I have a copy of the proposed recall amendment to the Dartmouth Town Charter and have posted it here. The Town Clerk has received petitions containing the required number of signatures to call a Special Town Meeting in accordance with our Town Charter (Charter here in MS Word format or here as a webpage). The Select Board must call a Special Town Meeting within ...
...45 days of receiving such notice from the Town Clerk. The purpose of the Special Town Meeting is to petition the General Court (our state legislature) to enact a special act to revise the Town Charter. I don't think the state legislature has the authority to amend our charter. As I posted here, MGL chapter 43B, section 10(a) lays out the method of revising or amending the charter which mirrors Article LXXXIX of the Constitution of the Commonwealth which says, Article II. Section 1. Right of Local Self-Government. - It is the intention of this article to reaffirm the customary and traditional liberties of the people with respect to the conduct of their local government, and to grant and confirm to the people of every city and town the right of self-government in local matters, subject to the provisions of this article and to such standards and requirements as the general court may establish by law in accordance with the provisions of this article.
Section 2. Local Power to adopt, revise or amend Charters. - Any city or town shall have the power to adopt or revise a charter or to amend its existing charter through the procedures set forth in sections three and four. The provisions of any adopted or revised charter or any charter amendment shall not be inconsistent with the constitution or any laws enacted by the general court in conformity with the powers reserved to the general court by section eight.
No town of fewer than twelve thousand inhabitants shall adopt a city form of government, and no town of fewer than six thousand inhabitants shall adopt a form of government providing for a town meeting limited to such inhabitants of the town as may be elected to meet, deliberate, act and vote in the exercise of the corporate powers of the town.
Section 3. Procedure for Adoption or Revision of a Charter by a City or Town. - Every city and town shall have the power to adopt or revise a charter in the following manner: A petition for the adoption or revision of a charter shall be signed by at least fifteen per cent of the number of legal voters residing in such city or town at the preceding state election. Whenever such a petition is filed with the board of registrars of voters of any city or town, the board shall within ten days of its receipt determine the sufficiency and validity of the signatures and certify the results to the city council of the city or board of selectmen of the town, as the case may be. As used in this section, the phrase "board of registrars of voters" shall include any local authority of different designation which performs the duties of such registrars, and the phrase "city council of the city or board of selectmen of the town" shall include local authorities of different designation performing the duties of such council or board. Objections to the sufficiency and validity of the signatures on any such petition as certified by the board of registrars of voters shall be made in the same manner as provided by law for objections to nominations for city or town offices, as the case may be.
Within thirty days of receipt of certification of the board of registrars of voters that a petition contains sufficient valid signatures, the city council of the city or board of selectmen of the town shall by order provide for submitting to the voters of the city or town the question of adopting or revising a charter, and for the nomination and election of a charter commission.
If the city or town has not previously adopted a charter pursuant to this section, the question submitted to the voters shall be: "Shall a commission be elected to frame a charter for (name of city or town)?" If the city or town has previously adopted a charter pursuant to this section, the question submitted to the voters shall be: "Shall a commission be elected to revise the charter of (name of city or town)?"
The charter commission shall consist of nine voters of the city or town, who shall be elected at large without party or political designation at the city or town election next held at least sixty days after the order of the city council of the city or board of selectmen of the town. The names of candidates for such commission shall be listed alphabetically on the ballot used at such election. Each voter may vote for nine candidates.
The vote on the question submitted and the election of the charter commission shall take place at the same time. If the vote on the question submitted is in the affirmative, the nine candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected.
Within [ten months] after the election of the members of the charter commission, said commission shall submit the charter or revised charter to the city council of the city or the board of selectmen of the town, and such council or board shall provide for publication of the charter and for its submission to the voters of the city or town at the next city or town election held at least two months after such submission by the charter commission. If the charter or revised charter is approved by a majority of the voters of the city or town voting thereon, it shall become effective upon the date fixed in the charter. [See Amendments, Art. CXIII.]
Section 4. Procedure for Amendment of a Charter by a City or Town. - Every city and town shall have the power to amend its charter in the following manner: The legislative body of a city or town may, by a two-thirds vote, propose amendments to the charter of the city or town; provided, that [1] amendments of a city charter may be proposed only with the concurrence of the mayor in every city that has a mayor, and [2] any change in a charter relating in any way to the composition, mode of election or appointment, or terms of office of the legislative body, the mayor or city manager or the board of selectmen or town manager shall be made only by the procedure of charter revision set forth in section three.
It looks to me that the Massachusetts Constitution as well as the General Laws prohibit the revision of our charter by Special Act of the General Court. I'll ask the Town Counsel for his opinion on this at the next opportunity. I would be glad to have the town create and charter commission to revise the charter. If that happened, I would ask that the charter commission to investigate changing the form of government of the Town.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Proposed recall amendment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Bill, It seems to me that our charter, Article 6 sec 6-7 is in conflict with MA Gen. Laws. The law says that the charter cannot be changed except through the procedure set forth in Ch 43B sec. 3 which you posted above. Our charter review process in sec 6-7 of the charter, effective beginning year 2010 provides for a charter commission that is not elected but rather appointed by different committees, boards and the town moderator. Also sec6-7 of the charter doesn't require 15% of registered voter signatures to form a charter reform committee, again effective year 2010. What are your thoughts? I think that the framers of our charter may have made a mistake here, although this isn't going to help the recall provision supporters much. They would still have to wait until 2010 to avoid the will of the people in a general election.
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)
Bob Carney must be very, very confused!
Tangled web indeed. What the deceivers don't count on is people like Bill being capable of untangling the web.
Bill,
After reading sec 6-7 of the charter a few more times, I don't think it bypasses state law. It is only a similar committee to a real charter reform committee and only provides a report with recommendations to town meeting. Town meeting doesn't get to enact the recommendations given by the review committee, only the ones given by a legitimate charter reform committee.
Anonymous 2:24, exactly. They are just beginning to see the consequences of their actions. I would imagine they never thought it would come to this. As long as the people stayed uninformed, it would be business as usual. Now, with Bill and others asking questions and making sure the public gets informed, we will have a new direction in the way the Town is governed.
A lot of people will be unhappy.
Yes, we've had is so bad for so many years, it's about time for a new direction.
Barry, under section 4 the Town Meeting can propose amendments to the charter,("The legislative body of a city or town may, by a two-thirds vote, propose amendments to the charter of the city or town") but the section has an exception for any "change in a charter relating in any way to the composition, mode of election or appointment, or terms of office of the legislative body, the mayor or city manager or the board of selectmen or town manager" which requires a charter commission. Also the Town Meeting can only propose the changes. Only the voters can change the charter.
What is the cost of a special town meeting? There is language in our charter that already states that every ten years a charter commission can look at the charter and propose language changes. Perhaps that is why it's there. Every ten years, instead of when board members don't get their way.
Funny how Carney didn't mind being in the majority when he signed those contracts. He and Dias should be recalled for putting our town at risk for lawsuits by signing contracts!
Another legal opinion in the S-Times today. Bob Carney & Nat Dias put their names on contracts that are not in the best interest of our town. Bob even defends those contracts by saying that we need the clauses so that contracts go on forever unless for just cause. I'm sure the SB could find many reasons that would equal just cause, but why drag Gagne through the mud. I suppose Carney & Dias would want to sue the SB members for slander if they gave reasons why Gagne is not suited for the job anymore. Carney & Dias are not working for the best interest of the taxpayers.
Post a Comment