Reversal of Town Meeting votes

Several comments to this post have discussed the mechanism for reversal of a representative Town Meeting action. The basis for a reversal is Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 43A section 10 which says, in part,

"If, within said seven days, a petition, signed by not less than three per cent of the registered voters of the town, containing their names and addresses as they appear on the list of registered voters, is filed with the selectmen asking that the question or questions involved in such a vote be submitted to the registered voters of the town at large, then the selectmen, after the expiration of five days, shall forthwith call a special meeting for the sole purpose of presenting to the registered voters at large the question or questions so involved."

This section of MGL differs from the Town Charter section 2-15(b) which contains this requirement.

"If, within said eight days a petition, signed by not less than six per cent of the registered voters of the town, containing their names and addresses as they appear on the list of registered voters, is filed with the select board asking that the question or questions involved in such a vote be submitted to the registered voters of the town at large"

The General Laws and the Town Charter differ on several points as shown here...

... and throughout the applicable sections of the MGL and Town Charter. Which would prevail if an Town Meeting action was challenged and the differences brought to court is not clear.
A comment asked if a permanent list of voters could be filed with the Town Clerk in opposition to every appropriation by Town Meeting.

"I ask you to check with town counsel for a legal opinion, to see if a permanent number of town voters, willing to sign a permanent override petition with the required number of registered voters and to be kept at the town clerks officer allowing any tax payer, to obtain and file for an override on expenditure that exceed 200,000 thousand dollars and presented to the B.O.S.
If this can be done, than it should be done."

I have not consulted with Town Counsel (his advice is not free, there would be a cost associated with the request) and I am not an attorney, but it seems clear the language of both the MGL and Town Charter are talking about a petition which is intiated following a Town Meeting action and pertaining specifically to that action

"Each question so submitted shall be in the form of the following question, which shall be placed upon the official ballot:—“Shall the town vote to approve the action of the representative town meeting whereby it was voted (brief description of the substance of the vote and by what vote thereon if such vote was tabulated)?” If such petition is not filed within said period of seven days, the vote of the representative town meeting shall become operative and effective upon the expiration of said period."

What do you think? Tell us in comments Click here to read on!

Building Inspector let go, seeks a public hearing

The town's Executive Administrator has notified the Building Inspector, Mr. Joel Reed, that he is being terminated from employment with the town. The reasons for that action are laid out in a letter. The Executive Administrator is the appointing authority for the Building Inspector and his action is pursuant and in accordance with Section 6-9 of the Town Charter. The Building Inspector has requested a public hearing on his termination ...

... and that hearing will be held this week. Mr. Cressman will serve as the hearing officer. Contact the Office of the Select Board for the date, time and place of the hearing. If members of the public have information which they would like to have presented at the hearing, please provide it in writing to the Office of the Select Board before the hearing date. Click here to read on!

New Library Director, Director of Develpoment hired.

At tonight's Select Board meeting, The Library Board of Trustees announced that they have hired a new Director of the Dartmouth Public Library, Jennifer Inglis. Ms. Inglis will assume her duties on April 22nd.
Also at tonight's meeting, Executive Administrator David Cressman announced the hiring of a Director Of Development, Deborah Melino-Wender. Ms. Melino-Wender will assist other departments in writing grants and was also appointed as Select Board representative to SRPEDD, the Southeast Regional Planning and Economic Development District.
In other business, the Select Board endorsed a request by Town Clerk Lynn Medeiros for purchase of new document management software. Ms.Medeiros also addressed the need for additional staffing in the Clerk's office, While expressing sympathy for the dearth of staff, the Select Board stopped short of endorsing adding staff citing the need to look at the budget overall to ensure the affordability of added staff.
The Select Board voted to place an article on the Town Meeting warrant removing term limits for members of the Waterways Commission and to place an article adding a municipal wind turbine bylaw to the zoning bylaws. The Waterways Commission bylaw limits members to two consecutive terms. The new wind turbine bylaw would allow wind turbines, which meet all the criteria set out in the commercial wind turbine bylaw, on municipal lands as an as of right use (i.e the installation would not require a Special Permit). I will post the language of the proposed bylaw in the near future. The Planning Board will be asked to weigh in with their evaluation of the new bylaw before Town Meeting.
The Select Board appointed Selectman Mike Watson and Executive Administrator David Cressman to the Charter Review Commission ...

