Jackie B. emailed me with information to correct statements that I and some in comments have made that the Harbormaster has a lifetime appointment. Turns out I was wrong and Jackie had the scoop.
MGL Chapter 102, section 19 states,
"The mayor of a city, except Boston, or the selectmen of a town where a harbor is situated, unless otherwise specially provided, may, and for all harbors that have been improved by the expenditure of money by the commonwealth shall, appoint a harbor master and assistant harbor masters and fix their compensation,The key phrase being, unless otherwise specially provided.
Jackie recalled a warrant article ...
... from the 2003 Fall Town Meeting which sets the term of the Harbormaster at three years. She was kind enough to forward me the wording which you can find at this link on page W2(E).(MS Word file)
Thanks for the information. Jackie.
Posts
80 comments:
Perhaps you should have titled this thread "Refutation of Trimble Statements."
Section 19. The mayor of a city, except Boston, or the selectmen of a town where a harbor is situated, unless otherwise specially provided, may, and for all harbors that have been improved by the expenditure of money by the commonwealth shall, appoint a harbor master and assistant harbor masters and fix their compensation, to be paid by their respective cities or towns. Said appointment shall remain in force unless the harbor master is removed for neglect of duty, negligence or conduct unbecoming a harbor master. Assistant harbor masters shall be appointed for terms of three years. Any appointment or re-appointment of assistant harbor masters shall be on the recommendation of the harbor master.
how about "Turns out I was wrong, and I apologize to the harbormaster for mischaracterizing his employment circumstances. I should have checked my facts before I posted". That would probably go down a lot easier.
C. Dartmouth Harbor Master Term. The Select Board shall appoint a Harbor Master for a term of three years in accordance with Town By-Laws, and the Harbor Master so appointed shall be subject to removal in term only for cause. The Harbor Master shall carry out the duties of that office as provided in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 102, and other Federal and Massachusetts General Laws, codes and regulation and Town By-Laws, rules and regulations.
Looks like Nat Dias had a reason to include her relative in the backroom employment for life deal after all.
How about, "Why don't we add the harbormaster to the suit seeking to get rid of the automatic renewal clauses" How about, "yes, we agree that husbands shouldn't supervise their wives"
Isn't there a law that says something to that effect already?
Seems to me that Steven Melo came before the SB when he married Stephanie, his assistant and Nathalie's granddaughter, and asked the SB if it were okay that they both stay on the job, and the SB at the time said it was fine.
If there's a law that says that can't be allowed, then it is not fine.
What would be done in that instance? And Steven Melo is not supposed to have a contract, according to the DOR recommendations. He is one that has a contract with the special protective provisions in it, and it expired Feb. 28, 2009.
They are all cozy, it is pathetic. Nat and clan.
It would seem Bill Trimble is man enough to admit when wrong. I wonder if Saul Raposo is man enough to write another letter stating that he was in fact wrong. I wonder if former and present Select Board members will publicly admit they were wrong for signing the contracts. I wonder if Nat Dias, Miller, Gagne & Copley will publicly admit wrong doing for their backroom deal regarding those contracts.
Re-elected Diane Gilbert or go back to the good old days. The time when you need to know a polly if you wanted a position or appointment. How in the world did Ray Lake ever become a police officer, never mind a police sergeant, must be a good friend of MILLER.
We done trashing Melo now onto Lake? Hard to keep up.
I think Ray Lake is a good police officer. He is a tough guy when needed but he also is not heavy handed. I don't know what his personnel file looks like but my public perception of him is good.
you people are all crazy! a regular peyton place! Forget about the issues. Have fun and dont forget to vote!!!!
http://momof3npt.blogspot.com/...A blog without rhetoric..A MUST SEE..
Ray Medeiros,Jr.---Community and family is VERY important. When people are hurting and worried about tommorrow they need a strong and tight knit community to lean on and the park and recreation dept is the only department that has the ability to enhance that sense of community. If I am elected I will try to have more activities that would involve the entire family, not just "kid oriented"...
