The Select Board decided last night to send the recall provision for the town charter to the Special Town Meeting to be held on Jan 8th as written. You can find a link to the proposed legislation in this post. AS always discuss in comments. I'd like to see the discussion limited to whether or ...
...not the recall provision is a good idea for the town, leaving aside the purpose for which it is being pursued at this time. THanks for your co=operation in that regard.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Recall petition sent to town meeting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Right now, Dartmouth has no way of recalling an elected official. If an official were involved in a criminal activity for instance. I would hope that they would resign, but that doesn't always happen.After reading the process of the proposed recall, it doesn't seem to be very well thought out. There seems to be some legal confusion about the wording. We should at least get that right. I am not in favor of using the recall for a political tool just because a group isn't happy with a vote.
I love the references made to the governor of Illinois as the reason we need the recall provision. If that is the case, then put a clause in the recall provision that says only people under indictment for criminal wrongdoing can be recalled. They won't do that though because this is purely a political tool. Perhaps I will make a motion to amend the article from the floor of town meeting. This will clearly show what these people's intentions are, responsible government or dirty politics.
Kim is right a provision is needed . I hear alot of resistance from certain groups against this provision,calling it political. Well if a provision is made and language inserted into that provision to protect against political motives, the opposition should not have a problem. If they still oppose the provision what makes them any less political than the other.
The shear effort required for the recall is the what stops it from being political.
Bill,
would you support a provision in the charter for a recall if it included language that prevents political motives from being a factor?
I am not opposed to having some ability to recall elected officials. I think that the provision for recall needs to be carefully crafted to avoid its use except in those cases where an official is incapacitated and cannot serve, has been convicted of a felony crime, or for conduct unbecoming the office. I would not support a recall provision that did not include a definition of what actions are grounds. I also feel that present measure needs to add that some percentage of the voters need to vote in the recall election for that election to be valid. At least 30% of the voters should have to come out for a recall action to be valid.
I think all those provisions make sense with the possible exception of the 30% of voters one. What was the percentage of voter turn out in the last several elections? Anyone have an idea? If there is a threshold I would think it makes sense to tie it to the per cent that have voted in the last say 4 elections.
I would say make voter turnout as high as possible, legally. If you care about something strongly enough, you will come out to vote. Look at the overrides and the past presidential election for examples.
Otherwise, recalls will be used by individuals with no scruples who will scream "recall" at the drop of a hat.
What happened with the overrides? Some people couldn't take "no" for an answer, so they screamed long enough to get a second ballot. And when that failed on their agenda items, they screamed again.
Examples for recall have got to be clearly defined, or more of what is currently happening will continue. Shameful to use the residents of this town as pawns in a private war of a select few (no pun intended) as is the case here.
You people are so full of yourselves as far as screaming goes. That is the democratic process - why is that so hard to understand? The 1st override was defeated by a small margin, the second one was broken up so much that any chance for passage of all the items was nill. Face it there will be overrides in Dartmouth's future, no one is screaming simply exercising their rights as Americans its a shame so many people don't like it.
I am not objecting to "screaming." I just don't understand how, once the voter has spoken through the "democratic process," those not liking the outcome can't abide by it. They either demand a "second chance" at it, or, in this instance, initiate recalls. What's the sense of even voting? Let the most powerful win.
A representative democracy, which the US is, is not about letting 'the most powerful win'. They call that a dictatorship or mob rule.
That's exactly my point. Win, by whatever means, hurting whomever.
Happy New Year, Dartmouth!
Dartmouth needs to move forward, not back. A charter commission should be named to look at ALL charter language and changes should be made in 2010. Our Atty. can look at the language before it comes before the voters in April of 2010. Let's not rush. This will cause more division in our town. I can hear the screaming at the special town meeting now... We need to come together. We don't always agree, but one thing we ALL agree on is that we love Dartmouth!
lol,so nice
Post a Comment