There were two letters about the Town Meeting warrant article to insert a recall petition in the Town Charter in today's Standard Times. Mr Raposo wrote in support of it here and Mr. Ventura wrote to urge that the article be postponed for further review here.
While I could support some sort of recall ability being added to the Town Charter, I think that the article proposed is faulty for reasons which I wrote about here, here, and here In his letter, Mr Raposo ...
...says, The citizens of Dartmouth do not currently have the ability to hold any of our elected officials accountable to we the people.
Actually, we do have that ability. The regular elections provide that.He also says, So on Jan. 8, I implore all Town Meeting members to attend and to support the recall petition without any special amendments or provisions
The article as proposed has several conflicting and confusing passages which would cause problems if a recall were to be attempted. From the first section, which is unclear as to the number of members of any board that can be recalled, to the second, which requires either 200 or 500 signatures on the recall affidavit, to the following sections on the timing of actions by various parties, which are not clear as to the start of the time periods, this article cries out for revision. I think that sending this article to the legislature, as is, would be an embarrassment to the town given its obvious failings.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Mr. Raposo and Mr. Ventura on recall
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
After reading the warrant article, I can't believe how poorly written it is. If I were Mr. Raposo I would be embarrassed.
As for Mr. Ventura, I am extremely proud that his precinct has elected this fine young man to represent them at town meeting. He truly "gets it."
Mr. Ventura should run for Nat's seat next year! He gets it!
The town should form a charter commission and look at ALL the language. Make well thought out changes with the help of our town atty. Do it right!
Who wrote this one for you Bob? Very poor.
actually Billy,
That proposal was pretty much a carbon copy of an existing recall provision, so unfortunately your asumption that it is poorly written goes out the window. The procedural adjustments could have been made from the floor
as for elections, to my knowledge that happens every 3 or so years per official so if the voters wanted to get someone out of office say in 18 months after they win the election they cant. We vote for the President every 4 years but he has a "recall" provision over his head. Mr. terminator himself from California wouldnt be Govenor if a recall wasnt in place. Your arguement is flawed please reconsider
Post a Comment