Save DARTMOUTH
Vote LARA STONE
Dartmouth Needs Diane!! Diane knows the financial problems we face and won't support an override. Diane knows Dartmouth needs long term solutions to solve their problems.
VOTE DIANE ON APRIL 7th!!
And a long-term solution DOES NOT translate into an override, as Ms. Stone defined her 2007 override to have been.
Has she not been listening to members of the FinCom all this time? They've stated an override is NOT a long-term solution. Has she heard members of the Budget and Revenue Task Force stating the same: an override is NOT a long-term solution?
Even members of our current Select Board have stated that an override is NOT a long-term solution.
Please, Ms. Stone: get with the program. LISTEN to people with a little more financial experience than you and to people who have researched more than you have, or just have more common sense than you have to know not to throw more money at the problem than has already and unfortunately been done.
Because the majority of us are no longer willing to trust any more of our money than we have to to a town government that, until forced to make changes, has in many instances irresponsibly spent our taxpayer dollars. And cared less about doing so.
amusing
No more overrides until Dartmouth gets its house in order!
For that reason, I vote Gilbert!
Funny Lama quote--happiness not from a blog!
I think it's wrong that people are advocating to deny someone a seat on the select board because they didn't oppose the override. That rules out approx. 5,000 people including the majority of the Budget and Revenue Tax Force. Overrides are not determined by our select board members.
I think this needs some clarification. The reason not to support Lara Stone is not because she supported the override so much but because, as she recently stated in the ST, she thought it was a "well crafted, long-term solution". That is a concern. The Finance Committee and many others agreed that is was far short of being a long-term solution and would have in fact made our financial situation worse. If Ms. Stone is unable to view our financial matters realistically or take the advice/knowledge of the Finance Committee, then I do not believe she should be elected to the Select Board.
Well, the override portion that did pass, has not provided a long term solution, so she has a point.
There were members of the Finance Committee supporting the override. And, Lara Stone had always regarded the override option to have been a stabilizing measure partnered with extensive reforms and cuts. The override was replaced with PAYT, fees drastic cuts, and reduced services (with more to come) - it was voted down at a price far beyond to many than if it had passed. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's nothing more than that. The opponents (CFRG)campaign against the override was well crafted to mislead the voters, as you continue to do (12:26) in your failed attempt to discredit Ms. Stone. Voting Watson, Stone, Jones.
If that is the case then that is what Lara Stone should have said but she didn't. She said it was a "well crafted, long-term solution". In my opinion that is not someone who is capable of analyzing financial data and making an objective reasoned decision. It is not a matter of discrediting Ms. Stone. I'm simply pointing out why I would not vote for her. Not everyone believes they are paying more than if the override had passed. That is just your opinion.
Not all people are spending more but some are. Trash, school bus and sports or music are spending more than if we have the override, but how long before that wasn't helping anymore and we would need more money. It was a band-aid not a solution. We need a long term plan.
There are probably some parents who are spending more on fees than if the override had passed, so maybe these people would be override supporters simply because of that.
If they didn't have to spend their money on fees, then possibly they would oppose an override.
In the long run, once they no longer have children in school and no longer have the fees to pay out, they may not be override supporters at all.
If it's to someone's financial benefit to have an override because an override is cheaper, than that will be their vote.
But an override is PERMANENT. At some point it may not be a financial benefit to them, any more than it is to those on fixed incomes, out of work, working several jobs, etc.
Yes, we need a long term plan. I believe that was the main reason that the executive administrator did not get a contract renewal. Once the new one gets hired, I'm quite sure that we will have one in a reasonable amount of time. Thanks to Diane, Bill and Joe for making that tough decision. It could not have been easy.
Less kids in the schools means savings for all of us. SOunds like a plan to me.
Parents with kids at the hs are paying much more. 2 kids in school is $800 per year just for the bus. So far I have not seen a solution in our new direction, but I am waiting and watching. I don't support an override simply because it will not pass, especially if it includes money for schools. I am not wealthy and certainly not elitist, but the last override was insufficient. Let the ugly posts start but $800 is pretty high.
