Elections and Endorsements

VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

Regardless of your political views, as long as you can legally do it, EVERYONE needs to vote Tuesday, November 4, 2008. I’ll be disappointed if you vote against my opinions, but I would rather see you vote and disagree with me than agree with me and not vote. Whatever your inclination, you need to vote! I can’t stress this enough – VOTE!


Vote of Confidence

Speaking of voting, Precinct 6 voters came out on Thursday in a show of strong support for Town Councilor Janet Joakim. Joakim’s supporters easily foiled the COG-backed recall effort by over 100 votes. Congratulations to Councilor Joakim and the residents of Precinct 6!


Endorsements

Before I give out my yearly endorsements and the reasoning behind them, I do have a small rant to make. Cape Cod’s Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. That they were unwilling or unable to find candidates to run against US Rep Bill Delahunt, State Senators Rob O’Leary and Therese Murray (who is the Senate President) or State Rep Demetrius Atsalis is a travesty to the concept of a two-party system. I know that this is liberal Massachusetts, but the Cape is one of the few places in the state where people consider voting Republican. Not bringing candidates to the table in these races is a disgrace.

Now, on to the good stuff… Contested seats and ballot questions discussed from local to national…


State Rep (2nd Barnstable District)
Demetrius Atsalis (Incumbent) vs. Carl Yingling

Atsalis has served for many years in this seat. He is a wonderful person who gets more grief than he deserves from the local blogosphere. Granted, Atsalis has not helped himself with incidents that have earned him bad airtime on the Howie Carr Show. However, credit goes to Demetrius for calling in to the show and defending himself.

Local resident Carl Yingling deserves an award for doing something the local Republicans could not do – have the guts to run against Atsalis. The problem is that Yingling is not qualified to be State Rep. He should have some time on local boards or maybe the Town Council before considering a run for State Rep again…

VERDICT: All in all, Astalis has been fine as State Rep. However, he hasn’t been exceptional or note-worthy. Sometimes the best thing politicians can do is nothing, but in Atsalis’ case, it seems that he has little to show for his time in the State House. I have to agree with The Barnstable Patriot that Demetrius Atsalis should be a leader in the State House with his long incumbency. I also have to agree with the Patriot’s bold and unorthodox decision to recommend a blank ballot in this race.


Barnstable County Register of Probate
Anastasia Welsh Perrino (R) vs. Eric Turkington (D)

Eric Turkington is a name well-known in Cape politics. He has been around for a while. Anastasia Welsh Perrino does not have Turkington’s name recognition, but she has something more valuable – experience.

While Turkington has a wealth of experience in the State Legislature, he has no experience in this office. On the other hand, Welsh Perrino has had a career working in and around the office. Welsh Perrino can hit the ground running and already has plans to do so, but Turkington would need help to get the job done.

VERDICT: Anastasia Welsh Perrino is the candidate with real experience dealing with this office, and she deserves the opportunity to prove it.


Barnstable County Commissioner (2 seats)
Ric Barros (R) vs. Brad Crowell (R) vs. Mary Pat Flynn (D) vs. Sheila Lyons (D)

Barnstable County’s government is larger than most residents realize. Barnstable County’s 3 elected County Commissioners make up the county’s Executive Branch. Two of those seats are up for election with a clean slate of candidates, as soon-to-be-former commissioners Lance Lambros and Mary LeClair are leaving.

The four candidates (2 Republicans & 2 Democrats) for the seats all have excellent qualifications and experience.

VERDICT(s): Brad Crowell’s experience as chairman of the Cape Cod Commission has given him excellent insight into the Cape’s needs. He is able to look ahead to the future and plan with precision, while preserving the present. Ric Barros’ passion, fiscal responsibility and insistence on accountability will help the County in this economic downturn.


The 3 Massachusetts Ballot Questions
Income Tax repeal, Decriminalization of possession & Greyhound Racing initiatve

I'm not going to bother giving a history on these questions, so on to the verdicts...

Question 1 VERDICT: Send a message to Beacon Hill and vote YES. Will the State Legislature dare defy the people?

