#1 2010-10-12 21:35:29
Town of Wareham Board of Health: Rules and Regulations 2008 Page 7 of 52
Kennels
1. Dogs:
A.
One pack or collection of dogs on single premises, enclosure, structure, building lot or portion thereof, whether maintained for breeding, boarding, sale, training, hunting, adoption, or other purposes, and including any shop where dogs are on sale, including every pack or collection of more than three dogs, three months old or over, owned or kept by a person on a single premises, irrespective of the purpose for which they are maintained.
AND FROM THE TOWN BY-LAWS
A KENNEL - one pack or collection of dogs on a single premises, whether maintained for breeding, boarding, sale, training, hunting or other purposes and including any shop where dogs are on sale, and also including every pack or collection of more than three dogs three months old or over owned or kept by a person on a single premises irrespective of the purpose for which they are maintained.
A SMALL KENNEL - a kennel maintained for a collection of four or five dogs.
A HOBBY KENNEL - a kennel maintained for a collection of six to ten dogs or for breeding dogs for show or sport, or which sells dogs from less than four litters per year, not to exceed ten dogs on the premises over the age of three months.
A COMMERCIAL KENNEL- a kennel maintained as a business for the boarding and grooming of dogs, or which sells dogs born and raised on the premises from more than four litters per year, or a kennel of 11 or more dogs.
More to follow tomorrow...
Offline
#2 2010-10-13 17:40:28
As proposed by the Town Clerk :
ARTICLE 77 - TO AMEND TOWN BYLAWS – RELATIVE TO ANIMAL CONTROL
To see if the Town will vote to amend Town Bylaws Division VIII, Article II, Rules and Regulations Relative to Animal Control in the Town of Wareham, Section One (1): Definitions: adding text as show in bold print.
KENNEL - one pack or collection of dogs on a single premises, whether maintained for breeding, boarding, sale, training, hunting or other purposes and including any shop where dogs are on sale, and also including every pack or collection of more than three dogs three months old or over owned or kept by a person on a single premises irrespective of the purpose for which they are maintained, with the exception of said restrictions noted below.
SMALL KENNEL - a kennel maintained for a collection of four or five dogs.
Boarding and grooming privileges for the purpose of a commercial enterprise is excluded under this license.
HOBBY KENNEL - a kennel maintained for a collection of six to ten dogs or for breeding dogs for show or sport, or which sells dogs from less than four litters per year, not to exceed ten dogs on the premises over the age of three months.
Boarding and grooming privileges for the purpose of a commercial enterprise is excluded under this license.
COMMERCIAL KENNEL- a kennel maintained as a business for the boarding and grooming of dogs, or which sells dogs born and raised on the premises from more than four litters per year, or a kennel of 11 or more dogs.
or to do or act in any manner relative thereto.
Inserted by the Board of Selectmen at the request of the "Town Clerk"
Offline
#3 2010-10-13 17:48:26
As per the HOME RULE CHARTER :
Section 2 - 4 Town Meeting Warrants
(a) In General - Every town meeting shall be called by a warrant issued by the board of selectmen which shall state the time and place of the meeting and, by separate articles, the subjects which are to be acted upon.
(b) Initiation of Warrant Articles - The board of selectmen shall receive all petitions which are addressed to it and which request the submission of a particular subject matter to the town meeting and which is filed by: (1) any multiple member body acting by a majority of its full membership; (2) any ten voters, for the spring or fall town meetings; and any one hundred voters for any special town meeting; (3) any other person, persons or town agency as may be authorized by by-law. All such requests shall be in writing, but they need not conform to any particular style for form, except that each request for a particular subject shall be submitted on a separate petition.
Last edited by bbrady (2010-10-15 09:40:28)
Offline
#4 2010-10-13 17:49:54
...more to follow later
(: )
Offline
#5 2010-10-13 18:18:01
As per the Wareham By-laws :
DIVISION I
ARTICLE 1
TOWN MEETINGS
Section 1. The spring Town Meeting shall be construed to be the Annual Town Meeting and shall be held on the First Tuesday of April of each year and the polls shall be opened at 8:00 o'clock A.M. and shall be closed not earlier than 12:00 o'clock noon, for the election of town officers designated in the official ballots and for voting questions or matters that may be properly submitted to vote in the official ballot. This meeting will be adjourned until the fourth Monday of April at which time the general business of the town shall be transacted.
The Fall Town Meeting shall be held on the fourth Monday of October. (Article 14 of the October 21, 2002 Town Meeting; Approved by the Attorney General December 2, 2002).
