This Does Matter

The COGers have been nice enough to further illustrate their desire to recall more Town Councilors than just Janet Joakim.

One well-known COG commenter has now threatened further recalls of the "maggots who call themselves 'councilors'"... He also went on to expand their headhunting list to include Councilor Tobey. The list now tentatively is Rugo (Precinct 2), Munafo (Precinct 3) and Tobey (Precinct 8)... with Crocker (Precinct 5) and Barry (Precinct 7) as strong possibilities, too... Add the those possible recalls to Joakim's recall (Precinct 6), and you have current or potential recalls in Precincts 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. YIKES!

(By the way, the targeting of Councilor Tobey is nothing new. Eric Schwaab started threatening Tobey's seat the very same night that Schwaab lost to Munafo, almost one year ago. Check out this post for more info - Congratulations to James F. Munafo, Jr..

That post is yet another example of info that I have had to rescue before that infamous "Post Deleter" struck again and tried to hide his true intentions...)


Recalling Joakim was NEVER about the issues... It was NEVER about Joakim... It was about the COGers trying to force their personal and political views on the rest of the town... It was payback for standing against COG... It's really all about COG... That's why it shouldn't be supported...

Having these COGers around may start getting real expensive, real soon... Let's send them the message that we don't want them around. Go to the polls tomorrow (THURSDAY OCTOBER 30) in Precinct 6 and VOTE NO ON THE RECALL...

Intimidation Doesn't Work and Neither Will "Cleaning Up" Your Image

Now, there is no question that recall of Council President Janet Joakim is much larger than a single recall.

For anyone who does not believe that the Joakim recall does not have a much wider, larger goal behind it, they should check out Gary Lopez's blog today. Lopez spends an entire post advocating for the recall of Councilor James Crocker.

They should also check out Eric Schwaab's Cape COG Living blog where the hate speech, pure lies, personal attacks and other vicious propaganda are being thrown against the wall at an incredible pace.

Schwaab's attacks against Councilor Munafo have picked up at a frenzied pace in the last week or two. Lopez has been insinuating possible recall attempts against other councilors for weeks.

The COG plans are starting to come into action.

In addition to ramping up attacks against selected Town Councilors (Barry, Crocker, and Munafo especially), COG sent its point man out on the attack. A certain unnamed blogger has been going around threatening lawsuits against bloggers like myself and TJ (from Barnstable Beat). He is making wild guesses on who to send the threats to, and innocents are seeing their names tarnished on the internet. He doesn't care that his any of his threats & accusations have no factual basis.

The attempt to intimidate bloggers, restrict free speech, and remove the one element in cyberspace fighting to show the REAL picture in Barnstable will not succeed.

While this one unnamed blogger has been hard at work trying to intimidate bloggers behind the scenes and all the COGers have been trying to bring down the next "wave" of councilors, COG is also trying to clean up its image.

On the COG site, frequent poster and vocal Council critic, John Julius, berated someone for accusing the COG site of being vulgar. Julius went on to defend Lopez, saying that Lopez quickly censors out such language and doesn't tolerate it. Of course, Julius then went on to name a list of terms (that he uses frequently online) that most people would consider swears. He insisted that these inappropriate terms were just fine and not examples of bad language.


Hillary Clinton tried to intimidate Barack Obama, but he kept his cool and pulled out the upset victory. Her intimidation did not work, just like Obama's attempts to "clean up" his image will fail... His image is always going to be what it is... The question is whether or not people will accept him for what he really is?... Or will they accept him simply because they don't like the other guy?... I don't think they will do either...

COGers are trying to intimidate the common man, but we're not going to fold. They're trying to rehabilitate their image, but we all know what it really is... The question for Barnstable is whether or not the plurality is going to side with them or not... Do not accept them for who they are, and don't side with them because you don't like the same people... Take a stand... Support Councilor Joakim against COG now, or it may be YOUR councilor wasting time fighting COG next.

Visit www.sevenvillagesblog.com to support Council President Janet Joakim.

Chinese Olympic Gymnasts & COGers - Connected?

I've been watching the 2008 Summer Olympics. Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, and many other great stories have made for an exciting viewing. Yet, the biggest story (perhaps even bigger than Phelps) is the story of the female Chinese gymnasts.

In the sport of Women's Gymnastics, the Chinese Olympic contingent can be most accurately be described as children. Of the 6 member team, at least three of the contestants face scrutiny on their true ages. International news agencies, The New York Times, the Associated Press and many other outlets have found documentation on Chinese websites (including official Chinese government sites) even before the games started that showed that many of these girls were well below the mandatory age of 16 to be eligible in these games.

The Chinese have a history of falsifying documents for their female gymnasts. During the 2000 Sydney Olympics, double bronze medalist Yang Yun had a passport that said she was just old enough to compete in the Games. Since then, she has confessed that she was only 14 at the time of those games, and that both she and her coaches lied about her age. (For more on these two scandals, here is an excellent article.) If the Chinese were willing to lie about gymnasts' ages at the Olympics in Australia, how much more so would they be willing to lie in an attempt to rack up more medals at the Olympics in their own Beijing?

With their own (most likely) falsified passports and other state documents, these Chinese girls have pieces of paper suggesting that they are just barely old enough to compete in these Games, just like Yang Yun did. Despite the evidence suggesting these gymnasts were too young to compete, the International Olympic Committee refused to investigate these girls until this week, and it appears to be a public relations exercise and not a true vetting.

Meanwhile, assuming that the Olympic medal desperate totalitarian Chinese government (and these girls) did in fact cheat, American gymnasts have suffered. The American women would certainly have won Olympic gold had the Chinese used gymnasts that met the minimum age requirements.

