Some People Never Learn

Maybe Eric Schwaab writes things solely for my benefit, to annoy me with lies and give me something to write about... nah... He must just do it for fun...

In his last post on his Cape COG Living blog, Mr. Schwaab starts talking about the latest COG talking point - the KMART leases currently controlled by the airport. While this is an interesting topic to investigate, Mr. Schwaab decides that it's not interesting enough for him.

Instead, he has to switch over and make baseless accusations against the Town Councilor who won reelection over Mr. Schwaab just over a year ago. Apparently, Mr. Schwaab hasn't gotten over his ballot box defeat, and he hasn't learned anything from it either.

First, Schwaab accuses Munafo of skipping the COG's Meeting of the Voters, because of "prior committments (in the Industrial Park)". Here he's trying to use another campaign lie he already tried - that Munafo is taking bribes from Barnstable's business community. No only does Munafo not take bribes, but here is a Barnstable Patriot article from BEFORE the meeting that shows that Munafo already had a vacation planned WELL in advance of the meeting. The Council AND the Barnstable Patriot knew Munafo wasn't going to be there because of a vacation...

Funny that our intrepid blogger doesn't mention the fact that HE (Eric Schwaab) didn't bother to attend the meeting... (Is being at you home in Brighton the same as a vacation?)

Then, Schwaab goes on a rant that Munafo has been "hiding since last November"... Considering that Mr. Schwaab has NEVER ONCE tried to contact Councilor Munafo even though he ran a campaign against him, how would he know?

During last year's campaign, Mr. Schwaab said "I started this campaign because my neighbors and I could never find the incumbent". Yet, it came out (in part thru this blog) that he never ONCE even TRIED to contact the incumbent, Councilor Munafo. (You can see the my Schwaab Contradiction Video on Youtube.) Now, he with his latest blog entry, he is back again trying to beat the same dead horse.

So, for Mr. Schwaab: If you have a problem with Councilor Munafo, you should probably try telling him about it on something other than your blog. In case you forgot, try watching my Youtube video from last year's debate, because there's plenty of ways to contact him in there. I'm making this suggestion via my blog because I know that you read it, especially when you come up.

For my readers: What you have in Mr. Eric Schwaab is either a man who has yet to get over his election loss, a man who thinks he is going to run for that same seat in the very near future OR perhaps both. It doesn't sound like someone who has learned a lesson from his loss (like how to communicate properly)...

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...

How Exactly Does A Recall Election Work in Barnstable?

I raised a question in my post back on July 19 - "Another Recall Attempt?".

Having read and reread the section of the town's charter dealing with recalls, I have to wonder exactly how a recall ELECTION process works in Barnstable. Maybe one of Barnstable's town attorneys could fill me in, but I'm still unclear on how the process works. I have a pretty good idea, but am always open to other suggestions.

The highest profile recall election in recent years occurred back in 2003. Governor Gray Davis of California had presided over some bad economic times in California - the state budget was a mess and electric rates had tripled. All necessary steps were completed to result in a recall election. When voters went to the polls to vote on the recall, they had TWO things to do - Vote YES or NO on whether or not to recall Davis AND Vote for his replacement IF he ended up being recalled.

A number of high profile candidates ended up on the ballot as possible replacements, and when the dust had settled, the people had voted to recall Davis and the replacement candidate with the most votes was selected as the new governor. That is how former actor (and alleged Republican) Arnold Schwarzenegger became Governor of California.

California placed the recall question and the replacement election on the same ballot. However, after reading Barnstable's charter, I am pretty sure that there has to be TWO SEPARATE elections. Here are some quotes from the charter:

Section 8-8 Recall of Elected Office Holders
(c) Recall Election
If the petition shall be found and certified by the town clerk to be sufficient, the town clerk shall submit the same with such certificate to the town council within five working days, and the town council shall forthwith give written notice of the receipt of the certificate to the officer sought to be recalled and shall, if the officer does not resign within five days thereafter, order an election to be held on a date fixed by them not less than forty five and not more than sixty days after the date of the town clerk's certificate that a sufficient petition has been filed; provided, however, that if any other town election is to occur within sixty days after the date of the certificate the town council shall postpone the holding of the recall election to the date of such other election.