The general business portion of the Spring and Fall Town Meetings shall be called to order at 7:00 o'clock P.M. and shall adjourn not later than 10:00 o'clock P.M., except that a meeting may be continued beyond 10:00 P.M. by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting. (Article 18 of December 5, 6, and 13, 1994 Special Town Meeting; Approved by Attorney General February 27, 1995).
All articles to be included in the Spring and Fall Town Meetings shall be submitted to the Finance Committee no later than 35 days before the date on which such meetings are scheduled to convene.
Section 2. Town meetings shall be legally called and all petitions for insertion of articles in any warrant shall be in accordance with Section 2-4 of Article 2 of the Wareham Home Rule Charter.
Offline
#6 2010-10-13 18:25:28
So...
You can all read for yourselves that the Town Clerk has NO individual authority to submit or request warrant Articles under any circumstances.
I requested from her today to see the "petitions" submitted and she told me "I [she] doesn't have to submit petitions".
Well, I disagree ! She is no different than you or I when it comes to warrant Articles.
Still, more to come later...
Offline
#7 2010-10-13 18:41:39
Bob- the problem is that she believes she is above everyone. She abuses her power that way. It is long overdue to IMPEACH her!!!!!
Offline
#8 2010-10-13 19:08:43
Is that how you remove her? Is there an impeachment process....or a recall process?
Offline
#9 2010-10-13 20:25:00
mr. brady, let me make a wild guess. Kopelmen and Page will give an opinion on this like they gave the crc an opinion on whether or not they could bring their changes to the fall meeting instead of april. the opinion will be whatever the bos want which will say the clerk can do whatever she wants. even though you have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
it sounds to me like you are a target of another vendetta from our elected officials against a person who has the nerve to speak up against thier lack of leadership and fiscal management. thank you for giving us this information. be sure that I will remember this when I am in town meeting.
Offline
#10 2010-10-13 20:54:56
bbrady wrote:
You can all read for yourselves that the Town Clerk has NO individual authority to submit or request warrant Articles under any circumstances.
I requested from her today to see the "petitions" submitted and she told me "I [she] doesn't have to submit petitions".
Well, I disagree ! She is no different than you or I when it comes to warrant Articles.
Offline
#11 2010-10-13 21:38:26
I am not sure what the process is Dan. I will have to do a little research on that one.
Bob- I have to agree with Watchtower; it is quite apparent that you have a bullseye on your back when it comes to the BOS (specifically Brenda and Jane). Apparently when you expect elected officials to do their job and follow their mission statement you become a target. I have seen how you have been treated for over the past year it has been quite painful to watch you being vilified. This is exactly what is wrong with this town. If you speak the truth and it is not aligned with those in power then you will be harassed and intimidated until you back down. I thank you for always standing up for what is right and not backing down. You don't have the easy task of voicing your opinion, which happens to be the thoughts of many, and taking the brunt of "their" assault.
Offline
#12 2010-10-13 21:41:49
bbrady wrote:
I requested from her today to see the "petitions" submitted and she told me "I [she] doesn't have to submit petitions".
If billw will forgive me for defacing his images, Mr. Brady, I think I know how the clerk's petitions got processed...
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Offline
#13 2010-10-14 16:05:20
Mr. Brady,
Your posting here piqued my curiosity about the point regarding the ability of the Town Clerk to submit warrant articles on her own, without the BoS, FinCom, etc. So, I contacted a Town Clerk in a different community, who has been Town Clerk in more than one Town.
I am told that a Town Clerk who IS A RESIDENT OF THE TOWN, is allowed to submit warrant articles directly. If the town Clerk DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE TOWN, then any warrant article would have to be submitted thru the BoS.
The wording that caught my attention in Section 2-4 (b) that you cited above, was the following:
(3) Any other person.....as may be authorized by by-law.
Is there a Town of Wareham by-law that authorizes the Town Clerk (or others) to submit warrant articles?
This is a good one, Mr. Brady; esp. to a Town Meeting wonk.
Offline
#14 2010-10-14 16:37:52
nota,
See above the language from the By-law, which references back to the section of the HOME RULE CHARTER posted above.
There is NO authorization to submit Articles other than defined by Section 2 - 4.
You should ask that Clerk friend for the specific language from their communitie's "Charter" relative to specific language authorizing "in town" residents special privileges.
I'd be interested in reading that.
Last edited by bbrady (2010-10-15 08:54:58)
Offline
#15 2010-10-14 17:12:52
OK, Mr. B.
More research, comin' up......
