R.I.P. Barnstable Town Charter

The Barnstable Patriot is reporting that the judge in the Councilor Greg Milne for Charter Commissioner case has overruled common sense and has ruled that Milne may serve on the Charter Commission. This effectively kills Barnstable's charter, because it specifically says that "no person shall simultaneously hold more than one elective town office". Now, if someone disagrees with the charter, all they have to do is go ask Judge Kane.

I have dedicated multiple posts to explaining the common sense and legal language showing that Councilor Milne is not entitled to serve as both a Town Councilor AND a Charter Commissioner. You can find them here.


To recap the events to date:

Before last fall's election, Councilors James Crocker, Greg Milne, and James F. Munafo, Jr. were seriously interested in running for Charter Commission. Before running, Munafo asked then-Town Attorney Bob Smith if the Charter would allow it. His response was an emphatic "NO".

Upon hearing Smith's emphatic opinion, Councilors Munafo and Crocker both chose not to pursue a seat. However, Councilor Milne decided to ignore Smith's (correct) decision on the charter language and run anyway.

During the 2007 election, Councilor Milne appeared on the ballot twice - Charter Commissioner and his Town Council seat (for which he was unopposed). He was told numerous times by the Town Clerk and others that he would only be sworn into one office. I know countless individuals who took this knowledge (that Milne would only be allowed one office) and voted for Milne as Charter Commissioner, hoping that he would abandon the Council for the Charter Commission.

When push came to shove, Milne (obviously) won his Council seat again and also qualified for a seat on the Charter Commission. The Town Clerk again informed Councilor Milne he would be sworn into only one office, and he chose his Council seat.

Instead of acknowledging the fact that the charter clearly prohibits anyone from holding two elected town offices, Councilor Milne (and his COG buddies) sued the town to be instated onto the Charter Commission, throwing the Commission into limbo. It is now about 9 months since this lawsuit began.


Back to the present:

Judge Kane ignored common sense, the charter's own language, and the sworn testimony of the current Charter's authoring Charter Commission Chairman (Michael Daley) all stating that it's only one town office per person.

'The town-entered affidavit of Michael Daley, chairman of the 1989 commission that drafted the charter, provides his recollection that '[W]e did not want people who were already elected to other positions in our local government serving on the Charter Commission' - Barnstable Patriot.

However, Milne has NOT been sworn in to the Charter Commission, yet. Smart money has the town appealing Judge Kane's decision, AND that court setting things right.

Yet, the largest loss in this case may not be Judge Kane's ruling, but rather the potential loss of other Charter Commissioners. Rumors are swirling that Charter Commissioners Sheila Geiler, Bob Jones and Lucien Poyant will resign if Milne is seated on the Commission. This is extremely bad news, because these 3 highly qualified candidates would be replaced by Daley and two COGers.

I wouldn't want to work with Milne either (and neither does ANYONE on the current Council), but we can't let him win twice with one decision.

So, if you know Geiler, Jones or Poyant, please encourage them to stick it out, no matter what...

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.

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.

Why Linda Hutchenrider Is Right

Linda Hutchenrider has made the correct decision. Tonight, when she refused to swear Greg Milne in as a Charter Commissioner, she made the right decision and followed the law.

Section 3-2 of the Barnstable Charter states:

Any voter shall be eligible to hold any elective town office provided that, no person shall simultaneously hold more than one elective town office.

Now, I don't know what could be more clear than that. This Section is an excellent example of checks-and-balances. It prohibits people from double-dipping. It prevents any one person from holding too much power.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a contingent out there (including Milne) who insist that this clause is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the Massachusetts State Constitution. However, this is wrong.

The first line of the amendment to the constitution that lays out the procedure for Charter change says this:

It is the intention of this article to reaffirm the customary and traditional liberties of the people with respect to the conduct of their local government, and to grant and confirm to the people of every city and town the right of self-government in local matters...

It is clearly the intention of the constitution that every city be granted freedom to govern their town as they see fit (within certain guidelines). They WANT us to govern ourselves and make our own rules.

Furthermore, our current Town Charter had to receive approval from the Massachusetts State Legislature before it became official. They deemed the document worthy and legal. They did not say that any part was unconstitutional. By approving the document, they declared it legal and binding for the citizens of Barnstable.

There is also some dispute as to whether or not Charter Commissioners are town "officers". Well, the fact of the matter is that Charter Commissioners were elected to serve in a town-wide position (or office). They are elected town officers!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Did I mention that Section 3-2 is a genius article?

It serves so many purposes to protect Barnstable citizens:

• It stops any one person from serving in two elected positions at once. Therefore, you can't have power on the Town Council AND School Committee. You can't double-dip anywhere.
• It decentralizes power. It keeps a small group of people from running the town and/or multiple boards. Town Councilors can't run for School Committee too and control both boards with only 7 or so people.
• It also helps prohibit any conflict of interest. Because no one can serve in two elected positions at once, they can't use their power in one position to influence a decision in another. In other words, Greg Milne can't use his power on the Charter Commission to keep or remove his own Council seat.

Greg Milne needs to stop wasting taxpayer money. He should have read up on his current charter before rushing in to write a new one.

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!