The recall election for any officer elected by precinct, shall only be held in the precinct that the officer represents.

If a vacancy occurs in said office after a recall election has been ordered, the election shall not proceed as provided in this section.

(e) Office Holder
The incumbent shall continue to perform the duties of the office until the recall election. If said incumbent is not recalled, the incumbent shall continue in office for the remainder of the unexpired term subject to recall as before. If recalled the officer shall be deemed removed and the office vacant. The vacancy created thereby shall be filled in accordance with this charter. Any person appointed to fill the vacancy caused by such recall shall hold office for the unexpired term of the officer recalled.

How does the charter say that a vacancy on the Town Council shall be filled?

Section 2-5 Filling of Vacancies
If a vacancy occurs in the office of councillor occurs during the first forty-four months of a term, it shall be filled by a precinct election. If a regular town election is scheduled to be held within 120 days, but more than fifty days, after the date vacancy occurs, it shall be filled by a special election within that regular election; otherwise, the council shall schedule a special election to be held as soon as is practical to fill the vacancy for the balance of the unexpired term. The provisions of the charter governing regular elections shall, so far as they are apt, apply to said special election, provided no preliminary election shall be held.
(Amended by Town Council item 91-03-02 on 6/20/91; amendment approved by voters 11/5/91).

Perhaps, one could read Section 8-8(e) that says "Any person appointed to fill the vacancy caused by such recall shall hold office for the unexpired term of the officer recalled" as saying that we should have a recall like California's - recall question and replacement election on the same ballot. BUT that comes AFTER the section says that "The vacancy created [by a successful recall] shall be filled in accordance with this charter."

Now, as I read that section, I am left to conclude that we have a two-part recall election process. Section 2-5 specifically deals with vacancies in Council office. It says that IF a town/precinct election is already being held 50-120 days AFTER the vacancy occurs, then a special election will be piggybacked on it OR if that doesn't exist, then a special election shall be held as soon as practical. It does not seem to allow for a vacancy to be filled on the same ballot as a recall designed to create a vacancy.

A vacancy can NOT possibly occur until a recall election has happened. Then, IF the Councilor has been recalled, a special election (or special ballot question added onto that precinct's ballot for an already occurring election) can occur. That's the way I read the charter.

Now, maybe I'm wrong... but if I am, could you please fill me in with the facts? Comments are open... and frequently monitored... or email @ dedicatedprecinct3voter@yahoo.com

It Is NOT "Illegal" To Have Political Signs Up

The latest hot-button subtopic of the attempted recall of Janet Joakim is the appearance of her campaign signs. Her political signs have allegedly started appearing around her precinct, and for some unknown reason, that has some COGers jumping mad. They are complaining that it is "illegal" to place political signs any time other than 30 days before an election. They want the town to waste money confiscating these signs.

Here, on this blog, I like to discuss the TRUTH. The TRUTH about political signs is that there is no ordinance in the Town of Barnstable that limits political sign placement to a window 30 days before an election.

The Town Council has considered enacting such an ordinance in the past, but it has NEVER approved one. First Amendment and enforcement issues forced the Council to take an alternative route.

Instead of passing a binding, enforceable LAW, the Council passed a resolve "discouraging" the use of political signs anytime other than 30 days before an election. Here's what they said:

98-135A RESOLVE - CAMPAIGN SIGNS
RESOLVE: That the standard of community character for the Town of Barnstable shall reflect the policy that political signs are discouraged prior to 30 days before an election or referendum.
(Passed by the Barnstable Town Council on 8/20/98 by a 10 yes 0 No vote.)

This is NOT a law. It is NOT an ordinance. It is NOT a court order. It is NOT legally binding in ANY way, shape or form. It is merely the opinion of the 1998 Town Council. This opinion cannot force people to take down political signs, it merely discourages them.

Is it tacky to have political signs out before an election? Maybe. However, look at the BIGGER issue: Which is more important - A person's First Amendment Rights? or You not having to see "tacky" signs?


I don't know why, but this sign issue seems to come up year, after year, after year. Every time, there is someone complaining how the signs are "illegal". They may be "discouraged", but the TRUTH is that they are NOT "illegal".

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.

Vision for Hyannis?

