i was a few minutes ahead of you...  peace to you dick..:)

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.

Dick Wheeler wrote:

Let us all continue to march on toward Peace with our heads held high, pausing only long enough to stick flowers into the barrels of  the guns that are  threateningly pointed toward us.

TAKEBACKWAREHAM
VOTE4CHANGE
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN

Thanks for the info Dan I was wondering who bailed me out its difficult to remember things when you have short term memory loss.