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...".

Quick Thoughts on the Meeting of the Voters

Some quick thoughts on tonight's Open Meeting of Voters

Moderation

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

Participation

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

COGers

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

Access

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

Overall

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

Mandates???

What exactly is a "mandate"?

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

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

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

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

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

More on the Check

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COGers Have Crossed The Line Into CRIME

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, Good Leadership @ the Cape Cod Commission

I know that the hot topics in Barnstable right now are the Open Meeting of the Voters and the new Budget. However, yesterday's Cape Cod Times reminded me of something I have wanted to mention for a while.

Last year, the Cape Cod Commission decided to hire former Barnstable Assistant Town Manager Paul Niedzwiecki as its Executive Director. This move may perhaps be the best thing that the Cape Cod Commission has EVER done. Not only did they select someone who has the ability to have a vision for large projects and communities, they got someone who can get it done, too. Much of the revitalization of Downtown Hyannis has come from Paul Niedzwiecki's vision for the area.

Recently, Paul Niedzwiecki has been making some waves in his new job. Quoting from an article in yesterday's Times,

On April 8, Cape Cod Commission Executive Director Paul Niedzwiecki announced settlement offers for five staff members whose positions would be eliminated as part of a reorganization of the agency. The moves were a response to recommendations from an advisory group formed in 2006, Niedzwiecki said.

Finally, the Cape Cod Commission has someone unafraid to move on and unafraid to challenge bureaucracy. Paul Niedzwiecki and I do not always agree, but his vision, passion, and common sense make him an excellent administrator. Perhaps, he could even make a good mayor.

Personally, I do not like the Cape Cod Commission. It has been too stringent and taken control away from the towns. It has limited growth too severely in some areas, and allowed others to grow out of control. I believe that the individual Cape towns would do a better job of controlling growth without the Commission.

That said, we do have the Commission, and it's highly unlikely that we will be leaving it any time soon. In that case, Paul Niedzwiecki is the best man for the job. The changes he is making are helping set the Commission on the right track. If he can actually make the Commission "less of a reactive regulatory agency and more of a proactive planning agency" as he has said in the past, then the Cape will be much better off. I support Paul Niedzwiecki in his efforts to make the Cape Cod Commission into a better agency, and wish him the best of luck - Cape Cod is lucky to have him.

Defining "Elective Office"

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnstable Students Performing Better than Average in State Colleges

A major problem facing our educational system nationwide is the decreasing literacy of high school graduates. Many teenagers who have "graduated" high school simply cannot read, write or do arithmetic. Education's three "r's" are simply not being learned by a growing number of students.

Many people have suggested the following reasons as causes for this problem:

• Insufficient funding (highly unlikely considering the MASSIVE amount of money THROWN @ schools today)
• Underqualifed teachers (possible, but unlikely a major cause)
• Class sizes are too large (a favorite excuse, but shrinking class size does not necessarily equal better grades)
• Lack of student discipline (the fact that today's kids rarely listen to adults certainly plays a role)
• Lack of accountability in school district overview - simply put, parents/citizens aren't holding School Committees responsible for declining performance with increased funding (parental involvement is one of the most underrated factors in education)
• Not enough time being spent on basics (In my opinion, we spend too much time with art class, music class, Spanish, social studies, multicultural club, computer class, "health" class and other secondary classes in elementary & middle schools when many of these children can't read, write or do math, and they have no knowledge of American History.)
• "Passing" students who should be held back (We are not doing any favors to our children when we pass them because we don't want to "hurt their self-esteem", etc..., even though they failed the class. If they don't know it, they don't know it and they aren't going to learn it when they move on to more advanced material. This then handcuffs teachers who have to reteach what they learned last year or "dumb down" the class in an attempt to catch those students up, while the rest of the class learns little or nothing.)
• Too many cooks? (With federal regulations, state regulations, local regulations, regulations at individual schools, PTA, Teacher's Unions, etc..., it seems that everyone wants to determine school policies. Maybe having TOO much government oversight is a BAD thing.)
• Complacency & No Competition (In theory, Public Education allows for a utopia of learning for our children. Everyone has access and it is free. Because the vast majority of schools are public, the vast majority of the best teachers teach in them. Maybe that idea is not such a good idea. With no real competition to gage performance against, people simply assume that schools are doing the best job possible, and if they need a little more money in the budget, "it's for the children". The extra few dollars per person is not that much to bear (unless it's an override), and many people simply do not notice the massive amounts of money being spent on public education. In theory, communism is the perfect government utopia - but we know it doesn't work. Why can't we admit that the utopia of public education may not work either.)
• Costs going unnoticed (Did you know that Massachusetts State Law MANDATES that local school districts spend at least $10,000 per student per YEAR? Do we really need to spend THAT much money? Do we really need $50, $60, or $100 MILLION dollar schools? If someone told you to hand over $10,000 per child for their education, there is no way you would pay that much for the education without shopping around first. Why do we let our town simply pay itself $10,000 per KID? Because we don't pay it as a personal bill - we have the federal government chip in a little, the state gives us a little aid and less lottery money... and the rest is part of our property tax bill. But parents don't have to hand over that $10,000 per child, they have others pay for it... and a dollar apiece for 1000 people is a lot easier to swallow that $1000 for one person.)