Question 2 VERDICT: is ILLEGAL. We should not be making it easier for people to get it and possess it. Vote NO.

Question 3 VERDICT: This blogger takes a hard line against gambling in all forms – from the Lotto to Casinos. Greyhound racing has managed to somehow survive in this state. Now is the time to end it… not for the dogs, but for the families destroyed by gamblers addicted to betting on racing (horses or dogs). Vote YES.


U.S. Senate
John Kerry (D-Incumbent) vs. Jeff Beatty (R)

If there was ever a case of needing a change, simply for change’s sake, this is it. Other than running for President four years ago, Kerry has accomplished little of note during his extended tour of the Senate. With rumors that he is seeking a Cabinet position, should Barack Obama be elected, re-electing Kerry is an even worse idea (if that is possible).

Jeff Beatty is an excellent candidate to serve our state. His combination of military, CIA/FBI and business experience make Beatty a well-rounded option. His ability to think outside the confines of normal politics is a breath of fresh air in today’s partisan politics.

VERDICT: 24 years is more than enough time to serve as Senator. Serving as a US Rep or Senator was never supposed to be a career. It’s time for John Kerry to move on. Whether now, or later, Jeff Beatty is an excellent choice to serve in the US Senate.


President & Vice-President of the United States of America
John McCain & Sarah Palin (R) vs. Barack Obama & Joe Biden (D)

John McCain is known for being “mavericky” and Obama is known for wanting “change.” The fact of the matter is that neither of these buzz words describe these candidates or their views at all.

John McCain has been a “maverick” during his career in the U.S. Senate. He has broken from his Republican ranks repeatedly and worked/voted with Democrats. However, this version of McCain has been non-existent on the campaign trail, as he has pandered to conservatives in an attempt to convince them that he is one of them. Count me among the unconvinced…

Barack Obama continues to talk about “change”, but, other than NOT being George W. Bush, Obama truly offers little change from business as usual in Washington. He lacks any true experience, and would have been a much better candidate in 4-8 years. Obama also has some highly questionable character issues. Whether really bad people as family friends (Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers) or family members living in the USA illegally, Senator Obama has been unable to show that he is trustworthy for the job.

VERDICT: One year ago, anyone who thought about the Presidential race, wondered whether they would vote for Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney. It’s amazing how things change. I am forced to reluctantly endorse McCain/Palin, but sure that Obama will be a major player in the political scene for years to come.

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...

Told You So...

I don't want to rub it in, but I warned my readers that there was more to the Joakim recall than met the eye. The Joakim recall was never going to be limited to Joakim, especially if they win on Thurday. Now, the talk of COG and Cape COG Living is a recall of Councilor Tom Rugo in Precinct 2.

The COGers have larger goals that are not being disclosed to the public... It's interesting to see them play out...

To help stop the COGers and their multiple plans, make sure everyone that you know in Precinct 6 shows up to Vote "NO" on the recall. The election is this THURSDAY, October 30, at the Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School. Visit www.sevenvillagesblog.com to support Council President Janet Joakim.


In other news, it seems that Bugsy the Pug still can't get over his election loss from last year. In a recent comment by the former politician, I counted at least three blatant lies that he proposed as legit examples of intimidation and reasons why he lost the race. He seems to enjoy throwing conspiracy theories against the wall to see if anything sticks...


Let's take a stand, let's make sure that this attempted Joakim recall doesn't stick... Vote NO on the recall on Thursday!

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.

Having a Nice Blogosphere Vacation

Sometimes, I just have to drop it all and take a vacation from Barnstable's blogosphere. This place takes so much more out of a person than it should. Blogs should be about sharing ideas and opinions, not what we make it here in Barnstable.

For the past few weeks, I've been enjoying a very nice vacation from all of the blogs... Not having to read about the Joakim recall, Doc Mosby and the Barnstable Airport, more accusations against elected officials being blown way out of proportion, absolutely absurd fearmongering about Hyannis water, etc... It's been really nice...

Anyway, I'll try to be more frequent in my postings here again...

We now have a date set for the Joakim recall election. October 30 at the Marstons Mills East Horace Mann Charter School. Should be interesting...

