Breaking News

Precinct 3 Truth has received information that there is a domestic disturbance in Precinct 3. Sources indicate that multiple police cruisers were present at a residence in the precinct and that entrances to the property were sealed with police tape. There also was a large crowd gathering at the residence, with a large number of vehicles parked on the curb around the home.

Details of the nature of the event are not known at this time, but will be provided as soon as they are obtained.


This breaking news update is being provided because the Cape Cod Times website (http://www.capecodonline.com) and local radio stations' news departments choose to take weekends off. No information about this event was available through any of these media outlets.


MORE BREAKING NEWS
For those of you travelling off-Cape this afternoon, Capecodonline.com IS reporting an accident on the Sagamore Bridge that is backing up traffic in both directions. You can read more about this story here.

Chinese Olympic Gymnasts & COGers - Connected?

I've been watching the 2008 Summer Olympics. Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, and many other great stories have made for an exciting viewing. Yet, the biggest story (perhaps even bigger than Phelps) is the story of the female Chinese gymnasts.

In the sport of Women's Gymnastics, the Chinese Olympic contingent can be most accurately be described as children. Of the 6 member team, at least three of the contestants face scrutiny on their true ages. International news agencies, The New York Times, the Associated Press and many other outlets have found documentation on Chinese websites (including official Chinese government sites) even before the games started that showed that many of these girls were well below the mandatory age of 16 to be eligible in these games.

The Chinese have a history of falsifying documents for their female gymnasts. During the 2000 Sydney Olympics, double bronze medalist Yang Yun had a passport that said she was just old enough to compete in the Games. Since then, she has confessed that she was only 14 at the time of those games, and that both she and her coaches lied about her age. (For more on these two scandals, here is an excellent article.) If the Chinese were willing to lie about gymnasts' ages at the Olympics in Australia, how much more so would they be willing to lie in an attempt to rack up more medals at the Olympics in their own Beijing?

With their own (most likely) falsified passports and other state documents, these Chinese girls have pieces of paper suggesting that they are just barely old enough to compete in these Games, just like Yang Yun did. Despite the evidence suggesting these gymnasts were too young to compete, the International Olympic Committee refused to investigate these girls until this week, and it appears to be a public relations exercise and not a true vetting.

Meanwhile, assuming that the Olympic medal desperate totalitarian Chinese government (and these girls) did in fact cheat, American gymnasts have suffered. The American women would certainly have won Olympic gold had the Chinese used gymnasts that met the minimum age requirements.

Above and beyond the cheating via falsified documents, poor judging has also marred the Women's Gymnastics events. Americans and other international stars with superior performances have been scored lower than their hometown Chinese counterparts.

Americans Nastia Liukin and Alicia Sacramone (as well as their other teammates) have both fallen victim to highly questionable judging calls. Liukin was robbed of Olympic gold on the Uneven Bars in a tie (She should have had a higher score than her Chinese opponent), that was broken in the Chinese gymnast's favor. Sacramone was absolutely robbed of a well-deserved Bronze medal in the Horse Vault when the Chinese performer who won the Bronze landed her final vault on her knees.


How does this analysis of Olympic controversy have any connection to Barnstable politics?

Actually, there are some interesting similarities.

Name: COGers go with their COG abbreviation and if you were to abbreviate "Chinese Olympic Gymnasts" you would be left with COG.

Totalitarian: While the Gymnasts themselves may not be totalitarian individuals, they operate within the structure of a totalitarian system. Citizens who dare to question the Chinese government are ridiculed, beaten, jailed and often executed. COGers may not be as harsh as Chinese officials, but they take many of the same traits. If you dare to disagree with them, they may call you names, verbally harass you, accuse you of being a particular Town Councilor, or even recall you from public office.

Websites: The Chinese have been outed because news organizations stories about Chinese gymnasts ages on many Chinese websites, including official sites. Within minutes of these sites being accessed by outsiders, these sites have been wiped from the Internet. Only copies saved by these agencies remain as proof. In the Barnstable blogosphere, COGers are often exposed by people who keep copies of their sites. Many COGers are notorious for deleting posts they wrote on their sites when they realized they had crossed the lines. Bugsy, the Cape Cod COG Living blogger, even earned the nickname "Post Deleter" because he has deleted so many of his own posts.

The Looks: The underage female Chinese gymnasts are very good. While perhaps aided by some very controversial judging calls, these girls were very graceful (except for the one who landed on her knees). If there was no minimum age requirement, the Chinese team's gold win would be an excellent story. The questionable judging on the individual events would still be disappointing, but not the additional burden on the American girls that it has become. The Chinese girls certainly look the part. This is very similar to how COG numbers also look the part. When you first see and hear COG info, it looks good. It sounds like you have been robbed blind, yet when you dig deeper, you find that their info doesn't meet minimum fact requirements. The info that directly rebuts their info is ignored and shunned. When you see all the info, you find that things are not the way that they present them.

Final Judging: Poor judging has robbed deserving American gymnasts of their hard-earned medal placements. While Liukin and Sacramone were done in by inept international judges, the citizens of Barnstable are the ones who will ultimately judge COGers. If we support their recall petitions or their candidates or their ballot questions, they win. So, when you hear political debates raging in this town, decide which side you want to see win based on their entire performance.

Yet Another Post About Blanchard's & the ZBA

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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...

A Lighter Side

With all the recent posts, there has been WAY too much seriousness.

For once, let's not worry about politics and keep it light.

I'm asking you to help out with some comments.

What real-world topics are on your mind? I want to know.

What do you think about the Manny trade or the Patriots season coming up???

In addition, I am going to conduct an informal survey - What are your three favorite TV shows and why? It can be past, present or a mix of both.

I'm just looking to hear your opinions, and all I ask is that we leave politics out of this post. There will be plenty more posts to talk about politics, but if there's a good response to this post I'll try to make "A Lighter Side" a more regular part of this blog.

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.