You really cannot make up the stuff that goes on around here. If you aren't aware of the controversy surrounding the Board of Health race, you soon will be. It seems there is an attempt cast doubt on the validity of the initially uncounted "spit out ballots" from last nights election.
The fact of the matter, absent proof that the spit out ballots weren't legitimately cast, absent proof of ballot tampering, whatever suspicions some are putting out there about what they may think happened isn't going to negate the existence of the ballots.
What I also seem to be hearing from some is that because a mistake was made in swearing in a candidate, because he signed the "book", we are suppose to ignore the existence of votes cast by residents of this town.
There is absolutely no ignoring the fact that certain things happened which absolutely should not have. I am not even going to try an offer any rationale for the way things transpired.
But since it seems a number of people like to present personal suspicions and theory as fact, let me offer this observation: if an individual is smart enough to figure out how to stuff the ballot box so to speak, pull it off in mere minutes by slipping in say 42 for one precinct or 45 ballots total, wouldn't you think they would also be smart enough to make the winning count a bit higher than just 1 vote?
For the moment let's assume the more rationale and sane assumption, and hopefully the correct assumption is that someone simply messed up and forgot to count all the ballots that should have been counted before any declaration in a race decided by 3 votes was made.
Under this assumption is there anyone out there who can seriously argue that those votes validly cast should be ignored?
Under this assumption, is there anyone out there who can seriously argue if someone was mistakenly sworn in, that mistake should take precedence over the actual vote tally?
Demand your recount. Inspect the ballots. Verify the voter tally with the number of ballots. These are things you have a right to do and should do with a 1 vote margin or a 3 vote margin.
If you have your proof of anything, show it. Any fraud or tampering should and must be dealt with swiftly and decisively, and I would be the first to join in the effort to see that it happens.
But do not attempt to cast doubt on ballots of residents by throwing out any and every accusation you can.
Do not lay claim to office for your candidate based on mistakes made by others.
One of the biggest complaints I have heard about government is the fact that people are not heard.
Is there any greater crime in a free society than to actually deny the voice of a voter by not counting his or her ballot?
But do not attempt to cast doubt on ballots of residents by throwing out any and every accusation you can.
Do not lay claim to office for your candidate based on mistakes made by others.
One of the biggest complaints I have heard about government is the fact that people are not heard.
Is there any greater crime in a free society than to actually deny the voice of a voter by not counting his or her ballot?
All I am reading and seeing are things that at best prove nothing except human error and at worse are nothing more than an attempt to grab a victory no matter what the costs.
If you have the proof, then please reveal it. I sincerely mean that.
Believe it or not, you aren't the only ones who want the vote count to come out right.
The victor will have a hard enough serving in office under the specter of such a slim victory. Making accusations of voter fraud that are based on mere theory will do nothing for either candidate who is declared the winner.
Laying claim to the office by attempting to throw out uncounted votes will not do anything positive.
The complaint of denying people a voice rings very hollow when the claim to victory is based on ignoring 45 ballots.
I suspect this whole situation is going to get much worse in the PR battles to be waged, and the press coverage to ensue. It isn't too pretty at this point from what has all ready been on T.V., and some of the e-mails and postings I have seen.
The longer this lingers the harder it is going to be to move beyond it, for everyone.
While every candidates' goal is to win the election, don't lose sight of the significance of the vote in the Board of Health race.
Anyone thinking the margin of victory in the other big race is indicative of the public sentiment on the wind turbine issue is fooling themselves. If it was, we wouldn't be having the discussion on the results for BOH right now. The results from last year and this year in the BOH continue to show the public sentiment split that exists on the turbines.
But that fact is significant as the vast majority of the voting public clearly does not simply write off the opponents as nut cases, dolts and blockheads as some seem to willing to describe them. That has been the most significant failure of proponents of the turbines. To simply ignore the complaints in most ways and to assume most people do. I keep hearing over and over again, most people don't buy into that stuff (the complaints). Yet the votes in the BOH have not supported this position, once again.
