Ken O’Brien
For the last week we’ve had a raging debate about the initiative petition being circulated to return Southbridge to a Selectman/Town Meeting form of government.
Now The O’Zone is going to give you an opportunity to weigh in on the issue.
On the right you will see a poll which will give you the opportunity to vote yes or no on whether this proposal should be adopted (assuming it gets on the June ballot).
We will leave the voting open for a week.
As in the past we request that only Southbridge residents who are of legal voting age participate in the poll.
Those who think that this is a silver bullet for Southbridge's problems should read Sturbridge Selectman Tom Creamer's Blog today.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sturbridgepoliticalwatch.com/2012/03/fairness-doctrine.html
On the contrary, I think Selectman Creamer's Blog illustrates that Sturbridge has a greater degree of debate and discourse on the issues affecting taxpayers and less rubber stamping of the majority position.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone believes Marino's Plan is a silver bullet to Southbridge's problems. It is only preferable to the current form of government.
My reading of what he says is that having a town meeting or a finance committee hasn’t done much to control tax increases or water and sewer rate increases.
DeleteBut I think people should read it before they vote on this and see for themselves if changing the form of government will really do any good. If it won’t, why is going through all the confusion of adopting Mr. Marino’s plan worth the trouble?
The rise in sewer and water rates in Sturbridge is because of new $17,000,000 treatment plant, new wells & water lines.
DeleteIt doesnt matter what any of you think, since, laughably, this will be killed at the polls (if it makes it that far). How many bags of old wind do you have to see make asses out of themselves before you dopes get it?
ReplyDeleteHere’s something for you amateurs to think about.
ReplyDeleteJust suppose that this idiotic plan gets on the ballot and passes.
And then suppose that the numbskull charter revisions proposed by the clown council also get on the ballot and also get approved.
What then?
Anonymous raises a question I hadn’t even thought about.
DeleteWhen you consider the number of blanks cast in various races in past elections, such an outcome is possible, even if there is a condition that you can vote for only one.
You might make the case that the option with the most votes would prevail, but I am unaware of any case law on this matter (if you are please let me know).
In the absence of such judicial opinion, this could drag on in the courts for years, imposing even greater costs on the town and the people involved in any lawsuit.
For the record, even though I started calling the Clown Council the Clown Council, the previous anonymous post, folks, is not mine.
DeleteI think this is pretty clear. The Charter amendments are specific to our current Charter. If we are no longer using the current Charter, and are instead reverting to use of our 1973 Charter (and as such, no longer have a town manager) than the amendments could pass but are moot since they don't address the newly accepted overriding home rule document.
ReplyDeleteDeacon:
DeleteClear as mud.
Quit making things up.
What 1973 charter that didn’t have a town manager?
Show us the charter that existed prior to 1973.
As Ken pointed out earlier, you make claims without proof.
I have to agree with Anonymous.
DeleteI grew up in this town
I remember that we had a three member Board of Selectmen, not five.
I remember that we had a Finance Committee that was appointed in part by the Town Moderator, not entirely by the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Marino’s plan is a change from what existed before 1973.
Mr. Marino’s plan doesn’t propose restoring a previous condition.
It proposes creating an alternative universe.
Show us the Charter that existed before 1973 to support your claims.
I’ll wager that you cannot.
C'mon chaps, no need to get testy, or resort to gambling. Do either of you (Mr. Anonymous or Mr. O'Brien) have copies of the 1973 Charter, the Acts of 1975 and the amendments of 2003? If not, I can provide them.
DeleteMr. Marino's proposal is to repeal the Acts of 1975 and enter new provisions that would alter the original 1973 ruling document as amended in 2003. The wording of the newly proposed charter amendments obviously do not take into account this variable condition and so they are irrelevant. Legally altering a document that would then be immediately defunct is pointless and even if all changes were simultaneously voted and accepted, the bastardization of charter changes proposed by Spinelli and Co. would be as toothless as a crack addicted duck (e.g. congratulations, it takes six votes to remove a town manager, but there is no town manager to remove or wonderful, you've got a five person board of health, but now those positions are appointed by the selectmen).
In other words, once again you are making claims that you cannot prove.
DeleteYou say, “Do either of you (Mr. Anonymous or Mr. O'Brien) have copies of the 1973 Charter, the Acts of 1975 and the amendments of 2003? If not, I can provide them.”
That’s not the question.
You stated, “I think this is pretty clear. The Charter amendments are specific to our current Charter. If we are no longer using the current Charter, and are instead reverting to use of our 1973 Charter (and as such, no longer have a town manager) than the amendments could pass but are moot since they don't address the newly accepted overriding home rule document.”
Let’s see the proof.
You are dodging the question. Where is the charter that existed before 1973?
If you don’t have an answer, the you are no better than the current town council blowing smoke up our butts to satisfy your egos and personal agendas without doing anything positive.
What's all this talk about a pre-1973 Charter? I asked if you had those documents because you both seem confused (kinda like Ken not grasping the difference between a municipal landfill and a regional landfill in our earlier conversation). Please read:
Deletehttp://masscases.com/cases/sjc/368/368mass849.html
Southbridge did not operate under a charter prior to 1973. Southbridge's first Charter was the 1973 Charter Commission final document. Prior to this, Southbridge was incorporated as a town under the Constitution and General Laws of the Commonwealth. A Charter is a specialized form of town government. Not all towns have a charter, for example, Dudley does not. They attempted to implement one back in the early 2000s. It did not pass.
