Reading over the recall amendment to the Town Charter that will go to Town Meeting on January 8th, I find some confusing language and some items that I think should be added.
Section one says
SECTION 1. A holder of an elected office in the town of Dartmouth may be recalled therefrom by the registered voters of said town as herein provided, except that the maximum number of member of a board that may be recalled is a majority.
First, notice that there are no grounds needed to recall an official. A petition for recall under this charter amendment can be brought for any reason if sufficient signatures are obtained. That brings me to the first revision that I think is needed. The charter amendment should list the grounds for which an official can be recalled. I would propose that the grounds for recall be limited to:
-mental or physical inability to carry out the duties of the office
-moral turpitude
-conviction of a felony
Unpopularity or incompetence can be dealt with at the ballot box during normal elections, the above circumstances rise to a level that the community...
... has a need for extraordinary measures to remove the official.
Second, the number of officials who can be recalled on a board is non-specific. On a five member board, 3,4 and 5 members are a majority. I think the intent was to limit the number to a bare majority. If the amendment for requiring grounds is included, then the number of members who can be recalled should be removed. If all members of a board are convicted of bribery, then the voters should be able to recall them all.
What are your thoughts?
Posts
15 comments:
I think you are right that the grounds for recall should be defined and agree with the list you've come up with. I would however add some additional language that allows for recall if the actions of a select board member(s) are deemed to not be in the best interest of the Town of Dartmouth. That action(s) should be spelled out in any recall effort and the majority of town voters would then vote on the merits. If this is done then I would also agree that listing the number of SB members to be recalled would be unnecessary. I think such an amendment could be made on the TM floor on Thursday.
These ammendments would preclude the recall of Trimble, Michaud and Gilbert. How convenient. Nothing like staking out a position firmly planted in self-interest, eh Bill.
Let's be clear about why I think a recall provision could be needed and that is the grounds which I cited in the above post. I am not in favor of a small minority of registered voters being able to force a special election every time a vote doesn't go their way. If you don't like the policy of the Select Board as currently constituted, there will be an election in early April where the voters can change it's composition. That's the proper way to go about it.
Bill, why are you trying to re-invent the wheel.
Bill, then why not amend the petition on the floor to set a minimum threshold of voters so as to satisfy your concern of what constitutes a 'small minority'. Some SB members are not due for re-election for several years so it is not simply a matter of waiting till the next April rolls around. i also think most voters are savvy enough to recognize frivolous attempts to recall select board members. In all the time I've beenin town 20+ years now there has never been an issue that has risen to serious talk of recalling a board member. I dont think that history will change if a well-drafted recall provision is put on the ballot.
a minimum 15% of all registered voters is a "small minority" ? sounds like some people are angry Bill, we can read the language for ourselves despite what you may think we're not idiots.
Changing the Town Charter is an arduous process. In many respects, the current attempt to amend the charter by petitioning the General Court for change is an end run around the established procedure in MGL and the state Constitution. See here and here Since that is so, I think that some care must be taken when proposing amendments which are going to be very difficult to change. I think the proposed amendment is ambiguous, poorly written, and incomplete. If adopted as written, it is going to raise problems if put into use. Why not get it right?
When its usually less than a 30% turnout(3 out of 10) usually (non-presidential year)and its a guarenteed "minimum" 15% of all registered voters. It seems like more than 1 in 6.And the "recall" people whomever they are are sure to show up at the polls. Not so fast 9:13.
Keep the language simpple and clear - why clutter it up with so many amendments so as to further obfuscate the purpose? Simple, clear and to the point, even an idiot knows what is going on with all these proposed amendments.
All this does nothing, but try and confuse everyone. Heck, i am even willing to bet that Bill and the people advising him are confused right now.
Just think. All this because Nathalie and Bob didn't like the outcome of the vote against Michael's contract renewal. Someone's getting upset because the times, they are a'changin.
Many of Trimble's recent threads and posts have been (trying to be kind here) unusual. This particular "series" of threads is way over-the-top.
Dartmouth might have its very own Philip Francis Queeg... anyone know what happened to the strawberries?
;o)
On the contrary to the anonymous comments that my proposals are to confuse people, I think that they are to clarify the language presented. Even those who have put this Town Meeting article together do not seem to be on the same page as to its meaning. Mr. Carney has stated at a Select Board meeting that 200 signatures would be required on the affidavit to begin a recall petition while Mr. Hawes in this letter to the editor of the S-T says that 500 are needed. Which is it? The words can be interpreted either way. I want clarity, so I proposed a change to the wording.
anonymous 7:15 Get a clue. By the time this thing is finished going through channels, if it ever does, we will have had at least a couple of elections if not more. The voters will have decided who they want in office. Oh that's right, they decided that already when they elected Bill, Joe & Diane.
What is so confusing about trying to clarify the language? When things are left vague, you then open yourself up to individual opinions, whims and interpretations. That is the last thing we need. Look what has happened with the contracts. Five SB members signed them even though they were in direct conflict with our charter and MGL and there ALREADY WAS specific language in place. They still violated it. I think we should all be advocating for very specific and well thought out language for any provisions, amendments etc. before we change our charter. I would also like to propose that anyone elected to the SB should be given a copy of the charter and be required to actually read it.
Post a Comment