... and will ask the Finance Committee, School Committee, Planning Board and Town Meeting Moderator for appointments to the nine member body. Selectman Joe Michaud and Mr. Cressman were appointed to the Bylaw Review Committee. The Town Meeting Moderator will appoint two Town Meeting members and Town Clerk Lynn Medeiros will serve on that committee. The Town Charter section on the Charter and Bylaw Review can be found at this link. Contact Moderator Steve Sharek if you would like to serve on either of these two reviews. His contact information can be found in this post.
This evening was newly elected Board member Shawn McDonald's first meeting on the Board. Thank you for nominating me to be chair. Thank you to the other board members for electing me as chair. I am honored and will do my best to live up to your confidence.
Click here to read on!

Dartmouth Moderator Seeks Volunteers for Charter Review Committee

Town Moderator Steven C. Sharek is looking for town residents interested in serving on a special nine-member committee that will review the town’s charter and potentially recommend changes in it. A review of the town’s charter is required once every ten years.
Under Dartmouth’s charter, the Town Moderator makes two appointments to the special charter review committee. The Select Board, Finance Committee, and School Committee make two each. The Planning Board makes one.
The special committee will be charged with reviewing the charter and making a report, with recommendations, to Town Meeting.
“I’m looking for bright, energetic people willing to work,” said Mr. Sharek... ... “This isn’t a long-term commitment, but it’s probably going to be a pretty intensive short-term one.”
On a non-binding referendum this month, Dartmouth voters were asked whether they prefer the existing Town Meeting/Select Board form of government or wanted to change to a Council/Mayor or Council/Manager form. Voters were in favor of retaining the current system by a margin of 57-43%. Voters in all ten of the town’s precincts supported the status quo.
Dartmouth residents interested in being considered for appointment should send a cover letter and resume to Mr. Sharek by e-mail at stevesharek@comcast.net or by U.S. mail to 25 Ricketson Street, Dartmouth, MA 02747.
Deadline for applications is Friday, April 30, 2010
Click here to read on!

Michaud, McDonald, Monteiro and Nunes elected!

The results of today's election are;

Select Board
Joe Michaud retains his Select Board seat, turning back Bob Miller

Shawn McDonald outpolled Frank Gracie

School Committee
Meagan Monteiro and John Nunes were top vote getters in a three way race which included Doug Roscoe.

Board of Health
In the closest race of the day, Lynn Brodeur received 12 more votes than Thomas Hardman, out of nearly 5000 votes cast.

The other races were uncontested. Scott Lake was elected as Cemetery Commissioner, ...
...John Haran was re-elected to the Planning Board, Rachael Charrier and Andrew Couto were re-elected as Library Trustees, Kevin Santos was re-elected as Assessor, Lisa Tavares was re-elected to the Park Board and Elaine Lancaster was re-elected to the Housing Authority.
The ballot question asking, if Town Meeting or some other form of town government was preferred, saw voters come down firmly on the side of retaining Town Meeting.

Congratulations to the winners and kudos to all the candidates. I can attest that it is a somewhat daunting exercise to run for elected office. We owe appreciation to everyone who has the temerity to place their name in the public realm for consideration.
Now it is time to put aside the campaign and find areas to work together to advance the interests of the taxpayers and residents of the town. We have been making steady progress for a while now and I am sure that we will continue to do so.
Click here to read on!

Potential Town Charter changes, a clean sweep?

The Select Board has been discussing the appointment of a Charter Committee to review potential changes to the charter. While we have been debating whether the commission should have power to change the form of government from Select Board-Town Meeting to some other form, I think there is plenty of opportunity for making real reforms within the current Town Meeting form. I would like to see drastic and sweeping changes made to the structure and operation of our town departments in order to reduce the number of departments and to provide greater accountability for those departments.

In all my spare time :^), I have been reading MGL chapter 43C which provides for consolidated municipal departments. Of particular interest are sections 11, 12 and 13 of that chapter.

We already have a structure in the finance side similar to that set out in 43C, section 11. I am satisfied with the current arrangement there.
(more after the jump)

Section 12 is a Community Development department which could include "the redevelopment authority, the planning board, the industrial development commission, industrial development financing authority or any other municipal office or agency exercising or authorized to exercise any community or economic development activities." I would add the ZBA, Agriculture Commission, Agricultural Trust Council, Community Preservation Committee, and probably some others.