DeleteThe government in effect prior to 1973 was an open town meeting, 3 member Board of Selectmen form of government. The Selectmen made up the Executive Branch of the Town while the open town meeting (registered voters of the town) performed the function of the legislature. There was a finance committee with the majority appointed by the Town Moderator (who chaired the town meeting) and some appointed by the Selectmen (a smaller percentage). The governing rules of the town were the Bylaws.
The First Charter provided for a strong Town Manager/13 member Town Council with 10 precinct councilors elected on alternate years for 2 years; and three at large councilors elected for 3 year staggered terms. The Manager held the Selectmen's powers and the Council served as the legislative body. This is technically a city form of government so a Special Act had to be passed so that Southbridge, while having a city form of government, could still operate as and be considered a town.
The second (current) charter passed in 2003 and took effect in 2004 provides for a manager/council form of government with 9 elected councilors all at large, three councilors are up for reelection each year. The Charter Commission changes weakened the Manager position and made it more answerable/accountable to the Council and thus, the people. The majority of the Selectmen's powers were given to the Council as the executive authority, some were given to Quasi-judicial Boards or Commissions (Liquor and Board of Health are two examples) and others (minor) were retained by the Manager (appointments, budgets, contracts to name a few). Under the current Charter the Manager is the Chief Administrative Officer and the Council, as policy makers, has the executive authority.
As Ken O'Brien and others point out, the proposal to return to the open meeting/Selectmen form of government has many flaws and wasn't well planned out. I did not realize how much so until the document was made public as I had not seen it prior to being published on this Website. While I agree that the present form of government is not working properly, it is not good practice to abandon participating in the form of government currently in effect.
Additionally, the composition of any new government needs to be spelled out properly and needs to be in keeping with the laws of the Commonwealth. It is my opinion after reading the proposal on the table that it is not. Time will be well spent focusing on fixing this problem. In the meantime, people need to continue to participate in the current form of government, whether they agree with it or not.
I personally would like to see a Mayor/Council form of government. We need the leadership of the town to reside here. That is the only way we will have a government that lives under the same terms as the citizens.
Deacon is ill informed. The original charter was not amended in 2003, it was completely repealed and ceased to exist. In 2002 a charter commission was elected and they met for a year. The result was a brand new charter.
DeleteThere were no other charters prior to 1973. There have only been 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0
ReplyDeleteLook at the issues that have been raised.
ReplyDeleteThis is just a half-baked idea that its proponents cannot defend on a legal, logical, consequential or practical basis.
It is nothing more than a crusade that Joe Marino has been pursuing for thirty years.
It is too bad that some otherwise intelligent people have become so emotionally committed to this campaign that they have lost all ability to realize that it is not merely a complete and utter waste of time but a distraction from dealing with the practical matters of what is really needed to change things.
I’ll bet Nikolla, Clemence, livengood and the rest of them are sitting back laughing their asses off at this. They may even maybe voting for this.
ReplyDeleteMy point in asking to see the pre-1973 charter was precisely that I knew there was no such document.
ReplyDeleteFurther, Deacon, you have not provided an answer as to what would happen if both initiatives pass.
What would determine which takes precedence? Just because Mr. Marino's plan would scrap the current charter doesn't mean that it would rule. The council amendments presume the 2003 charter would continue in place as amended, and thus implicitly ratifies its continuation.
As said earlier, we would merely have another ongoing legal dispute.
As regards another attempt by Deacon to distort facts, I know the difference between a regional and municipal landfill.
ReplyDeleteHe or she is rationalizing the fact that they didn't know about Greenfield's landfill until I referred them to an article about it. The result was to redefine "landfill community" as applying only to those with a regional landfill so as to gloss over their error.
I apologize to the readers for re-litigating the prior point.
DeleteIt really has little bearing on the issue at hand.
That issue is, as Larry McDonald points out, the flawed nature of this proposal as well as the failure to show that it will accomplish little more than to sow dissension and confusion leaving affairs in the hands of those currently running this town into the ground.
More of the same. All talk, no action. Except now it seems Ken has decided to add a hint of personal attack to his argument. I'm going to stay away from that and say this is just to get the question on the ballot. Let the people decide!
ReplyDeleteJust as the proposed changes submitted by the Town Council must be reviewed for accuracy and legality, this measure will need to be as well. It contains many errors and appears not to be constructed appropriately. It won't pass legal review.
DeleteOK KP,
DeleteWhat errors? Please cite your basis for that "opinion" in case law, and other appropriate fundamental arguments (point by point). Please refrain from any (“inside baseball”) backbiting comments by assigning snake oil type forward looking oblique and inconclusive rationale that proves nothing. A factual exercise like this will allow any readers to draw informed conclusions if this town meeting proposition ever obtains the ballot. All previous offerings appear to be gleaned from gossip and innuendo designed to kill the idea before the voters decide. I have had two attorneys review the proposal at considerable personal expense, and received legal opinion supporting the petition and its content. I welcome non-hypocritical friendly guidance, however in a format that informs and educates, not one that tries to indulge an innate self-immolation complex. We need solutions not defeatism and despair tactics from what could be considered by some as agenda from double agents.
Jim Sottile
Jim:
DeleteAllow me to give credit where credit is due.
Aside from myself, you and Dennis Martinek are the only ones who have not hidden behind a pseudonym.
We may disagree, but at least we are capable of publicly owning up to our opinions.
Excuse me, I forgot Larry McDonald!
DeleteJim
DeleteI don’t know who KP is, but let me offer this opinion that I believe conforms to your request.