What are your opinions about the recall election? The primaries that just took place? The general election that's coming up? Are you an Obama fan or a McCain person? What do you think?

Yet Another Post About Blanchard's & the ZBA

The proposed new location for Blanchard's Liquors is apparently the hottest topic in town, not including "the recall". Yet, according to recall organizers, the ZBA decision on Blanchard's and the ZBA falling-out that ensued is one of their main reasons for "the recall".

I have heard opinions on both sides of the table from friends, family, and commenters on this issue. Reasoning crosses political lines and seems to create very polarizing opinions. So, I cover the topic yet again here on this blog.


For a myriad of reasons - high rent, Cape Cod Mall trying to force them out of their leased building, expansion aspirations, etc... - Blanchard's Liquors decided to move (or try to) from their current location next to the Cape Cod Mall into a new location. The problem arises from their chosen location.

They chose the old Knights of Columbus building located on Route 28 in Centerville at the intersection of Strawberry Hill Road and Rt. 28. This property is a couple parcels closer to Hyannis than the new CVS that was just built a couple years ago right on the intersection. The CVS parcel, the proposed Blanchard's site and the parcels in between all have part of or most of their property subject to "HB" zoning.

According to Chapter 240, Section 25 of the Barnstable Town Code there are basically three types of building allowed in "HB" zones (to summarize):

1. "Office, but not including medical office" - ALWAYS PERMITTED.

2. "Bank, but not consisting in whole or in part of drive-in bank or drive-up automatic teller" - ALWAYS PERMITTED.

3. "Any use permitted in the B District not permitted in Subsection A herein, subject to the following: Such uses do not substantially adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of the community" - SUBJECT TO SPECIAL PERMIT FROM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.

Last time I checked, a liquor store isn't an office or bank, so the owners of the proposed Blanchard's Liquors were applying under the third possible use. The third use is basically any business use, PROVIDED it does not "substantially adversely affect... the community".

The ZBA had every right to refuse this building. They did not HAVE to approve anything. They MAY have set precedents with prior decisions (I don't know if they did or not), but this project required their special approval.

There have been a lot of studies about the concerns of Barnstable citizens, and one of their highest concerns is traffic. There are a lot of dangerous intersections (Lumbert's Mill Road & Rt. 28, Rts. 28 & 149, Yarmouth Road/Willow Street and Rt. 28, etc...), awful rotaries (Airport Rotary), and plain dangerous stretches on Rts. 28 & 132.

The intersection located nearby the proposed Blanchard's is bad enough as it is. Thankfully, there is little traffic on the Rt. 28 entrance of CVS, as most customers prefer to use the light, via CVS's entrance on Strawberry Hill Road. However, that intersection is now out of date, with no left-hand turn signals and what appears to be either timed lights or poorly calibrated smart-lights.

The impact of CVS on Rt. 28 has increased traffic at the light, but has not resulted in people regularly cutting across multiple lanes of traffic on Rt. 28 to get to CVS. Blanchard's would do exactly that.

Sure, they said they'd put in curb cuts designed to discourage left-hand turns, but that doesn't work at Christmas Tree Shop Plaza or McDonald's on Rt. 132. Actually, if you think about it, those curb cuts are actually MORE dangerous, because you don't expect nuts to be taking turns in or out of there. Plus, frustrated drivers, trying to get to the Mid-Cape's largest liquor store might decide not to turn there, so they'll have to find somewhere else to pull a quick U-turn, whether it's side roads in the area, the Middle School, CVS, the Greek Orthodox Church, etc... all options for reversing direction are bad.

So, between additional traffic flowing through the already bogged light, cars making discouraged (and dangerous) left-hand turns in & out of the store, and scores of people searching for somewhere to turn around, the traffic concerns alone pose serious traffic increases and safety threats.

A good comparison is the people taking left-hand turns in and out of Parker's Liquors on Rt. 132... Take the number of cars making those turns and multiply them by 10 (or maybe more)... That should give you a good indication of how many cars would be going in and out of the store...

The ZBA had the RESPONSIBILITY to turn down the proposal if it would "substantially adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of the community".