Section 13 is Inspections which could include "the inspections currently being made by the building inspector, wire inspector, plumbing inspector, gas fitting inspector, health agent and others as the ordinance or by-law may specify.” It provides for a single application for "all inspections which might be necessary, including, but need not be limited to, any inspections under the zoning and other local ordinance or by-law, building code, wire code, plumbing and gas code, state sanitary code, board of health rules and regulations, fire code, conservation commission, historic districts commission and any other local inspections as may be otherwise authorized." I would include Animal Control and Natural Resources here as well.

I would add, to the three departments listed above, a Department of Public Infrastructure that would be responsible for all public works, all public buildings, parks, waterways, vehicles and equipment, and any other real asset of the town. I mean to include all public buildings (libraries, Town Hall, police station, COA, all buildings) along with anything that has wheels and moves.

I would also add a Public Services department which would include the Library, Council on Aging, Veteran's Agent, Town Clerk, and Youth Commission.

That would leave the town with the Office of the Select Board and seven departments; Budget and Finance, School, Police, Economic Development, Inspections, Public Infrastructure, and Public Services. All current town employees would be allocated to one of these seven departments. Like I said, sweeping change!

I am not sure what to do with the Alternative Energy committee, Refuse District Committee, DCTV, computer services, and some other committees and commissions. Perhaps they would fall under the Office of the Select Board or fit into one of the other departments. I have not really come up with a good idea there.

Mr. Cressman has also been tasked with developing a plan for restructuring the town departments. I do not start this thread in order to steal any thunder from his effort. I am interested in what others may think of this plan of mine or what plan others might have that is entirely different. I find that writing a post helps to solidify and clarify my thoughts and some of the comments are quite perspicacious and helpful as well.

There are plenty of oxen gored in this post, so "Lay on, McDuff!" as the Bard of Avon once wrote.
What do you think? Tell us in comments.
Click here to read on!

Time for Town Charter and bylaw reviews

Our Town Charter provides for periodic review of itself and for review of our town bylaws.
Here is the charter section on review

SECTION 6-7: PERIODIC REVIEW, CHARTER AND BY-LAWS
(a) Charter Review - At least once in every ten years, beginning in 2010, and thereafter in each year ending in a zero, a special committee to consist of nine members shall be established for the purpose of reviewing this charter and to make a report, with recommendations, to the town meeting concerning any proposed amendments which said committee may determine to be necessary or desirable. The committee shall consist of nine members who shall be chosen as follows: the select board, the finance committee and the school committee shall each designate two persons, the planning board shall designate one person, and two persons shall be appointed by the town moderator. Persons appointed by the said agencies may, but need not, be members of the agency by which they are designated. The committee shall meet to organize forthwith following the final adjournment of the annual town meeting.

The bylaw review provision calls for ...

... the appointment of a five member committee. Here is that section of the charter.

(b) By-Law Review - The select board shall at five year intervals, in by a special committee appointed for that purpose, a proposed revision or recodification of all by-laws of the town which shall be presented to the town meeting for reenactment at the annual town meeting in the year following the year in which the said committee is appointed. The by-law review committee shall consist of the town clerk who shall serve by virtue of office, two representative town meeting members appointed by the town moderator and two persons appointed by the select board. The said committee in its final, or in an interim report, shall include recommendations for such substantive change in town by-laws as it deems necessary or advisable. The review of town by-laws shall be in conjunction with the town counsel, or, by special counsel retained for that purpose. Subsequent to enactment by the town meeting, copies of the revised by-laws shall be forwarded to the attorney general of the commonwealth for approval, and they shall be otherwise published, all as required by general laws. Copies of the revised by-laws shall be made available for distribution to the public at a charge not to exceed the actual cost, per copy, of reproduction.

I think that the Executive Administrator should be one of the two appointments by the Select Board. Some member of the Select Board could also be appointed or it could be anyone else. I have a couple of people that I think would be good candidates and I will contact them to see if they are interested. If you are interested in serving on either committee, you can contact the Select Board office or the Town Meeting moderator, Mr. Sharek (EMail - stevesharek@comcast.net)
The scope of the charter review is limited in the arrangement set out in our charter as I posted here. Any proposed changes from the charter committee require approval by 2/3 vote of Town Meeting and a majority of voters in a general election. See MGL chapter 43B sections 1 through 12
Click here to read on!