First, The case of Marino v the Town Council of Southbridge held, in essence the right of a community to rescind a prior vote adopting a charter and to return to the status quo ante. See:
http://masslawyersweekly.com/fulltext-opinions/1990/01/01/marino-et-al-v-town-council-of-the-town-of-southbridge/
However, your proposal is not doing that.
You are proposing rescinding the vote adopting the 2003 charter and returning to the 1973 charter and then amending it.
However, Chapter 43 B of Mass. General laws states in Section 10:
" ...only a charter commission elected under this chapter may propose any change in a charter relating in any way to the composition, mode of election or appointment, or terms of office of the legislative body, the mayor or city manager, or the board of selectmen or town manager."
So, according to state law, your process of amending the 1973 Charter violates Section 10 of Chapter 43B of MGL.
I believe that the ball is now in your court to meet the same criteria that you laid out to show that I am incorrect.
DeleteALL!
DeleteNo! It does not violate of the cited state law. You would be best served to discuss the subject matter with Mr. Marino. This continued Pyrrhic adventure by the (naysayers) is destroying any democratic chance this issue ever had.
Jim Sottile
Jim:
DeleteExcuse me.
You asked for citation of legal precedents or other fundamental appropriate arguments.
You said, " A factual exercise like this will allow any readers to draw informed conclusions..."
You said, " I have had two attorneys review the proposal at considerable personal expense, and received legal opinion supporting the petition and its content."
Please share those legal opinions with us that refute what I have said rather than now saying ask somebody else.
I have met the criteria that you, yourself, laid down.
Your non-response isn't good enough.
Ken,
DeleteThe first question to the attorneys was: Is the petition in conflict with state law? The second question was, is the Marino decision good case law. The answer to the first was NO! The second answer was YES! And the judge’s decision in that ruling was precedent. Now my friend if you can kick in a $1,000.00 I will give you a copy.By the way I use the annonymous handle because I cant get the system to accept my submission. Any suggestions?
Jim Sottile
Jim,
DeleteTo quote you one more time, "Please cite your basis for that "opinion" in case law, and other appropriate fundamental arguments (point by point)."
If you can't comply with your own conditions, then it seems that you are wasting everybody's time.
Hey folks,
ReplyDeleteI finally got around to scanning the 1973 Charter, for those of you who were interested in reading it:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7BmeT8w9JkDLVpMTTZOZEhUWW05WGZiOENuTDZldw
"Aside from myself, you and Dennis Martinek are the only ones who have not hidden behind some pseudonym." The pot calling the kettle black. I've seen plenty of that on the other blogs, and who knows who "Anony-Mouse" is on this blog? Then there's the "legal" opinion by KP. Who's KP? Again, this is Ken using personal attacks to get his point across. Let the people vote!
ReplyDeleteMike, I'm not sure why I'm even included in this diatribe? I'm not anonymous, no matter who is trying to impersonate me.
ReplyDeleteOk, Biff! Ask Ken why you were included. All we are saying, is give us the vote!
ReplyDeleteI mentioned Dennis because he posted one comment under his name.
ReplyDeleteApparently there is a supposition that if proponents of this plan cannot get enough signatures it will be my fault.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to point out that when I conducted a poll on who should run for town council I had 131 individual voters by this time. On this question there have been only 48 votes. That would suggest a simple lack of interest in the subject.
Ken
ReplyDeleteI am sure you understand why some as in me use Anonymous as a name. Because we oppose what they do or are against what they want to do we would be attacked, made fun of, have cartoons drawn, getting calls at home even our families are thrown into the fray for no reason at all. This is how this group works. They try to rule by intimidation and fear. Thanks for allowing us the ability to sign under the Anonymous name. Watch your back it must be starting to hurt a bit
Thank You.
DeleteI have tried to provide a forum for the free discussion of ideas.
Given my earlier experience I realized that I had to moderate comments to avoid devolution into name calling and personal attacks.
If others want to accuse me of that, so be it.
I do not disparage those who feel that, for whatever reason, they cannot lend their names to their posts. But I will credit those who have the courage and moral integrity to lend their names to what they say.
But those who assume that I know who anonymous posters are, or that I might indulge in posting anonymously myself, have never gotten to know me. They are impugning my integrity while relying upon it when I share their views.
I am now, and always have been, guided by what I feel is in the best interest of the public.
Others may disagree with my opinions, but I am entitled to them just as I freely offer those with opposing views to post them here. But when they do so I do not forfeit my right to disagree.
Others may want to portray me differently, but I am old enough to stop caring about fair-weather “friends”.
I will add this.
ReplyDeleteWhen this proposal first arose, they asked a local resident with a legal background to advise them on the matter. He asked for my assistance.
Despite the fact that I opposed the matter, I spent substantial time and research on the issue.
After a lengthy review of the court decision in Marino v Southbridge, I advised my legally trained friend that the opinion allowed the voters of a town to revoke a prior vote to adopt a town charter.
I also advised that, since there had been two charters since we had a Board of Selectmen/Town Meeting form of government, an initiative petition would have to propose to revoke both prior charters and return to the situation that existed previously.
For whatever reason, this advice was essentially ignored.
I believe that it is flawed from a legal standpoint as regards the previously cited provisions of Section 10 of Chapter 43B of the MGL.
But the proponents of this petition want to disparage me, despite the fact that I offered my time and opinions without compensation. And I did this as a favor to a friend without compensation.
Those who want to belittle me now, they know the person to whom I refer. Yes, I am not an attorney. But I spent substantial time on this matter regardless of my personal opinions.
Nevertheless they want to criticize me for my efforts on their behalf without any financial compensation even when I didn’t subscribe to their cause.