Most people may not buy into every complaint, but if you really do listen, more people than you think are sympathetic so some of the aspects of the opposition.
The biggest failure of the opposition has been to realize and grasp the concept that some of the stuff that goes on in opposition is the exact reason why the split in town stays at 50/50 ( + or - 1 or 3).
Quite frankly both sides over the last year have continued to make certain moves that baffle the political pundit in me.
I don't want to stray to far from the more pressing issue.
Again if there is something more than pure supposition, let us know.
Absent any proof that the ballots in question are invalid, the count is and remains at a one vote difference. Take the steps necessary to clear up the mistakes and proceed from there.
Do not disenfranchise any voter by trying to ignore a ballot cast.
When you do, you become no better than those who you have complained about doing the same to you in other ways.
Very poor form on Windwises part (again). I would like to hear one reasonable solution to the turbine issue that does not involve simply taking them down and having to pay potentially millions of dollars back, as well as having to re-assume the electric bills that the turbines now cover. I am so fed up of the NIMBYs in this town, weather a legitimate gripe exists or not, who have no better solution to the problems.
ReplyDeleteI don't live within irritating (sight or sound) proximity of the turbines, but if I did, I know I'd be annoyed. I don't enjoy watching them spin as I drive by, and their presence is a constant reminder of what caused a great divide in town.
DeleteI've heard that some turbines are turned off between certain hours. Maybe a certain speed could be discussed. I don't know what can be done, but without civil discussion nothing will be resolved.
Maybe the next time a new turbine is proposed, it ought to come with the stipulation that one is erected in each of the precincts, so everyone can be a NIMBY. Maybe that will adjust our compassion level to the residents who already have two.
Hallelujah - a voice of reason! My instinct tells me that most of Fairhaven's good residents feel somewhat similar & this the kind of atitude needed to start mending the terrible split in our town. Of course everyone is for green energy (who isn't?) but we need to be careful in our haste to review options, contracts & spread the burden. Thank you for keeping an open mind.
DeleteIt's a shame that NIMBY's have been made to feel as they do- that no one believes their claims. Of course people believe them, but they will just be more vocal about the issue when the it affects them more, like when there's one in their own backyard.
DeleteThe saddest thing about the situation, is that no satisfactory resolve will ever be obtained unless all accurate and necessary data is gathered for consideration. But this doesn't just mean from a state-conducted sound study.
ALL residents who are affected by the turbines, MUST file a complaint form. It's the only way to know 'where' the problems lie.
I know people who claim to be affected in varying degrees, but haven't filed a form. I don't feel the turbines are attractive, but I can't complain- because I'm not physically affected by them.
The only true way to know where, and how widespread a problem lies is for people to report it. Without 'all' of the data (filed complaint forms,) even those who believe in the reality of the effects caused by them, cannot help the cause.
I can't believe anyone sincerely thinks there is enough acumen there as to become a mastermind behind a voting cheating scandal. But I cannot blame anyone for having their doubts on the validity of the tally.
ReplyDeleteIMO the disbelief stems from the inconceivably close tally and the atmosphere of distrust that has been building over the years and some truly crazy 'can't make this stuff up' recent events (the coincidence of power being turned off only during the very night of turbine testing & perception of 'threats' on complaint forms/ notifying RISD etc.).
No matter who ends up occupying the seat - the vote tally will always be looked at as tainted.
I totally agree !
ReplyDeleteThe first commenter is sick of NIMBYs huh? what legitimate solution do you feel would be appropriate to help some of these people who are not able to sleep and have lost thousands in the value of their homes.
ReplyDeleteSeriously - just reread your comment & tone. Enough of the labelling & snark. This is why Bowcock is out - maybe if Peter is the true winner he will heed the closeness of the vote as the will of the people and actually truly listen to the turbine neighbors and not put them off as he has been doing. It is a mess and needs to be worked through but I hope most reasonable people would agree there clearly is a problem - despite extremists and calling ppl names and belittling their serious complaints does not help.