Town Charter and Bylaw review

Our town charter sets up periodic review of its provisions as well as periodic review of the town bylaws. 2010 is the year designated for the first charter review and also meets the criteria for a bylaw review year. I have copied the relevant sections of the Town Charter below. The bold emphasis is mine and not in the original.
The charter review committee can recommend modifications to our charter to the Town Meeting. The Town Meeting can adopt or reject the recommendations. If they adopt them, the changes are put on the ballot at the next town election and require 2/3 affirmative votes to be adopted.
The Town Charter cannot be modified to change the form of government except in the manner detailed in this post
The current charter basically codified the structure of the town government as it existed at the time. Our new Executive Administrator, Mr. Cressman, has been tasked with making recommendations to the Select Board on revising the structure of the town departments. I think that he should be one of the two persons appointed by the Select Board to the charter review committee.

SECTION 6-7: PERIODIC REVIEW, CHARTER AND BY-LAWS
(a) Charter Review - At least once in every ten years, beginning in 2010, and thereafter in each year ending in a zero, a special committee to consist of nine members shall be established for the purpose of reviewing this charter and to make a report, with recommendations, to the town meeting concerning any proposed amendments which said committee may determine to be necessary or desirable. The committee shall consist of nine members who shall be chosen as follows: the select board, the finance committee and the school committee shall each designate two persons, the planning board shall designate one person, and two persons shall be appointed by the town moderator. Persons appointed by the said agencies may, but need not, be members of the agency by which they are designated. The committee shall meet to organize forthwith following the final adjournment of the annual town meeting.

More after the jump

Our town bylaws are in desperate need of revision. There are many that are outdated
(Such as this one from 1944 "No person shall ride a bicycle or tricycle upon any of the sidewalks of the town" Hey kid! Get that tricycle into the street and off the sidewalk!)
or are duplicative or have been superceded by the charter or the General Laws.

(b) By-Law Review - The select board shall at five year intervals, in each year ending in five, or in zero, cause to be prepared by a special committee appointed for that purpose, a proposed revision or recodification of all by-laws of the town which shall be presented to the town meeting for reenactment at the annual town meeting in the year following the year in which the said committee is appointed. The by-law review committee shall consist of the town clerk who shall serve by virtue of office, two representative town meeting members appointed by the town moderator and two persons appointed by the select board. The said committee in its final, or in an interim report, shall include recommendations for such substantive change in town by-laws as it deems necessary or advisable. The review of town by-laws shall be in conjunction with the town counsel, or, by special counsel retained for that purpose. Subsequent to enactment by the town meeting, copies of the revised by-laws shall be forwarded to the attorney general of the commonwealth for approval, and they shall be otherwise published, all as required by general laws. Copies of the revised by-laws shall be made available for distribution to the public at a charge not to exceed the actual cost, per copy, of reproduction.

Do you think it is time to get started? What sort of changes should be made? Tell us in comments.
Click here to read on!

Reorganization of town departments

There has been some discussion in the comments to this post about the processes and procedures needed to navigate Dartmouth's permitting process.
Watching the meetings of the various permitting boards, it seems to me that the town boards frequently suffer from a breakdown in communication. One way to solve that problem may be to consolidate the functions of those boards into a single department. An example of what I mean can be found in Tewksbury, where our new Executive Administrator was employed. That town has integrated various boards into an Office of Economic Development. That entity is described ...

.. this way on the Tewksbury website,

The Department of Community Development was created through the actions of the May 2001 Town Meeting and is comprised of the following:
1) The Building Department
2) The Board of Health Office
3) Planning and Conservation Office
4) Engineering Office
The Department of Community Development provides direct staff and/ technical support to the following boards:
1) Board of Health
2) Planning Board
3) Conservation Commission
4) Board of Appeals
5) Master Plan Committee
6) Local Housing Partnership
7) Community Preservation Committee

When Mr. Cressman was hired, one of the things he was tasked to do was to review the town departments and recommend changes to increase efficiency or reduce costs. I would not be surprised if he recommended a similar solution as that which his former employer used.
I think a Department of Economic Development would increase communication, ease red tape, and cut costs. I am sure that the current boards would have a million reasons why it is not workable, but this is a model that we know has worked in a similar community since 2001.
This may be premature since I don't know what Mr. Cressman will eventually propose. But he will have a proposal within the first year of his employment.
What are your thoughts about this?
Click here to read on!