And now Mr. Mr. Sottile has the audacity to ask me to pay him to reveal the legal opinions he has to contradict the legal matters that he asked to be provided. I would suggest that Mr. Sottile compensate me for my time in doing work on this matter when nobody else would. I would also ask him to show me where Mr. Marino’s petition is not in conflict with Section 10 of Chapter 43B.
P.S Mike that’s not a personal attack, that’s an illustration of your side’s absolutely deceptive hypocrisy.
I will add this, there is a group in this town who just can't stand the thought that someone else might have some success, so they yap to make themselves believe they and their kind are still in charge.
ReplyDeleteI tried to post all of this as one, but it is too large so I will do this as a couple posts.
ReplyDeleteKen does not deserve the attacks being made on him. Neither does Dennis. Ken, Dennis and I, who all served on the Charter Review Committee, have tried to provide advice to those who sought it in the hopes that you would be successful. As Ken has accurately portrayed, it was not put to use.
I was initially opposed to this concept. Then, after having a good discussion with Joe Marino, I saw the merit of it. However, when I read the petition for the first time on this Website I could see in the first paragraph that it was flawed and the reality is, that presents a problem. Let's take a look. Here is the opening paragraph of the petition:
"Chapter 790 of the Acts of 1975 is hereby repealed and the Southbridge Home Rule Charter which was approved by the voters of the Town of Southbridge at an election held March 2, 1973, as amended by an elected charter review commission and passed by the electorate on June 6, 2003, is hereby revised as provided in this Act. Unless otherwise provided herein all provisions of the Southbridge Home rule Charter shall remain in full force and effect, and the town of Southbridge shall be governed by the home rule charter as revised by this Act."
The commission elected in 2002 was a Charter Commission, not a Charter Review Commission. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as an elected Review Commission. A Charter Review Committee is an appointed committee with limited scope to review and recommend changes. An elected Charter Commission is entirely different and has much greater lattitude because they're elected representatives of the people much like the Constitutional Convention of the Founding Fathers.
The Charter Commission elected in 2002 had a mission to totally redevelop our government, which they did. As I said in my previous post, and as KP pointed out, the current Charter did not amend the original 1973 Charter. The current Charter (2004) is a completely new Charter that completely repealed the 1973 Charter.
The verbiage used in the petition is not an accurate representation of the facts and could be construed as being ill constructed or worse, deceptive. Here's the proof from the current governing Charter:
"13-7-3: UPON ADOPTION OF THIS CHARTER:
Section 4-3-2 of the Southbridge Home Rule Charter adopted March 2, 1973, as amended, shall be repealed as of the first day of the fiscal year beginning immediately after adoption of this charter."
The current 2004 Charter also states the following:
“SECTION 2 - DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN SPECIAL ACTS
13-2-1: Chapter 790 of the Acts of 1975, titled, An Act Clarifying the Charter of the Town of Southbridge, is repealed and shall no longer apply to the Town of Southbridge.”
As you can see this was An Act Clarifying the Charter of the Town of Southbridge and not an Act establishing the Charter. As you can see, it has already been repealed.
(Continued)
ReplyDeletePart 2
I think a December 2008 letter from then Attorney General Thomas Reilly to Town Clerk further illustrates this, here is an excerpt:
“The Town's charter history is most interesting. In 1973, Southbridge adopted a new charter establishing a town council form of government. Deeming Southbridge to be a "city" under the new charter, the Attorney General's review and approval of local laws under G.L. c. 40, § 32, ended. Two years later, by Chapter 790 of the Acts of 1975, a Special Act of the Legislature relating to the Town's 1973 charter, it was declared that by the charter approved by the voters of the Town at its election of March 2, 1973, and "except as otherwise provided" therein, "the town council shall have all the powers and duties conferred on town meetings, and the town manager shall have all the powers and duties conferred on a board of selectmen." Chapter 790, Section 2.
Section 3 of the Act stated: "Except where inconsistent with said charter, all provisions of law applicable to towns shall be applicable to the town of Southbridge and said charter shall govern unless said law specifically provides to the contrary."
(Continued)
ReplyDeletePart 3
Ken is well aware of this letter as he has referred to it several times during his tenure on the Town Council and on the Charter Review Committee.
This letter formed the basis for the need to have former State Representative Geraldo Alicea to sponsor Chapter 5 of the Acts of 2006, AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE CHARTER OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHBRIDGE which stated the following:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 1-2-1 of the charter of the town of Southbridge, which is on file in the office of the archivist of the commonwealth, as provided in section 12 of chapter 43B of the General Laws, is hereby amended by adding the following sentence:- The town of Southbridge shall be governed by those General Laws applicable to towns where the laws of the commonwealth distinguish between towns and cities and all the provisions of law applicable to the town of Southbridge, except as otherwise specifically provided in this charter; provided, however, that chapter 40, of the General Laws of section 32 shall not apply to the town of Southbridge.
SECTION 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law to the contrary, all actions taken as of July 1, 2004, by the town of Southbridge and the town council of the town of Southbridge in accordance with those General Laws applicable to towns shall be ratified, validated and confirmed as though this act had been in effect as of July 1, 2004.
SECTION 3. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
Approved January 19, 2006”
So you see, the 1973 Charter and all the amendments made to it during its 30 year existence, were repealed and the completely new 2004 Charter was adopted completely replacing it. These are the facts and they are indisputable.
The 2002 Charter Commission chose to make major changes to our form of government yet they also chose to retain certain provisions of the original Charter such as the right to speak at meetings.