You won't get any argument from me: $800 is high, whether from override increases or school fees, and it is truly a shame that it has to come from school fees. But I wouldn't support an override yet, either.
It took a long time for the library to make some cost-cutting measures. This is not a criticism of the library. It is just an observation that they finally reconciled (I think that is the best word. I think they realized, but, as is human nature, were not reconciled, to the reality of the financial situation.) that they needed to make some financial changes.
I wonder if the schools could or would be willing to do the same. That was a drastic step taken by the library and they are to be commended for it. It is too bad that the kids are suffering from inadequate educational materials, but I also don't think that is necessarily the fault of the voters, nor should it be incumbent on them to "fix" it for the schools if the schools can/will not do so for themselves. I'm sorry, but I think salaries/positions need to be seriously considered.
To 5:23 p.m: Regarding the override, 1:44 stated "it was voted down at a price far beyond to many than if it had passed". Your stating "that is just your opinion" is not true - it is a fact.
Thank you to those commenting in a respectful way to those with reasons to support both sides of the issue. Not seen here often, and it was a nice change of tone.
Regarding the last post, school contract issues will take time to reform. It's not realistic to expect a quick fix. And, the schools have suffered much in ways many are not aware, far beyond inadequate learning materials. We have a generation of kids who are at risk, and after following the efforts of Greg Jones for the past few years, I am convinced he is the best candidate for SC.
Not only did members of the Finance Committee support the override, the majority of the Budget and Revenue Task Force supported the override. Anyone following the efforts of Lara Stone in 2007 knows very well she supported the override as a stabilizing measure advocating for extensive reforms and cost cuts as a long term solution. I hope people refrain from continuing to misrepresent this.
I am not suggesting there will be a quick fix for the schools, and am aware contracts are difficult to work through. It's that we've all seen for so long the appearance given that nothing further can be done or that no one knows where any changes to save money can be made, and that it is now the people's turn to kick in their money.
This attitude is changing all through the town, as we've seen most recently with the library (thank you) and it is with the schools, as well. I am not denying that.
I did not say that these groups opposed an override as such, although some obviously did. I should have said "some." However, it was not stated, to the best of my knowledge, that anyone thought an override was a "long-term solution."
And, I'm sorry, I can't trust someone who is supposed to be representing me, when I know full well that an override is somewhere on the horizon from the individual's perspective.
Regarding your last statement, perhaps you can relate to those not feeling well represented by one in support of school fees (in excess of $800), PAYT fees and bag costs, and other fees and reduced services. I don't regard which approach one supports as a trust issue.
And I agree with 10:40 a.m. 3/24: "I think it's wrong that people are advocating to deny someone a seat on the select board because they didn't oppose the override. That rules out approx. 5,000 people including the majority of the Budget and Revenue Tax Force. Overrides are not determined by our select board members."
Everyone please remember: no candidate is in support of an override at this time. All candidates support overrides under certain circumstances. All candidates currently support further reforms and cost cuts.
Also, all candidates support creative revenue-generating ideas. I'm giving Jones, Watson, and Stone my vote since I find the current make-up of both boards lacking based on what's been implemented thus far.
As far as the Select Board's "lacking," it has taken at least a good two years before changes are finally being made. Most have been implemented within the past year. You can't blame the entire Board for that. Diane, Bill, and Joe have met resistance for change from Board members themselves, and the entire Board has made attempts to reach out to the SC (and vice versa) to at least realistically talk about what could be changed, and how long did that take before they even sat down together?
Now that changes are being made, though, why do you disparage the current Board as "lacking"? I think headway has finally been made throughout the town and on a larger scale than under the Gagne administration.
That has to count for something with regards to the current SB.
Some change takes time to implement, and often meet resistance despite how easy or hard to do.
And that is not a criticism of Mr. Gagne, nor blaming him. It is just my opinion and probably that of others as well.
Nor am I blaming the SC. It just seems that there is a more positive attitude around town with regards to its governing.