I also hope Beth David also sets the tone in her paper as her editorial notes have plenty of snark and have not contributed to a civil debate on a divisive issue that clearly has some true basis.
I will appologize for pointing a finger at the current NIMBYs if it detracts from the point I am trying to make. Back in the 80s, The Bristol County Sheriffs office wanted to construct the House of Corrections where the current Titlist WW HQ is. I did not happen because people didnt want it to. Fast Foward to the 90s, when we capped the dump. People were up in arms because of the smell. ONLY those who smelled it. Now, its the turbines. Some people involved on the issue are not even AFFECTED by it, but because they can SEE them, they are opposed. I dont disagree there is a percentage of this town that legitimately has a complaint, and there may be some with legitimate medical issues. My point was this... We need to do something as a town to try and be ahead of the curve in trying to offset the ever increasing cost of EVERYTHING. Renewable energy is one way. Someone is ALWAYS going to be against changes made. I applaud those who have legitimate reasons. Those who dont and just think its an eyesore are not seeing the bigger picture. WE as a town must endeavor to lower the cost of our energy consumption if we hope to keep the services we all enjoy. There are people in town who say fire everyone except the teachers, that will save you money. It will, but then what happens to the infrastructure that we enjoy so much in this town. Folks, things cost money, and we all want more of it. To make that happen, we ALL must be willing to make sacrifices. We cannot sustain what we have without comensurate increases in one of two things... taxes or revenue. The wind turbines were and are one way to increase revenue and decrease expenses.. That is the other way to sustain. Decrease expenses. For the most part, if you intend to decrease expenses at this point means you start giving up services. While I am no where near as well educated on the intricacies of our town budget as the blog author ( help me out here John if I am wrong), I do watch the meetings and I see the work that is done to try and make everything happen for everyone in town. Something has to give. My point about NIMBYS is that things have to be put SOMEWHERE in town if we intend to reap the benefits of renewable energy, high class sewer treatment, or clean water. It has to go somewhere. We as a town have to get on board and work together to keep ourselves on the right side of financial disaster....
DeleteJust because something is green & generates revenue doesn't mean it is automatically the right fit for the town of Fairhaven. Yes, we need to explore green energy options,, yes as a town we need to find ways to generate revenue, yes we need to carefully examine expenses & make tough cuts. On an individual basis we need to limit our consumption - turn off lights, recycle, reuse. Not as sexy as two giant turbines but likely more effective. If anyone has spent enough time under the turbines (and yes there are some days they seem quieter depending upon conditions) they will know that the grinding of the gears is freaking loud & would honestly not want their house next to them. Yes, we should have learned from Falmouth - that was what the Windwise ppl were saying a couple years ago - but not until now - after ours have been erected - do some ppl finally seem to realize what a mistake they have been due to poor siting. We just wanted to feel good as a 'progressive' community doing our part to save the earth and make some money for the town without TRULY examining the ramifications. We should have waited. I know there were contracts but i am still not clear why there was such a big rush to build. haste makes waste.
DeleteThis last comment is borderline, not for what is said in the first two paragraphs. Opinions on point are absolutely fine.
ReplyDeleteThe statement in the last sentence/paragraph is not germane to the discussion of this specific thread. There are plenty of posts that reference the FNN and its editor. When that occurs, which will probably be as soon as tomorrow if I get to reading the latest edition and if I do a post, knock you socks off.
By the way, such a comment about a referenced editorial or piece would be fine.
Due to another small voter turnout we still have small percentage of people who control the policies and procedures of the town.The good ole boys have ruled ,but the selectmans race might be a changing of the tide.Lets see if articles 5,6,7,an 13 will effect some needed change if they are passed or will change be another afterthought of town meeting...