As Ken pointed out, the Marino vs Town Council of Southbridge decision establishes the right to revoke the adoption of a Town Charter and revert to the pre-existing governmental condition. At the time the decision was rendered, it applied to the 1973 Charter and would have allowed the town then to return to the previous government, a three member Board of Selectmen and open town meeting.
What you are proposing in your petition is in keeping with the court’s decision only up to a point. You are revoking the 2004 Charter but in so doing you’re reinstating the 1973 Charter that existed previously. That is the crux of your problem because MGL Ch 43B § 10 specifically states that only Charter Commission can change the makeup of the legislative body, terms of office, or the powers of the Legislative Body, Mayor, or Town Manager.
The closest you can come to achieving what you want to achieve would be to revoke the prior votes adopting both the 2004 and 1973 Charters, and that would restore a three member Board of Selectmen/open town meeting form of government that existed prior to the 1973 Charter.
I believe this analysis is inaccurate. The proposed petition seeks to revise the 1973 charter, not amend it.
DeleteIf you read this again, I believe that you will see that distinction is irrelevant.
DeleteChapter 43 B of Mass. General laws states in Section 10:
" ...only a charter commission elected under this chapter may propose any change in a charter relating in any way to the composition, mode of election or appointment, or terms of office of the legislative body, the mayor or city manager, or the board of selectmen or town manager."
Larry's analysis is identical to the opinion I offered to the local person that your group initially asked to review the legal aspects of how to achieve your objectives.
DeleteFeel free to ask him.
One additional consideration has to do with Southbridge’s bylaws.
ReplyDeleteGiven its city form of government, its bylaws do not require approval by the Attorney General.
If it were to return to a town form of government, this would require that all bylaws would be subject to such approval before going into effect.
Thank you Attorney McDonald. How much do we owe you for your expert legal advice? Before sending us a bill, could we see a copy of your license showing us you passed the bar, and I don't mean "Fins & Tails?"
ReplyDeleteHey, Marketti, McDonald is a better lawyer than you are an artist. Seems like the guy working for the lowly biased paper is envious of those more successful around him. Pathetic.
DeleteMike and Jim, if you're proposal is a strong one, it will succeed, courtesy of the democratic process. If you're concerned, however, with "naysayers" and "a group in this town who just can't stand the thought that someone else might have some success", then your proposal is weak and doomed to fail.
ReplyDeleteTo the credit of both Ken and I, we've both publicly stated our position on your proposal (opposed), and explained ad nauseam as to why we feel that way. It seems as if you both can criticize us for that, yet neither of you seems to see or admit the irony of doing so.
Mike, your job (which you do extremely well) entails being part of a small group who can't stand the thought of other's success (although most of the time, I agree with your points of view).
If this is the best that those who support this proposal can do, to try and lay the groundwork as to why it failed, if it ultimately does, then your proposal is weak and destined to fail. Did either of you think that no one would say anything against it?
Should Ken and I blindly support something we don't agree with? I don't think either of you would want that, nor do I really think that either one of of you is as thin-skinned as its coming off in this forum.
Instead of blaming us for not supporting it (despite both of us saying we'd sign it, and then Jim telling Ken he'd take his name off, for some odd reason...and sorry that I was in Puerto Rico last week, Mike, or I would have signed it), you should focus on making your case to the people.
In my opinion, you're not.
Saying that it's better than what we have now isn't compelling to me. Saying that people who disagree are part of small group that can't stand the thought of other's success?
Well, you have the opportunity to prove us both wrong, so good luck with your proposal.
But whining about the few who publicly have come out against your proposal is not helping your cause, but hurting it. If this ultimately fails, it's not because of Ken and I...it's because you didn't do a good enough job of selling the people on why they should vote for it.
You don't use a blog to push your agenda, you take it to the streets, just as I told you and your group in November regarding getting elected.
It's the same tact. If you're taking the time to go get signatures, you should take the time to go door to door. You don't think that the Town Council is going to accept your proposal, do you?
So plan B entails more signatures to send it to the legislature to get it on the ballot. If that happens, it doesn't guarantee success, unless you can convince the people as to why they should make a drastic change of this sort.
Unfortunately, the rock you're trying to push uphill is the same group that put Clemence, Nikolla, Spinelli, Regis and Livengood on the Council.
Again, I wish you luck, but I think you both have to "Marine up", get some thicker skin, and make your argument.
Your success or failure is dependent on what you do or don't do, not what Ken and I say about it. Planning for failure, gents, will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On a side note, this is why I won't run for Town Council. Not because I don't have thick skin, I do; but rather, because every group that says that they care about change seems to be so disorganized and focused on decision making with limited input, that they can't see the forest for the trees.
If you want change, you make it happen.
You simply don't blame your friends for their candor, and implying that if you lose, it's their fault. It's not; you'll have no one to blame except for yourselves, just as if you succeed, you'll have no one to thank but yourselves.
Finally, Jim, unless you're using a mainframe from the 50's, "comment as", drop down box, name. Type in Jim. Easy as pie, and I know from the past, you're computer savvy enough to figure that out!
Peace.
Dennis, Butch and Ken, put up or shut up! If you have a better solution let's see some action and less talk.
ReplyDeleteI have repeatedly advanced the idea of going to a mayor form of government, which I think is better.
DeleteI proposed this idea as part of the charter review committee, but I was blocked by the same provisions of MGL Ch. 43B, Sect. 10, that I am raising regarding your proposal.
In lieu of this I have actively sought to recruit viable alternative candidates for the next election.
