Another article being proposed by Fair Action Fairhaven and Windwise seeks to establish an impeachment process for "any town official".
Before I jump into the article I believe it important to provide you the below quote taken from a comment chain on the Fair Action Fairhaven page. I would urge you to like this group's website, become its facebook friend or whatever you need do to follow what is being said and what is being proposed. This is the only way you are going to be able to judge for yourself what position to take.
As to the quote from the facebook page:
In regards to the quote from Mr. Roderiques, no, he didn’t originate the statement characterizing politics as a bloodsport but we must all decide if we, personally, define our own participation in politics this way. It is a warning for all of us as we move forward through this election season and beyond.
Further elaboration in referring to Mr. Roderiques quote, when he refers to hearing about politics not being fair then it does seem to direct itself toward the Fair Action mission so he appears to be indirectly stating this group or those who agree with it might somehow be naive or irrelevant.
Fair Action is absolutely correct in assuming the comment was directed at it.
At no time however would I ever consider this group irrelevant. I can state emphatically just the opposite.
It was after seeing this group's website that I decided to start this blog. Admittedly I had been toying with the idea for about a year now, but had always found an excuse not to. After reviewing the site, I could no longer find a reason not to.
It was that website which inspired the blood sport comparison. They may be new to the game of politics, but they are quick learners. Protest all they want, they are in fact playing politics.
At the time neither did I consider them naive, and still don't, certainly not in the manner they may perceive the term. These are intelligent people stating opinions, and pushing beliefs, and making proposals which is their absolute right, just as it is mine to do likewise.
Where I am at a bit of a crossroads, however, is just how serious to take some of these proposals.
Believe it or not, the fundamental desire to change how government operates in Fairhaven is one I do share with them.
What I do not share is the belief that the proposals they are making will change things for the better, and neither can most of them be done! If you want change, propose legitimate change.
What I also do not condone is the apparent attempt to throw as many things as possible at a wall to see what will stick.
I am sorry but to me serious thought must be given before one even makes a proposal for an impeachment by-law. If there was any serious thought given to this particular proposal, its legitimacy, its legality and its actual application, there isn't any indication in the proposed language of the article.
If the excuse is it was proposed simply to start a discussion, in all honesty, explain how something of this nature can even warrant serious discussion?
If this proposal could even become a reality, any town official can be impeached upon the recommendation of an ethics committee which is also being proposed (more on that later) upon a finding of malfeasance or a petition signed by 10% of the registered voters from the last election. A vote of 4/5 of town meeting would be required to impeach.
At least the "ethics" committee has to make a finding of malfeasance. The other way, all someone has to do is make an allegation and collect the signatures (and please do not tell me it would be impossible to do if people didn't think there was malfeasance).
Now reading the proposed article, one could assume that "town official" might mean elected official since the voter requirement is also being used. One could also reasonably assume, and based upon the actual wording, it means just what it says, any town official. The word "elected" is not included. If you mean only elected you need to include it.
Which is it, because it isn't obvious. These may be draft proposals, but drafts in this form shouldn't be thrown out to start discussions.
As to the number of registered voters required, are you seeking 10% of the those eligible to vote in the last election, or is the number to be equal to 10% percent of the votes casts, or is the 10% to come from only the people who actually voted?
What are the official's due process rights before the committee, or before the public to which anyone can go out and make any allegation and collect signatures? Due process is a term being thrown out a lot lately. Was this an oversight? Or do you actually believe there is no need to spell these things out?
Which is it, because it isn't obvious. These may be draft proposals, but drafts in this form shouldn't be thrown out to start discussions.
As to the number of registered voters required, are you seeking 10% of the those eligible to vote in the last election, or is the number to be equal to 10% percent of the votes casts, or is the 10% to come from only the people who actually voted?
What are the official's due process rights before the committee, or before the public to which anyone can go out and make any allegation and collect signatures? Due process is a term being thrown out a lot lately. Was this an oversight? Or do you actually believe there is no need to spell these things out?
In all honesty, little discussion is needed on this article. It is so vague, so poorly written and so blatantly unconstitutional it would be unenforceable.
We don't have to be in agreement on the turbines or the school, to be on the same side about working toward a better government. I do agree with the premise of some of your article and believe there is merit to some of your arguments (more then you might realize).
