Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Charter Commission and Ballot Questions

I decided that since everyone else seemed to be doing it, I might as well throw out my endorsements and recommendations.

I reserve the right to change my mind @ any time, but here's what I think right now:


Ballot Questions

Question #1 - BINDING - Should the Town (Tax) Collector position be changed from an elected position to an appointed one?

Personally, I believe that electing people is a good idea. I tend to be more suspicious of appointed positions. That's why, unless I hear a REAL good argument, that I say to vote NO on Question #1.


Question #2 - NONBINDING - The Council Review Committee suggested the reorganization of the council into 9 positions - 5 District Councilors and 4 At-Large Councilors. Do you agree with the opinion of the Council Review Committee?

I will never vote for a "nonbinding" question again. They are marketed as non-binding and as a "good indicator of voter interest". They end up being a mandate for a particular course of action. Suddenly, the "non-binding" question is now the basis for binding legislation. Furthermore, I'm not a real big fan of the 9 Councilor plan (I'll explain more later). I say vote NO on Question #2 or leave it blank.


Question #3 - BINDING - Should a 9-member Charter Commission be formed for the purpose of reviewing Barnstable's Charter?

I have been an avid supporter of the formation of previous charter commissions. I support a review of our current charter. I am in favor of a mayor. Yet, I simply cannot endorse Question #3. Something just does not feel right about this. My gut says to vote NO. The timing of this review and the forces in the background of this push just give me a bad feeling about this. I say vote NO on Question #3.


Charter Commissioners

IMPORTANT NOTE - REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU VOTE ON QUESTION #3, YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR VOTING FOR UP TO 9 CHARTER COMMISSIONERS! So, even if you vote NO on Question #3, still vote for up to nine commissioners!

Absolutely Vote For These People:
I wholeheartedly endorse these candidates as the best candidates for Charter Commission.

Lucien Poyant
Lucien has served the town well for many years and has been active in past Charter Reviews.

Dennis Guyre
A fresh voice in Barnstable politics... he's willing to listen...

Michael Daley
Michael was the Chairman of the last successful Charter Commission in Barnstable.

Marcy Dugas
Marcy has been an advocate of village representation on the Council.

Richard Clark
I never thought I would endorse Clark, but I find that his support for a mayor and fresh outlook on Coucil makeup nicely compliment the fact that he doesn't want to completely do away with the current charter.

Deborah Shiftlett-Fitton
As she mentioned in her Barnstable Patriot capsule she is one of the few candidates not related to some past charter review or the Council Charter Review Committee. She sounds as if she will remember the villages when determining Council make-up.


Good Candidates (Strongly recommend voting for these candidates)
There are nine seats on the Charter Commission (if it is voted in)... These two should be strongly considered.

Allen Goddard
Charles Haggerty


Vote For These People Only because you have to vote for NINE:
You should be picking only 3 candidates from this list and the one directly above, in addition to the first 6.

Peter Doiron
Even though Peter is associated with the COG movement, I cannot help liking a lot of what he has to say compared to some of the other 21 candidates. I don't think he would be that bad of a choice. Certainly the only COGer I could even think of voting for.

Royden Richardson
Roy is another former Councilor I didn't think I'd ever be endorsing. I think he is a better option that anyone else
not mentioned yet.


Vote for these candidates only if you have a MAJOR beef with any of the higher ranked options:
These are desperation picks... only to be used in emergency... Alphabetical order...

John Alden
John Brennan (*Also running for Town Council)
Sheila Cullinan-Geiler
William Elkins
Robert Jones
Susan Rohrbach


DO NOT VOTE FOR THESE CANDIDATES UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES:
Alphabetical order - these candidates all have EXTENSIVE ties to COG!

Oliver Cipollini
William Cronin
John Julius
Gregory Milne (*Also running for Town Council)
Bradley Ouimette
Taryn Thoman


MY VIEWS ON THE CHARTER

My views on the charter are complex. Personally, I don't think that the current charter is that awful. On the other hand, I do want a mayor. I really like village/precinct representation on the Council.

