Well, in what has to be one of the shortest multi-issue meetings of the Board of Selectmen in recent memory we walk away with the Board of Health election still in limbo and another somewhat puzzling decision (which I will say no more on, at least presently).
The one practical insight, assuming of course the mater ever gets resolved on practical methods, we will see an election in September. This assumes the election is to be opened up to anyone who wants to run.
The latest hold-up being the "need" to await the "final" judgment of the court. Took a another look at what has been issued to date. Personally, I can't see where anything of substance is going to change. Not sure where there is anything in what has been issued to indicate, by written word or by implication, that further "instruction" is to be forthcoming.
Rather amazing how caution will become a mantra at times, especially when for so many other issues the Town seems to ignore the caution tape that surrounds the perimeter for an issue.
A couple of people spoke up about wanting all races re-done in what is now referenced as the re-do. The underlying principal behind the argument is ever so tempting to sink one's teeth into. From a debate perspective it is truly a valid point.
From the legal perspective, alas it is not, as was pointed out by one of the attorneys involved. The litigation wasn't about the validity of the election as a whole; the integrity of the process as a whole. It was about the Board of Health race.
Everything has been about that one seat. It is that simple and is now that clear.
Folks, let us all try to be a bit practical for a moment. What does an "entirely" new election for all offices get you?
Might change the election of a number of Town Meeting members. Might change the one year unexpired term for Planning Board. Might bring out a few opportunists in some of the uncontested races.
Would it change the Board of Selectmen seat result? Doubtful. Too many reasons for that margin of victory.
What such a new election will get you is more chaos, more legal expenses and a bigger slap in the face if you feel your vote should matter the first time around.
The fact now apparently being ignored is the "count" however unreliable it may be, is a tie in the Board of Health race. Forget about every other argument made. Don forget about that fact.
The original announced results screamed for a recount. The second announced results screamed for one even louder. The ballots were recounted, two were challenged. That process, isolated by itself was an eventuality no matter what cries of fraud and other evil intent were made, and were essentially summarily dismissed by the court.
As to the challenged ballot that swung the results, well I will have to say I now firmly believe it was the correct decision to toss it. You may disagree, however absent a timely appeal of the decision to toss it, which was but now isn't (I think) going to happen, we have a tie.
Toss the election out because of inability to reconcile check ins and exits, or end up with a tie; the practical result is the same. A failure to elect.
Do we really want to through more muck against the all ready stained wall on this one? The pile of the stuff created by all the high horses isn't big enough all ready?
The plus in potentially having to wait 51 days, plus or minus seven to twenty-one for a decision on when to start counting to 51, is by that time all involved will have had the opportunity to read the instructions for snapping together the "lego" pieces.
The other plus, or minus, is by that time we will all have a brand new election issue to be addressed. Just how will each of the candidates deal with the status of the than existing "nuisance" order. Could be the order will exist exactly as is, but we will be in litigation; could be it will have been modified by that time; or, could be it will be completely gone by then (in which case we can then deal with the issue of "nuisance").
I will say this, we now have a pretty interesting nuisance standard in town. From a purely citizen's point of view (because my "legal" view is entirely opposite on the matter), if the grounds for declaring a nuisance existed for the turbines, I cannot understand why what I would consider from a purely citizen's point of view those same grounds aren't applicable elsewhere.
Then again, neither can I understand how nearly 100% of people have an opinion on something, and at least at the local level you can count on average of at least 75% of them failing to show up at the polls to express that opinion where it matters most.
Enough for today. Be safe.
All eyes should be on the actions and decisions of the BOH, on all issues, from now until the redo. They probably should have been all along, but that's another story....
ReplyDeleteThere are many different scenarios and strategies going around pertaining to the election, but in the end it will come down to who goes to the polls.
Let's hope for at least two things: election protocol is followed to the letter, and voters fill in the oval correctly if they choose to vote for a candidate.
The Board of Health election issue is just part of a larger problem that has been allowed to fester.
ReplyDeleteAsk yourself if Fairhaven is a healthy vibrant community. Has anyone ever heard this term, “A subset of society should not be forced to bear the cost of a benefit for the larger society.”
The Fairhaven wind turbines have been involved in litigation for years. The litigation started long before the two present wind turbines probably close to ten years since the original turbines were proposed.
It is true that the town voted to allowed to lease property to a wind turbine contractor in order to supplement the town budget.
The Town of Fairhaven is looking at over 400 noise complaints and a Mass DEP out of compliance noise test. In the very near future the residential abutters around the wind turbines will probably hire an independent acoustical engineer.
In the lease agreement there could be lack of disclosure around potential health issues. Experts around the world for well over ten years have said turbines cause certain effects on people. The residents living around the turbines never signed off on their health or property rights.
So where does Fairhaven go from here ? The residents around the turbines most of whom have their life savings tied up in their homes are not going to give up. Some people say what are you going to do make a federal case out of it ? My thoughts are this will end up in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when private property is taken for public use.
I still believe that the incumbent holds the elected seat until someone else is “duly qualified and sworn in”. Both men were sworn in, but only one is qualified, from a previous election, until un-seated. A tie vote is not enough to win. A tie goes to the base runner. He is not out. Baseball is not incompetent. A tie goes to the house. You do not win that hand. The dealer is not crooked. A tie vote on a board or town meeting means the article or decision is not adopted. The board or town meeting is not corrupt.
DeleteWe have the result of an election, a tie. If we were all thinking about the best interests of the Town of Fairhaven, we would not be forced to pay for another election. The judge is not demanding a new election either, just saying that the two were in a tie. This could be settled by taking out papers in Jan and running in April, or if you feel that strong, a recall election. This is nothing more than wind turbine hype.
I don’t like the fact that the wind turbines are now only discussed behind closed doors, by wind turbine puppets. Wind turbine opponents will be kept abreast, but nobody else? We need a wiki leak to make sure this is not abused. When will the public have the right to know what is occurring. Why are we discussing litigation? Why are we not talking mitigation? Why do we need new town counsel? What is the town being exposed to?
The current board of selectmen or board of health members’ should understand that they can be subjected to recall without a judge’s finding and that the majority of town voters are watching.
What's worse, meetings that are run like press releases in public, or meetings held behind closed doors? Both leave taxpayers disillusioned/or in the dark about the truth. And both are done regularly without question.
DeleteIt's sad how difficult it is to figure out what's really going on sometimes, even when you try.
Imagine! everything coming down to numbers again,an there are still people out there questioning the need for math.The select board looking at the cost of legal work,ah math again.Lets check the noise nuisance on the turbines a third or fourth time,could be we use math again.Check in an outs at the election ,get the picture(MATH).Oh,we have a new group out there that is pro wind,the equation is now equal. Wow! more math ,an the beat goes on..
ReplyDelete