#1 2010-09-16 07:15:23
I read this in the tacky tabloid and said HUH????
" Article 39 would change the Town Charter to allow only residential property owners to serve on non-elected committees and boards."
Am I reading this right?? Does that mean if you live here but only RENT an apartment in Wareham you can't serve on boards?? See, the TT says "only residential property owners" but the article says something different.
"ARTICLE 39 - CHARTER CHANGE TO EXPAND VOLUNTEERS
To see if the Town will vote to allow residential property owners to serve on non elected committees and boards.
In Section 2-5 (a) Appointments add the following to the end of the section:
Owners of residential property located in Wareham may be appointed and shall be allowed to serve on non elected committees and/or boards, to do or act in any manner relative thereto.
Inserted by the Board of Selectmen at the request of the Charter Review Committee"
Now I think this means that you don't HAVE to be a full time resident, but that if you own property and pay taxes on that property you can now be on a board. That seems right to me. The article after all is titled EXPAND volunteers.
Isn't that quite a bit different from our "always truthful" tacky tabloid writer's version??
Anyone care to take a guess on how long it will take to make the change in this "factual inaccuracy"????
MORAL TO THIS STORY??? If you are still a follower/believer of the TTW, you need your head examined!!!! I personally don't trust a thing this guy says and neither should anyone with a scintilla of gray matter!!!
Offline
#2 2010-09-16 07:25:07
Does the alleged journalist get anything right?..his recent comments about the Standard Times were not at all correct..the New England Press Association no longer exists yet he writes about it like he knows what he's talking about..ass-clown doesn't come close to describing this slob..
Offline
#3 2010-09-16 08:29:17
I disagree with this completely. You either live in Wareham or you don't live in Wareham. If you live in Wareham, then ok, get involved with the political process that affects your life. Living under the consequences of your political actions will hopefully make board members make better decisions. If you just own property, then no, that's not enough.
This CRC is a bunch of clowns. Do they realize that an out of town residential property developer that doesn't know the first thing about Wareham could qualify to serve on a board under this? These clowns should resign immediately.
Didn't Move Wareham Backward have a spaghetti dinner meeting a few weeks ago where the topic on the agenda was how to address the interests of out of town residential property owners? Isn't one of the leaders of this group an out of towner?
Someone owns a cottage in Wareham. Whoopee shit. That doesn't give you the right to run the joint.
I'll tell you, if it's one thing the Hypocrite Elite does best, it is selling the town down the river to out of towners who have alot of ideas about how the town should be run, but don't care enough to actually live in the town. Their Halifax poster boy is the best example of that, and now this asinine plan.
Get to town meeting and vote this down. The CRC should resign immediately for bringing this up. Morons.
Offline
#4 2010-09-16 08:32:56
Also I do believe the way the article is worded could be construed as limiting board membership to only property owners, screwing over anyone who lives in an apartment, and is generally something that we decided was wrong in the 1700's, but the tin hats didn't get the memo.
Offline
#5 2010-09-16 08:35:19
I wonder which out of town residential property owner or owners were behind getting this little item on the agenda?
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2010-09-16 08:37:02)
Offline
#6 2010-09-16 09:33:17
The dumbest thing I read was to change the composition of the BOS from 5 to 7 members...STUPID
The reason the Town of Wareham is in the situation that exists is because of changing from 3 to 5 Selectmen. It's bad enough to have 5 idiots to chase, why would you add 2 more?
The logic that 7 would better represent the Town as a whole is ridiculous. Instead of 5 Brendas', you will have 7...THINK!
Last edited by danoconnell (2010-09-16 13:54:12)
Offline
#7 2010-09-16 10:06:10
This the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. There have been articles written about this movement in some of the Cape Cod towns. Non-resident, seasonal property owners have sought to be allowed to VOTE in these towns, and attend Town meetings. This, of course, goes against centuries of local goverment by owner-occupants and tenants in a city or town in Massachusetts; as long as they all qualified as 'residents'.