Is the current charter broken?
I honestly do not believe that the current charter is "broken". While it is not a perfect document, it has worked pretty well - AAA Bond Ratings and All-America City Awards do not come to crappy towns. There is definitely room for improvement, but the situation is not dire, as some would have you believe.

Mayor/Town Manager
I definitely want a mayor. I want the town's top official to be accountable to the voters. It does not matter what we call him - an elected Town Manager is fine with me. However, if people think that a mayor is a fix-all for every problem they see in the town, I have two words for them - Buddy Cianci.

Council Make-up
There has been a lot of complaint that having 13 Councilors is too many. I believe that 9 is way too few. I might be willing to compromise at 11, but I really do not think that 13 is too many. It seems to work well enough.

As far as At-Large Representation is concerned, I am against a large amount of it. I could see a working system that had a total of 13 Councilors - 9 District Councilors and 4 Councilors At-Large. However, I believe that, in general, the accountability that village representation gives cannot be replaced by At-Large Councilors. It would be too easy for one section of the town to dominate the Council.

The legislative bodies of the State and Federal governments have many more local representatives that regional ones (senators). I think the same logic applies here. Having many more local Councilors helps keep a higher level of accountability and keeps the village identies alive and well.

Automatic Review
Another charter option getting a lot of attention is an automatic review process. Many candidates are recommending that the next town charter include a provision ordering mandatory reviews every five years. I think this is a bad idea. Why mandate review if it is not necessary? Then, when review is needed, people will say "We just had a review" or "We have one scheduled in a couple of years, so it can wait". I think this measure will only hurt future reform.



Closing

Frankly, it doesn't matter what I say, if you don't vote. So, please, get out and vote. Bring your neighbors. Be involved. And check out the candidate profiles for yourself @ the Barnstable Patriot's Dotcommons site. Some candidates even have videos there. Read up, Watch up and be and Informed Voter!

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Q: Is the current charter broken?
A: There is room for improvement

Q: Mayor/Town Manager?
A: I definitely want a mayor.

Q: Council Make-up?
A: Under 13 Councilors

Q: Automatic Review?
A: No

So we agree. Yet I am in "DO NOT VOTE FOR THESE CANDIDATES UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES" category. Because I listen to COG.

I think you should reconsider who I stand for. I play am bi-partisan. I listen to the people on the street. I am with COG when it comes to the fact they want a mayor. You want a Mayor too.

You want to push me to that side of the fence? Fine. But I have trouble understanding the logic.

-Bradley Ouimette
http://imhz.livejournal.com

Dedicated Precinct3 Voter said...

Mr. Ouimette,

I followed your candidacy for a LONG time. Of all the COGers, I HAD thought that you would be the COGer I might just endorse... However, after looking at all your posts around the Barnstable blogosphere, I just could not endorse you...

If I was FORCED to vote for one "DO NOT VOTE FOR UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES" candidate, it would be you... I don't think that you would be as bad a Commissioner as the rest of that bunch... but I think that the MAJOR BEEF candidates are better picks than you... Maybe it was unfair to lump you in with the rest of the COG bunch... but that post is WAY too long as it is and I didn't have the space for candidate capsules for all 22 of you...

While I WANT 13 Councilors - you don't. Yet, on the other points you bring up, it seems we agree... Which is a good thing... You're apparently willing to listen... Which is another good thing...

My problem with you as a candidate has more to do with what you have had to say online than your obvious links to COG. Peter Doiron made it to my Top 10 (#9) - I might even end up voting for him - even though he has COG ties... Many of my picks have been endorsed by other COG candidates...

It was after reading your comments over the last few months, that I came to the decision that I cannot vote for you or endorse you... Your support for both Eric Schwaab and John Julius, who I view as major problems in this town, hurt you in my eyes, as did a few other comments you have left...

While I will not endorse you, I will offer you good luck...

Anonymous said...

Well I appreciate that. TY. I know the voters on the street will make the decision. Going to be an interesting race.