Finally I appeared publicly to state my objections to the charter revisions being proposed by the council as well as writing to my local representatives in Boston and the members of the committee reviewing those proposals.
Mike:
DeleteHere is a copy of the Mayor proposal that I submitted to the Charter Review Committee:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iv4QE6jt-ZRSNz3VPj4t0O1Zz4QEhBjabRjY-5vKePo/edit
Ken, Dennis and Larry McDonald:
DeleteYou are all incorrect about whether this petition can legally do what it seeks to do. What is proposed is a revision, not an amendment. MGL Ch. 43B, Sect. 10 deals specifically with amendment procedure and is irrelevant.
Here is one (very recent) example of a bill that is headed for it's third and final reading. For what it's worth, Mr. O'Brien, this also provides for precedent and means to achieve your mayoral/council revision by petition, should you ever wish to pursue it:
Bill S.1965
An Act revising the charter of the town of Norwell
By Mr. Hedlund, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1965) of Robert L. Hedlund and Rhonda Nyman (by vote of the town) for legislation to revise the charter of the town of Norwell. [Local Approval Received.] Municipalities and Regional Government.
Sponsors:
Robert L. Hedlund
SECTION 1: The charter of the town of Norwell, which is on file in the office of the archivist of the commonwealth, as provided in section 12 of chapter 43B of the General Laws is hereby revised as follows:
ARTICLE 3: Article 3 is hereby revised by striking out Section 3-1 in its entirety, and inserting in place Sections 3 -1 and 3- 2 as provided herein:
Section 3 -1 Composition: There shall be a board of selectmen consisting of five (5) members elected for terms of three (3) years each, so arranged that the term of office of as nearly an equal number of members as is possible shall expire each year.
Section 3 -2 Powers and Duties:
(a) The executive powers of the town shall be vested in the board of selectmen, which shall serve as the chief policy-making board of the town.
Deacon: Part I
DeleteYour observation is interesting, but unpersuasive.
In the first instance, the citation in the bill you quote is from Chapter 43B Section 12. That Section reads,
“Section 12. Certificates in quadruplicate shall be prepared setting forth any charter that has been adopted or revised and any charter amendments approved and shall be signed by the city or town clerk. One such certificate shall be deposited in the office of the state secretary and shall be kept under the custody of the archivist of the commonwealth, one shall be deposited in the office of the director of housing and community development, one shall be deposited in the office of the attorney general and the other shall be recorded in the records of the city or town and deposited in its archives. All courts may take judicial notice of charters and charter amendments of cities and towns.
The city council of each city, and the board of selectmen of each town, shall, at intervals of not greater than ten years, cause the charter of said city or town as revised or amended to be reprinted for distribution to such registered voters of said city or town as may apply therefor at the office of the city or town clerk. Acts of the general court which are included in such charter may be referred to by appropriate subject headings and statutory citations instead of being set forth at length. Copies of said document may be sold at a price not to exceed the cost of paper, printing and binding thereof, plus mailing charges if any, as determined by said clerk.”
So, this has no effectual impact on the provisions of 43B Section 10 previously cited.
Second, speaking as someone who has actually been a state legislator, that body is inclined to defer to local desires unless there is vocal opposition. This was not apparently the situation in the case you cite. (If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it).
In fact, I cannot find any case law where a charter change that putatively violated 43B Section 10 was challenged. Again, if you can cite such a case it would be informative.
In lieu of such a protest, the state legislature has no incentive, lacking both the resources and the will, to deny local requests. Like it or not, that’s politics, not law. That is precisely the situation that gave rise to the case of Marino v the Town Council of Southbridge.
Deacon: Part II
DeleteHowever, in the case of the proposed charter changes proposed by the Southbridge Town Council that are now before the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government, such objections have been raised.
As the Southbridge Evening News reported on January 30, 2012 in an article titled “Charter changes filed in Legislature”
“The town is seeking such changes under Article 89 of the state constitution, which requires the Council to approve them by a two-thirds majority before sending them to the Legislature. The article, however, sets a specific restriction: ‘any change in a charter relating in any way to the composition, mode of election or appointment, or terms of office of the legislative body, the mayor or city manager or the board of selectmen or town manager shall be made’ only by an elected Charter Commission. Southbridge’s most recent charter review body was appointed, and this particular proposal didn’t even come from them — it came from the council itself.
Durant said that issue was the one sticking point, since the changes include upping the vote required to fire the Town Manager from five councilors to six. The Attorney General approved it on the grounds that ‘these are all going to the voters anyway,’ he said. “
I have been diligently trying to get a copy of that AG opinion, but, as best as I can determine, it was merely oral. They have declined to put it in writing. If you re-read the provisions of MGL 43B, Sect. 10, I’m sure that you can understand why.
Just as any proposal that I would have made relating to a mayor would almost certainly have been subject to a judicial challenge, so I am confident that your proposal would face a similar fate.
And, in that event, I have been assured by the attorneys that I have consulted that it would fail.
If you have case law to the contrary, please cite it.
The fact that a legislature approves something makes it a law, but it does not, of necessity, make it legally valid.
As a simple example I will cite Griswold v Connecticut. Prior to that decision, states maintained the legal authority, and wrote laws, to prevent female contraception. Griswold v Connecticut overturned those “laws”.
Mike:
DeleteHaving said all that, now it is time for you and your compatriots to “put up or shut up”.
Butch, Dennis and I have run for town council.
When are you, Deacon and Jim going to expose your egos to the same challenge?
Two of you won’t even use your full names when posting here.
