No Mayor For Wareham!    Town Meeting Next Monday Could Determine Our Future In A Negative Way.  Get Your Friends, Enemy's, Neighbors, Co-workers And Relatives To Meet You There!

Hamatron5000 wrote:

Greetings Peace Bloggers,

The Ham of Peace here.  As you all know, there is no Ham more peaceful than this Ham.

Peace Bloggers, even though the Hypocrite Elite/Tin Foil Hat Squad was dealt a humilating defeat in the recent election, we can't grow complacent.  The tin hats remain, lurking around every corner, ready to strike at any moment with their tin hat lunacy.

Reports from town meeting attendees indicate to this Ham that the Westfield vote was a close one.

Talk to your family, friends, neighbors, etc. and turn out the vote next Monday.  Don't let town meeting be destroyed.  Don't let them take town meeting away.

Go to Town Meeting to Save Town Meeting.  Let's turn the vote out.

Co-sign.  Last night there were over 300 people in attendance, and tonight the number was around 250.Westfield went down only by 122-117.  That's way too thin a margin. 

If you weren't there the last two nights and weren't ill, you goofed!  Fortunately, you have a chance to redeem yourself on Monday, May 10th.

Last edited by Petethemeat (2010-05-05 09:28:50)

Good morning Zoo,  If you get a chance to watch the rebroadcast of the meeting when it gets posted you might get a different view on Janey, she was quite bitter.  "I also want to say that Chairman of the Board Donahue showed far more grace after losing Westfield then Brenda. I commend Mrs. Donahue for being a good sport. Overall I have been happy with her as Chair. I still do not agree with a word she says. I will, however, give her credit for making a good effort to lead the Board."  The selectmens mic's appeared to be live so during the broadcast you could hear all of the little remarks being made.  At 10pm when Claire was speaking with counsel about her ruling of revisiting articles, Jane was going off on this current form of government and the voting body.

Last edited by wareham pride (2010-05-05 07:44:40)

I look forward to the argument they'll make next week.

"Hello, town meeting.  You are all a bunch of evil and vile power elite bastards who have millions of dollars worth of ill gotten photocopier nickels stuffed in your mattresses.  Please give up your right to town meeting, because you evil bastards can't be trusted.  In conclusion, we hate you all, now please do what we say."

danoconnell wrote:

If they pack the meeting one night, who is to say someone couldn't move to reconsider the Westfield article and whatever else they lost.

In her discretion, Madam Moderator opened Town Meeting on Monday by requiring all motions to reconsider be made the same night that the original vote was made.  Her policy was reiterated last night following the Westfields vote, when the proponents of the article requested that she permit reconsideration at any point during Town Meeting (obviously looking for time to pack votes), and she refused.

I think she made the right decision in not allowing reconsideration, since the motion before the body was the amendment for a study committee.  What's to reconsider about that?

Thanks Pride, I will watch the tape. I would love to hear what Brenda was muttering all night long.

Believe me Ham, they will be bussing them in.

Ham is absolutely right....and what we need even more than a good five cent cigar is a good slogan or chant to fire us up for our High Noon confrontation next Monday. Someone will come up with a better one, but to get the competition started I'll submit one that popped into my head as my dog was taking me along on her morning walk:

Now that we have Claire..
We no longer need a mayor.

(It only works if you are a coastal New  Englander and pronounce the letter
that comes between Q and S properly:  Clay-ah, and may-ah.)

It appears that their "new" information they may try to use to reconsider Westfield will be an improper quorum, or the Moderator's ruling not to allow another quorum count.
I am sure the Moderator is working hard on this, and she will know more about it by Monday than any lawyer from K&P or others who consider themselves to be smarter than they are...
I have known this lady all of my life...she is tenacious, competent, serious about her position as Moderator, and she will be an expert because she will insist on it.One thing is for sure: don't ever underestimate her abilities.
Don't ever think she is weak (ask Howie) and don't ever think you can intimidate her or push her around.
Bottom line if you do: she will kick your ass.
With words.
She will destroy you and render you useless and insignificant.
If anyone thinks I am kidding, give it a try. I can't wait to see it...

danoconnell wrote:

It appears that their "new" information they may try to use to reconsider Westfield will be an improper quorum, or the Moderator's ruling not to allow another quorum count.
I am sure the Moderator is working hard on this, and she will know more about it by Monday than any lawyer from K&P or others who consider themselves to be smarter than they are...
I have known this lady all of my life...she is tenacious, competent, serious about her position as Moderator, and she will be an expert because she will insist on it.One thing is for sure: don't ever underestimate her abilities.
Don't ever think she is weak (ask Howie) and don't ever think you can intimidate her or push her around.
Bottom line if you do: she will kick your ass.
With words.
She will destroy you and render you useless and insignificant.
If anyone thinks I am kidding, give it a try. I can't wait to see it...