I am not blaming the entire board. I feel changes in the current make-up of the boards would be enhanced with the leadership of Jones, Watson, and Stone. Also, groundwork was made by former SB members with input far beyond the SB members themselves for what you're giving credit to the current boardmembers with respect to accomplishments implemented over the past year.
I certainly did not mean to imply that changes were made or considered solely by the SB itself. Definitely, nothing could have been done or could be done without input on all levels where applicable.
"All candidates currently support further reforms and cost cuts."
This is not what I heard from Lara Stone at the rotary's event. She said she thought we had already cut to the bare bones.
I heard the same thing. So where does that leave us? OVERRIDE!
I agree with Lara Stone that we have cut services to the bare bone. Lara Stone has always supported reforms and cutting costs and she is no different than any other candidate regarding not being in favor of an override at this time. The last two posters know nothing of Ms. Stone's current revenue generating ideas.
Tell us.
If she feels we've already cut to the bare bones, where does she now think we will get more money?
Override!
Like all of the candidates, Lara Stone favors departmental consolidation and cost containment. She doesn't want further layoffs and service cuts. Do you?
So what are $tone's revenue generating ideas? Either it's fees or taxes. Which is she going to raise?
Yes, which will Ms. $tone raise? Fees or taxes?
What I want is a balanced, sustainable budget. That will require CPR, restructuring, cuts and perhaps lay-offs. I want to elect someone who can make those tough decisions without caving in to pressure from the vocal minority, special interests or their own personal emotions. I feel Diane Gilbert has proven she can do that.
Diane Gilbert is the best person for Dartmouth at this time. Diane knows our fiscal problems. We need Diane to continue her work to help Dartmouth find better ways to deliver services BEFORE she supports an override.Diane is well aware of this. Diane knows that an override is a short term fix. Nothing more!
Frank Gracie likewise knows what needs to be done and is completely capable of doing it.
He has the inside experience from volunteering on town committees that neither Ms. Stone nor Mr. Watson have.
There will be no precious time wasted in learning the ropes and familiarizing himself with all things Dartmouth, as there will be with Ms. Stone and Mr. Watson.
Dartmouth's governing cannot be left in the hands of two neophytes who yet have to get their hands wet.
Fees and taxes are not the only ways to raise funds.
Do tell of your majical ways to raise revenue.
" two neophytes "? as opposed to a " neophyte" executive administrator? as opposed to "neophytes " joe michaud or bill trimble? Lara and Mike will do fine. If you were so concerned about " neophyte" leadership why did we get rid of Gagne?
7:43: glad your comment got through - my sentiments exactly! Posted something similar but it got axed.
The kids, the kids, the kids, enough already, I'm sick and tired of hearing it's about "the kids." Wake up you foolish voters, It's not about the kids, it's about the MONEY. If the SC truly wanted to save the town money it will get rid of "the arts"...."the music people". Hundreds of thousands of dollars will be saved or made available for books, pencils and teachers dirty looks. The school department budget is more then half the towns budget and the SB have no say. It's time to vote out all SC members and replace them with people who care as much about our town, as they do "the kids."
WOW...all I have to say is WOW!
Stone-Watson-Jones all the way!
Gilbert, Gracie, Jones! I have confidence in Dartmouth voters. They know who is really looking out for the 30,000+ residents of this town.
Not just the Cushman school district!
DIANE GILBERT, FRANK GRACIE,
GREG JONES ON APRIL 7th
7:43, our new executive administrator will not necessarily be a neophyte, and I believe one of the qualifications be that he/she have had experience in town management and such, elsewhere.
Obviously, everyone started out "new" to the SB at one time or another. However, my point is that this is too critical a time to begin with one or two new individuals on the board that have no experience with our town and its government.
I didn't "get rid of Gagne." The SB did. I'm not on the SB.
GILBERT, GRACIE, JONES
Anon 11:56 - who are the music people? Are they the hundreds of kids that participate in the band or color guard? Or are they the parents and grand parents that raise hundreds of thousands of dollars on their own to support the music program's efforts? You can't mean the handful of music teachers in the system whose combined salary equals about one half of 1% of the school budget. Right? Please help me understand better thanks.