Above and beyond the cheating via falsified documents, poor judging has also marred the Women's Gymnastics events. Americans and other international stars with superior performances have been scored lower than their hometown Chinese counterparts.

Americans Nastia Liukin and Alicia Sacramone (as well as their other teammates) have both fallen victim to highly questionable judging calls. Liukin was robbed of Olympic gold on the Uneven Bars in a tie (She should have had a higher score than her Chinese opponent), that was broken in the Chinese gymnast's favor. Sacramone was absolutely robbed of a well-deserved Bronze medal in the Horse Vault when the Chinese performer who won the Bronze landed her final vault on her knees.


How does this analysis of Olympic controversy have any connection to Barnstable politics?

Actually, there are some interesting similarities.

Name: COGers go with their COG abbreviation and if you were to abbreviate "Chinese Olympic Gymnasts" you would be left with COG.

Totalitarian: While the Gymnasts themselves may not be totalitarian individuals, they operate within the structure of a totalitarian system. Citizens who dare to question the Chinese government are ridiculed, beaten, jailed and often executed. COGers may not be as harsh as Chinese officials, but they take many of the same traits. If you dare to disagree with them, they may call you names, verbally harass you, accuse you of being a particular Town Councilor, or even recall you from public office.

Websites: The Chinese have been outed because news organizations stories about Chinese gymnasts ages on many Chinese websites, including official sites. Within minutes of these sites being accessed by outsiders, these sites have been wiped from the Internet. Only copies saved by these agencies remain as proof. In the Barnstable blogosphere, COGers are often exposed by people who keep copies of their sites. Many COGers are notorious for deleting posts they wrote on their sites when they realized they had crossed the lines. Bugsy, the Cape Cod COG Living blogger, even earned the nickname "Post Deleter" because he has deleted so many of his own posts.

The Looks: The underage female Chinese gymnasts are very good. While perhaps aided by some very controversial judging calls, these girls were very graceful (except for the one who landed on her knees). If there was no minimum age requirement, the Chinese team's gold win would be an excellent story. The questionable judging on the individual events would still be disappointing, but not the additional burden on the American girls that it has become. The Chinese girls certainly look the part. This is very similar to how COG numbers also look the part. When you first see and hear COG info, it looks good. It sounds like you have been robbed blind, yet when you dig deeper, you find that their info doesn't meet minimum fact requirements. The info that directly rebuts their info is ignored and shunned. When you see all the info, you find that things are not the way that they present them.

Final Judging: Poor judging has robbed deserving American gymnasts of their hard-earned medal placements. While Liukin and Sacramone were done in by inept international judges, the citizens of Barnstable are the ones who will ultimately judge COGers. If we support their recall petitions or their candidates or their ballot questions, they win. So, when you hear political debates raging in this town, decide which side you want to see win based on their entire performance.

Yet Another Post About the (Now Failed) Joakim Recall Attempt

Writing entries about COG's futile attempt to recall Town Council President Janet Joakim is starting to get tiresome and repetitive. Yet, necessity is the mother of invention, and so I create another post.

Yesterday, in an already anticipated move, Town Attorney Ruth Weil declared COG's recall affidavit invalid because it did not clearly inform possible signers that that they were "signing under the penalties of perjury", which is required for a legal affidavit. Citing multiple case laws, including a 1975 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and a 1994 Superior Court ruling. Both clearly articulate the fact that this language is a REQUIREMENT of affidavits and how a Town Clerk handles them (whether or not she lets the process continue) does not supersede any state law or court rulings.

As the Barnstable Patriot pointed out, the recall attempt in Barnstable not involving Joakim ended up dying for the same reason. The 2003 attempt to recall Councilor Carl Riedell failed for very similar language issues.

It looks like this one is crystal clear. No amount of COG whining, moaning, groaning, yelling or screaming is going to change matters. Nor will any amount of phone calls or emails to the State Attorney General, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or Radio Hall of Fame Talk Show Host Howie Carr will result in any change. There is clear legal precedent in this matter, and the lawyer they hired to review this petition (and approved it) should be fired. This one is all on COG.

Though on this one, they might just go out and start over again. After they whine a bit first.

Of course, Weil's ruling and the anticipation of the expected ruling brought out more of the worst of COG. Over on the COG Living blog, they're talking about getting guns and "bankrolling" the next attempt to the tune of $2,000. The worst is coming from the main COG blog. There has been ethnic slurs (A "Femme Nazi" quote from Lopez even made it into the Barnstable Patriot's article), countless shameless attacks of all types on both the Town Attorney and Town Clerk, as well as the "piece de resistance" - a very large photo of someone giving the middle finger. Real family reading!


Now that people will be told that they are signing any recall paperwork under "the penalties of perjury", I wonder how many will actually sign it. This is not a simple sign-and-make-the-annoying-person-go-away petition anymore.


To those who complain that this ruling somehow "overturned the will of the voters": 255 signatures from a tiny precinct in Barnstable do not overrule the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Ruth Weil and the Town Clerk were simply doing their jobs in ensuring that all legal issues were covered. They could tell everyone that the petition was illegal now or a nice judge could. I'm glad they saved us the trouble.


Anyway, our friends down at the Barnstable Patriot did an excellent job of summarizing the Weil decision, so here's the link to the complete story and here's a shortened version below:

Joakim recall ends on invalid affidavit (updated)
Written by David Still II
August 05, 2008

The affidavit submitted to initiate the recall of Barnstable town council president was flawed, according to the town attorney’s office, and the recall election cannot proceed.

That is the essence of the Aug. 5 opinion from town attorney Ruth Weil in response to a request from Town Clerk Linda Hutchenrider. Hutchenrider did find that the petition submitted to recall Precinct 6 councilor Janet Joakim contained more than the necessary 255 “good signatures,” but asked for an opinion from the town attorney’s office regarding the entirety of the submission.