ReplyDeleteJohn, I disagree with you. I don't believe one can make the inference that the BOH race has to do with voter's perception or understanding of the "complaints" by wind turbine foes, or of the turbines in general.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the issue revolves more around the perception that the incumbents were tone deaf to the public. Certainly Dr. Bowcock had done himself no favors with recent headlines/actions, hence the resounding victory of Mr. Haworth. This was a referendum on the public's distaste of his actions, which were clearly unpalatable to the general voting public. This got played out on public access, in editorials, etc., so there was enough information readily available to the informed voter. And so it went.
The BOH race is not that simple. The fact that the race is so close shows something else is at play. It's obvious that a good number of voters do not feel the same way they did about the Selectman race. I do believe Deterra's closeness to Bowcock certainly hurt him in this election, but it played out quite differently. I certainly would agree that Deterra has been pegged as a foe by anyone remotely in opposition of the turbines.
I think the BOH is in a tough spot. They have a narrow set of regulations and authority to work under, but they are continually harangued by Windwise and other individuals for not acting in their interests when the BOH has little to no statutory responsibility or authority to do so. They just can't and should not react/make decisions on every single issue Windwise brings to their table. That isn't necessarily their function.
A lot of the health concerns and info Windwise has presented is just not backed up by science - even if they believe in it. No matter how many times Windwise and their supporters talk about Wind Turbine Syndrome and other unsubstantiated ailments, it does not make it true or even actionable. DO I believe people are ill-affected in some way? Sure I do. People lose sleep, are annoyed, affected by flicker, etc. It doesn't make it an epidemic, and it doesn't necessarily make it solely local government's problem to fix. This is especially if local government does not have the tools, regulation or authority to deal with it.
I agree the BOH race is not that simple. Nothing ever really is. We will have to agree to disagree on the reasons for the tightness of the race, although I don't think we do.
DeleteCertainly the factors you noted did contribute to its narrow result. We essentially are stating the same thing however. I am not arguing that the 50-50 split is based on everyone agreeing with everything people are saying on either side. If it wasn't clear enough, and probably wasn't, a large part of the split is in fact based on something you said, "the issue revolves more around the perception that the incumbents were tone deaf to the public." I agree. In my mind though, such a perception is based on the fact that people are not simply writing off the foes as I noted. Just as in my opinion the foes have lost some support based on their tactics.
I have heard many people express it in terms that mirror that.
It's obvious that I have drawn my conclusion of the Windwise group a long time ago. From the get-go, I have questioned their tactics, and continue to do so. Not because their membership is made up of bad folks - as it largely is NOT the case. There are some who I frankly don't have a single good thing to say about, but they are obviously NOT all nutbags and dolts. There are plenty of their supporters and members who are extremely positive members of our community, who do very good things for the Town. There are extremely smart, successful, and decent people among them. But again, it doesn't mean their agenda should go without skepticism.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read stories about "human experimentation" or that there is a voting conspiracy, it literally sickens me. I have a difficult time respecting, hearing or engaging folks that would take that approach. It's utterly rediculous.
That all being said, I wish their could be less divisiveness in Town. Unfortunately, when people stick to their "guns" it limits a lot of compromise. It has to work both ways, and I'm just not seeing it from most people, myself included. So I don't have a ton of faith that this split will go away soon.
Knowing what I know now, I probably wouldn't have voted for the turbines. Not necessarily because of complaints, but because of the divisiveness. The sight of them doesn't bother me. The fact that they generate revenue/lower the Town's financial burden is a plus in my book. But this Town - like others - have proven to be ill-equipped to deal with the ramifications - perceived or actual - that the IWTs have had on small communities. If they disappeared tomorrow (with no cost to the Town/State taxpayers) I would lose no sleep. However, I don't think that it would magically repair the divide.
The real issue is the questions that were raised as a result of what happened before,during and after the swearing in by newspaper accounts and eye witnesses. You have to ask these questions : If the town clerk forgot about the 48 ballots where were the ballots when she forgot about them ? Where the ballots in a sealed envelope while they were in the town safe ? When did they seal the envelope and how did it get to town hall ? The newspaper said the most votes kicked out was 5 votes of any other election. This election had 48 votes which is ten times the normal amount in a 22 percent election -how do you account for the unusually high number of kicked out votes ? Where people walking in and out of the clerks office back and fourth ? What were the boudaries set up for ? How much time elapsed between the swearing in and ooops here's some more votes ? Is there anymore envelopes with votes in them ? Did the envelpoe with the 48 votes come from all the voting locations ?
