WarehamWater.Cruelery.Com

ihateliz · 2010-10-03 20:20:32

WHY WAS A MEETING HELD ON THESE ARTICALS ON A SAT , WHEN THEY WERE NOT TELEVISED WHAT IS JANE HIDEING, I SAY THROW THESE ARTICALS OUT BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN VOTED ON IN THE SPRING , SOME OPSERVATIONS SINCE OF THE MALFEASENCE OF THE PAST BOARD OF SELECTMEN ,FUTURE BOARDS OF SELECTMEN WILL LOOSE THERE POWERS , WHY HAVE AN ARTICAL ON DAY TO DAY ,I KNOW WHAT DAY TO DAY IS AND THE PAST BOARD OF SELECTMEN VIOLATED DAY TO DAY , THEY VIOLATED THERE POWERS EVERY DAY , I AM AGAINST PEOPLE WHO DONT VOTE IN WAREHAM BEING ABLE TO SERVE ON BOARDS , I AM AGAINST HAVING PEOPLE HAVING TO LIVE IN WAREHAM ONE YEAR BEFORE RUNNING FOR OFFICE IF YOU ARE A TAXPAPER YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SERVE , HOW ABOUT AN ARTICAL SAYING IF YOU ARE NOT UP TO DATE ON YOUR TAXES THEN YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RUN , IAM AGAINST LIMITING TOWN EMPLOYEES FROM RUNNING FOR OFFICE , IF YOU DONT LIKE THAT PERSON DONT VOTE FOR THAT PERSON , I THINK DENNIS DAMATA A POLICE MAN DID A GOOS JOB AS A SELECTMAN , HOW ABOUT AN ARTICAL SAYING A HUSBAND AND WIFE CANT SERVE IN OFFICE AT THE SAME TIME , .

townie · 2010-10-04 09:19:25

In a story published in the Wareham Week newspaper regarding Saturday's workshop meeting:

"Slavin stressed that the proposed articles did not all stem from the ideas of members of that committee.

"Most of [the Charter Review Committee articles] have been proposed through the public," Slavin said."

---------------------------------------------
When and how did that happen?!?

And, if it came from the public, why didn't the people just submit the articles themselves? Under our current charter, anyone can submit an article as long as ten (10) people sign the petition...

witchunter · 2010-10-04 13:25:04

Here's another one ? ? ? I read it. Then read it again. And one more time, thinking I was missing something and still I'm not clear on the difference.

Someone PLEASE help me here.

What does this proposed article change do ?, other than rearranging the wording. If this is the best the committee can do to bring about "positive change" as we "move Wareham forward", we're in a lotta trouble. They should be embarrassed.

ARTICLE 49 - CHARTER CHANGE TO CLARIFY MEANING OF APPOINTMENTS BY TOWN ADMINISTRATOR

To see if the Town will vote to clarify the meaning of a provision regarding appointments by the Town Administrator.

In Section 4-2 (b) remove the words:
Appointments made by the Town Administrator shall become effective on the fifteenth day following the day on which notice of the appointment is filed with the Board of Selectmen, unless the Board of Selectmen shall, within said period, by a majority vote of the full board, vote to reject any such appointment, or, has sooner voted to affirm it.

And insert the words:
Within fifteen days following the day on which notice of the appointment is filed with the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Selectmen shall have the opportunity, by a majority vote of the full board, to affirm any such appointment, in which case the appointment becomes effective immediately, or to reject it. Should the Board of Selectmen choose neither to affirm or reject, on the fifteenth day, the appointment made by the Town Administrator shall become effective.
Or to do or act in any manner relative thereto.

Inserted by the Board of Selectmen at the request of the Charter Review Committee

danoconnell · 2010-10-04 13:43:20

I hope the TA doesn't forget to tell the BOS about appointments within the 15 days :)

witchunter · 2010-10-04 15:42:17

I don't see how that helps, Mr. Dan. ? ? ?

danoconnell · 2010-10-04 15:56:58

Witch: if the TA inadvertently (:)) does not tell the BOS about an appointment, and the 15 days passes, what is the status of the appointment?
It sounds lie an invitation for diversionary tactics.
How could that happen? It gets buried in the consent agenda. If the members of the BOS are not vigilant, even today, and look very carefully at the consent agenda, all sorts of things can slip through. They ( the BOS)would have been notified.