The defect in the affidavit is that it was not signed under the penalties of perjury, which Weil argues is a condition for a valid affidavit. In support of her opinion, Weil cited several Massachusetts cases, including a 1994 Massachusetts Superior Court case in which despite a town clerk’s issuance of recall petitions based on an improper affidavit, the recall was defective....

Weil's opinion is similar to one offered by her predecessor in 2003 during the attempted recall of then-Precinct 5 councilor Carl Riedell. The affidavits submitted to begin that process were deemed defective for the same reason after the collection of what appeared to be sufficient signatures....

Writing on his blog..., recall organizer Gary Lopez indicated that a new recall effort would commence.

“We will eschew a court challenge and begin the recall process anew on August 12th,” he wrote.

Thoughts For Today

That was an awesome thunderstorm that just passed through...

Here is a collection of thoughts I have right now as the storm has kept me awake...

• The "recall": This "recall" situation is an example of the many things our current charter gets right. While citizens are given the highly powerful right to recall an elected official, our charter makes sure it can't be done without some real backing. In fact, because it takes 100 signatures to initiate the recall of a town-wide officer and 50 for a precinct officer (Town Councilor), the charter's authors actually made it HARDER to recall a Councilor than a School Committee member... The number of detailed steps that must be followed ensures that a small disputes do not make recalls commonplace. I think the current Charter Commission should take note of how well the charter is working in this fiasco.
• The Water Company: I've been looking at the Council documents (agendas & minutes) related to the purchase of the Hyannis Water Company. As I read over these items, I have learned that the Hyannis Civic Association unanimously approved the purchase, AND that the Town Council voted UNANIMOUSLY to purchase the company.
• Yet, the COGers seem to forget that fact. When they criticize Councilors for endorsing that deal, they only attack the Councilors they hate most. In other words, they criticize everyone except COG's resident Councilor/"White Knight"/Man of the "People" Greg Milne. They conveniently choose NOT to criticize him for voting for the purchase, while suggesting that other Councilors committed heinous crimes by voting for it. Gotta love the double-standard.
• Serving on a town board/committee: I know that not everyone has the time to serve as a volunteer on a town board/committee, but the recent Zoning Board of Appeals mass resignation highlights the importance these boards play. Simply put, these boards are much more influential than we realize. Having enough people willing to serve is a problem, one that you can easily fix.
• You can start by reading about the different boards/committees HERE.
• You can also just download the application form HERE.
• Driving Issues: LIGHTS: Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like a lot of the town's so called "smart" traffic lights just aren't working right. In the past, when there was no traffic in the other direction, I never had to wait more than a few seconds at "smart" lights... Now it seems like I am waiting forever... Am I the only one experiencing this?
• BAD DRIVING: Is it just me, or does it seem like there are more bad drivers out there this Summer? I have had so many near accidents because drivers either cut me off, had no idea how an intersection works (aka doesn't have a 4-way stop), missed Stop signs, ran CLEARLY red lights or simply had no clue how to drive. It's getting scary out there... Which segue ways nicely into my last thought...
• Hearing on Proposed New Traffic Signals on Rt. 28: On Wednesday August 13 @ 7:00 PM, Mass Highway will be conducting a public hearing on proposed intersection & signal upgrades at 3 locations on Rt. 28. They are looking for public input. The locations in question are: Lumbert's Mill Road, South County Road/Main Street (Marstons Mills), and Rt. 149.
• Improvements and a signal are definitely needed at Lumbert's Mill Road (mostly because of the incredibly bad driving exhibited in this town).
• The Rt. 149 intersection has had a poor design for a long time. The fact that the intersection is located in the middle of a hill does not help the traffic problems there. A light there might not be such a bad idea.
• The South County Road/Main Street (Marstons Mills) intersection is the least busy/dangerous of the three. I'm not so sure that a light is needed there, especially if a light is added @ Route 149.
• The biggest issue is the vast number of stops and lights in this stretch of Rt. 28. Lumbert's Mill Road to the new Stop & Shop could have 6 traffic signals. That's 6 signals in less that 3 miles. Traffic on Rt. 28 already crawls along for good portions of this stretch. Adding 3 new lights seems like a lot, when you consider that of the 3 that currently exist, 2 are for the Stop & Shop plaza and one is for the road leading to the Town Dump.

Another Recall Attempt?

COG is reporting that it has completed the first step in its latest attempt to recall Precinct 6 Town Councilor Janet Joakim. It found 50 or so people in Precinct 6 willing to sign anything. The affidavit these people signed allows the recallers to take out a recall petition. Recallers have 10 days from the issuance of the petition to get 10% of registered Precinct 6 voters (around 250) to sign the petition. If they obtain the correct amount of signatures (as certified by the Town Clerk), there will be a recall election scheduled for between 45-60 days after the Clerk certified the petition (unless Councilor Joakim were to resign, which is HIGHLY unlikely). In that election, AT LEAST 20% of Precinct 6 must show up for the results to count AND the majority must vote that she be recalled.

The recall process is not a simple one and is another good example of things that were done correctly in the construction of our current charter. A recall is an important voter tool and a serious matter, and (because of how the charter was written) it cannot be done on a whim.

The ironic matter of this recall is that it will cost between $7,000-$15,000 to perform the recall election (should the recallers succeed in reaching the election). Considering the EXTREMELY poor turnouts at Barnstable elections, it would not be surprising to see LESS that 20% of Precinct 6 show up, which would nullify the results. So, between actually LOSING the election (which is what COGers do best) and not getting enough voters to show up, there is a very good chance that they could be wasting a good amount of OUR money.