ANYWAY, enough with my rant, and back to the main topic - High School students needing remedial work when entering college. I saw an article in the Boston Globe about this topic, and it led me to more research on the state website. I have included links to my major sources of info below.

According to a study just released by the state, 37% of high schoolers who graduated in 2005 and entered a public college (State College, State University or Community College) the following September were taking at least one remedial course in reading, writing or arithmetic. That is NOT good, because many of the normal, regular entry-level courses in these institutions are basically remedial courses - reintroduction to things students should have already learned - simple math and grammar classes.

However, Barnstable High (and Sturgis) students are outperforming the state average at 33% and 32%, respectively. To contrast, 100% of students at Springfield High, that's right 100%, enrolled in remedial classes. I glad that all Barnstable students are doing better than average, and while some bloggers in town have been overcritical of our schools, they are doing all right, but there is always room for improvement.

The study also included some other interesting information about other key statistics relating to the transition from high school to college. Barnstable students outperformed the state averages in SAT scores. While less students from Barnstable than the state average attended public schools, they were more likely to stay for a second year. Sturgis students had the same first year of college GPA as the state average (2.8) and Barnstable High students were just below at a 2.7. However, both Sturgis and Barnstable High Students took about three more credits than the state average. So, their relatively average GPAs came with more classwork.

While this is relatively good news about the educations received in our town, the fact is that the education in the entire country is breaking or is already broken. The education that students receive today pales in comparison to what was received 10, 20, 30, 40 or more years ago. What are the problems and what are we going to do to fix it?


Boston Globe - "Many Mass. graduates unprepared in college"
Massachusetts School-to-College Report: Class of 2005 Summary Data.pdf
Barnstable High - School-to-College Report: Class of 2005.pdf
Sturgis Charter Public School - School-to-College Report: Class of 2005.pdf

(ALL STATISTICS FOR CLASS OF 2005 HIGH SCHOOLERS ENROLLING IN A PUBLIC COLLEGE IN MASSACHUSETTS)

Barnstable Average SAT Scores:
Math: 547
Verbal: 554
Combined: 1101

Sturgis Average SAT Scores:
Math: 546
Verbal: 574
Combined: 1120

State Average SAT Scores:
Math: 536
Verbal: 526
Combined: 1061

Overall % of Students enrolled in remedial college classes Fall 2005
Barnstable: 33%
Sturgis: 32%
State: 37%
Springfield High School: 100%

% of Students who enrolled for Second year of state college in Fall 2006
Barnstable: 85%
Sturgis: 88%
State: 81%

Average First Year College GPA
Barnstable: 2.7
Sturgis: 2.8
State: 2.8

Average First Year Credits
Barnstable: 29
Sturgis: 29.2
State: 26.5

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?