Fraud?

Consider this excerpt from another well-known blog about Barnstable (the COG blog):

"Because Milne’s name appeared in Precinct 3 as a candidate for both Town Council and Charter Commissioner, 1,820 voters in all 13 precincts had their votes cast aside by the Town Clerk/Town Manager.

In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions fraud may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar, because Milne's name was on the ballot, but he was conditionally permitted to sit in the position to which he was elected, ergo voters were defrauded.

Milne ran unopposed for Town Council, so the Clerk’s choice to accept his nomination papers for charter commission was a fraud on the voters."

General Issues With The Statement
This statement is wrong on a number of accounts, starting with the fact that Milne is NOT the Councilor from Precinct 3 (that is Jim Munafo). Councilor Milne represents the people of the 13th Precinct.

For some unknown reason, Gary Lopez (author of COG) has a problem with the Town Clerk. He has tried numerous times to attack her on her handling of the Open Meeting of the Voters petition. He even continued when some of his closest allies were posting on his site in defense of the Clerk. It seems like he is looking for things to blame the Town Clerk for.

Closer Look at Accusations of Fraud
Let's look at the meat of his accusations - he claims two things. One, the voters were defrauded because their votes (for Milne as Charter Commissioner) were not counted. Two, the voters were defrauded because Milne's name was on the ballot.

One: Were the voters of Barnstable defrauded because their votes for Milne were not counted (ie Milne does not serve on the Charter Commission)?
The question here is who did the defrauding? Greg Milne knew the town's official interpretation of the charter. He knew that, according to this opinion, one person cannot hold ANY two elected town-wide offices at the same time. He was explicitly told that that was the town's official position - for Charter Commission as well. If Councilor Milne had had a problem with that policy at that time, then that was the time to start challenging the policy. He chose not to.
Greg Milne pulled papers for Charter Commission knowing full well that what is happening now would probably happen. Yet, he did not care.

Two: Were the voters defrauded because Milne's name was on the ballot for Charter Commissioner?
Milne did an excellent job of being a politician before the election. When asked which position (Town Councilor or Charter Commissioner) he would take, should he win both positions, Milne refused to answer. He never made it clear which position he wanted more than the other.

Now, as far as I know, while the Town Charter prohibits people to one elected town-wide position (including Councilor), it does not limit them to one place on the ballot. The Town Clerk had no reason to take him off the ballot. So, Milne's name was going to be on there for both positions.

However, knowing he was unopposed for Council, he could/should have told people IF Charter Commissioner was what he really wanted. After the fact, his actions have made it clear that he wanted to be a Councilor first. Knowing THAT he wanted to be a Councilor and the fact that he was unopposed in that election, he should have withdrawn his name for Charter Commissioner. Instead, he chose to sue the town.

People in other parts of town are unlikely to know what is happening is other precincts' Council elections. Many people who voted for Milne may not have known he was running for two positions. If they did, they did not know which one he really wanted, so Milne supporters went the "safe" route and voted for him.

The fact is that even though Milne was unopposed for his Council seat, it was still POSSIBLE that a write-in candidate could swoop in and win the election. If that had happened with Milne having been denied the opportunity to run for Charter Commissioner, there would be an outcry occurring now that might actually have some merit, unlike what is going on now.

The closest analogy is the Senator who runs for President in his district's Senatorial election cycle. Fearful of not getting the nomination for President, the Senator pulls papers for both spots in the primary and runs for both. If he gets the nomination for President, he pulls out of the Senate race (because he can't be both Senator & President). If he misses the nomination, he falls back onto the Senate seat.

For Greg Milne, apparently Charter Commissioner was his "fall-back" position. Now that he got his main job, he is greedy and wants both. This would be like a Presidential candidate running for both Senate & President, winning both and insisting he can do both because he "got the votes".

The only people who have been defrauded are the people. They voted for him in both slots because they wanted to ensure he was in any office come November. The only person who defrauded the people is Gregory Milne - by placing his name on the ballot twice.

To make it simple, I do not think that the voters were the victims of fraud. However, if they were, it was fraud in Milne's refusal to talk to the people about his preferences...

Which brings us to the Open Meeting of the Voters... They think that they can force the Councilors to explain to them in detail exactly WHY they voted a specific way (when their own guy refused to say what office he wanted). These Councilors have routinely discussed their thought processes. They often speak at Council discussion. They probably would answer the phone if you had the guts to use it. But, for COGgers, that is not good enough. Let me just say this - If the Councilors are somehow forced to go to the meeting or forced to talk, they will be the only people in all of this that should speak to the ACLU.

ACLU
Enough with the ACLU... I love how the COGgers complain about the high taxes in the town and then go around looking for & making cases suing the town. Maybe if you weren't encouraging and backing people suing the town, they wouldn't need so many lawyers on staff. Enough with the frivolous lawsuits.

Oh, and by the way, COGgers, if you didn't notice, I read the nice letter the ACLU sent you... They told you, in so many words, that they want no part of this matter.