Offline
#16 2010-10-14 17:31:02
So then I have a question: It is clearly written that the Town Clerk (who is not a resident of Wareham) should NOT have submitted a petition. She stated she didn't have to and did indeed submit a petition. Whoa, a little tricky but no rocket science here. Who then, should be the one to reprimand her and withdraw the petition? I just don't understand how she can continually abuse her power and "get away with it".
Offline
#17 2010-10-14 18:23:07
Bosoxx (love that name),
the proper procedure is twofold:
1. challenge the article at the BoS meeting -- too late,
2. Challenge the article, its source, on the floor of Town Meeting. Request a point of order, challenge the source of the article, request a ruling from Town Counsel, and ask that the article be ruled out-of-order by the moderator. In all probability, the moderator will be loathe to dismiss an article, but you never know. At least, you put people on notice that someone is paying attention.
Offline
#18 2010-10-14 19:08:47
Since when did Maryann move out of Wareham? I know she lives on Dinah's Way, or she did.
Offline
#19 2010-10-14 19:19:48
She must live in Wareham or she could not be elected to office.
Offline
#20 2010-10-14 22:58:00
My bad, I misread one of the posts. It was a fly ball for a moment, but has been ruled "fair game"...
I am curious to see how this all plays out. You would think it would be "called a strike", but maybe the umpire is blinded by the sun?
Offline
#21 2010-10-15 09:34:13
notalawyer wrote:
Mr. Brady,
Your posting here piqued my curiosity about the point regarding the ability of the Town Clerk to submit warrant articles on her own, without the BoS, FinCom, etc. So, I contacted a Town Clerk in a different community, who has been Town Clerk in more than one Town.
I am told that a Town Clerk who IS A RESIDENT OF THE TOWN, is allowed to submit warrant articles directly. If the town Clerk DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE TOWN, then any warrant article would have to be submitted thru the BoS.
The wording that caught my attention in Section 2-4 (b) that you cited above, was the following:
(3) Any other person.....as may be authorized by by-law.
Is there a Town of Wareham by-law that authorizes the Town Clerk (or others) to submit warrant articles?
This is a good one, Mr. Brady; esp. to a Town Meeting wonk.
Just so we're clear, no one person MAY submit an Article to the warrant, regardless of residency, without a petition. EVERY Article ("subjects to be acted upon") SHALL be submitted as a request in the form of a petition. PERIOD ! Even a multiple member body acting by a majority of its full membership officially MUST petition. The difference for them is that they don't need to acquire 10 registered voter signatures.
If the Treasurer or the Health Agent or the Harbor Master wish to have a subject matter considered and acted upon by TM then thay can do so in writing.
The Health Agent can do it through his Board. The others should do it through the administration, requesting in writing any said subject matters, submitted as a petition and received by the BOS.
SEE #(3) in post # 3 above.
Last edited by bbrady (2010-10-15 09:39:35)
Offline
#22 2010-10-15 09:56:45
Just out of curiosity, where does our Town Clerk live? I got accused of stalking her, so I should know these things.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Offline
#23 2010-10-15 11:37:13
Bill....I don't know if that is true. I believe that the Town Clerk does have the right to submit a Warrant article on Town Meeting floor, as long as it deals with her function as Town Clerk, her office, etc., directly without any submission of petition, or even support of the article by the BOS.
I know someone knows the answer to this. I recall that's the way it was when Tony Baccari was Town Clerk in my day. Maybe the Charter has changed, or precedent, or whatever, but it is a very good thing to know for sure.
Bill W and Nota and whomever have the ability to answer the question for us.
I know Bill...I am doubting what you said, and I probably am wrong. I am going by what used to be....a long time ago :)
Offline
#24 2010-10-15 11:46:19
I was asking if Mary Ann Silva lives in Wareham.
Offline
#25 2010-10-15 11:51:37
Sorry, Bill...I was responding to Bob B....Getting old has it's drawbacks!
Offline
#26 2010-10-15 14:46:02
Bill, yes, Mary Ann Silva lives at #8 Dinah's Way, off of Hathaway Street in Wareham. Going from Lincoln Hill it would be on your left.
Offline
#27 2010-10-15 15:05:40
Nothin' like a vigorous debate on a windy friday.
My research, such as it is, did not turn up any dramatic resolution. But, there are some things to ponder.
Petition: is a request to do something, most commonly addressed to a government official or public entity. In the COLLOQUIAL sense, a petition is a DOCUMENT addressed to some official and signed by numerous individuals. A PETITION may be ORAL rather than written, and in this era, may be transmitted via the internet. (taken from Wikipedia).