Main Street Hyannis has seemingly finished the improvements that it began years ago with the repaving of the commercial boulevard. Now with lighting finally installed and operational, the work that was set out to be completed is done.

We have been left with the telephone poles still up on the street, even though we have been asking for them to be removed for decades. The water pipes need replacing. The 500 Block is still a mess, though there might be some hope with a renovation plan underway for that parcel. We have a gigantic Transportation Center with hundreds (or thousands) of NEVER used parking spaces, and the P&B garage still across the street harassing traffic. The traffic flow on Main Street still makes zero sense. I could keep going, but we all know the problems.

I have a few questions - What is the long-term plan for Downtown Hyannis revitalization? Who has the vision and is working on it?

What is the long-term plan for capital asset improvement, replacement & repair for the Hyannis Water District? Who has THAT vision and is working on it? Do we have the necessary infrastructure to encourage REAL growth?

I don't want to know tiny little details about small projects - I want "big picture" info. I've seen the "Comprehensive Plan" on the town website, but that is not a VISION. At best, it is an uninspired short term plan, with plenty of "goals" and "actions" that are just vague enough that they have no meaning whatsoever. We need a plan that tells us what we are going to do and WHY.

Right now, interest rates are plummeting and we have a AAA bond rating... If we ever wanted to take out bonds to pay for capital improvements, NOW is the time... Provided that we actually NEED what we're going to put that bond up for... And, from what I can see, we need plenty of things...

So, will someone please stand up and let us know what is going on?

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?

Congratulations to James F. Munafo, Jr.

I would like to congratulate the Precinct 3 Barnstable Town Councilor - James F. Munafo, Jr. - on his reelection to the Council.

In the Precinct with the highest percentage of voters showing up at the polls, Munafo defeated challenger Eric Schwaab by a tally of 240-188 to reclaim his seat.

It was a tight race by all accounts. Mr. Schwaab helped drum up support among the citizens, but the lousy weather kept many from the polls and the turnout was lower than many anticipated. I am disappointed that after all the hoopla surrounding this heated contest that only 21% of the precinct showed up to vote. We need to do better than that Barnstable.



In a related development, the "Post Deleter" struck again. I'm not going to back off his case just because the election is over. When he backs off and stops spouting off ridiculuous things and then deleting them, I'll stop posting them...

Anyway, on Election Night, instead of a Thank You to his supporters... he went onto his last post (which was trashed with comments from both sides of the aisle) and posted this comment (before taking it down this morning):
Now, I thought Schwaab said he just wanted to "be friends" with everyone once the election is over... If that's the case, then why did he write this? Honestly, please let it go...

Anyway, kudos to the citizens of Barnstable who showed up to vote, voted down the COG slate and elected excellent School Committee Members, Town Councilors and Charter Commissioners.

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!

The Post Deleter!

When someone posts something to a blog, it's kind of like a public record of their thoughts. That's why when someone deletes an entire post (comments and all) without an explanation, people notice.

Yesterday, October 30, Eric Schwaab posted a post detailing a discussion he had with State Representative Demetrius Atsalis. In it, Schwaab called both Atsalis and Schwaab's opponent in the upcomin election, Incumbent Councilor James F. Munafo, Jr., both "thugs", among other things... It was not a pretty post by any stretch of the imagination... It was not an inroads to a productive working relationship between possible Town Councilor and State Rep... It was not a "consensus building" post...

On the one hand, Schwaab felt strongly enough to post the message and leave it up on his site for quite some time... Yet, he altered the "public record" that his site provides... Maybe he realized that the post made him look bad... or maybe someone called him out because the post was too nasty or perhaps just plain wrong... All I know is that he took it down with NO explaination... That means he must be ashamed of it... Why this wonderful "consensus builder" have to change anything he says on his "non-hate blog"???

The fact is that he doesn't have a problem taking his shots... and he sure makes plenty of them... but I've never seen him apologize once... I've seen John Julius apologize (I assure you that that unbelievable fact is true)... but never Schwaaab... Wonder how his colleagues will feel if they have to serve with a guy who has fun by taking shots at elected officials? I wonder what he'll do if he's elected to the Council and doesn't have the "new majority" he's banking on...

Will he leave this board the same way he left the Hyannis Water Board?

