#1 2010-05-08 16:07:37
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 16:52:49)
Offline
#2 2010-05-10 00:01:42
...and let's go to the phones to see what the citizens of Wareham think of changing to a Mayoral form of government..
Offline
#3 2010-05-10 07:08:12
communists
Offline
#4 2010-05-10 07:15:20
It's too bad our Charter Review Committee didn't review the charter. You'd think when you're called "The Charter Review Committee" reviewing the charter is the first thing you'd do.
Offline
#5 2010-05-10 07:17:14
Where the hell did these "moonbats" come from??..Slavin on all our Boards, Eddie P the lone Brucey sign holder, Mickey Dolenz Davey Jones??..lets get our fellow citizens who want to see Wareham returned to some sense of normalcy to Town Meeting tonight..
Offline
#6 2010-05-10 07:24:23
All picked by the former dictatorship that was shown the door on April 6. If their ideas were wanted, the people that picked them would still be in office.
Offline
#7 2010-05-10 12:35:32
I am reposting an exchange I had with Bobo over on Wareham Week's website about a week ago. I know that interacting with Bobo is a "no steps forward, multiple steps back" proposition...and so, I don't usually respond to his questions. They are usually designed to perpetuate his lies, and you are NEVER closer to any sort of resolution or "compromise" in a difference of opinion. But...I'll give this one "a few thoughts"..
Posted by: P-SPAN | May 01, 2010 00:03
Listen...this CRC (an appointed committee)..appointed by a BoS who wanted this to happen, and chose the members accordingly...chose to change the form of government at their first meeting..never reviewed the current charter, functioned shorthanded for ten months..and a slew of other problems. If this change were to be taken seriously..an ELECTED CHARTER COMMISSION should have done it...which would have shown there was a real desire in the community to entertain this proposal. It wasn't done because that was the hard way..and ran the risk of not seeing the light of day. Because we had a BoS with a very specific agenda they chose these individuals (who agreed with them). Rather than choosing a group that truly represented citizens of the town...maybe a few that weren't ready to scrap the whole charter at the first meeting would have been a start...maybe actually reviewing it..you know..like AT the meetings...may have shown "due dilligence"..having one member who (at least) claims to disagree with the proposal (Lin Gay) is not nearly enough..This proposal will fail..you have no one to blame but yourselves..and you wasted an opportunity to make some necessary "tweaks" to the Charter..Mick makes it more than clear that that was never a goal for him..The charter/form of government we have is crap (in his opinion)..and anyone who doesn't see it as such is an idiot. Do you condescend to everyone Mick..or am I just the lucky one?
Posted by: Robert Thomas Slager | May 01, 2010 00:41
P-Span, I have always agreed that the process taken by the CRC left something to be desired. They approached the issue backward. They made a decision and then tried to sell the public on it. That cost them some support. But at some point the process needs to be put in the past and the focus needs to turn toward the merit of what is proposed. The CRC did nothing illegal in formulating their proposal. The proposal is what it is.
Town Meeting will not be voting to accept the proposal. It is merely being asked to move it through special legislation and then to the voters of Wareham during next April's election, where a far wider range of residents will have the opportunity to have their voices heard. I do not understand why anyone would want to limit voter participation on this very important issue. If you believe the majority of voters would oppose such a change in government why would you object to it being placed on a ballot?
It's about the "checks and balances" we are supposed to have in government. In my opinion, the previous BoS FAILED to "represent" the citizens (as a whole) by purposely choosing a Charter Review Committee that was against the current form of government in Wareham, and were prepared to make a change. A couple of the CRC members who were appointed stated in their interviews that they were "recruited"..by a couple of "ladies"...Who do you think that might be? I'm willing to bet it was Jane and Brenda. During the questioning of the interviewee's Jane stuck with the standard.."Why are you interested in serving on this committee?" (Jane is the most "political savvy", and seldom shows her hand "on record" or makes "potentially volatile political statements"..that's why I love the "six minutes"..executive session recording. You really see her true colors when she thinks the "public isn't listening"..and she revealed the audit to be the witch hunt we now know it to be. Brenda refused to ask any questions of those interviewed for the CRC...also a political move (IMO)...she was later named as the BoS liaison to the Charter Review Committee. Cronan asked everyone (in essence) if they thought the current form of government was broken, and if they'd be prepared to make a change...and Bruce made clear his opinion that "Reviewing" did NOT exclude the scrapping of our charter.
Since that "check"...or "balance" (or whatever) was "side-stepped" and/or "manipulated"...any steps in the process after that stood a less than likely chance of proceeding as it should. The Charter Review Committee spent the last year "selling it to the public"..(and re-wording their version of a new charter 25 times), etc..but certainly NOT reviewing our current charter.
I have no problem accepting the votes of the "larger electorate" deciding on things brought to the ballot. But voter's at TM shouldn't ignore the "business before us" at town meeting...aka listening to, discussing, voting on "issues" at Town Meeting, and shouldn't just "rubber stamp" something so it can "clear the next hurdle" (aka check..balance, whatever) . If the article does NOT ask to decide what the merits (for or against) a "governmental change" are, but whether to "pay it forward" ; ) as it does...then I believe the question of the CRC's "flawed process" is more than relevant....tonight...and it's why I'll vote against it. Check NOT avoided or manipulated...
Town Meeting's most important vote ever is to save itself..tonight.
KEEPTOWNMEETING
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-05-10 12:42:02)
Offline
#8 2010-05-10 14:15:17
Today Mr. Slager writes:
"On April 6 more than 4,000 people voted in the Town Election. While that remains a small percentage of the overall population, it represents nearly 20 times the number of people (241) who voted at Town Meeting last Tuesday.
Think about that for a moment. Less than 1 percent of Wareham’s population decided to kill a proposal that would have brought a senior affordable-housing development to the town-owned Westfield project. The issue was decided by around the same number of people who are currently on the town’s waiting list for senior affordable housing.
That’s not democracy. That’s the will of a small number of people manipulating an antiquated form of government for their own political purposes."
Two observations:
1. Why didn't those seniors on the housing waiting list show up en masse to vote in favor of Westfield? Could it be that Donna Bronk was right when she told us that she had spoken to many seniors who did not want to live so far way from the center of town?
2. As to "manipulating an antiquated form of government for their own political purposes," what exactly are those "purposes," anyway? I voted against it for several reasons:
a) notwithstanding the "municipal purposes" loophole/warrant article screwup in 1977, as anyone who was around then can tell you, the housing plan goes against the actual intent for which the land was originally obtained;
b) notwithstanding Mr. Sauvageau's insistence that the Town will still own the land, a 99-year lease means none of us will be alive when the lease expires;
c) going forward with the development would tie up a third of the property for the benefit of not even 2% of the Town's population when there are other alternatives to accommodate them; and
d) call me suspicious, but when E.A. Fish is handing out promotional materials for the project outside of Town Meeting, I have to wonder just how fair any subsequent bidding process will be.
Offline
