CRC by the the BoS, that passed by a slim margin doesn't show it..and the opinions of a "carefully selected" charter review committee who had their minds made up from day 1 doesn't either...if the "town folk" decide to go through the necessary steps to create an elected charter commission to consider alternative forms of government (including "representative" government)...then I'ld be assured enough that people were "on board" in the town..and would fully support that. Until that happens, I won't support this course of action that was initiated by the previous BoS...
CRC on WCTV 4/10
KEEP TOWN MEETING...VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 25
CRC WCTV 4/10
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-05-08 16:53:16)
Offline
#167 2010-05-08 17:46:32
At the end of the presentation Mick Jones states:
“This form of government will provide equal representation because all key positions are elected. So that all who vote are represented in the law making process regardless of whether their responsibilities, health, finances, infirmity, or anything else deter them from being present at the moments of legislation. Hence, the proposed form of government will result in the individual voter having the greatest control of those individuals running the town in the history of Wareham.”
Fancy way of saying it’s better (for Wareham voter’s) to NOT have a voice (in legislation) than to have one..I disagree. Just like at the polls, ANY registered voter is welcome to attend and participate at Town Meeting. If the "secret ballot" and increased voter participation are desired..I suggest looking into letting people attend as they do now..and maybe figuring out a way for those citizen's who "can't make it" the ability to watch from home, and cast their votes remotely...perhaps by phone and/or internet..it is 2010 people..we put folks on the moon 41 years ago..I bet we can figure this one out..just one "Spans" opinion..
A few things I'ld like to point out. Aside from who the Mayor might be..and who the Councilmen might be. At one of the CRC public meetings, one of the speaker's from another town said they sometimes didn't have enough people interested in running to fill all their positions. Another said, "Don't change it if you don't agree with the current leader's..they'll just run for Councilmen or Mayor". What if someone who "represents" you is "out sick"...on vacation...just pays you lip service, and votes completely against you all the time?? How then are you represented? The CRC might say.."well, there are also "at-large" Councilmen...all of what I just said about your precinct councilmen still applies...and they (at-large councilmen) will have to be concerned about what all the towns precincts "issues" are. I would guess the precinct councilmen and the at-large councilmen will have somewhat different agendas (at best)..and if the partisan politics we see in Wareham now is any indication...efforts would be made to get "like-minded thinker's" elected (from either/any "side"). So, "partisan politics" and "special interests" will not end.. and the likelihood of collusion is amplified, in my opinion.
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-05-08 17:55:37)
Offline
#168 2010-05-10 02:07:35
#169 2010-05-27 03:37:03
#170 2010-09-04 21:44:39
"Bumping" this old thread..
I thought I'd go to the Town's website to see if ANY CRC meeting minutes had been posted (since they are still appointed..and working on Articles for the Fall TM)..guess what? NONE since February 2!!! NONE.. Hmmmm..I guess they'll be kind enough to share their thoughts with us on town meeting floor...One can only hope..
http://www.wareham.ma.us/Public_Documen … MA_CRCMin/
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-09-04 21:46:45)
Offline
#171 2010-09-05 07:15:53
Interesting note: I attended a different town board meeting recently and one of those members was also a member of the CRC. She had NO IDEA what the Town Report was!!! It had to be explained to her. A member of the BoS also at that meeting mentioned that town reports can often be picked up at the fall town meeting!!! They are also on file going way back in the library's Stone research room.
Reviewing town reports is a great way to see how town meetings have functioned in the past since they include the warrants and the subsequent votes that were taken on each article in addition to reports of town departments, boards, committees etc. It also includes the salaries of every town employee, and the town budget. If you were going to dump the town meeting type of government and had only attended a couple of town meetings, do you think you might have done a little research by looking at past town meeting reports???
That's right. No clue. This person was one of the people appointed to the CRC who admitted during the interview that she had only attended a couple of town meetings. Remember, the BoS appointed people who actually said they hadn't even read the charter to the charter review committee!!!! The few people who applied and were very well versed in town meetings and the charter were NOT appointed. You figure it out!!
Last edited by Nora Bicki (2010-09-05 13:49:03)
Offline