So. should a resident of New Jersey who pays state & local taxes in NJ, sends the kids to NJ schools, but has a summer place in Wareham be allowed to vote in Wareham AND NJ? to serve on boards or committees in Wareham, as well as in NJ? How about voting in State elections in Mass & NJ? Does this mean that he/she gets TWO votes in Federal elections?
This is a slippery slope. Take the senior US Senator from Massachusetts. He has a townhouse on Beacon Hill in Boston, and a summer place on Naushon Island (I believe that is the Town of Gosnold, could be Falmouth). Should Sen. Kerry be allowed to vote and/or serve in both communities? but wait - what about the house(s) in Pennsylvania? and, no doubt there is a residence in Washington, D.C. or its suburbs.
My view: declare one residence, get one vote, one opportunity to serve. Just remember, approximately 25 % of the housing units in Wareham are SECOND homes. It is higher on the Cape, 50-60 % in some towns.
This is bad policy and should be voted down.
Offline
#8 2010-09-16 10:20:16
The Charter states that the Charter Review Committee is supposed to present their "recommendations" at the first Town Meeting of every year ending in "0".. The CRC claimed that one of the "problems" with Town Meeting was that there were too many articles on the warrants... Well here we are now...coming up on the 2nd town meeting of "a year ending in zero"..and the same group who wanted to scrap the whole thing has added FORTY articles (and a warrant total of 91)..at least one day will be entirely spent on the CRC articles.. Funny..I wonder how this process would have played out had the former BoS done it correctly from the beginning. Forty articles is overkill..and an attempt (IMO) to (over) compensate for the CRC's doing it wrong in the first place (and every place since).
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-09-16 10:21:29)
Offline
#9 2010-09-16 13:19:44
It seems to me I've heard that if a couple maintain two year round homes: one here,and one, say, in Lexington, and who can demonstrate that they split their time between both places, that they can "split" their votes: i. e., one votes in Lexington and one votes here in Wareham. Can anyone confirm or deny?
Offline
#10 2010-09-16 13:36:39
danoconnell wrote:
The dumbest this I read twas to change the composition of the BOS from 5 to 7 members...STUPID
Don't you get it, Ham? That's the Sauvageau & Cronin amendment.
Offline
#11 2010-09-16 13:39:08
Dick Wheeler wrote:
It seems to me I've heard that if a couple maintain two year round homes: one here,and one, say, in Lexington, and who can demonstrate that they split their time between both places, that they can "split" their votes: i. e., one votes in Lexington and one votes here in Wareham. Can anyone confirm or deny?
True but unless you plan ahead and request an absentee ballot, inconvenient.
Offline
#12 2010-09-16 13:46:15
True, Bill W...however, I have, during my time as a Town Meeting member and Selectman, saw many, many home owners in Wareham split the vote as Dick said...the one registered to vote in Wareham would often come to Town Meetings as well as voting absentee for elections.
One should also realize that, as a home owner and non-resident, you have the right to attend Town Meeting as an observer, and you have the right to be asked to be heard on the Town Meeting floor if the assemblage gives permission. You may not have a vote, but you could very well have input.
It is not an unusual situation. We see many "dual" citizens in Florida. We don't have Town Meetings, but many are registered to vote in the City or County.
Offline
#13 2010-09-16 14:06:26
Just checked and found this: "UPDATE: Corrects copy-editing error in Article 39"
What no THANK YOU NORA for being my free copy editor???!!!!
If I hadn't pointed it out, and say, a new person in town made the dumb mistake of paying 75 cents for the tabloid when he/she could have picked it up almost anyplace for free, that person would have thought Wareham was one crazy town that discriminates against apartment dwellers!
Offline
#14 2010-09-16 16:13:19
God, are they serious with this "change the number of selectmen to 7 to be voted from each precinct" bullshit?
In case you can't read between the lines, let me explain - THAT'S ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT CHANGING OUR TOWN GOVERNMENT TO A CITY COUNCIL, WHICH WAS ALREADY REJECTED LOUD AND CLEAR AT THE LAST TOWN MEETING.
CRC - Get it through your heads - WAREHAM DOES NOT WANT CITY GOVERNMENT!!!
Offline
#15 2010-09-17 06:50:01
1) Is it possible to ask to have the article amended to read 3 selectmen. The two outgoing selectmen would then be eliminated.
