#1 2010-02-28 16:48:00
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.
http://wareham-ma.villagesoup.com/colum … ?cid=31816
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
VOTE4CHANGE
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-02-28 19:56:01)
Offline
#2 2010-02-28 17:48:53
I think you should honor Mick's wishes.
Offline
#3 2010-02-28 18:07:10
MJones wrote:
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.
This is all too interesting.
So the discussion had to have come up (introduced by someone on the committee) before the "public input" session scheduled for February 20th.
I give the committee members credit for tabeling it but then they caved in to the pressure ( by the same someone ?).
Again, the CRC really doesn't much want any input from the general public. They seem to think they know what's best.
What's more interesting is that most of them (except the clerk) has less than ten years of town meeting experience. I'm guessing that's what qualified them for their appointments. What a travesty.
Offline
#4 2010-02-28 19:46:08
6 of the crc members voted IN FAVOR of this did they not???? so either mick isn't being truthful or the crc let the selectmen BULLY them.....
which is it?
Offline
#5 2010-02-28 19:54:55
Mr. Cruz did speak out against this (non-binding referendum question)..and was the one dissenting vote.
Bravo, Mr. Cruz..
VOTE4CHANGE
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN
Offline
#6 2010-02-28 21:06:30
Let's just remember that these people on the Board fo Selectman NEED a mayoral form of government, Mr. Cruz doesn't because he has a life and a job. Let's think about the motives here:
Brenda - needs a paycheck.
Jane - husband needs a paycheck.
Bruce - needs a paycheck.
Cronie - I heard he just got a job but maybe he figures he needs a better paycheck.
There is a trend here, the people who are pushing this, this is about them making a living. Did they pressure the CRC? I can't answer that, I suspect that they have spent a good deal of time brainwashing these people, and maybe they employed some intimidation. I think that what MJ says is probably true. The BOS would do it anyways. Why not make sure they still had the ball in their court?
This is what they envision the new administration will look like.
Mayor, John Donahue
Chief of Staff, Brenda
Town Solicitor, Brucey
Notice how Cronie isn't in the picture? That is intentional. They don't need him and there isn't enough room at the top, I would suggest that they give him a nice department head job, maybe. If you have been paying attention this is pretty much what they have been saying for years. John is the ultimate politican, he has built a political machine (before any of you try and tell me that he is losing support that is not relevant to this, you won't know how much support he has until April 6th). Brenda has her MPA and is very much interested in an upper level administrator type job. Brucey has finished law school.
As my grandson's favorite show the Wonder Pets says (constantly) "THIS IS SERIOUS!" Don't underestimate any of these people. This is about money, this is about power.
Offline
#7 2010-02-28 23:01:21
Well said, ilive..Curly John has had the ability to get out the vote for certain candidates..Ekstrom was hand-picked (quote from him) by he and his fellow DTC members..we've seen the results of that..last year, it was Cape Verdean Businessman Cruz who benefitted from Mr and Mrs Moderator's support..
Now teamed up with Bobo, many uninformed voters will continue to support the race-baiter and whoever Slager endorses..
Offline
#8 2010-03-01 09:45:21
I think the big question here is why are the selectmen beating around the bush? (Excepting Cruz because he was against this).
If they want to know whether or not the town wants to switch to a Mayoral form of government, then the referendum should have asked, "Do you support Wareham switching to a Mayoral form of government?"
They have realized that very few people actually support this, but are trying to push it anyway. They know if they were to put "Do you support switching to Mayoral government?" means that people would show up in droves to vote no and also vote out the two selectmen that put the question on the ballot, Brucey and Cronie.
So they're trying to slip one under the rug here. They don't ask if people want to switch to a Mayor system. Instead, they ask "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 interests of the town?"
Well golly. That's a loaded question, isn't it? On one hand, no, I feel the current board of selectmen is not working in the best interests of the town at all. But that doesn't mean that I want to switch to a Mayor system. However, if I vote "no" on this based on my disapproval of the current board, they will use my vote as evidence that people want a change to a mayor form of government.
So look at it a different way. No, I don't think the current selectmen are working in the best interests of the town, but I think overall, the current selectmen system works well because it gives me the option of voting against them and voting for people who I think will provide better leadership.
So when it comes down to it - the current system does work. Don't throw out the system, just throw out the people who are messing it up.
My question is why are Brucey and Cronie running for selectmen if they do support a Mayor government and apparently feel the position of selectman should be abolished? They apparently feel that or they would not have voted in favor of putting this question on the ballot.
Spread the word, people. The question is code for "Do you want a Mayor?" Vote "yes" that you are happy with the current system because it gives you the chance to vote out people not looking out for the town's best interests. In doing so, you will in essence be voting "no, I don't want a mayor."
Vote yes to show that you don't want a mayor, and then vote out the incumbents who are trying to force a mayorship on this town and don't even have the courage to ask you directly if you want a mayorship.
Offline
#9 2010-03-01 10:51:07
Ever since one BOS member was elected two years ago that person has been repeating as if a mantra: "The present form of government is not working: therefore we must change to a mayoral form of government", as if one follows the other logically. Whenever I've had the chance, I've retorted with the old yankee saying: "It's a poor workman who blames his tools." And what is any form of government but the tools used by people to govern themselves? Why not say," I could be a great artist if only I had a better paint brush"? It says volumes about their lack of respect for the intelligence of the people who elected them when they use this tactic. Town Meeting will be the arena for showing them how we feel about a referendum that can be used in their favor no matter how it is answered.
And that's what they are doing with this bogus ballot question. As P-Span has pointed out so well , it's a classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" , lose-lose question, and he really did Mick Jones a favor by passing on Mick's feeling that he and the rest of the CRC had been "sand bagged" .
The speaker at the first CRC panel who said something to the effect that no form of government works unless you have good people running it really "nailed it". Much of the chaos of the past three years has been the result of BOS ineptitude, but during the mayhem there have been some very savvy BOS observers offering the judgement that some of what we have been seeing has been "chaos by design"..... Make sure that nothing works and then blame it on the form of government. I've been forced to feel they were right all along.
And let me add my applause for Walter Cruz for seeing right through the sham.
Last edited by Dick Wheeler (2010-03-01 10:53:50)
Offline
#10 2010-03-01 15:27:23
Just a question from the peanut gallery here. If there were discussion of placing a referendum on the ballot with regards to the CRC, when did it occur? If this came from the Selectmen, I don't recall a discussion in the public meeting. If the discussion happened in the CRC meeting, shouldn't it be in the minutes? When did this conversation happen? How was it relayed and could this be ANOTHER possible open meeting violation?
Offline