New Video (Post Updated)

This video has been up for almost 24 hours now. I know Eric Schwaab has watched it. He has no response to it. So, this is an open challenge to Mr. Schwaab - Do you have a response to the video?

Anyone is more than welcome to post here, as long as they follow the rules... Can you respond, Mr. Schwaab?

Oh, and I find it ironic that Mr. Schwaab has the gall to say that he doesn't "use the phone". Funny... I wonder what Chris Kehoe has to say about that... Maybe you can respond to that, too, Mr. Schwaab...


Check out this video from the debate... Eric Schwaab contradicts himself and proves the reason HE says he is running for Councilor is a farce...



Even more info on the debate & this video to come soon.

We Can Do Better

"We can do better" has been Eric Schwaab's mantra for this campaign. Yet, when faced with opportunities to "do better" he absolutely refuses to do so.

The Hyannis Civic Association has scheduled a "Meet the Candidates Night"/Debate for this Thursday (September 26). However, there is a special Town Council meeting that falls on that same night. Sitting councilors are being forced to decide which event to attend - the job that they have been elected to do and want to keep doing or the nice candidates' night that might help get them re-elected.

The question is - Why can't one group or the other simply change the date of their event?

The Council cannot lawfully cancel their Council Meeting because they have been advertising its existence. To cancel it now would be a violation of public meeting laws. It would basically be lying to the citizens of Barnstable. Obviously, that is not a good option. Changing the time of the meeting would also violate those laws.

The Hyannis Civic Association (HCA) CAN lawfully cancel their meeting, but they have been advertising it and people might show up to a cancelled meeting and be unhappy. HOWEVER, you would think that it would be in the best interests of the HCA to have ALL candidates able to attend their meeting.

Neither side is going to back down. This is VERY disappointing.

What is more disappointing is the response of Candidate Eric Schwaab. Instead of putting his "We can do better" mantra to use to find a realistic solution to the problem, he is more than content to leave Councilor Munafo out of this forum and crash on him for not being there. Instead of being a "hero" (that's a little strong, but you get the idea) who found a solution to "bring everyone together", Schwaab is actively campaigning to have the event go forward without serving incumbents.

Sounds to me like Eric Schwaab is scared of his opponent.

Every candidate faces the choice of which event to attend. I applaud the Councilors who ARE going to the Council meeting. (That includes the Precinct 3 Incumbent - Jim Munafo, as well as Hank Farnham [running for re-election in Precinct 9] and Gary Brown [running for Town Collector].) That's where they belong. We elected them to do a job. We don't expect teachers to skip school whenever there's a job fair in another school district...

Actually, Mr. Schwaab and the others running for Town Council should be at ALL the Council meetings ALREADY! If they want to get elected to go to Council meetings for the next 4 years, then they should show at least some interest in current Council meetings. If they can't handle going to the meetings just to watch, how can they handle running them???

The right choice is clear - No matter how much embarrassment it causes them, the Hyannis Civic Association should move their debate. This is not a couple Councilors who are going to miss the event because of a fishing trip or other lame excuse, this is Councilors simply trying to do their jobs for the people of Barnstable & Hyannis...

Eric Schwaab could be setting himself up as a uniter, but instead, he has chosen to be a divider... Will he be like this IF he's elected to the Council?

Election Results In

Incumbent James F. Munafo, Jr. and vocal challenger Eric Schwaab have moved on to the General Election in Barnstable's 3rd Precinct. Another challenger, Michael Hersey, was knocked out of the race.

The other contested race in the 3rd was Town Collector. Current Town Councilor (Precinct 9) Gary Brown and Assistant Town Collector Maureen Neimi beat out the Oliver Cipollini to advance to the general election.

In the 3rd, Schwaaab came in first place with 120 votes, Munafo had 94, and Hersey came in with 89. There was a large turnout in this highly contested race.

The stage is now set for a big race in the 3rd. Schwaab has been a highly vocal critic of Munafo, and has been very active on the Barnstable blog scene with his own blog. Munafo has served for the last 4 years as Councilor.

This is the race that everyone in Barnstable is watching. This is the race that I expect to post about most here on this site. I take no shame in admitting that I will vote for Munafo in November, but let's bring the discusion on.