2) Why would a town allow people (part time residents) who are not fully impacted by the actions they take have any power? Wareham residents are quite capable if they were allowed to serve on the boards. Is it possible that the people that proposed this can not find enough supporters among the residents?
Offline
#16 2010-09-17 07:59:16
I have another question. If any of the many articles submitted by the CRC are voted for further study does this give them permission to stay active and not disband. Is this a trick they are using to stay alive forever?
Offline
#17 2010-09-17 11:54:30
That's a good question. I think they are only appointed for a certain amount of time though.
Offline
#18 2010-09-17 12:30:20
That is a good question. If they had done as the Charter dictates, and made their recommendations JUST at the FIRST Town Meeting ending in the year "zero" (Spring TM)..and "further study" was voted for..then they would have had the Fall TM to bring it (or them) back..with further study.. But the CRC have shown what they think of our Charter already now, haven't they?
Offline
#19 2010-09-17 13:55:06
I believe the Charter says they must review in the years ending in 9....did that change?
If it didn't, they have never been discharged and are continuing on the "review" from 2009. I thought that all along...what do you think?
Offline
#20 2010-09-17 14:27:33
danoconnell wrote:
I believe the Charter says they must review in the years ending in 9....did that change?
If it didn't, they have never been discharged and are continuing on the "review" from 2009. I thought that all along...what do you think?
ARTICLE 7
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 7 - 1 Charter Changes
(a) In General - This charter may be replaced, revised or amended
in accordance with the procedures made available by
article LXXXIX (eighty-nine) of the amendments to the state
constitution and any legislation enacted to implement said
amendment.
(b) Periodic Review - The board of selectmen shall, in every year
which ends in nine, appoint a committee to review the charter,
said committee shall submit a report, with recommendations, to
the first annual town meeting that ends in zero, concerning any
proposed amendments or revisions to the charter which it believes
to be necessary or desirable. This article shall become effective
in year 1999.
Note: Section 7-1 (b) was amended by town meeting vote at the April 26, 1999
Annual Town meeting. We received approval from the Office of the Attorney
General on June 15, 1999. The question was placed on the ballot of the
April 4, 2000 Annual Town Election and was approved.
Offline
#21 2010-09-17 14:48:22
Thanks P-Span...I was almost right!!
If the BOS had followed the Charter, the CRC should not have existed until after last year's Town Meeting.
You know...2009.
They could have been appointed, and they were, prior to Town Meeting, but they are not supposed to recommend changes until the Town Meeting, in this case, of 2010.
Is this correct?
Offline
#22 2010-09-17 14:58:31
I THINK THERE ARE TWO MANEY CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW I THINK THEY ALL SHOULD BE POSTPONED TO APRIL TOWN MEETING SO THE PUBLIC HAS A BEETER CHANCE AND MORE TIME TO DIGEST THESE ARTICALS.
Offline
#23 2010-09-17 15:13:15
The way I read it is.. they are to be appointed anytime after the "year ending in 9" begins, by the BoS (which they were)..and supposed to work on it until the first town meeting in the year ending in zero (our last TM, in the Spring). That's pretty much all it says..It don't say nothin' about getting a "bonus" forty articles at the second town meeting in the year ending in zero...
The former BoS intentionally appointed individuals who favored replacing our form of government (check the interview video). This process was flawed from the beginning. Even though it might seem to make sense to look over the many articles that the CRC have added to the Fall Warrant.. I believe they should have been disbanded, since their "duty" (as laid out in the Charter) had been satisfied after the Spring Town Meeting. They should not be allowed to present articles as the Charter Review Committee. If they wanted articles to be added..they could have added them just as any other citizen can. I am seriously considering voting against EVERY article they propose..a "self-chosen boycott" against the way this whole process has played out.
Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-09-17 15:14:09)
Offline
#24 2010-09-17 15:37:23
Maybe others should have got behind cruz and disbanded this committee when they had the chance. Cruz is the only one you can count on to vote the right way.
Offline
#25 2010-09-17 16:36:10
P-Span is on the right track...pick and choose your articles carefully...
Offline
