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 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.

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".

Thoughts For Today

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

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

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

Another Recall Attempt?

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

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

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

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



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

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

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