ReplyDeleteWas there an issue with a voting machine more in one voting location than another ?
This isn't an issue that will be answered by any town official in Fairhaven. This will eventually end up in court . The town is alreday ripped apart from the whole wind turbine fiasco.
How many more conspiracy theorists will come out of the woods on this ballot question? As someone else said - if you chose to rig the vote would you only do it by one vote?
DeleteIt is my opinion that at least one machine in one precinct had a problem and resulted in a larger than normal pile of "spit out" ballots. As the Town Clerk noted after the fact they should have been counted at the precinct level and the results reported. This did not happen!
How does the issue get resolved? I believe it is incumbent on the Town Administration to have the recount done with the participation of the candidates. The error occurred in the Town's voting process not as the result of actions by the candidates. If the vote difference was 10+/- I would say it was the responsibility of the candidates to chase a recount. In this case, though, the vote was nearly 50/50 and involved errors by people in charge of the ballots and acting as agents of the election board. It is my opinion that the latter point puts the responsibility of recounting on the Town. I'm not sure what State law says, however. If it does not allow for the Town initiating a recount over something like this then the argument is moot.
There is one other question in my mind on this. Does anyone know if absentee ballots are part of the total? Were they opened and included?
It is your theory that one machine in one precinct had a problem. This is what accounted for a larger amount of kicked out votes. This has never happened in the entire voting history of Fairhaven.
DeleteThe secretary in todays news story says there will be changes in the future ? How long has this town been holding elections ? The news story doesn't say what the change will be but it's a little late to make a change in the vote counting of this election ?
This is my point the kicked out ballots come from different precincts and end up in one envelope at the town clerks office . So the votes come from the individual precincts with all the other votes and go to the town clerks office.
Now under your view of how to count votes the vote totals come from each precinct that do not include the kicked out votes but somehow get to the clerks office without being counted ? In other words the kicked out votes aren't counted at the local precinct. The kicked out votes are counted by the town clerk and added to the total. So actually only one person ends up counting individual votes ? There appears to be a chain of custody issue with the way the votes are counted ? Looks like to many people counting the votes ?
Now how does the town clerk take all the kicked out votes and place them in another pile and forget to count them until later ?
Massachusetts Chapter 54 - Section 81 Spoiled Votes
ReplyDeleteSection 107. The presiding officer at every polling place at elections of state and city officers and of town officers in towns where official ballots are used shall, after the record of the counting has been made, cause all ballots cast to be publicly enclosed in an envelope or container and sealed up with a seal of durable material provided therefor and also with the private seal of any election officer who may desire to affix the same. Seals for containers may be of material used in such manner as to effectively lock the container, or the container may be tied up lengthwise and crosswise with heavy twine securely tied and with the knot sealed with stationer’s sealing wax. The warden and the clerk of the voting precinct, polling place or town shall endorse upon such envelope or container the polling place, the election and the date, and also a certificate that all the ballots cast by the voters of such precinct, polling place or town, and none other, are contained therein. He shall cause all ballots not cast to be enclosed in an envelope or container and sealed up as aforesaid, and shall certify on the envelope or container the contents thereof. Such presiding officer shall cause the voting lists to be enclosed in an envelope and sealed up as aforesaid, and the warden and the clerk shall certify thereon to the identity of the voting lists enclosed. He shall forthwith personally deliver to the city or town clerk or transmit to him, by the police officer or constable in attendance at the election, all the ballots cast, and not cast, the voting lists, the ballot box, the ballot box seals and counting apparatus. This section shall not apply to ballots used in any approved electronic voting system which requires the transmittal of said ballots to a tabulation center.