Voter participation at Town Meeting

I was flipping through the channels on my teevee a few minutes ago when I happened across the Town Meeting orientation for new members given a few weeks ago. The Town Meeting Moderator was speaking and I think I heard him say that voters of the town, other than Town Meeting members, have no right to speak at Town Meeting although he does allow it. I believed that his interpretation was incorrect and that our Town Charter (MS Word format) gave all voters the right to speak. Being a curious sort, I looked up ...

...the Town Charter and the following is what I read,

SECTION 2-14 TOWN MEETING PROCEDURES
(g) Voter Participation – Subject to such rules as may from time to time be adopted by the representative town meeting members, any voter shall have a right to speak at sessions of the representative town meeting, but no right to vote.

Just to be thorough, I looked up the town bylaws that relate to Town Meeting and I found two sections, one about the Moderator here (MS Word) and one about the Town Meeting here (MS Word). Neither bylaw seems to contradict the Charter and the Charter would overrule a bylaw any way, I believe. You will need to scroll down through the bylaw sections to find the applicable wording.
I was surprised that so little of the procedures for our Town Meeting where spelled out in the Charter and bylaws, so I reviewed Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 39 sections 9 through 24 to see if there was more detail. The MGL covering Town Meeting were not specific as to procedures. So it appears that our current Town Meeting procedures are more a matter of tradition and long standing practice than a code of regulations.
I know that our Moderator makes every attempt to be fair and I am sure he would not prevent anyone for speaking. As it turns out, I think the Town Charter guarantees that right.
Another point which I found in the Town Charter but had never heard before is this section,

SECTION 2-8: PRESIDING OFFICER
Rulings made by the town moderator may be appealed to the representative town meeting by a motion so to do which shall be put to the meeting by the moderator in the form: Shall the ruling of the moderator be reversed? A majority vote shall be required to reverse the ruling of the moderator.

As far as I know, the ability to exercise this challenge has never been used nor am I aware of the procedure for doing so. Perhaps a reader here with longer experience could let us know.
I think that it would be a good idea to formalize the procedures used at Town Meeting into a bylaw to be adopted by the Town Meeting for the regulation of the proceedings. Let us know what you think in comments.
Click here to read on!

Should Dartmouth change its form of government?

There has been a discussion in comments to this post about whether or not Dartmouth should change from the Town Meeting form of government to some other form. I thought I would bring it out to the post level so perhaps more people will participate. Start by reading the comments or reading this post and this post.
I have linked ...

... to some additional resources about town charter revisions at the Massachusetts Municipal Association.
You can find a list of Massachusetts municipalities and their form of government at this link.
This link provides an overview of Charter Commission procedures and Decision points
A summary of the procedures for forming a charter commission and revising the charter can be found at this link.
So what do you think? Do we need to change from our present form, can we get the 3,000 plus signatures to do it, and what form should we adopt?
Click here to read on!

Methods of amending the Town Charter

There are three different ways to make changes to the Dartmouth Town Charter.

1-The Town Meeting can petition for an Act of the General Court to change the charter.

2-A 2/3 vote of Town Meeting can put a change on the ballot for decision by the voters (this has some limitations, can’t change form of government or change some offices) The voters then vote on the proposed changes. Our town charter currently calls for an appointed charter commission that makes recommendations for changes to the Town Meeting every 10 years.

3-get 15% of voters to petition for a charter commission, get approval for commission from voters and elect a charter commission (at the same election when the charter commission is approved). The charter commission can make changes and go to voters with an amended or new charter. (No restrictions on what they do, change form or do whatever)

Here is how I arrived at that ...

Our Town Charter says this (MS Word Doc) about charter commissions

SECTION 6-7: PERIODIC REVIEW, CHARTER AND BY-LAWS
(a) Charter Review - At least once in every ten years, beginning in 2010, and thereafter in each year ending in a zero, a special committee to consist of nine members shall be established for the purpose of reviewing this charter and to make a report, with recommendations, to the town meeting concerning any proposed amendments which said committee may determine to be necessary or desirable. The committee shall consist of nine members who shall be chosen as follows: the select board, the finance committee and the school committee shall each designate two persons, the planning board shall designate one person, and two persons shall be appointed by the town moderator. Persons appointed by the said agencies may, but need not, be members of the agency by which they are designated. The committee shall meet to organize forthwith following the final adjournment of the annual town meeting.