Now, I am not an expert on recalls, but the way that I read the charter makes this even more interesting. As I read it, IF a recall election is successful, then ANOTHER separate election must be held 50-120 days later to fill the vacant slot. Which means that a successful recall costs between $14,000-$30,000. YIKES!



Here's a good article from The Barnstable Patriot's archives describing the recall process.

Here's an article from the Patriot in 2007, that details the start of last failed attempt to recall Councilor Joakim and in which Town Clerk Linda Hutchenrider estimates that "a single-precinct recall election would cost between $6,000 and $7,000".

TJ, over at The Barnstable Beat puts the cost of a recall election at up to $15,000.

ZBA Issues Force COGers To Return To Roots

When I wrote my post on the Zoning Board of Appeals and the new Blanchard's proposed on Rt. 28, I had no idea about the tale that was about to drop in front of a couple of spectators that night.

While I have serious concerns about how the ZBA handled the Blanchard's situation, I have serious concerns about all issues concerning the entire board.

There are members (who recently resigned) who had served since 1973.

There were multiple openings, positions left unfilled by the Town Council, and members who had served for over a year waiting for a replacement.

There were qualified Alternate Members who were passed over for entirely new people and there was serious politicking in the election of the two newest ZBA members, whose qualifications are not what I am here to discuss.

There needed to be change and restoration on this board long ago. The Town Council and its Appointments Committee dropped the ball.


Meanwhile, back in Barnstable's Blogosphere, Blanchard's had been a topic of discussion just before the mass resignations. Now, of course, this overturning of the ZBA has become Topic #1. Even the Cape Cod Times actually mentioned it in an article.

Meanwhile, in COGland, the Main COG Blog and Eric Schwaab's blog have returned to their COGer roots.

Schwaab, desperate for another COG friend, called Councilor Hank Farnham a COGer. Schwaab based his invitation on a post on Barnstable Beat that claimed that Farnham, NEVER a member of the COG clan, had called for Council President Janet Joakim's resignation. Schwaab forgot about the names, allegations and comments that COGers have made about Councilor Farnham in the past (especially when he served as Council President). Yet, because Farnham reportedly agreed with the COGers on their one pseudo-issue - Joakim's removal from office - Schwaab was ready to initiate him into the ranks.

Elsewhere, lead COGer Gary Lopez was busy drumming up false accusations against a fellow blogger. This is the ULTIMATE COG trick - when you don't agree with someone or they have proved you wrong - accuse an blogger or commenter of being a Town Councilor. I know, because I have been called so many different names and been accused of being so many different people, that I have lost track. Of course, as of the last couple years, the COGers love to accuse is Janet Joakim.

TJ, over at Barnstable Beat, has now been accused (again) of being Ms. Joakim. Lopez brings no EVIDENCE, only hopeful theories that may even have been altered to prove his point.

This kind of game is COG's favorite thing to do, and I wish the best to the falsely accused. However, they are not done with the game-playing.

Remember the "outrage" near the end of the last election cycle where people reportedly made "nasty" ethnic slurs against the COG candidate in Precinct 3 (Schwaab)? Remember how it was shown that COGers make more slurs and "nasty" attacks than any commenters have EVER been accused of making against COG?

Well, COG is making slurs again. On Sunday, Lopez created a follow-up post to his original post accusing TJ of being Joakim. Here is his title:

"SUSPICIONS CONFIRMED; Janet Joakim is a sicko femme Nazi...."

(My sincere apologies to Councilor Joakim for posting this, but people need to know what is being said.)

I am greatly disturbed by the nature of comments and posts made by COGers. TJ and I are not always on the same page, but we always have stood firm against the COG machine. TJ has been put through a purgatory online recently, and has come out stronger than ever. I know TJ will emerge victorious in this case, too.

As for Councilor Joakim, we rarely agree on larger political issues. Yet, in local politics, there are many instances of common ground. In the blogosphere, there are even more. Councilor Joakim does not deserve the treatment she has received from COG. She has stuck it out through treatment that no one in this town deserves.

The COG group will always resort to their typical tactics. They are:

• False Accusations
• Personal Attacks
• Lies and/or Manipulation of Facts
• Racial, ethnic or other Slurs (aka "cyber hate-crimes")

Let's take a stand as a town and not let them get away with it.

Blanchard's II

Back in March, I wrote a post about the new proposed Blanchard's Liqours at the edge of Precinct 3's borders on Route 28 (near CVS) at the old Knights of Columbus building.

The building was a hot button topic, thanks to discussion started on Janet Joakim's SevenVillages Blog. I chose to write my own post on the topic because of the magnitude of the issue and its extreme proximity to Precinct 3 - It's across the street from this Precinct.

When discussing it, I saw three major issues that needed to be discussed:

1. Since the town hands out liquor licenses, should it relocate the store into an area that already has two stores in a 1.5 mile area?
2. Traffic Impact of the new store
3. Impact of the store on children

After writing the article and reading the comments left by many (including the late Bradley Ouimette, who will be missed), I came up with the following answers:

1. While competition is a GOOD thing, too much competition will in this area will likely result in one of the two current stores being forced to close. Thus, we are left with a trade of abandoned buildings - Knights of Columbus for the closed liquor store(s).
2. The traffic impact of the store would be a MAJOR problem. This stretch of Rt. 28 is dangerous enough, and adding an entrance and exit at this location will only make it worse.
3. Contrary to the belief of some, adding a liquor store to this area is not an issue for the children at the nearby Middle School. There are already liquor stores closer to the High School, the Charter Schools, and Elementary Schools. Plus, it is absurd to think that Blachard's employees would be duped into selling to Middle Schoolers, no matter how good their fake IDs might be...