I say that it would increase traffic, affecting my "convenience"

It would increase the risk of accidents, affecting my "safety"

It would add a store expecting high volumes of traffic in an already high traffic area with ZERO road improvements, affecting my "comfort"

I would also say that the combination of these elements substantially affects the community.

The ZBA rejected their RESPONSIBILITY to the people of this town to turn this project down.


Some people have said that the vocal opposition to the ZBA's decision on this project and the end-around to get the Cape Cod Commission to look at this project are all reasons to recall the Town Councilor from Precinct 6. They say it constitutes an "abuse of power".

They say that these actions led directly to the ZBA's mass resignation... yet, even the ZBA member who voted against the project left in the resignation. Meaning that their issues were not the direct result of this project, but more deeply embedded. Most likely, it stems from a lack of communication.

Lack of communication is EXTREMELY common in the "real world". It really does happen. People don't play phone tag for fun. It looks like that was a bigger issue.

To the best of my knowledge and intuition, the way this project was handled was not the reason the ZBA decided to resign (though it may have been the straw that just about broke the camel's back).

However, the issues regarding this building are real. They are concerning. Concerning enough, that the Cape Cod Commission, decided to accept the Town Manager John Klimm's request for the Commission to review the project. They were real enough to get Councilors Barry, Chirigotis, Joakim & Rugo to write a letter formally asking the ZBA reject the permit, and real enough to get Joakim & Rugo, along with Klimm, to appear before the board. There are legitimate concerns about this project. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but they certainly shouldn't be ignored.

Perhaps, if Blanchard's had not decided to build such a large store (9,801 sq ft, just 199 below mandatory Cape Cod Commission review), traffic concerns would not be so large. Their current store is only 4410 sq ft, so this is a 222% increase in space. Maybe they can't advertise as a "discount" liquor store, but their size alone would indicate that they should have lower prices. I would assume that they expect enough traffic to support the 222% size increase, perhaps 222% more than their current location?


Regardless, the ZBA had a clear cut choice on this project, and chose to support the business. Usually, I am all for business expansion & growth. The fact is that we discourage it far too often. Normally, I would applaud a case like this where "conservationists" lose to the common businessman. However, in this case, there are no "conservationists", merely citizens with concerns, and their concerns were completely ignored. That's my problem.

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.

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.

False Alarm

As the blogger from Barnstable who proudly resides in Precinct 3, I try to chime in whenever the Precinct, or issues directly affecting it, is mentioned in the local blogosphere.

Readers who found Precinct 3 mentioned in Gary Lopez' latest blog post can rest easy. Precinct 3 has absolutely NOTHING to do with the story, which is another pointless attack on Janet Joakim.

Speaking of which, in this latest post, the author of the COG blog has done two interesting things that cannot be a good indicator of his future power (if any) in Barnstable politics.

First, he again posted the account numbers and routing numbers for Janet Joakim's bank account, by adding the infamous picture of her check. As I have pointed out previously on this blog (here and here), this action is a crime. That Lopez has posted the check AGAIN is to spit on the face of common sense, and hopefully will only be further ammunition for any charges and/or investigations that should be conducted of the COGers.

Second, Lopez made this little quip "If Janet Joakim has the gall to run for reelection next year "... Hmmm... I thought the COGers we going to recall her... What happened to that??? Apparently, they either don't have the signatures or they don't have the votes (they NEVER have the votes). Though, the embarrasment of being voted down is always overshadowed in their minds by the "success" of collecting the signatures.

Last Tuesday, we had "Meeting of the Voters"... 300 people signed that petition... Not even 100 showed up... Looks like COG can get the signatures, but not the vote... Councilor Rugo was right when he said that anyone could collect 500 signatures in a day - half of them just from people who want you to leave them alone... Looks like plenty of people want the COGers to leave them alone, and they're saying it at the ballot box and meeting rooms... But folks, the BEST way to get them to leave you alone is to NOT SIGN THEIR PETITIONS.


By the way, the town DID record the Open Meeting, and the complete video is available for viewing or download on the town website, or you can download it by right clicking on this link --> and Selecting "Save Target As...".

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?