Massachusetts General Law (MGL) section 43B contains the procedures for charter revision and says this about Town Meeting recommending charter changes

Ch 43B section 10 Amendments to a city or town charter previously adopted or revised under this chapter may be proposed by the city council of a city or the town meeting of a town by a two thirds vote in the manner provided by this section; provided, that amendments of a city charter may be proposed only with the concurrence of the mayor in every city that has a mayor, and that only a charter commission elected under this chapter may propose 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. The section continues with more, read it at the link above. Actually you need to read sections 1 through 12 of Chapter 43B to get the full picture

The state constitution Article LXXXIX says this

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.

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.
All proposed charter amendments shall be published and submitted for approval in the same manner as provided for adoption or revision of a charter.

There you have it my explanation and some or all of the links to check it for yourselves. Do you think we should from a charter commission? If so, an appointed or elected one? Remember the appointed one is restricted on what it can propose as amendments (e.g. cannot 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)
Click here to read on!

Town Meeting passes on recall provision

Town Meeting voted to indefinitely postpone consideration of a petition to the General Court to insert a recall provision in our Town Charter. The Finance Committee recommended that the article be postponed, the Town Counsel stated that, while legal, there were several areas of the proposed article which may be problems, and ultimately the Town Meeting members decided to delay action on the measure Click here to read on!

Special Town Meeting tonight 7PM

Tonight at 7Pm in the middle school auditorium, the Town Meeting will vote on a petition to the Great and General Court, our state legislature. The petition asks for a provision to be added to our town charter which allows recall of elected officials. If passed by Town Meeting, both houses of the legislature, and signed by the governor, the recall provision would be added to the Town Charter. Here is an email from Mr Hawes regarding ...

... our First Amendment rights in the US Constitution and recall.

*From:* Brian Hawes
*To:* Friends of Michael
*Sent:* Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:45 AM
*Subject:* Town Meeting tonight --- 7:00 PM

Hello ---
Just a reminder that Town Meeting is tonight --- 7:00 PM --- Middle
School Auditorium --- please attend even if you are not a Town Meeting Member ---
Recall is one of the five basic freedoms granted by the First Amendment to the Constitution --- which reads ---
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
ratified 12/15/1791
The recall process is a common final step in the democratic process; it provides the traditional checks and balances, providing citizens with the right to remove an elected official from office.
See you all tonight ---

Brian

There are so many things that are wrong with Mr. Hawes' email, I don't know where to start.
The first words of the 1st Amendment are "Congress shall make no law". How does that apply here?
His first sentence begins, "Recall is one of the five basic freedoms" First, he is equating redress of grievances with recall of officials and they are not the same and secondly, the ability to recall is a procedural rule, not a freedom. Where is recall in the US Constitution?
And that's just a few phrases from what he said. OY!

Click here to read on!

Mr. Raposo and Mr. Ventura on recall

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. Click here to read on!

Mr. Lynam on recall provision

Mr. Lynam has a op-ed piece in today's Standard-Times about the recall provision to be voted at the Special Towwn Meeting on January 8th.

I agree with him but have proposed the modifications in yesterday's posts so that we can have some discussion of the proposed article which I think is deficient in some respects. Do you agree with Mr. Lynam? Should the town wait before changing our charter to insert a recall provision?
Click here to read on!

Amendments to recall petition, section 6

Section 6 sets the method and standard for the actual recall election and is proposed as,

SECTION 6. Ballots used in a recall election shall submit the following propositions in the order indicated:

FOR THE RECALL OF (NAME OF OFFICER).

AGAINST THE RECALL OF (NAME OF OFFICER).

Immediately at the right of each proposition there shall be a square in which a voter, by marking a cross mark (X), or by indicating his intentions by suitable mechanical means, may vote for either of said propositions. Under the propositions shall appears the word -Candidates-, the directions to the voters required by section forty-two of chapter fifty-four of the General Laws and, beneath this, the names of candidates nominated in accordance with the provisions of law relating to elections. If two-thirds of the votes cast upon the question of recall is in the affirmative, the candidate receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected. If more than one-third of the votes on the question are in the negative, the ballots for candidates need not be counted.