Mike, I've run for Town Council...so I've already put up, in addition to Citizens Forum. You? I think it's time to stop chasing the impossible and see any of you run. Since you can talk big here, run, and you put up--or please shut up.
DeleteIf your petition makes it to the ballot, we shall see who's right.
If this is the best you've got, God help you. How about finding people to run and get the majority...or is that too hard?
You guys need thick skin...you'll never make it to the ballot with your thinning skin.
Pathetic, this is the last time I will post on this blog. Mr. O'Brien you are a complete disappointment.
DeleteGoogle this:
Deletequote Truman heat kitchen
Nice going, Marketti-you've now got me agreeing with Dennis and Ken. Your lack of tolerance is blatantly obvious and you seem to take the position that you're right, all else who disagree are wrong and should stay silent. As he asked, what have YOU done? Jumping on a bandwagon of losers with a losing proposition? Typical. Those who can, do. Those who don't draw cartoons for the Evening News. You sound like an grade school bully who can't string together a coherent argument. Stick to what you know best whatever that may be.
ReplyDeleteThere's no egos involved here. I am supporting the petition because I believe it would help the residents, giving us a voice at town meetings, a vote to stop this town manager who spends money as if it's his own, and a town council who rubber stamps everything he does. I don't believe running for town council would make a difference, in fact, if all this was about was me running for town council then it would be about my ego.
ReplyDeleteGive them a voice? But only if they agree with your point of view. Your posts here attack people who have disagreed with you. How are you being different from The two woman who do this on the council?
DeleteI have to agree with Carol. Are any of these people the ones who complained about the town council not letting people speak at town meetings? It's ok for them to criticize and disagree but not anyone else?
ReplyDeleteI didn't start this blog, nor did I start with the personal attacks. I call it how I see it. As my good friend Harry Truman once said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"
ReplyDeleteMike:
DeleteYou have repeatedly accused me of personal attacks.
I have searched this thread and looked at the comments that you claimed were such.
I believe that anyone else who does the same will find this allegation, while colorful, is unfounded.
Marketti, isn't the job you get compensated for, for personal attacks?
DeleteNo? Stupid, half-baked, unintelligent, those are mighty strong words. That's ok Ken, I can take the heat. I tell you what. I challenge the three Amigos (Ken, Butch and Dennis) to a friendly bet. You three help get names on the petition to get it on the ballot. Let the people decide! If the people vote it down, I will treat you three to a dinner at the "No-Name" Restaurant in Boston.
ReplyDeleteI did use the term half-baked and I stand by it as a fair characterization of this plan based upon the objections that have been raised to it. I don't see that as a personal attack, but a characterization of the proposal.
ReplyDeleteAs regards the other two terms, I did not use them.
Marketti
ReplyDeleteIf you feel so strong about getting this issue on the ballot then you wouldn't need the help of Ken, Larry or Dennis you would do this with your group. So now is the time to shut up and do something on your own. wake up and smell the coffee. Ken, Larry and Dennis keep I may not always agree with what you say but you say it and you stand by it and if proven wrong you will admit to it. Good job. and Deacon GOODBYE
"I tell you what. I challenge the three Amigos (Ken, Butch and Dennis) to a friendly bet. You three help get names on the petition to get it on the ballot. Let the people decide! If the people vote it down, I will treat you three to a dinner at the "No-Name" Restaurant in Boston."
ReplyDeleteMike, I've offered to sign your petition, even though I don't agree with what you're trying to do. This is your petition, and I thought you had said that many people felt the same way? Why can't you guys get this signed on your own, without my help?
On the one hand, you don't like the fact that I disagree with your nuclear option, and then you ask for my help? That's a conflicting position to take.
For the sake of clarification to both you and Deacon, since I keep getting lumped in (with good company!) for the wrong reason.
My opposition to it is on the grounds that it trades one bad government for another one. I'm not quoting chapter and section of the law, although after reading about it, I do find Butch and Ken's arguments compelling.
I supported Ken's Mayor proposal on the Charter Review Committee (another thing I sacrificed a year of my time on, by the way--putting up, as you say) which would have made someone solely accountable, and easy to remove.
Contrary to the implications, it wasn't so Ken could be Mayor. It was so that someone would be the town's CEO.
I've tried telling anyone that asks that the best solution is to get the majority and hold it with top-notch people, and then start making changes, namely, getting rid of Clark and finding someone that is not buddies with the likes of Clemence and Charette, who will ask for the resignation of the latter.
The reason the group called this the nuclear option is obvious: it was, and is, a Hail Mary, that, if passed, promises nothing different in the way of change.
In the same way that building a new school is nice, but doesn't promise a change in attitudes of the students, this doesn't guarantee that any more members of the town will show up and get involved.
One needs only to review the history of Southbridge politics and the people's lack of involvement to see that not learning from the past is dooming you to repeat it.
The simple fact that you are challenging three friends, who haven't conspired, by the way, to kill off your petition, to help, smacks of desperation. Ken's blog has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with how many signatures you get or don't get.
You started this petition drive, and it's success or failure depend on your efforts, not ours. What do you plan on saying to the current Town Council when they start talking about how it's ill-advised?
Will you knock every citizen who doesn't see the benefit?
I hope not, since that will linger in people's minds for years.
Back in November, I tried to tell you and the group what I thought was an effective plan, and it was met with yawns, since this petition was already in motion. You can't keep it quite forever, and now that you're finding that people that you know and like don't support it, it's a matter of doing everything possible to knock us for not agreeing with you.