To claim an improper quorum they would need actual evidence.  And by "evidence," I mean tangible proof that at least one person who voted was not a registered voter of the Town of Wareham.

As for the Moderator not allowing a quorum count after the vote, I believe she is on firm ground in stating that a quorum challenge must be made BEFORE a vote - but maybe Mr. Onset could chime in here.

Independent of the issue of non-registered voters, one can determine a quorum by adding up the votes cast.  Also: "If the yeas and nays on a counted vote fail to add up to a quorum; the vote is nevertheless valid if the record shows a quorum to have been present at the beginning of the meeting and the presence of a quorum was not thereafter challenged." - Town Meeting Time pages 19-20.

Thank you, Mr. Onset.  That ends any debate once and for all as to the validity of the vote (not that I thought there was any grounds for challenging the quorum in the first place).

Right on Larry!!

I think the scariest part of all of this is the total lack of respect they have for anyone who believes that town meeting is the better form of government.  They act like anyone who wants to keep town meeting is an evil power elite bastard, you're a horrible evil person for doing your civic duty for going to town meeting...it just isn't right.  Show some respect for people who believe in this time honored New England tradition. 

I know I know, the tin hats don't respect anyone who doesn't tow the tin hat line.  Too much to ask for.

One thing people need to keep in mind is oversight.  Checks and balances.  Our American government is founded on checks and balances.  The selectmen are an oversight on the TA.

Who oversees the overseers in town government?  The people do!  Town meeting voters!  Think about the budget process at town meeting.  The residents get together, the budget is put up on the big screen, and everyone goes through it line by line.  They ask questions.  They can propose changes.

You won't have that kind of budget oversight in a city government.  The city councilors and the mayor - 12 people will get together behind closed doors and play "Let's Make a Deal." 

In town meeting, you have an open budget process.

Are the selectmen and TA being unresponsive about an issue you think is important?  In town meeting government, you can petition for an article to be placed on the warrant.  In a city government, you'd be outta luck.

Tommorrow night, the people of this town are going to be told that they're too stupid and dishonest to handle town meeting government, so they should give up their rights and hand them to a group of 12 who know better. 

And they call us elitists.

I just hope that people won't surrender their rights and hand them over on a silver platter. 

Be sure to get out to town meeting tommorrow night.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-05-09 19:27:27)

A beautiful picture that says it all.  I'm sure this display of democracy sickens the tin hats.

The process has already been tainted.  An out of towner/lackey of the former dictatorship has been lobbying residents all weekend trying to get them to vote for this moronic mayor plan.  A person that will never even be affected by a mayoral power grab because he doesn't even live in this town.

He was against it.  Then his BOS masters had a massive blowout defeat at the ballot box.  Now he's for it.

SOUR GRAPES!!!

That this clown is for it tells you that its a dumb idea.  Go to town meeting to save town meeting.  Fight this assault on democracy.

VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 25, Dont blame the system because of a few bad eggs!  Its a proven fact that the majority of the CRC members were supporters of the incumbents that were voted out of office, so should we be surprised that we are now faced with this mess?   Someone pointed out in another post, "Do a google search of the words Mayor and Corruption, you will have plenty to read about.  We are the TOWN OF WAREHAM not the City, our tax dollars are feeding this train so we should have the right to see where its going. 

"The purest form of democratic governing is practiced in a Town Meeting. In use for over 300 years and still today, it has proven to be a valuable means for many Massachusetts taxpayers to voice their opinions and directly effect change in their communities. Here in this ancient American assembly, you can make your voice heard as you and your neighbors decide the course of the government closest to you."
 
William Francis Galvin
Secretary of the Commonwealth

                                                           !!!!VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 25!!!!