In order to clarify the procedure, I suggest that the propositions be phrased as follows:

For the removal of (Name of the official) from the office of (name of the office)

Against the removal of (Name of the official) from the office of (name of the office)

Immediately at the right of each proposition there shall be a square in which a voter, by marking a cross mark (X), or by indicating his intentions by suitable mechanical means, may vote for either of said propositions.
Under the propositions shall appears the words -Candidates to succeed (Name of official) for (name of office)-, the directions to the voters required by section forty-two of chapter fifty-four of the General Laws and, beneath this, the names of candidates nominated in accordance with the provisions of law relating to elections.

I would also propose that the standard ...

...for success of the recall be revised to include,

If two-thirds of the votes cast upon the question of recall are for removal and not less than 30% of the registered voters of the town shall have voted in the recall election, the official subject to the recall election shall be removed from office in accordance with the provisions of Section 5. If less than two-thirds of the votes cast upon the question of recall are for removal or less than 30% of the registered voters of the town shall have voted in the recall election, the recall shall have failed.
If the official subject to the recall is removed from office, the candidate receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected.

What do you think?
Click here to read on!

Amendments to recall petition Section 3, 4 and 5

These sections have to do with the notification of the recall petition to the Select Board, notification to the official being recalled , setting the date of the recall election, and such. You can read it here.
One change I would propose is that the time be set at five working days in this portion of Section 5 "[The Select Board shall] if the officer does not resign, within five days thereafter, order an election" Click here to read on!

Amendments to proposed recall article-Section 2

Section 2 of the proposed recall amendment to the Town Charter says,

SECTION 2. Any two hundred registered voters of the town of Dartmouth may initiate a recall petition by filing with the Town Clerk an affidavit containing the name of the officer sought to be recalled and a statement of the grounds for recall. At least fifty names of registered voters shall be from each of the voting precincts into which said town is divided. Said Town Clerk shall thereupon deliver to said voters making such affidavit, a sufficient number of copies of petition blanks demanding such recall, a supply of which shall be kept on hand. Such blanks shall be issued by the Town Clerk, with his signature and official seal attached thereto. Further, such blanks shall be dated, shall be addressed to the Select Board of said town and shall contain the names of all the persons to whom they are issued, the name of the person whose recall is sought and the grounds of recall as stated in the affidavit and shall demand the election as a successor to said office. A copy of the affidavit shall be entered in a record book to be kept in the office of said Town Clerk. Said recall petition shall be returned and filed with the Town Clerk within twenty days after the filing of the affidavit and shall be signed by at least fifteen percent of the registered voters of said town, who shall add to their signatures their place of residence, including their street, number and precinct; provided, however, that not more than thirty- three and one-third percent of the total number shall be from any one precinct.
The Town Clerk shall, within twenty-four hours of receipt thereof. submit the signed petition to the registrars of voters in the town and said registrars shall, within five working days, certify thereon the number of signatures which are names of registered voters of the town.

Whereupon I ditch the said pretentious language forthwith and replace it with this...

The voters may initiate a recall petition by delivering to the Town Clerk an affidavit containing the signatures, addresses, and precinct of at least fifty registered voters from each voting precinct of the town, naming the official to be recalled, and the grounds for the recall petition. The Town Clerk shall file a copy of the affidavit as a public record.
After certifying that the signatures are names of registered voters of the town and at least fifty voters from each precinct, the Town Clerk shall provide sufficient petition blanks, addressed to the Select Board, stating name of the official to be recalled, the grounds for the recall, the name of the persons to whom the petition blanks were issued, the date of issue of the petition, a demand for an election of a successor to the office of the named official to be recalled, and bearing the signature and seal of the Town Clerk,.
The petition blanks shall be returned within twenty days of the filing of the affidavit and shall contain the signatures, addresses, and precinct of not less than 15% of the registered voters of the town at the time of the last town election. However, not more than 1/3 of the total signatures on the petition shall be from any one precinct.
The Town Clerk shall certify within five working days after return of the petition that the number of signatures are names of registered voters of the town and are more than 15% of the registered voters of the town at the time of the last town election.

I think changing the wording to more common usage and syntax simplifies and clarifies this section. Notice that I proposed that 50 voters must sign the affidavit from each precinct, the Town Clerk must certify the voters on the affidavit, and clarified the number of voters as that number registered at the time of the last town election
Click here to read on!

Amendments to Town Meeting recall article- Section 1

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?
Click here to read on!