Whatever happened to respectful discourse? Do we not have the right to disagree about anything? The group disagreed, apparently, with trying to get quality people elected, but I'm not complaining about that...although I'm disappointed.
You thought that I was pitching myself that night for Town Council. When you can't see that I was trying to focus on short-term tactical wins, and not pie-in-the-sky Hail Mary passes, with no guarantees of gaining anything.
Also, I've stated, I'm not running for Town Council.
As for your dinner offer, I'll respectfully decline.
Dear "Anony-Mouse," in the words of Ken, stop hiding behind your pseudonym! And Ken, how do we know those other blogs aren't you saying those very offensive things? :-)) Offer still stands Amigos. Or bring your petition for a mayor form of government around and I'll sign it.
ReplyDeleteMike:
DeleteAnd how do I know that you and your associates aren't using various means to vote more than once?
Marketti
DeleteYes I sign Anonymous because I do not want my family or friends hassled by you or your group. I've seen these people do this first hand. When certain people get up to speak at council meetings they laugh and make rude comments if they do not agree. When people run for office or join committees your small minded group accuse them of being no good or corrupt if they are not agreeable to your group. You for one draw cartoons and ridicule people when they don't agree with you. You don't care about the hurt that you alone create. Just look what you are doing to Ken. You are a lonely person and will be that way for the rest of your life. I hope that your family will never receive the hurt that you create with your tasteless cartoons . Ken thanks for allowing me to say this and this will be my last comment to Marketti on this issue because truthfully he is not worth the time or energy.
As an observer and very rare poster, this "debate" seems to miss a very important point: Opposing the way the petition is written does NOT necessarily mean opposing the concept of a selectmen/town meeting (BOS/TM) form of government. I assume we've all read it, and let's face it, is has a LOT of serious issues, including some blatant conflicts. For example, the Moderator almost always appoints the Finance Committee, and I assume did so prior to 1973, but this has the BOS do so ... WHILE restoring the Moderator's powers. It also lacks any description of HOW such a transition process would happen if it passes. That's not a simple thing, especially since Southbridge hasn't used the BOS/TM system in decades.
ReplyDeleteThe text IS poorly thought out. It doesn't take a lawyer to see that (and I don't understand how one let such issues slide), only some knowledge of how town government operates in other communities.
I'd like to ask all of you a question — don't read this as an insult, b/c it's not: How many of you have actually observed or participated in Town Meetings in other communities? What were your experiences with them? What seemed to work and what didn't? How does that influence your support/opposition to this petition?
To answer my own question as a starting point: I love town meetings, even though they can be crazy. If we can draft a new charter (and that's really what this requires) creating a BOS/TM system that keeps the positive aspects of what we have AND isn't just a retreat to the past, I'd support it. There are many ways, technological and otherwise, to bring the system into the 21st Century, and I'm a big fan of promoting true, participatory democracy.
I've seen them in at least 5 towns (and lived/voted in one of those), and they all have the same issues: Good public participation, when handled well & the issues stoke public interest, but also problems with turnout when the issues aren't hot-button ones (yet SHOULD be important and debated, like budgets); usually there are at least some people well-informed, but there are also sometimes a few who rant for the sake of ranting; they're just as likely to "rubber-stamp" a BOS/FinCom decision as to fight it. I've often seen near-unanimous votes with minimal discussion on multi-million dollar items, yet long debates on relatively small ones. If there's one thing Town Meeting will do, it's surprise you; that's what makes them fun....
A BOS/TM system is not a panacea. It separates power better than ours does, but it can be just as frustrating, and a BOS can become just as "captured" by one clique in the community as any Council.
This is a very sensible post. Thank you for such a well thought out intelligent reply.
DeleteSouthbridge has a population that is over 20 per cent hispanic.
ReplyDeleteWeve allready seen the use of spanish at our town council meetings.
What would a it be like at a town meeting if every thing had to be translated.
That'd be a good thing — more participation. I see no reason the Town Moderator could not appoint a translator specifically for meeting sessions; everyone else are volunteers, there's no reason that person couldn't be. In fact, maybe such a post should be written into the BOS/TM charter we're discussing.
DeleteIf we could have a Translation Committee, that's even better. The members can rotate the task of translating for other board meetings (especially those being put on cable) and be the "go-to" people for when town documents, website, events and other things need multilingual capability. (We DO have other languages in town, too; their speakers are just not as numerous.)
They didn't do it for the French, they didn't do it for the Italians, they didn't do it for the Polish, they didn't do it for the Albanians, the Greeks, or any other nationality so why should they do it for the Spanish?
DeleteTake a look at the other side of your ballot at the next election.
DeleteGet ready for 10 hourlong town meetings.
Why, this initiative won't pass.
DeleteHaving translation available at community meetings wouldn't be disruptive, and I don't think it would lead to longer meetings. All you'd need is a roster of volunteer interpreters and a means of putting in a request for one. I've seen this at community meetings outside of Southbridge: a designated translator sits in the audience alongside the person(s) who need assistance and they talk amongst themselves unobtrusively. This would be a fantastic thing to organize for the Town whether or not we end up changing our form of government, particularly given the demographics of our public school system. Given how disempowered our community has become over the years, I think we should encourage the public's participation in our local civic life as much as we can, and in as many ways as possible.
DeleteThe fact that we have nearly 25% of our residents who are of Spanish origin. Take out the bigotry, and realize that this is the 21st, not the 18th century. Adding language is not a big deal, it's already being done.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you can mention that at your next Klan/Tea Party/Republican meeting.
In case you didn't notice, blacks and women can now also vote.