Last edited by wareham pride (2010-05-09 22:34:19)

It is unfortunate that people often can't get to town meeting - for work, can't find a sitter, or are just too damn tired.

But let's look at the big picture here.

People who can't make it to town meeting but can make it to a ballot vote already have the chance to vote for their 5 selectmen - 2 a year, 2 a year, and 1 a year.  Those selectmen are answerable to the people.  As they recently discovered, if they provide poor leadership, then they're shown the door.

So in our current system, all of the people, whether you can make it to town meeting or not, have the right to vote for 5 selectmen.  Plus, we have a town meeting where any resident has the right to come, speak, propose changes, and be a check on those selectmen.

Isn't it better to have what we have right now?  All of the people have the right to choose 5 selectmen at the polls, plus a town meeting made up of anyone who wants to be a part of it provides a much needed check and oversight over those 5 selectmen.

Our current system has thousands of people voting for selectmen and hundreds of people coming to town meeting to take part in the legislative process.

And they can tell us with a straight face that is less democratic than 12 people who run the whole show with no input from anyone else?

People, get to town meeting.  They're hoping you're stupid enough to sign away your rights here.  Don't let them take your rights away.  Save democracy.  Save town meeting.

The former dictatorship has a bad track record for open government.  The former BOS violated the open meeting law 17 times and Sweet Brucey's response was something like "We'll find out in the election if people think that's a big deal."  Hey, what do you know, THEY DID!

They can't be trusted with a mayoral power grab.  They want take your rights away.  Don't let them.  Go to town meeting.

Hamatron5000 wrote:

Yes, I urge everyone to watch that video.  When a citizen tried to video tape an open meeting, the CRC threw a fit.  And we're supposed to trust these people?

Wareham Charter Review Mtg. 9/24/09


KEEP TOWN MEETING...VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 25

Wareham Charter Review Mtg. 9/24/09

TAKEBACKWAREHAM
P-SPAN

Steve Decosta wrote:

May 10, 2010 12:00 AM

WAREHAM — Town Meeting will reconvene tonight, and its first order of business will be to consider legislating itself out of business.

In two nights last week, the body cleared more than half its 56-article warrant, but perhaps the most controversial and divisive issue remains: a proposal by the Charter Review Committee to change the town's form of government.

The committee is proposing a new home rule charter that scraps Town Meeting and the five-member Board of Selectmen in favor of an elected mayor and an 11-member council.

Whatever the outcome tonight, it won't be decisive.

If the proposal is approved by Town Meeting, the new charter then must be approved by the state Legislature and again by the town in a binding referendum.

If the proposal is defeated, Charter Review Committee Chairman Alan Slavin has promised a more conventional review of the existing charter, which is required every 10 years. "We have a backup plan," he said. "If people don't like this, we can go back through our existing charter and discuss it with everybody and ask them what isn't working and what we could do differently. Then we could go ahead and do what we can do to fix it."

Reflecting the sharp division in the community, the Finance Committee could not put together a consensus recommendation on the proposal, deadlocking 3-3 with two abstentions.

"The Finance Committee was split on the vote for this article," it wrote. "Those in favor of moving to a different form of government noted that town meeting tended to represent a very small percentage of the population and when critical votes came up, proponents on either side of an issue tended to dominate the proceedings. Those who wished to continue with town meeting felt that perhaps we might be entering a 'new era' and that town meeting could work."

Selectmen did not offer a recommendation, but several members have made their positions clear and the same sort of split exists on that board, as well.

The issue was the subject of a nonbinding referendum in the town election on April 6.

A slight majority of voters, 1,903-1,854, said they believe the current form of government is not working in the best interest of the town, but many voters said they were confused by the wording of the question.

All told, 25 articles remain for consideration, including proposals to create a committee to study the long-term use of town-owned land at Swifts Beach.

Most of the town's financial issues were wrapped up last week with approval of a $59 million budget for fiscal 2011, but voters still face requests for $99,224 to pay for the leasing of nine police department vehicles and $100,000 to begin replenishing the town's stabilization fund.

The meeting is scheduled to reconvene at 7 tonight in the high school auditorium.

KEEP TOWN MEETING...VOTE NO ON ARTICLE 25

ST: Wareham Town Meeting to consider self-destruction

TAKEBACKWAREHAM
P-SPAN