A few examples: I have said it before, I believe in term limits. I actually agree with you that 20% of the registered voters in 14 days for a recall is excessive. There are a whole lot of people who feel that way on both matters. As always what would be ideal depends on the way each of us view things, but that is what compromise is about. Another concept seemingly dying a slow death however.
It becomes abundantly clearer each day that our town needs a charter study committee, properly formed and duly elected! There is a need for change, legitimate, enforceable change.
John, you have a far more open mind on this issue than I. After reading your blog, I would likely have to entertain discussion and debate on the recall election issues.
ReplyDeleteThe turbine issue has created a divisiveness in Town that will be hard to repair. It's also important to note (as you have), that it's unfortunate that people of both sides probably have a lot in common in terms of making government far and honest, but they will never see eye-to-eye because of the issues surrounding the turbines.
I would also have to agree about your comment of throwing things to see what sticks. This has been the tactic of Windwise throughout the years, and I believe it makes them a little less believable and trustworthy.
Constitutionality and democracy aside for the moment, how does one get beyond the fact that many of the draft articles are essentially retaliation/retribution for those that feel wronged by the process or against those that spoke against those folks?
And I may exhibit some bias here (but am speaking for me, myself and I ONLY), what exactly does having an elected Conservation Commission provide for the Town? Only one other community has an elected ConCom, and it's because their duties go well beyond the State statues. Furthermore, it requires special legislation from the House and Senate. The existing STATE LAW defines a ConCom as an appointed body. There's a reson for that, and a reason why all of the other communities have appointed ConComs.
There's always the alternative if people are upset with their appointed members. They could do away with the ConCom altogether and just have the Selectmen issue wetland-related permits as allowed by statute. Or they could also learb about the regulations, and actually show up to meeting to see what their members actually do.
You probably won't see me debating on that issue, if and when it comes up. I would never run for an elected ConCom seat. In fact, I have no aspirations for any elected seat other than Town Meeting. It's hard enough getting volunteers - whether they be qualified or unqualified. I highly doubt you'd get enough willing and qualified candidates to even fill the board. But again, there's always that Selectman option.
My major issue with a lot of these Windwise and now FairAction folks is that they are heavy on conspiracy and scare tactics, yet light on facts and documentation.
If our government has truly wronged our citizens - by showing fact and presenting examples - I think you would find more people supporting some of their issues. For the same reason I have had issues with both Windwise and FairAction presentation of information and facts, I would also have to demand that my elected Town Officials also abide by laws and not gloss over facts. I just wonder if there's really any way we can share common ground anymore.
I want to make it clear that my comment in the above post about "throwing things to see what sticks" pertains solely to the proposed articles. The point of this particular post was to address articles, not a separate issue.
DeleteJohn, I understand the need for you to keep your personal opinions concise and clear. And I do understand that your comment was made in reference to the articles ONLY. Again, ANYTHING I write reflects my sole opinion and take on the matter.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to discuss the draft Articles only, I get that. But I cannot ignore the fact that the Articles were co-sponsored by both FairAction AND WindWise, as they themselves reported on their site. Furthermore, FairAction plainly has a connection to the turbine issues, as evidenced by their posts and links. So the issues are definitely not mutually exclusive.
My point is that a tactic of "throwing everything at the wall" is largely done out of desperation, and both of those groups seem have reached that point. In my opinion, such a tactic is not always ethical, right or even acceptable. Frustration and desperation often rule over logic and rational thought. Therefore, I think it's appropriate to have a healthy skepticism of such tactics.
However, if there are issues out there warrant the civic-minded folks among us to become MORE involved, or even to seek simply a "better" government, I am open to learning, and participating, and lending a hand towards that effort. Instead of desparation, wouldn't it be nice to try INSPIRATION?
It should now move to the point where people are sharing information. This "debate" hasn't been a debate at all. You sure have gotten attention, but your blog has been "quoted" snidely or critically more often than you have received responses to legitimate questions on the same very site!
I think enough important questions have been asked of the Articles at this point. We were presented with draft Articles, but there is absolutely no explantion behind any of them. Only the co-sponsors can offer that. There's no just rationale or discussion on how these articles will presumably fix our government. Why is that?
My comment was not intended as anything other than to clarify my own stance. Feel free to comment as you wish.
Delete