Man in the Know, I would like to know what part of the "town" you are talking about. Get rid of the arts so we can afford what? What do you care about? Snow removal? Beaches? Trash pick up? Tax collection? What is lacking that you think can be solved if we rid ourselves of the arts?
WATSON, STONE, JONES
Voting for Diane Gilbert on April 7th! Diane has shown me that she will do what is right for the taxpayers in Dartmouth. ALL the taxpayers! Not just certain groups! I am very happy with Diane's last three years. I'm glad we talked her into running again!
Thanks Diane. We need you!
Stone and Watson will be solid additions to the SB.
My family lives in the North! Jones,Watson,Nunes! Thank you very much!
Why would it matter where you live? Mr. Watson and Mr. Nunes are in North Dartmouth??
Per 12:56 Seems to think only Cushman district supports Stone!
I live near Wal-Mart, not Cushman School. I'm voting for Stone.
Lara Stone's credentials are impressive. She is also quite active as a volunteer, most especially for the schools.
So,now a question: with three rambunctious, active boys to parent, a business to run as co-partner, and all her activities and volunteering, WHEN IS SHE GOING TO HAVE TIME TO CONCENTRATE ON TOWN ACTIVITIES AND ISSUES?
Unless things have changed significantly, when will Michael Watson have the time to concentrate on town activities and issues, as well.
Don't teachers still have lesson plans to make up, papers to grade, etc.?
yes I think only retired people should be on the selct board. Or maybe we should juct limit it to people wealthy enough that they don't have to work. Yes, I like that last one best - we could call them Kings.
Wait if people that work and are childless are the only ones allowed to serve the town what'll we do about Joe? last I checked he had a job, was married and heaven for bid had kids! Oh there's that nasty four letter word again.
With the financial situation we are in, we need all the pluses we can get in our elected officials. Given a choice of having a candidate with experience and knowledge in our town's government, being familiar with the town's leadership, and having available free time to devote to town issues versus one lacking in one or more of the above, I would choose the former.
What "nasty four letter word"? Are we back to resorting to the "anti-children," "anti-school" mantra again?
Any resident can be on any board in town. Some people work full-time and have children and do a great job. It depends on the person and their circumstances. I think it's great that so many people get involved in politics! As you can see here, it can get very nasty and that's too bad.
I am not against people being on the Board if they have children or work full-time. That would be a rather absurd position to take.
Again, let me restate: given the opportunity to elect someone with experience and knowledge of the running of our town or someone who does not have that experience and knowledge, I would choose the former.
It absolutely depends on the circumstances and the person, whether someone would be able to do a good job on the Select Board or any other board or committee. I think Joe has done an excellent job.
I will vote for Gilbert and Gracie, both who have experience, knowledge, and time to dedicate to the town and its issues, and have already proven it.
I will vote for Greg Jones. Yes!! A father who works full-time! And that is because I believe in him as a person and no one can deny that he gives his time 110% to attending SC meetings, along with Fin Com and SB meetings. Now, THAT'S someone who has the dedication and drive to get the job done AND to get it done for the children.
The SB are part timers as we have heard so what time do they need to serve the town? Its just a status thing I think.
Suggestions that Lara Stone shouldn't be running or be elected because she has children is sexist and despicable! Mrs. Gilbert, call off the dogs. This goes too far.
This is my first visit to the sight and I am so sad that all of you feel the need to bash each other and not have the guts to make yourself known. I am posting Anonymous only because I am a new resident here and I'm not sure who to listen to so at this point I'm listening to all of you. What a sad Town this has turned out to be. I moved here with my children in hopes that this would be a wonderful town to raise them. Please don't make me regret my move. Don't get me wrong everyone has an opinion but to make comments about someones family, wife, son or anyone for that matter...SHAME on you! State your opinion and facts but don't talk bad about someone unless your willing to leave your name.
Post a Comment