Having read and reread the section of the town's charter dealing with recalls, I have to wonder exactly how a recall ELECTION process works in Barnstable. Maybe one of Barnstable's town attorneys could fill me in, but I'm still unclear on how the process works. I have a pretty good idea, but am always open to other suggestions.
The highest profile recall election in recent years occurred back in 2003. Governor Gray Davis of California had presided over some bad economic times in California - the state budget was a mess and electric rates had tripled. All necessary steps were completed to result in a recall election. When voters went to the polls to vote on the recall, they had TWO things to do - Vote YES or NO on whether or not to recall Davis AND Vote for his replacement IF he ended up being recalled.
A number of high profile candidates ended up on the ballot as possible replacements, and when the dust had settled, the people had voted to recall Davis and the replacement candidate with the most votes was selected as the new governor. That is how former actor (and alleged Republican) Arnold Schwarzenegger became Governor of California.
California placed the recall question and the replacement election on the same ballot. However, after reading Barnstable's charter, I am pretty sure that there has to be TWO SEPARATE elections. Here are some quotes from the charter:
Section 8-8 Recall of Elected Office Holders
(c) Recall Election
If the petition shall be found and certified by the town clerk to be sufficient, the town clerk shall submit the same with such certificate to the town council within five working days, and the town council shall forthwith give written notice of the receipt of the certificate to the officer sought to be recalled and shall, if the officer does not resign within five days thereafter, order an election to be held on a date fixed by them not less than forty five and not more than sixty days after the date of the town clerk's certificate that a sufficient petition has been filed; provided, however, that if any other town election is to occur within sixty days after the date of the certificate the town council shall postpone the holding of the recall election to the date of such other election.
The recall election for any officer elected by precinct, shall only be held in the precinct that the officer represents.
If a vacancy occurs in said office after a recall election has been ordered, the election shall not proceed as provided in this section.
(e) Office Holder
The incumbent shall continue to perform the duties of the office until the recall election. If said incumbent is not recalled, the incumbent shall continue in office for the remainder of the unexpired term subject to recall as before. If recalled the officer shall be deemed removed and the office vacant. The vacancy created thereby shall be filled in accordance with this charter. Any person appointed to fill the vacancy caused by such recall shall hold office for the unexpired term of the officer recalled.
How does the charter say that a vacancy on the Town Council shall be filled?
Section 2-5 Filling of Vacancies
If a vacancy occurs in the office of councillor occurs during the first forty-four months of a term, it shall be filled by a precinct election. If a regular town election is scheduled to be held within 120 days, but more than fifty days, after the date vacancy occurs, it shall be filled by a special election within that regular election; otherwise, the council shall schedule a special election to be held as soon as is practical to fill the vacancy for the balance of the unexpired term. The provisions of the charter governing regular elections shall, so far as they are apt, apply to said special election, provided no preliminary election shall be held.
(Amended by Town Council item 91-03-02 on 6/20/91; amendment approved by voters 11/5/91).
Perhaps, one could read Section 8-8(e) that says "Any person appointed to fill the vacancy caused by such recall shall hold office for the unexpired term of the officer recalled" as saying that we should have a recall like California's - recall question and replacement election on the same ballot. BUT that comes AFTER the section says that "The vacancy created [by a successful recall] shall be filled in accordance with this charter."
Now, as I read that section, I am left to conclude that we have a two-part recall election process. Section 2-5 specifically deals with vacancies in Council office. It says that IF a town/precinct election is already being held 50-120 days AFTER the vacancy occurs, then a special election will be piggybacked on it OR if that doesn't exist, then a special election shall be held as soon as practical. It does not seem to allow for a vacancy to be filled on the same ballot as a recall designed to create a vacancy.
A vacancy can NOT possibly occur until a recall election has happened. Then, IF the Councilor has been recalled, a special election (or special ballot question added onto that precinct's ballot for an already occurring election) can occur. That's the way I read the charter.
Now, maybe I'm wrong... but if I am, could you please fill me in with the facts? Comments are open... and frequently monitored... or email @ dedicatedprecinct3voter@yahoo.com
7 comments:
A recall in Barnstable is a four step process.
Step 1: filing of an affidavit with 50 valid signatures from the councilors precinct.