The biggest issue turned out to be traffic. I feel that allowing the largest liquor store in the Mid-Cape area to be placed at this location without traffic correction is recipe for traffic disaster. If you think that the Lumbert's Mill or 149 intersections with Rt. 28 are bad, this could be even worse. Now, there were possible ways to deal with the traffic issues - back entrance/exit, median strip, etc... - but Blanchard's chose not to include them in their proposal.

The curb cuts they proposed are similar to Olive Garden, the McDonald's on Rt. 132 and both Christmas Tree Shops entrances on Rt. 28 and Rt. 132. In other words, these are the exits/entrances you see people cutting across multiple lanes of traffic to use incorrectly. This is mainly because there are no ways to turn around in Hyannis. Who in their right mind WANTS to go around the Airport Rotary so they can go to McDonald's? Why drive past it, when you can just sit in the Left-hand lane and pray for an opening (a big one) so that you can take the very awkward turn?

Curb cuts do not solve the problem, and often cause even greater problems because people driving by these cuts are not expecting other cars to take illegal left-hand turns.

Anyway, the proposed store required Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) approval because the land is not currently zoned for that use. However, when the proposal came up before the ZBA, the ZBA had no problem approving it even after the Town Manager, Town Council President AND the Town Councilor from that Precinct (Precinct 2) all spoke before the board about the negative impact on traffic that would occur in the area.

The opponents of the project stepped up to the nuclear option, obtaining Cape Cod Commission (CCC) review of the project. Blanchard's had originally escaped review because, at 9,800 square feet, their building fell just 200 square feet short of mandatory CCC review - 10,000 square feet. CCC review could very well kill the project either because of the time & expense or a disapproval. Opponents of the project have also been conducting a mini-"purge" of the ZBA.

More recently, the "Blogger Who Promises To Retire But Never Does" has claimed that the actions of at least the Council President were based because there is a distant family connection between her family and the family that owns one of the two liquor stores nearby the proposed Blanchard's site. Let me be the first to say that I have no idea whether or not this is true, but it would have no impact on my opinion either way.

Cape Cod Package Store (CCPS), located just seconds down Rt. 28, now wants to expand... The COG author asserts that the traffic coming out of this store at its current size is worse than any that would occur at the Blanchard's site. While there are always going to be morons who ignore traffic laws, the COG author leaves out one thing. It is POSSIBLE for people to take a left turn out of this store, BUT it is MORE likely that the will use the BACK entrance which will take them right to the smart light at the intersection that is a few feet away and will allow them to go wherever they want.

If the CCPS wants to expand, they should go through the same arduous process - ZBA and public opinion - that Blanchard's went through before receiving token approval from the ZBA. Let's see some real review of CCPS impact on traffic, and if that means changing the CCPS entrance on Rt. 28 to the Right ONLY In/Out entrance that was proposed for Blanchard's, then let's demand it. This time the Right ONLY In/Out curb cut will actually work - because patrons can exit out the back, right to the light at Phinney's Lane & Rt. 28.

If Blanchard's had included a rear entrance (like CCPS has) that would have placed patrons on Wequaquet Ave./Old Strawberry Hill Rd. in addition to their Right ONLY In/Out entrance on Rt. 28, then they probably would have eliminated traffic concerns and approval would never have been an issue. Patrons could take their lefts at the light. (Though, this plan might have required future alterations to the intersection - additional left turn lanes and signals - depending on how much traffic there really was.) Yet, even this plan caused unrest among Blanchard's prospective neighbors.

In the end, the ZBA ignored the pleas of both citizens and officials - that is why Blanchard's faces CCC review and that is why the ZBA is being shaken up. For once, the community actually voiced their opinion on a zoning issue, but the ZBA ignored them. Hopefully, the new members of the ZBA will listen as we begin some discussion on the proposed expansion of CCPS.

Quick Thoughts on the Meeting of the Voters

Some quick thoughts on tonight's Open Meeting of Voters

Moderation

• I thought that the moderator did a good job in his breakdown of the time allowed for each of the three issues.
• However, he was a tad too under-spoken, oftentimes letting people ramble on over him or ignore what he had said.
• His explanations and preparation were excellent, and overall he did a good job.

Participation

• It was good to see a decent number of people at this meeting, however, the auditorium was not close to half full.
• There definitely appeared to be less COGers than other citizens.
• For the most part, this meeting was VERY civil, and there were not many negative personal comments.
• Even though commenters were given a generous limit of 5 minutes, the entire allotted time was rarely used by anyone - only maybe one or two speakers came close.
• The one exception being the author of the COG site.

COGers

• For the most part, the COGers were certainly outnumbered
• However, Gary Lopez (of COG fame) thought he was entitled to speak whenever he pleased, however he pleased and for as long as he pleased, regardless of what the Moderator said.
• The other COG supporters (including Mr. Julius) made their points well, without breaking rules.

Access

• For those of us unfamiliar with the High School, finding the Knight Auditorium proved to be a challenge, and there was no signage telling us where to go.
• While there were some people recording the meeting on their own, I do not believe that this was recorded for television on Channel 18. Maybe I am incorrect about that, but the meeting certainly should have been either aired live on TV or recorded.
• If anyone has a copy of any video of this meeting, or knows that the town DID in fact record the meeting, please let me know.

