#1 2010-04-10 19:10:26
We asked them to Vote April 6! And Freedom was restored on April 6!
Chugga chuggaa...wooo wooo!
What's that sound, Peace Bloggers?
Why, it's the Peace Train! Yes, it just returned from taking all of the trash to the dump and it is back for another lap, the destination this time - April 26 Town meeting, and even more peace!
No Mayor! No Mayor! No Mayor! We turned out the election vote, surely we can turn out the town meeting vote! Tell everyone to come out to town meeting and keep the remnants of the Hypocrite Elite from taking away your right to be a citizen legislator! Don't let them take away your voice! Don't let them consolidate power in the hands of 11! Don't let them take away town meeting!
GO TO TOWN MEETING TO SAVE TOWN MEETING!!!
All aboard the Victorious Peace Train - Next Stop - NO MAYOR!!!
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-04-10 19:11:13)
Offline
#3 2010-04-11 11:21:47
I'm really not up on parliamentary procedure, but wouldn't it make sense to vote for further study on the mayor matter, and have step #1 of "further study" be the appointment of a committee to review our present charter line by line? In other words, actually do what was supposed to have been done, and avoid the "mayor-no mayor" argument , which gives them the chance to say we are ,"stuck in our ways", when what we are trying to say is, "Hey guys, we aren't saying Wareham should never ever have a mayor system....What we are saying is that the CRC jumped way,way, beyond their charge, which was to review our present charter with a committee that fairly represented the town." Instead,what we got was a report that was as if an "unprejudiced history of The Civil War written from the Southern point of view". I don't want to see us dragged into a debate that we shouldn't be having. Act instead on the possibility that we can breathe new life into a system that needs tinkering, not replacement.
Offline
#4 2010-04-11 13:45:33
Hear..Hear...Dick
Offline
#5 2010-04-11 13:57:03
And please don't fall for the line that people voted to change to a mayoral form of government on the April 6 ballot. The question was ambiguous. Poorly worded. Did we pay K and P to do that? $$$$$$$$
Here is what the ballot should have said:
Wareham currently has a form of government that consists of a Town Administrator and a Board of Selectmen.
The Charter Review Committee is advocating that we change our form of government to a Mayor and Town Council.
CHOOSE ONLY ONE.
1. Wareham should keep its current form of government: Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen ( )
2. Wareham should change its form of government to: Mayor and Town Council ( )
Plain and simple with no ambiguity. DON'T FALL FOR THE LINE THAT THE PEOPLE OF WAREHAM VOTED TO CHANGE THE FORM OF TOWN GOVERNMENT. A fifth grader could have worded the question more clearly and concisely than what appeared on the ballot.
Offline
#6 2010-04-11 14:46:54
Nora said it all.
Not only did the CRC come in with preconceived notions, their recommendations are ambiguous at the very least.
What kind of Mayor?
A strong Mayor with a weak Council, or a weak Mayor with a strong Council?
How does one make up 11 districts within the Town to elect Council people...does the whole Town vote for each Councilman, or just the District?
What are the veto powers of the Mayor?
What does it take to over-ride a veto?
My head!!
That is just the beginning!
Offline
#7 2010-04-11 14:51:31
danoconnell wrote:
Nora said it all.
Not only did the CRC come in with preconceived notions, their recommendations are ambiguous at the very least.
What kind of Mayor?!
I'm assuming the kind whose surname is either Donahue or Sauvageau.
Offline