Town by-laws; section 1, last sentence: All articles to be included in the Spring and Fall town Meetings shall be submitted to the Finance Committee.........
So. Here is where I am on this.
1. since by definition a petition is a request, either written or oral; then where is the Town Clerk's record of such a petition?
2. since the article is a bit long and detailed, where is the written evidence of such a submission?
3. Both the Charter & the by-laws are silent on submissions by elected officials who do not have Boards and/or committees to deal with; namely the Town Moderator & the Town Clerk. Has it been past practice to treat petitions by these two elected officials as if they were an elected Board, as it would be with the Assessors, Bd. of Health, etc.?
4. Bottom line: the Town Clerk should be able to provide documentation on her petition (submission) of this article.
This may be a bit of a loophole in the procedures for getting articles on the warrants.
Last edited by notalawyer (2010-10-15 15:08:19)
Offline
#28 2010-10-15 15:53:02
I plead ignorance...what article is she submitting?
Offline
#29 2010-10-15 16:04:50
DanO
It is Article 77, which bbrady posted as #2 in this thread. there are substantial changes for dog kennels.
Me? I got my hands full with my wife's cat.
Offline
#30 2010-10-15 17:19:24
Well...having read Article77, I don't believe that the Town Clerk had the right to submit the Article, unless she is the Director of Animal Control. Is she?
Assuming she is, I believe that such a radical change in the By-Laws require public hearings, and a discussion by those directly involved in enforcing the new law.
If she is NOT the Director of Animal Control, then I believe that she had NO right to submit the article. I guess you will be paying the Town Council to render a decision. It might be best to head it off at the pass and the BOS ask Town Council for an opinion before Town Meeting.
In either case, I agree with Bob Brady. I believe that the Town Clerk overstepped her bounds, and she was allowed to by the BOS. They should have questioned her and the placing of the article on the Warrant.
Offline
#31 2010-10-15 18:04:24
For the record Dan and others reading here, the kennel regulations are governed by the BOH and enforced by the health agent and the animal control officer; niether of whom were even aware of the submission of the Article. I was the one who actually made them aware of it. Imagine how frustrated they feel.
So much for procedures and protocols...
The Clerk's position (attitude) as is with the Chairman of the BOS is that they can do anything they choose. You know,...do as I say not as I do !
Offline
#32 2010-10-15 18:30:16
Well...bye, bye Article 77!
Offline
#33 2010-10-15 18:30:22
Mr. Brady,
In my prior post, I left open the possibility of elected officials w/o boards, such as the town Moderator & Town Clerk, being allowed to submit articles without strictly following the dictates of the Town Charter & by-laws. Call it a courtesy, if you will.
BUT. That opinion related to articles regarding issues that would fall under the DIRECT purview of those elected officials. And, certainly there could be many of those.
Based on your latest posting, it appears that Article 77 relates to an issue that has little or nothing to do with the Town Clerk. In that case then, the Town Clerk would have no different status than any other citizen who wishes to present an article on the warrant for Town Meeting. And, therefore, would have to follow all of the steps spelled out in the Charter and/or by-laws.
There is a meeting tomorrow, Oct. 16, hostd by the Town Moderator, to review the warrant articles in a procedural way, without debate. This is something that is a wonderful opportunity for all to 'prep' for Town Meeting. It would seem to be appropriate to bring up the question of the validity of Article 77 (not a debate), given the strictures in the Town's Charter & by-laws. As in: what is the procedure to get this article ruled "out-of-order".
Hope that my opinion helps.
Offline
#34 2010-10-15 18:31:39
Thank you, Bob B and Nota...
Offline
#35 2010-10-15 19:43:49
If Article 77 has "little or nothing to do with the town clerk", it makes me wonder why she would submit it. I think whether she can or cannot do this may be the wrong way to think about it. Who holds kennel permits in town? Perhaps there is a kennel next door to a friend of hers, that disturbs them. Just a thought....................
Offline
#36 2010-10-15 22:27:54
Okay, Okay...here's the "story". (Get some popcorn -: )
Back in January of this year (Thursday, January 28th for those interested) a formal complaint was stamped in "received" by our Clerk's office at 11:30 AM from Paul and Deb Davis of 10 Bluebird Ave in Wareham Lake Shores.
You should know that Deb is the same Deb that owns "Deb's" Grooming in Buzzards Bay. Deb was reacting because of an ad running in the newly launched Wareham Week newspaper. In the complaint they contended that in their belief a violation of the intent of the Special Permit for a Hobby Kennel License existed.