Overall

• As I have said, this seemed to be more of an inquisition where the COGers thought they would have two hours to grill the Councilors however they felt.
• The Moderator correctly allowed town officials to answer the charges the original (and invalid) petition laid against the town, before allowing public comment on each issue.
• The Moderator allowed the most time (about 1 hour) for discussion of Issue #1 - Split Tax, a little less time for the Greg Milne legal fees issue (about 40 min), and the least amount of time to the final (and already resolved) shellfish issue (about 20 min). This was a very good distribution of time, and mirrored the interest of those attending the meeting.
• Very little was accomplished at this meeting, except more discussion of these issues. However, I thought the Council did a good job of explaining their point of view, as did all parties speaking tonight.
• It was nice to have a pretty civil political debate in Barnstable, for once.

Mandates???

What exactly is a "mandate"?

Nowadays, everything that happens in politics is referred to as a mandate. If a politician wins by one vote, he has a "mandate". If a measure passes by one vote, it was a "mandate" of the people.

Also, according to the COGers, If a NON-BINDING referendum passes, it is a "mandate". They also claim that if a candidate is elected to two offices, and chooses to try to ILLEGALLY hold BOTH, he has a "mandate" because he was "elected to both".

Why must everything be a mandate? Why can't we just have a simple non-binding referendum? Why can't we simply be supporting a candidate to make sure he has a position SOMEWHERE in the fall?

In my opinion, the ONLY time there is a MANDATE, is when the voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts pass a BINDING referendum ORDERING the State Legislature to do something (like lowering the State Income Tax).

I'm sick and tired of hearing that EVERY little thing is a "mandate". Let's let the COGers see a real "mandate" - for them to leave us alone - tonight at the Open Meeting of the Voters. You need to be there.

More on the Check

Some people have complained in the comments on my previous post that I was being too kind to Joakim in my assessment of the "check-writing fiasco". On the contrary, my post was designed for a specific purpose - to point out the criminality of the COGers irresponsible actions.

Anyone could write a post simply piling on Joakim or supporting her. That was not my intention. Sometimes, the most interesting and important parts of arguments are not the main issue, but the OTHER things we learn during the discussion.

Am I disturbed by the "check-writing fiasco"? A little. Does it call into question the financial responsibility of a Town Councilor responsible for the large financial burden of our over $100 million budget? Yes.

On the other hand, one has to wonder if the problem was not the $45 bounced check in question, but a $400 unpaid bill, why didn't the store owner do anything about this in the last 3 years??? Couldn't he have gone to a number of places - Cape Cod Times, Barnstable Patriot, the league the purchase was made for, local Democratic leadership, a collection agency, small claims court - at ANY point before now???

Sounds to me that both sides have issues here, and that blame cannot fall on either party fully. I don't like sticking my nose into these "he said-she said" arguments. There is never anything of substance that any outsider, other than a real judge and/or jury after a trial, can add to the discussion.

As I said before, the MUCH larger issue here is the apparent criminality of the MULTIPLE COGers' actions. Posting someone's PERSONAL check online is not only irresponsible, but a criminal action. Posting the personal check with the sensitive personal info (routing number, account number, etc) blacked out would have been fine. Posting a TOWN check acquired via a Freedom of Information request would be fine. However, leaving someone entirely vulnerable to identity theft is inexcusable and warrants the attention of law enforcement officials.

This posting of personal info online was only the next logical step in the COGers' invasion of public officials' privacy. Whether it was John Klimm's cell phone number, or any of the other personal information not intended for public distribution provided by COGers in their online forum, they HAVE done similar acts in the past, and NO ONE should be surprised.

COGers Have Crossed The Line Into CRIME

Just days before the Open Meeting of the Voters, scheduled by the Council, irregardless to the illegal and invalid COG petition asking for one, the COGers have thrown themselves into the moral debate once again.

This time, the COGers' philosophy of attacking any/all public officials not named Greg Milne in any way possible has backfired on them. In the process of trying to attack the character of Town Council President Janet Joakim, the COGers posted a photo of an unedited personal check attributed to Councilor Joakim on a number of blog sites (including the one STILL written by Gary Lopez). This photo contained the full account and routing numbers for Joakim's personal bank account, a copy of her signature, and her address and phone number.

Any identity thief (or ANYONE really) trolling the internet may have found their "payday" with the wealth of info provided by the COGers. The COGers who have posted the check are either identity thieves or accessories to the crime. This is a serious matter.

If they had blocked out the extremely sensitive personal info (bank account & routing numbers) contained on this check, it would not be a huge deal, but providing this type of information is a REAL CRIME! They routinely complain about the "crimes" and "injustice" in this time, but now EVERYONE in town should know that the COGers are the REAL criminals in Barnstable.

It is one thing for the COGers to participate in the despicable practice of providing the personal HOME and CELL numbers for various public officials, and then calling them at all hours of the day. Public officials have official PROVIDED means of contact - work phone numbers, work email addresses, offices, etc... that we can reach them at, if we want to. Providing to the masses personal numbers that they have not given out for public consumption is bad enough, but actually providing PERSONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION for Town officials in not just despicable - IT IS A CRIME.

I hope that these disturbing people get punished for this deed. Town residents pay attention - Do you REALLY want to support this kind of people - Criminals who will do ANYTHING to attack the people that they do not like?

Defining "Elective Office"

Barnstable Town Charter:
Section 3-2 Eligibility
"Any voter shall be eligible to hold any elective town office provided that, no person shall simultaneously hold more than one elective town office."

Dictionary.com
e·lec·tive -adjective
1. pertaining to the principle of electing to an office, position, etc.

of·fice –noun
5. a position of duty, trust, or authority, esp. in the government, a corporation, a society, or the like: She was elected twice to the office of president.


There has been a lot of discussion on Greg Milne's attempts to serve on both the Town Council AND the Charter Commission. While some people see the obvious clarity in our town's charter - that you cannot be elected to two town wide positions - others try to play games with words.