Nora Bicki · 2010-10-04 16:04:56

I see a very slight change if I'm reading this right.

They both say that within 15 days the BoS can vote for or reject a job appointment.

The charter change version seems to add that if the BoS take an early vote (from 1-14 days), the job will become effective immediately instead of on day 15. I don't recall this being an issue.

Original: shall become effective on the fifteenth day

CRC version: Within fifteen days.....by a majority vote of the full board, to affirm any such appointment, in which case the appointment becomes effective immediately,

I too had to read it several times....not what I'd call part of the charter that was "outdated." That was Cronie's favorite word during the CRC interviews if I remember. I guess it would mean someone could start a new position a week or so sooner providing they don't have a job and have to give a couple weeks notice anyway.

witchunter · 2010-10-04 17:01:48

Thank you Mrs. Bicki. I'm embarrassed. I should have picked up on that.

So maybe folks don't give 2 weeks notice any more. I suppose if one is unemployed but otherwise I'm just "old school" I guess. Two weeks notice
was AND IS a standard in the industries.

Then again when the administration delays filling positions for months (or years in our case) I guess this might be of concern. I'm sure our Charter founders didn't think the officials would abuse the "lay of the law" as governed.

I read on a "MWF" brochure that THEY would "hold officials accountable".
Pretty hard to do when you don't know the laws that govern and are unwilling to learn them.

danoconnell · 2010-10-04 17:07:54

The new language also states the BOS will have the "opportunity" to affirm...again...what does "opportunity" mean?

billw · 2010-10-04 17:37:08

danoconnell wrote:
The new language also states the BOS will have the "opportunity" to affirm...again...what does "opportunity" mean?

Probably the Mandarin Chinese sense of opportunity as the flip side of disaster.

bbrady · 2010-10-04 17:53:27

I'm trying to understand the logic behind removing the FIN COM chairman from the appointing process for members to the FIN COM. (see Article 40)

The only arguement that comes to mind (as bizarre as it is) is that the BOS are ALL KNOWING of every aspect of governing.

How shallow is that ? 5 individuals and one Charter Review Committee knows best for appointments to the FIN COM or the Planning Board or the Capital Planning Committee.

Every bit of the proposed changes are about control and "like minded thinking appointees" to achieve "the agenda".

As Selectman Cruz put it quite accurately : "hand picked" committee or is that HEN picked ?

Last edited by bbrady (2010-10-04 17:55:02)

danoconnell · 2010-10-04 18:25:31

Every article is useless or convoluted, from what I have read and seen (Thanks to P-Span).

P-SPAN · 2010-10-04 18:56:58

Your welcome, DanO..

You make me smile..

Here's a Brenduh "instant classic" from Wareham Week...

"This is the most secretive form of government, is this [current] Appointing Authority," Eckstrom said..

Say what?? Hey dopey.. The problem has been that the Former Chair of the BoS, and Former Moderator are the ones who made it "secretive"..and political "pals" were regularly appointed by that Appointing Authority. Maybe it should be added to say that the BoS and FinCom must vote on all appointments, with the Chairs bringing the results of those votes to be the votes they tender..while the Moderator stays the same, and can be the deciding vote when the other two disagree with each other. Brenduh and Jane are so predictable..Vote 'em out ASAP.

WW: Charter changes spark debate at Saturday Selectmen meeting

TBW
P-SPAN

Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-10-04 18:59:26)

P-SPAN · 2010-10-05 21:36:46

Are you watchin' this?? The Charter Articles are a house of cards. They "hinge" on each other. If some don't pass..others are directly effected..and won't "work"..Beautiful. Figuring out all the causes and effects should be about as easy as chinese arithmetic...