Before 12:30 that same day the then "acting" Building Inspector, Jay Collins,
was in the driveway suggesting that a violation was reported. I asked for the copy of the complaint, which he didn't have and hadn't yet seen. So I asked, then why are you here ? From Jay, "the man upstairs sent me". He asked me if I'd "take care of it" and off he went.
For any of you not familiar with "upstairs" in Town Hall, the only two up there are John Sanguinet and (our very own 6 weeks on the job) Mark Andrews.
So of course I called over to the administrator's office and got voice mail (what else is new ?). I'm convinced that caller ID must go. They forget that they are all employed to provide a "public service" and not selective service depending on whose calling. Just my opinion.
So another day went by, Friday, and no return call. I called back on Monday and got voice mail again. No return call Monday and no return call Tuesday so I went to Town Hall and Mr Andrews "wasn't available". So I went to the Clerk's office to get a copy of this suppossed complaint, paid for it and left.
In fact, to this day, there is still NO official notice delivered to us at 6 Spectacle Pond Terrace in E Wareham.
A couple of weeks later I got an email from a little birdie notifying me that the kennel license was on the agenda to be "discussed" at the Zoning Board meeting scheduled for February 24th and we might wish to be there. Keep in mind, still no formal notification of the complaint and if I hadn't come to Town Hall to get it, we still wouldn't have it.
On t 24th the Chairman of the Zoning Board explained to Jay, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, that until he rendered his decision in writing and sent it to us that we have no rights and that the ZBA have no jurisdiction to "hear" the complaint without an appeal submitted. So Jay stated that he would have his ruling in writing the next day. I went to the BI's office the next morning and Jay had taken Thursday and Friday off.
And get this, Andrea Smith from The Wareham Observer was there to cover the "story". Hmmmmmm...AND our dear Troll already had the following comment on his Sunday Night Chat back on January 31st, less than two business days after the complaint was received :"Here's something that's really amusing. There is an ad in Wareham Week for Bob Brady's grooming and boarding. He doesn't have a license in the town of Wareham for that. Too funny. A formal complaint has been filed against him."
I'm STILL trying to figure out who provided him with that information. Any guesses ? I'm guessing his hot line to the Clerk's office but I have no proof and I'm sure they'll deny it any way.
So I returned to the BI's office on Monday and still no written ruling. I "hounded" (pun intended) Jay for weeks. To this day Jay never issued his written ruling. Meanwhile our new Director of Inspectional Services, Myles Burke, was hired. One day (end of April) passing through Town Hall I caught Jay in the office. His response was to introduce me to Myles and stated the he would be handling it. We scheduled to meet the following week with the Health Agent sitting in and the matter has been resolved. We got the "ruling" in writing on Tuesday May 18th.
For the record, Bob Brady does NOT "own" the kennel license. I am the handler and trainer and agent for the kennel. Minor technicality ? Maybe.
But please rest assured Wareham is a business friendly community.
I hope Deb's business is booming.
Last edited by bbrady (2010-10-15 22:29:35)
Offline
#37 2010-10-16 00:03:38
So, I guess I was right. Guess Deb is a friend of someone in the town hall, probably the clerk's office. Sorry you had to endure such aggravation. How smooth this town could run if procedures were followed and promises kept. I want my town back.
Offline
#38 2010-10-16 10:06:24
I'm just wondering why, at the bos meeting when the clerk was "explaining" her warrant articles, and one of the bos said the kennel situation had been resolved, the clerk acted like she had no knowledge of it. Bob said the ruling in writing was done in May.
Either there is NO communication between departments about these things or someone's not being honest. Just my opinion.
Offline
#39 2010-10-16 11:48:10
Hi Nora,
What's even more interesting is that she claimed to have talked to Ted M. (the former building inspector) about the matter but Ted retired on Dec. 31st, 2009. She also claimed to having submitted the Article because "some" folks asked her if she could make the by-laws more restrictive and "counsel told her it was legal but she (we the voters, I think) couldn't make them less restrictive". Of course nothing in writing. Another "tell'm what they want to hear" from our friends at K&P.
What our Clerk has badly misinterpreted is that she has any authority over kennel licensing other than to issue them; not regulate them. I'll suspect that she has some verbal ruling on that too.
As to your "opinion", I'm betting on the lack of communication. I can't imagine dishonesty.
Offline
#40 2010-10-16 18:37:06
Mr. Brady,
what was the nature of the discussion on this article at the afternoon pre-Town Meeting meeting this afternoon?
Offline