Step 2: Once the affidavit signatures are certified a recall petition is then circulated within the councilors precinct. 10% of the registered voters with in the councilors precinct. (255 in Janet Joakim's precinct.
Step 3: upon certification of the petition signatures the council is notified and the councilor has 5 days to resign. If the councilor chooses not to resign, then the town clerk must schedule a recall election within 30-45 days.
Step 4: The recall election takes place with a question that reads "shall _______ be recalled from the office of Town Councilor in Barnstable"
The election to replace the councilor can happen on the same ballot just as in California.
Section 2-5 of the charter does not cover recall elections, that is why recalls have a separate section in the charter.
Section 2-5 covers vacancies caused by unexpected departures such as death and resignations. Both of which occurred in the early days of the town council
TJ - Barnstable Beat
TJ - I understand the Section 8-8 of the charter was written to specifically deal with recalls. However, when describing the recall ELECTION process, it states that the vacancy created by an affirmative recall vote "shall be filled in accordance with this charter."
I do not see anywhere in the charter other than Section 2-5 that deals with vacancies in the Town Council. Section 8-8 does not specifically say that a replacement vote can occur at the same time as the recall vote.
That's why I am not sure that we can follow the California model for recalls.
Now, if you are saying that the last sentence of Section 8-8(e), "Any person appointed to fill the vacancy caused by such recall shall hold office for the unexpired term of the officer recalled", implies a replacement election I might be able to consider it. Yet, I'm not convinced... Why would the authors of the charter tell us to fill the vacancy "in accordance with this charter" if they wanted us to hold a replacement election at the same time?
Part of 8.8 states that 20% of precincts voters must participate in a recall election. In the case of Janet Joakim that means 510 voters must cast ballots.
Any less then that number then the recall is considered failed. If the recall succeeds then the council can appoint a replacement or order a special election to replace Janet.
In the case of Janet Joakim the appointment is probably what will happen. Her term expires in 2009 and an appointed replacement will fill the remainder of the term. The appointed replacement will then have to run for the council seat in November 2009.
This happened in 1990 due to the resignation of a sitting councilor. The replacement was appointed in 1990 then ran and was elected to the council seat in 1991
If this recall was earlier in her term like the attempt last year then a special election could have been added to the November 2007 ballot.
Your right about the charter language on this my bad.
TJ - Barnstable Beat
It does not sound like the recall organizers are going to do the same thing at all. They have retained an attorney and drafted a document that Ruth Weil cannot invalidate.
Is it insane to learn from one's mistakes? I applaud the recall organizers for their strength and courage, and will do everything I can to support them.
There are many mainstream people joining the campaign to recall Joakim. Just how many people can you folks call crazy, anyway? The movement against Joakim is mounting, especially in light of the letters to the editor in the Patriot yesterday.
For example, Mr. Hatfield's letter expressly dismissed that Joakim's reasoning for the ZBA resignations was due to lack of communication.
He named Joakim as one of the culprits in trying to influence their decision on Blanchard's and the retaliation against John Norman that followed.
Hank Farnham has asked for Joakim's resignation, and now a growing number of Barnstable residents are asking for the same thing.
While the Coggers are extreme in their approach, so were the guys who threw the tea into Boston Harbor.
Those ZBA members were part of the main stream establishment. Their walk out is no small thing. Gail Nightengale was very clear about the reason why the board resigned.
Now we have Hatfield naming specific names of those who put political pressure on the board to act outside of their prescribed duties to serve as an independent body.
As the highest elected offical in the town of Barnstable, Joakim bears the greatest amount of responsibility in the ZBA massacre.
This is the primary reason why there is so much support for her recall.
Persistence is not insanity. Lying in the face of spot on factual evidence is just plain stupid.
Haven't you ever heard the old adage "If at first you don't suceed, try, try, again"?
EDITED:
[This comment has been edited to conform to blog rules]
(NOTE: This comment is only the opinion of this particular commenter and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the author of this blog.)
Anonymous said...
Do you think now that the petition has been declared invalid AGAIN, this woman will move on with her life? If I remember my college days, I read somewhere that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again, even after getting the same result."
August 5, 2008 8:31 PM
Post a Comment