The town charter says ONE "elective town office" per person (at a time). It is obvious that "town" means town-wide, and courtesy of dictionary.com we see that "elective" refers to an election and "office" is a "position of duty, trust or authority, esp. in the government". I think it would be VERY fair to define the Charter Commission as a "town-wide elected position of authority in and/or over the government".

Serving in both positions would not only be a violation of the town charter, but it would also be a direct conflict of interest. Charter Commissioner Milne would have the ability to directly impact his position as Town Councilor Milne. Whether sabotaging the effort to maintain his Council seat, determining a number of Councilors that makes his reelection easier, changing the term limits for Town Councilors, or a whole host of other options, Milne could have direct access to change the power a Councilor has (albeit subject to voter approval).

Frankly, this issue is only brought up by the town's costly vocal minority. By playing with words and saying that "other towns do it, so it must be OK", they have tried to place their friend onto a board that they could not be voted onto. Enough is enough with them and the Milne situation. It's time we stopped listening to the advice of COGers - they are the same group who tried to force people to create an "elected" position out of thin air by signing their flawed and illegal Meeting of the Voters petition.

Open Meeting of the Voters - Correcting the Errors of the COGers

Next Tuesday - May 06, 2008 - There will be an "Open Meeting of the Voters" for Barnstable Residents at the Knight Auditorium in Barnstable High School Auditorium.

It is your responsibility to make it to this meeting if you can. The meeting will be open to ALL topics, though many of the COG persuasion will try to make it about their agenda. You need to be there to add common sense to the debates. Those who agree with the COGers (and are less satisfied with this town than most) are going to try to make this meeting into a roast of the Council. It is time to let the COGers know that they are the minority, albeit a very loud minority.

The fact is that the steam behind this "meeting" was started out with a COG agenda. They were able to gather 300 signatures to their petition to call a meeting. Now, I have practice getting signatures, and I could get 300 signatures in a day, just from people who want me to leave them alone. Anyway, when they turned their petition in, it was ruled invalid for a few reasons.

First, their petition contained language that "elected" a prominent COGer as the "Moderator" of the meeting. Two problems with that - You cannot VOTE for and "ELECTED" position by signing a petition. You must have an ELECTION that all voters can participate in and people can run for. Two - the Charter, which allows for the meeting, never even mentions any "Moderator" position. So their rigged "election" is a double phony.

Second, their petition contained language that would have given it subpoena power. In order to force someone to appear at an event (court, town meeting, governmental inquiry, etc...) you must have subpoena powers. This petition tried to use such powers to FORCE a specific list of people to attend, when a petition cannot have subpoena power, nor can the Town Council President. So, no one can force anyone to attend the meeting.

Third, some members of the COG meeting drive sought to limit attendance at the meeting to only those that signed their petition (and the people the wanted to FORCE to come). In my opinion, not only does such a measure break the Open Meeting Law (which the COGers have accused the Council of breaking in the past), it also would have unfairly restricted your right to government oversight and free speech. The Charter NEVER restricts who may attend an Open Meeting of the Voters.

Because of the highly illegal and unauthorized language contained in the COG petition for an Open Meeting, Town Attorney Ruth Weil correctly ruled that their petition was invalid. However, the Council, which has the ultimate say on whether or not an Open Meeting occurs, decided to hold one anyway. This meeting will have no limits on who may attend or what may be discussed. No one will be forced to attend (I know that at least one town official will not be attending), but I recommend that we send so many people over to that auditorium to shout down the COGers, that we have people flowing into the parking lot. Hope to see you there.

Gary Lopez Shutting Down?

Gary Lopez is once again claiming that he will shut down his blog. I wonder how long it will last this time. The last time he "shut down" his blog, it lasted two days (if even that long)... and I usually take more than two days between my posts...


For those who need proof, I have a picture of his comment from tonight below:

Secession?

Gary Lopez (of COG fame) and I don't always have to disagree. Oftentimes, he brings forth ideas that we wouldn't normally consider. While we do rarely agree, he definitely starts me thinking...

Case in point - right now Mr. Lopez is in "secession" mode. Basically, his argument is that the Cape is getting run over by the Mass. legislature and high energy prices. He believes that we are not receiving our fair share of state funds and that we could have better energy prices and infrastructure if we had a Cape-wide municipality utility handle electricity production and distribution.

His solution - have the Cape secede from the State of Massachusetts and keep all the same laws as Massachusetts, but we get to keep all the tax/lottery funds that we generate.

I don't agree with the government-owned utility. I think that any time you hand the government more power, there is always problems - union, quality, power, etc. So, I will ignore that for the purposes of this post.

Positives
It is an interesting concept. It would certainly help alleviate the unjust school funding formula that Mass employs where the Cape gets little assistance because our land simply has a high assessment. By keeping income tax, sales tax, property tax and lottery revenues on Cape, we should have more than enough to do everything Massachusetts does for us. We might even get that property tax relief Deval promised us.

It is no secret that the Cape pays out a lot more in tax & lotto revenue than we receive. I'm not sure what the amount is, but I think that we could accomplish what MA provides - social services (health, welfare, DSS, etc), lotto, roads/transportation, judicial system, government, school funding, environmental protection, state police, regulation, etc... We could even remove some of those services from state funds - ie have towns/districts pay their own costs OR go the other way, remove some administration and have one Cape-wide school district. We would have options.

As a whole, this could have some merit.

Negatives
What then are the negatives? I see a few main negatives with such a plan:

US Government Support?
I find it impossible that the US Government would acknowledge our statehood. There is no real reason for them to accept our decision. Also, the "state" we would be creating would be extremely small - not big enough on its own for a single Congressional district (though we would get one US Rep). There is no great outcry or mega-injustice that we could use to drum up national support, and the government would view acknowledging our statehood as a bad precedent to set. If they acknowledged us, they would be forced to do the same for any other town/county who did not like their level of state funding. That decision would allow towns/counties to regularly blackmail their states for more money. We would need a reason more substantial than lack of funding.

