Curt Brown has this blog post at the Standard Times website about the possible consequences of the Attorney General's approval of the wind turbine bylaw. He quotes Attorney Beauregard as saying the opponents will continue to sue the town over the project. The Select Baord has not discussed future steps yet ...
... but will on Monday. See my earlier post as to what that may be.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Wind turbine opponents soldier on
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Sure, Atty Beauregard would like them to soldier on, he gets more $$$$. Like most lawyers, he's thinking about his own pocketbook and doesn't care that this group will never win. Just keep the money coming!
The Dartmouth Citizens for Responsible Energy (DCRE) are very rich in resources necessary to fight this ill project. Three lawyers besides Beauregard, a growing community of non-believers and goood $$$ resources will continue to fight this cause for a long time!!!!Trust Me
Green energy is the way to go! I'm proud of Dartmouth for fighting this one! Go GREEN!
I have one question to ask the blogger who said "Go Green!", Are the two 44 story indusrial turbines near your home? If not, you can not imagine the loss the Chase Road/Russells Mills Road neighbors will incur to the value of their homes and the peace of their environment. In addition,too many people report illnesses from close proximity to turbines (less than a mile)for this to be easily dismissed. The sites chosen for the turbines are much too close to too many families.
Google in Marstons Mills Ma. wind turbine to read about two blades blowing off during a storm om March 14, 2010. The turbine was only one year old.
September 29....6:03 AM
I am a pro wind energy person who approves of the town erecting two turbines on town property. I like the thought of clean energy and the fact that the town will profit from the turbines energy sell off.
Having stated the above, I agree that I would not want the turbines on or near my property. In fairness to you and others, I feel the town should purchase your home(s) at the market price or allow you and others to look at and obtain town owned property of equal value. The town owned land should not be a cost factor to you. This will offer you and others a new location in Dartmouth, to build or move your home to the chosen land location. Any and all cost to move the constructed home must be absorbed by the town.
From Go Green, I do live close to Chase Road and although I will not be able to see the wind turbines from my home, I am proud of Dartmouth for taking the lead on this project. I notice that former mayor Bullard thinks New Bedford should follow suit and put a turbine at Fort Tabor. I say, this is long overdue!!
Go Green!
Would someone please explain what happen at last nights town meeting. How can an article pass if we do not have enough town meeting members voting on it ?
Once a quorum is established, the business of town meeting can begin. All motions, amendments and votes are legally binding unless someone calls for a quorum count. You cannot challenge any article that has passed prior to a quorum challenge as it is under the assumption that a quorum existed. Jill Lenz thought she could kill the pay raise article by calling for a quorum. What she did was, in effect, kill the last two articles on the warrant. Which is no big deal as the monies that were going to be placed into those two articles will remain free cash and unappropriated.
Simple to explain - the call or a quorum came after the 'big' pay raise question. After that was voted on a bunch of people left leaving the TM short of a quorum for the last 2 questions. Had the call been made before the last question there would have been a quorum since more than 4 left after the last vote.
If you have a quorum, it lasts until someone challenges it. The quorum wasn't challenged until after the article was passed. Therefore the article vote carries. I think the vote was called for to shed light on the fact that town employees who are town meeting members left the meeting as soon as they got their raises.
I have another question. How can Michaud speak against a contract he helped negotiate as it goes before town meeting?
Not only is that wrong, but it is an unfair labor practice. At the very least a letter should be sent to the Board of Bar overseers and all the unions involved should file an unfair labor practice complaint!!!!
One mistake after another by Joe, just one of many reasons he will NOT get my vote for State Rep.
Bill, I am sure you know what Joe did is illegal, maybe you should have nudged him when he was breaking the law.
I have no idea why the pay raise was not put last on the list. What were you guys thinking? Of course a bunch of town employees walked out after they got their raises.
So one poster thinks Jill Lenz called for a quorum in hopes of rendering the pay raise article null and void. If the Lenzs are opposed to pay raises, why did Phil approve the raise for teachers? I guess if Phil had his way, all town side employees would be working for minimum wage while school side employees would be raking in the big dough.
Anonymous 12:21, Oct. 28: I'm not sure Joe actually "helped to negotiate" any contracts.
The following are some of the responsibilities of the executive administrator. Read from the Charter, Section 4-4, Department of the Executive Administrator, (b), (c), (ii):
"Administer all collective bargaining agreements and oversee the negotiation of collective bargaining contracts with town employees over wages, and other terms and conditions of employment; subject to the approval of select board, shall employ special counsel to perform these duties as necessary, and provided further, that any terms and conditions of a collective bargaining
contract are subject to the approval of the select board."
"Approving" and "negotiating" are two different things, Approval is consent; negotiation is the discussion leading up to consent (approval.) The executive administrator does the negotiating; the Select Board gives its approval (or disapproval) to his negotiations.
Maybe Town Meeting Members who are also town employees should recuse themselves from voting on giving themselves a raise. Or how about putting hot topics like a pay raise for town employees up closer to the beginning of the meeting so that we are sure to have a quorum. Or maybe keeping track of all the town meeting members who leave and when we are in danger of dropping below a quorum an announcement is made. Clearly if 185 members are required and the sum of the votes equals 175 we do not have a quorum.
It seems like something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
I suggest you inform yourself on state law. Check MGL section 150E.
Michaud broke the law acting a selectman and speaking against a proposed contract.
Clearly if 185 members are required and the sum of the votes equals 175 we do not have a quorum.
Not true, town meeting members are not required to vote. Then can abstain. Basically the number of votes cast has no bearing on whether a quorum is present.
Whoever is questioning the hard work of Phil Lenz with the rest of the school committee in successfully negotiating a teacher contract settlement with ONLY a minimal increase in pay against a very difficult teacher union has no clue what is like to negotiate with a union. You do this town and all the employees that work for it teachers and town side employees a disservice! If you think you can do better then run for School committee, instead of posting here anonymously!
For you to speak maliciously of Jill, well again that's why this blog shouldn't exist!
Post a Comment