Risk of Alienating Rest of State
If we were to try to form a new state, we would be in a LOT of trouble with the rest of the state if we lost. If you think we don't get any state money NOW, just wait until an angry public cuts us off. If we were forced to crawl back to Massachusetts, we would be LUCKY to get ANY state funds. Unless US recognition was a SURE thing, this risk would much too risky.

Complications
Massachusetts owns a good amount of land on the Cape. Would they still own it after we left? I could see that becoming a mess. What about Otis?

Would every town on the Cape join? I would think that they would HAVE to for this to work. What about the Islands?

I'm sure that there are more...

Lack of Infrastructure
There is no infrastructure here. We don't have a REAL city that could serve as the capital city. Hyannis is the closest thing, but it would be the most pathetic capital in the U.S.

We have no TV stations and only the Cape Cod Times and only small local newspapers. We would be a slave to MA for communication infrastructure.

Because we are a hospitality-based area, we have very little industry and (non-hospitality based) commerce. Things like asphalt would have to be imported from Mass. I'm sure that they would not be happy to be the our industrial holding ground.

Can't Handle Things Now
To be perfectly honest, we have a hard enough time as it is right now getting things accomplished here on the Cape. The Barnstable County government has more than its share of problems. Giving them, or a similar body, the responsibility of running the "state" could prove disastrous, though the additional tax revenues could be enough to overcome this issue.

Conclusions
Even with all the negatives I found, I still think that the idea does have some (marginal) merit. At the very least, we need to keep our options open. Right now, it's not that great an idea, but should we get a real reason and then it might be worthwhile to try.

For now, we need to put REAL pressure on our elected officials to make our state funding more equitable. I know that I'm tired of paying for Boston schools and tired of Massachusetts rules requiring that we spend $10,000 per child in public schools. Officials will respond, but only if we stand up loud and strong.


What do you think?

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.

Keeping My Comments Brief

I am too much of a perfectionist. If I don't have the time to do it right, I probably won't do it. That's probably why I have stayed away from this blog. It's enough to have to read about these stories over and over again, but having to write about them can be overwhelming.

So, I'm going to hit on four of the "hot button" topics going on right now.

The Open Meeting of the Voters
"The town council may call meetings of the voters of the town. Upon the request in writing of three hundred voters setting forth the purpose (the specific purposes) thereof, the town council shall call a meeting of the voters. The president of the town council or other designee of the town council, shall preside and regulate the proceedings of such meetings. The president of the council shall cause the attendance of town officials and employees necessary to respond to the issues and concerns raised by petitioners." - Barnstable Town Charter

Nowhere in that paragraph of the town charter, the ONLY one mentioning the Open Meeting of the Voters, does it mention a "Moderator" position. Yet, the petition circulated by COGers, said "By signing this petition you will 1) Elect John Julius as the Moderator for the Petitioners".

What EXACTLY is a "Moderator for the Petitioners"? Who gave the writers of the petition the right to circumvent Massachusetts Election Law and deny me my right to vote or run for this position? Did anyone else run?

The fact is that no one knows what the position is. A petition does NOT have the legal authority to ELECT anyone to a position. This petition can not possibly be legal.

The Charter is clear that the Town Council "calls" the meeting - which means that they get to set the date. The Charter is also clear that the Town Council President runs the meeting - Sorry COGers, but Janet will be leading your meeting, how ironic.

Another Lawsuit / Greg Milne's Eligibility
What I want to know is which COGer is a lawyer? Because they just LOVE suing the town for no reason. Enough with the silly lawsuits and the ACLU and the Attorney General's Office. When they haven't gotten back to you in 8 months, they're not going to get back to you. Please stop wasting time & money with frivolous lawsuits.

Can't we get over the Milne Charter Commissioner thing? It seems pretty clear that the charter says a person cannot hold more than one elected office. Greg tried for two on the same ballot. He only gets one.

For the people complaining about the late Town Attorney Smith's "Home Rule", there is similar legal precedent. Federal environmental regulations are set by the EPA. However, the states have the right to set their own standards, as long as, their regulations are MORE strict than the federal ones. The same idea applies here. The state said they would not regulate the number of elected positions a person could hold. Our town came in and wrote into our charter (which was approved by the State Legislature) a stricter regulation on holding elected offices. They have merely strengthened State law.

Shellfishers vs. Landowners
Fishermen and shellfishers hold an iconic place in Cape Cod history and Cape Codder hearts. I want to see them succeed. I am tired of government regulations hurting these industries. That's EXACTLY why we shouldn't create another overreaching government regulation banning construction. The government can tell me whether or not I can build on MY land, how high I can build it, and whether I should build it again because they don't think it met their "building code". Enough with government intrusion into peoples' lives. It should stop now. NO to the proposed dock ban.

New Building
This leads me to my final point. Why is it that Circuit City has to jump through more hoops than a circus animal to get their building approved when a mega-Nursing Home gets approved without much of a fight? Why had no one heard about this huge home before it was approved? Enough with the town building cap and two acre zoning and all these crazy building regulations. They have driven property "values" through the roof, raising the residential property tax burden, misrepresenting our fiscal status to the State Legislature and leaving homeowners with "$600,000" homes that are barely worth half that on the market.

Final Beef
Actually, I need to correct myself. I have one more issue. Lately, I have been noticing more issues with street flooding when we get any decent amount of rainfall. Has anyone else been having or seeing the same issue?